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
The Issue The issue is whether two map changes on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Comprehensive Plan (Plan) adopted by Taylor County (County) by Ordinance Nos. 2009-15 and 2009-17 on December 15, 2009, are in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: The Parties The Department is the state planning agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing and approving amendments to comprehensive plans adopted by local governments. The County is a local government that administers a Plan. It adopted the two plan amendments that are the subject of this proceeding. It is considered a "rural" county with a current population of around 20,000 residents. Dr. Hutchins owns property in the County. Although his initial pleading alleges, and his Proposed Recommended Order states, that he "submitted oral comments regarding the subject amendments at transmittal and prior to adoption of the amendment," no evidence was presented at hearing that Dr. Hutchins did so during the adoption process. Ms. Redding and Mr. Wood are siblings and along with three other members of the Wood family jointly own property in the County. Like Dr. Hutchins, no evidence was presented at the hearing that either Intervenor submitted written or oral comments to the County during the adoption process. History Preceding the Amendments The process for adopting the County's first Plan, including the FLUM, began around 1988. For the purpose of drafting a FLUM, a Planning Board (Board) was created consisting of seven individuals, all of whom were volunteers with no formal planning experience. However, they received advice and assistance from two outside consultants, who also advised the County concerning the appropriate text to be used in the new Plan. Four members of the Board, including its former Chairman, testified at the final hearing. Over the next two years, the Board conducted meetings, spoke with numerous property owners, and collected information in order to assign each parcel an appropriate land use category. The collective efforts of the Board culminated in a large, hand- colored FLUM (consisting of numerous sections of aerial maps patched together) that was affixed to the wall of what is now the courtroom on the second floor in the County Courthouse. Testimony by former members of the Board established that the Hutchins parcel (then owned by Colin and Lucille Kelly) and the Bird Island parcel (owned by Wood, Redding, and other family members) were assigned a classification of Mixed Use-Urban Development. Because the County does not have a zoning code, the properties were never assigned a zoning classification consistent with that land use category. This classification was based upon the fact that at least two different businesses were being conducted on each parcel at the time, and the owners requested that they be given that classification. In the case of the Hutchins (then Kelly) property, it was being used to conduct a commercial fishing operation as well as a small construction company (with dump trucks, bulldozers, and front end loaders) that had a contract with Proctor & Gamble (now known as Buckeye Technologies, Inc.) to maintain roads. An office for the construction company was located in a separate mobile home placed on the property. Mr. Bird was a commercial fisherman and operated a wholesale fish business on Bird Island. Also, both he and his mother had separate homes on the property, another structure was used to store fish nets, and docking facilities for other commercial fisherman were maintained. Many of these structures were blown away during the so-called Storm of the Century on March 13, 1993, and never replaced. Except for property within the small communities of Keaton Beach, Dekle Beach, Denzel Beach, and Steinhatchee, and a few other small parcels, such as Dark Island, Cedar Island, and Intervenors' property, all of the remaining land along the coastline was placed in either Conservation or Agriculture. An unusual feature of the County is that it has one of the longest coastlines in the State (58 miles), stretching on the Gulf of Mexico from Jefferson County to Dixie County. Because around 88 percent of the coastline is owned by the State, very little waterfront land is left for development. In fact, Dr. Hutchins pointed out that except for his property and Bird Island, no other vacant, upland Gulf-front property within the County is in private ownership at this time. The FLUM, with the foregoing classifications, was adopted by the County by Ordinance No. 90-4 on June 19, 1990. Before it was submitted to the Department for its review, the County was advised by the Department that it would not accept the large, hand-colored FLUM in that format. Rather, the Department required that the map be reduced in size and digitized. To comply with this request, the original FLUM was dismantled into smaller sections and hand-carried to a firm in Crystal River that had the capability of reducing the large map into digital form. The original FLUM was then returned to the County Courthouse. When the larger map was reduced in size and converted to a digital format, it was not parcel-specific and failed to pick up the Hutchins parcel and Bird Island. Instead, except for larger tracts of land, especially in the small communities noted in Finding of Fact 8, the entire coastline was shown as being Conservation or Agriculture. This error was not detected by County officials or the affected property owners since they continued to rely upon the designations shown on the large, hand-colored FLUM in the Courthouse. The Department reviewed the FLUM, as digitized, assumed that the Hutchins and Bird Island property were Agriculture and Conservation, and found those parts of the FLUM to be in compliance. This agency action occurred on or about October 1, 1990. Thus, the Department never undertook a compliance review for either parcel with the intended higher density/intensity land use. In 1995, the room in which the original FLUM was mounted was taken over by another occupant of the Courthouse, and the original FLUM was moved to a different floor. During or after the moving process, it was lost or accidentally destroyed and its whereabouts have been unknown since that time. In 1993, Dr. Hutchins purchased his property from Colin and Lucille Kelly. Based on a conversation with a County employee, he purchased the property with the understanding that it was classified as Mixed Use-Urban Development. Although he had no specific plans to develop the property at that time, and still has none, the Mixed Use-Urban Development land use category was the major inducement for him to purchase the property. In 2005, Dr. Hutchins was approached by an investor who wished to develop the property at a later time. When the investor contacted the County to confirm its land use designation, Dr. Hutchins learned for the first time that the digitized map approved by the Department reflected the property carried an Agriculture/Rural Residential land use. Because of this, the agreement with the potential investor was never consummated. In a similar vein, Mr. Wood, who served on the Board that assigned land use designations to property on the original FLUM, and knew that the Board had designated his property as Mixed Use-Urban Development, placed the Bird Island property on the market in 2005 representing that it was classified in that category. A prospective purchaser checked with the County to verify its land use and learned that it was Conservation. Mr. Wood was unaware of this error until that time. Because of this, the sale was never consummated. After 2005, the County and Department held numerous meetings in an attempt to resolve this dispute. The Department refused to allow the FLUM to be changed to reflect the original land use designations. This led to the County adopting the two challenged amendments to correct what it characterizes as a "scrivener's error." Besides the two parcels that are in dispute here, on an undisclosed date, two other parcels (in the interior part of the County) were discovered by the County to have the wrong land use category as a result of the digitizing process. Both should have been placed in the Industrial land use category, and after a review, the Department had no objection to those errors being corrected by an amendment. The Plan Amendments On December 15, 2009, the County adopted Ordinance Nos. 2009-15 and 2009-17, also known as CPA 08-1 and CPA 08-3. The first amendment changed the land use on the 14-acre Hutchins parcel from Agriculture/Rural Residential to Mixed Use-Urban Development. The present land use allows one dwelling unit per 5 acres while the new land use designation allows up to 12 dwelling units per acre and a 60 percent impervious surface ratio for nonresidential development. See Department Exhibit 1, Future Land Use Policy I.3.2. Thus, up to 126 residential units and 96,476 square feet of non-residential development could be built on the Hutchins site. The second amendment changed the land use on the 3.36-acre Bird Island parcel from Agriculture-2 and Conservation to Mixed Use-Urban Development. The former land use allows one dwelling unit per 40 acres while the new land use would permit the same density/intensity as the Hutchins parcel. The new category would allow up to 30 residential units and 21,954 square feet of non-residential development. The amendments were transmitted by the County to the Department for its review in early April 2009. On June 5, 2009, the Department issued its Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) report. The Department lodged objections to both amendments generally on the grounds the sites are not environmentally suitable for the proposed density and intensity increases; the amendments authorize an improper increase in density within the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA) without proper mitigation; the amendments failed to discourage urban sprawl; and they are internally inconsistent with existing provisions within the Plan. The ORC recommended that the County not adopt the amendments. Besides the Department, DEP and the Regional Planning Council also provided written comments on the amendments. By letter dated May 8, 2009, DEP generally noted that it had concerns regarding development adjacent to the Big Bend Seagrasses Aquatic Preserve (the Preserve) where the parcels are located, and that careful planning strategies should be used for any development on the land. See Department Exhibit 4. The Regional Planning Council issued a staff report on February 25, 2010, generally concluding that the amendments were consistent with the applicable Strategic Regional Policy Plan goals and objectives. See Department Exhibit 15; County Exhibit 1. The County did not respond in writing to the ORC. On December 15, 2009, it adopted the amendments without change. On March 10, 2010, the Department published its Notice of Intent to find the amendments not in compliance in the Taco Times. On March 16, 2010, the Department filed its Petition with DOAH raising the same grounds that are in its Notice of Intent. The Property The Hutchins parcel is located in the southwest part of the County, a few miles south of Keaton Beach, with around 500 to 600 feet fronting on the Gulf of Mexico. The 14 upland acres that are the subject of this case are a sub-site of a larger 25-acre parcel owned by Dr. Hutchins, with the remaining 11 acres being adjoining wetlands on the north and south sides. Dr. Hutchins has built a home on pilings on his property along with a smaller ancillary structure. Photographs indicate that except for trees, the remainder of the upland property is vacant. Bird Island also lies on the Gulf of Mexico just northwest of the Hutchins parcel and is surrounded by water on three sides. Photographs reflect one residence and a dock still on the property. The two parcels are separated by "marsh grass and a little water." Both parcels of property are easily accessible to, and just west of, County Road 361, a paved two- lane highway that begins south of the subject properties and runs adjacent to, or near, the coastline, eventually turning northeast and terminating on U.S. Highway 19 south of Perry. Both properties abut portions of the Gulf of Mexico that have been designated as an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW). The waters are a part of the Preserve, which was established in 1985 and is managed by DEP. The Preserve has exceptional biological, aesthetic, and scientific value. The two parcels are located in the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA). That is to say, they are in "the area below the elevation of the category 1 storm surge line as established by a Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) computerized storm surge model." § 163.3178(2)(h), Fla. Stat. In order to increase density within the CHHA, the County must meet certain criteria set forth in Section 163.3178(9)(a), Florida Statutes. The Department's Objections As summarized in its Proposed Recommended Order, the Department contends that the two plan amendments are not in compliance because the sites are not environmentally suitable for the proposed density and intensity increases; there is an improper increase in density within the CHHA without proper mitigation; and the amendments fail to discourage urban sprawl. Although the Notice of Intent also raised the issue of whether the amendments are internally inconsistent with other provisions in the County's existing Plan, the Proposed Recommended Order does not address any specific internal inconsistencies, and the evidence focuses on the first three concerns. Therefore, the undersigned has assumed that those objections have been withdrawn or abandoned. Environmental Suitability With the exception of an area in the middle part of the County's coastline (where the Fenholloway River flows into the Gulf), the Preserve extends along the County's entire coastline, including the area in which the two parcels are located. The Preserve, designated as an OFW, contains various types of seagrasses, whose function is to provide habitat for a number of species, improve water quality, and reduce currents or wave energy in the event of a storm. It is undisputed that the seagrass beds near the amendment sites are high-quality, healthy, and of high environmental value. Coastal marshes are prevalent in the area of the County where the amendment sites are located. They serve many functions, including cleaning water flowing into The Preserve, functioning as a habitat for a number of species, and acting as a coastal barrier against storm surge during large storm events. Section 163.3177(6)(d), Florida Statutes, requires that local governments protect and conserve natural resources through the conservation element of the local plan. See also Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.006(3)(b)4. A Department rule also requires local governments to limit the specific impacts and cumulative impacts of development or redevelopment upon water quality and living marine resources. See Rule 9J-5.012(3)(c)1. High-density development (up to 12 units per acre) on the parcels clearly has the potential to negatively impact coastal marshes and seagrasses adjacent to and near the subject sites. Although Dr. Hutchins indicated that he would develop his property only to the extent allowed by DEP so that the marshes and seagrasses would be safeguarded, the Department's practice for many years has been to assume that the property will be developed at its maximum allowable density and intensity. See, e.g., Sheridan v. Lee Cty, et al., Case No. 90- 7791 (DOAH Jan. 27, 1992; DCA June 28, 1993; Admin. Comm. Feb. 15, 1994)(compliance determination must be made based on maximum impacts authorized by the amendment terms, not speculation of a lesser impact). Mr. Wood's development intentions are not known. In any event, the two parcels potentially authorize 156 residential units and 113,430 square feet of non-residential uses adjacent to an OFW. Even so, the Mixed Use-Urban Development land use designation may still be permissible if specific conditions limiting the density/intensity on the parcels are incorporated into the Plan by asterisk or text language in conjunction with a new amendment. As noted in the Conclusions of Law, this planning practice has been used in other cases. Without any limitations, though, the preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that the maximum allowable density/intensity contravenes the cited statute and rules. CHHA Both parcels are located within the CHHA of the County. Section 163.3178(2)(h), Florida Statutes, requires that the County establish mitigation criteria for plan amendments located in the CHHA. Probably because of its small size in terms of population, and the lack of development (or ability to do so) along the coastline, the County has no goals, objectives, or policies addressing criteria for mitigation. Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b)6. requires that a plan "direct population concentrations away from known or predicted coastal high-hazard areas." Also, Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b)7. requires that a plan "maintain or reduce evacuation times." Prior to 2006, the Department would allow a local government to comply with the foregoing rules by allowing density increases in the CHHA if the local government decreased a similar type of density elsewhere. This practice was known as "offsets." In 2006, however, the Legislature amended the statute to include criteria for compliance with the two rules. Due to the change in the law, the Department no longer engages in the practice of offsets for land use changes in the CHHA. Instead, it requires a local government that proposes to increase density within the CHHA to meet the requirements of Section 163.3178(9)(a)1.-3., Florida Statutes. Under the statute, if the County can demonstrate a 16-hour out-of-county evacuation time for a category 5 storm event as measured on the Saffir-Simpson scale and a 12-hour evacuation time to shelter within the County for a category 5 storm event, an increase in density within the CHHA may be allowed. See § 163.3178(9)(a)1. and 2., Fla. Stat. Alternatively, the County may use one of the mitigation measures described in Section 163.3178(9)(a)3., Florida Statutes. Except for Coastal Element Objective IX-7 of the Plan, which provides that the County maintain a hurricane evacuation time of 9 hours for a category 1 storm, see County Exhibit 7, no data and analysis, such as a hurricane evacuation study for a category 5 storm event, was presented to demonstrate compliance with these requirements. Dr. Hutchins' submission during the mediation process of an evacuation plan for a category 3 storm does not satisfy this criterion. Typically, a local government will have an adopted plan for a category 5 storm, as well as an evacuation model. The preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that the mitigation measures in Section 163.3178(9)(a), Florida Statutes, have not been satisfied. At hearing, the County and Dr. Hutchins contended that offsets should still be used in this case to satisfy the mitigation requirements. They point out that the County has recently purchased property (totaling 51.7 acres) that is designated Mixed Use-Urban Development and more than compensates for any potential increase of residents needing to evacuate if the two amendments are found to be in compliance. As noted above, however, the practice of offsets was discontinued in 2006 with the passage of the new law. Notwithstanding assertions to the contrary, there was no legal requirement that the Department notify every affected local government and property owner that it was discontinuing that practice to comply with the new law.2 Urban Sprawl Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g)1.-13. identifies thirteen "primary" indicators of urban sprawl. The Department contends that eight indicators are "tripped" or "triggered" by the new amendments and collectively they indicate that the proliferation of urban sprawl is not discouraged. No evidence was presented regarding five indicators. According to the rule, "[t]he presence and potential effects of multiple indicators shall be considered to determine whether they collectively reflect a failure to discourage urban sprawl." Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J- 5.006(5)(d). Indicator 1 is tripped if the amendments allow uses in excess of demonstrated need. In this case no need analysis for additional land in the Mixed Use-Urban Development category was submitted by the County. The absence of a study is sufficient to trigger this indicator. Indicator 2 is tripped if the amendments allow "significant" amounts of urban development to occur in rural areas at substantial distances from existing urban areas. The only true existing "urban" area in the County, as that term is commonly understood, is the City of Perry. Other residential and some commercial development (but to a much lesser degree) is found mainly in a few small communities on the coastline such as Steinhatchee, an unincorporated community perhaps 15 miles south of the subject parcels with probably around 1,500 residents, and Keaton Beach and Dekle Beach, both having no more than a few hundred residents each. (Official recognition has been taken of the population data.) Keaton Beach is around 2 or 3 miles north of the subject property and has condominiums and other limited residential/commercial development. In addition, Dark Island is located a short distance north of Bird Island and is classified as Mixed Use-Urban Development, which authorizes the higher density/intensity development. Given this lack of "urban areas" in the County, virtually any development outside of Perry could arguably be considered "urban development . . . 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. Notwithstanding this unique (and perhaps unfair) situation, it is fair to characterize the potential addition of 12 units per acre as urban development and a total of around 150 residential units with associated commercial development as "substantial" when considering the County's size and existing development. Therefore, the second indicator has been triggered. Indicator 3 is triggered if the amendments allow urban development in "radial, strip, isolated or ribbon patterns generally emanating from existing urban development." Because urban development will occur in a rural, isolated area, this indicator is triggered. Indicator 4 is triggered if there is premature development of rural land that fails to adequately protect and conserve natural resources. The evidence supports a finding that this indicator is triggered. Indicators 6, 7, and 8 are related to the orderly and efficient provision of existing and future public services and facilities. The evidence shows that the area is not currently served by central sewer and is not near any fire or police stations. While no public facilities are planned for that area in the five year capital improvement schedule, at a meeting in March 2010 the Taylor County Coastal Water & Sewer District indicated that a request for partial federal funding to extend central sewer services to Fish Creek, which lies beyond and to the south of the subject parcels, would be placed on the April agenda. See County Exhibit 7. Whether a request was actually made at that meeting is not of record. In any event, Coastal Element Policy IX.6.5 provides that where central sewer is not available in an area classified as Mixed Use-Urban Development, septic tanks may be used within the CHHA. See Department Exhibit 1. As to fire and law enforcement support, there is insufficient evidence to establish that these services cannot be provided in an efficient manner. Given these circumstances, there is less than a preponderance of the evidence to support a finding that indicators 6 through 8 are triggered. Indicator 9 is triggered if the plan amendments fail to provide a clear separation between rural and urban uses. There is insufficient evidence to support a finding that this indicator is triggered. Collectively, the presence of four indicators is sufficient to support a finding that the County has failed to discourage urban sprawl. E. Scrivener's Error The County and Intervenors rely heavily upon the fact that the plan amendments are in compliance because the amendments simply correct an error that occurred when, at the Department's direction in 1990, the original FLUM was reduced in size and digitized. While at first blush this argument is appealing, it assumes that the Department would have approved the new land use classifications in 1990 when it performed a compliance review of the original FLUM. But this never occurred, and the new amendments give the Department its first opportunity to determine if the new land uses are in compliance. It is undisputed that on an undisclosed date the Department approved an amendment based on the same type of error. While the record is somewhat confusing, it appears that in that case, the two properties were Industrial, they were not located in the CHHA, and on-going business concerns were operating on the properties. Intervenor Hutchins also cited several instances where mapping errors were allowed to be corrected by subsequent plan amendments. Where final agency action in those matters is of record, however, it shows that approval was given only after a compliance review was made by the Department.3
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 Plan Amendments CPA 08-1 and CPA 08-3 adopted by Ordinance Nos. 2009-15 and 2009-17 are not in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of December, 2010, 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 13th day of December, 2010.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether two City of Palm Bay Comprehensive Plan Amendments, one of which was "small scale development amendment" under Section 163.3187(1)(c), Florida Statutes, are "in compliance," as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Brevard County (County) is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. See Section 7.05, Florida Statutes. The County is bordered on the north by Volusia County, on the west by Volusia, Orange, and Osceola Counties, on the south by Indian River County, and on the east by the Atlantic Ocean. The City of Palm Bay (City) is a municipality in southeast Brevard County, just to the southwest of the City of Melbourne. In its extreme northeast, the City borders on the Intracoastal Waterway. From there, it fans out to the southeast, surrounded on all sides by the County. The Department of Community Affairs (DCA) is the state land planning agency and has the authority to administer and enforce the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. The Small-Scale Amendment: Review and Adoption On June 3, 1999, William Wilson submitted an application to amend the City's Future Land Use Map (FLUM) for a 1.1558-acre (small-scale) parcel of land in the unincorporated County at the southeast corner of the intersection of Valkaria Road (an east/west thoroughfare) and Babcock Street (a north/south thoroughfare), in anticipation of annexation by the City. In this vicinity, the unincorporated County lay to the east, across Babcock Street, between the City and the Intracoastal Waterway. The unincorporated County land to the north, east, and south of the parcel had a future land use designation of "Residential" on the County's FLUM; the City land to the west had a residential future land use designation on the City's FLUM. The requested amendment was from the existing County "Residential" designation to City "Commercial." A zoning change also was requested from County AU (Agricultural Residential) to City CC (Community Commercial). The parcel subject to the small-scale amendment request has a single-family home and free-standing residential garage located onsite. Projected impacts from commercial development on the parcel met all relevant City level of service (LOS) standards. (The County has not put environmental suitability at issue with respect to the parcel.) The City planning staff recommended approval of the requested plan amendment; staff recommended approval of the zoning change but to City NC (Neighborhood Commerical). These requests were heard by the City Planning and Zoning Board, sitting as the local planning agency (LPA), on October 20, 1999. The LPA voted to recommend to the City Council that the plan amendment be approved and that the zoning change to City NC also be approved. By Ordinance 2000-08, adopted on March 2, 2000, the City annexed the small-scale parcel, effective immediately upon enactment of the Ordinance. By Ordinance No. 2000-09, also adopted on March 2, 2000, the City Council granted the request to change the future land use designation of the parcel on the City's FLUM to City "Commercial." By Ordinance No. 2000-10, zoning on the parcel was changed to City NC. The Large-Scale Amendment: Review and Adoption On July 6, 1999, Brian West submitted an application to amend the City's FLUM for a 19.57-acre parcel on the northeast corner of the intersection of Valkaria Road and Babcock Street (immediately north of the small-scale parcel, across Valkaria), in anticipation of annexation by the City. The requested amendment was from the existing Brevard County "Residential" designation to City "Commercial" future land use. A zoning change from County AU (Agricultural Residential) to City CC (Community Commercial) also was requested. This 19.57-acre (large-scale) parcel is vacant. The County has not put environmental suitability at issue with respect to the large-scale parcel. The City's planning staff recommended approval of the requested plan amendment, which was heard by the City's Planning and Zoning Board, sitting as the LPA, on October 20, 1999, along with the small-scale request. The LPA voted to recommend to the City Council that the large-scale amendment be denied. On February 15, 2000, the City Council conducted a special meeting to consider the requested large-scale annexation, plan amendment, and zoning change and voted to approve the requests. However, at the time, the City also was in the process of developing plan amendments in response to its Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR); as a result, transmittal to DCA was deferred until transmittal of the EAR-based amendments. On January 18, 2001, the City Council met in regular session and voted to transmit the requested large-scale amendment to DCA, along with the other EAR-based amendments. On May 17, 2001, DCA issued its Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report regarding the transmitted comprehensive plan amendments. DCA raised several objections and made comments regarding the amendment. The ORC Report was received by the City on May 21, 2001. (The greater weight of the evidence was contrary to testimony of the City's Planning Manager that the ORC Report received on that date was incomplete.) On October 2, 2001, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2001-65, which adopted the requested amendment for the large-scale parcel from County Residential to City Commercial future land use. The EAR-based amendments also were adopted on the same date by Ordinance 2001-66. By Ordinance 2001-86 adopted on November 1, 2001, the City annexed the large-scale parcel, effective immediately. Re-Adoption of Plan Amendments at Issue At some unspecified time after October 2, 2001, the City became aware of concerns voiced by DCA regarding the sequence and timing of the large-scale annexation and FLUM amendment. To address these concerns, the City adopted Ordinance No. 2001-105 on December 20, 2001. This Ordinance repealed and re-adopted Ordinance No. 2000-65. At some unspecified time after March 2, 2000, the City became aware of concerns raised by DCA that adoption of the small- scale FLUM amendment took place before the City adopted plan amendments to comply with new school siting requirements, contrary to a statutory prohibition. In order to address these concerns, the City adopted Ordinance No. 2000-79 on January 4, 2001, to repeal and re-adopt Ordinance No. 2000-09, re-designating the small-scale parcel for "Commercial" future land use. DCA Notice of Intent and City's EAR-Based Amendments On January 21, 2002, DCA published a Notice of Intent to find the readopted large-scale amendment "in compliance." DCA subsequently caused to be published a Notice of Intent to find this readopted amendment "in compliance." The EAR-based amendments adopted on October 2, 2001, included certain text amendments, but these amendments had no direct bearing on the plan amendments at issue in this case. All plan text provisions relating to the plan amendments at issue in this case remained "substantially the same" after the EAR-based amendments. Need for Additional Commercial Future Land Use and Internal Consistency The County contends that analysis of the data in existence at the time of adoption of the plan amendments at issue in this case does not support a need to change the future land use on these parcels from County Agricultural Residential to City Commercial. But the following Findings are based on these data and analysis. City data and analysis dated January 2001 indicated in pertinent part: In 2011 the City will need 719 acres of commercial land and at buildout, will need approximately 1,725 acres. The Future Land Use Map currently allocated approximately 1,612 acres for commercial and office development. This is slightly below the needs identified over the long term time periods. The expansion of existing Activity Centers and the development of new Activity Centers should easily accommodate this minor increase. Between now and the next required Plan update in 2007, the City should analyze the available commercial land to determine if existing designated lands are appropriately located or whether new areas should be established and existing designations converted to other land use types. Of particular interest in that regard would be the large amount of neighborhood commercial presently designated but which is primarily vacant. It was not clear from the evidence how the acreage figures in the data and analysis were calculated. It does not appear from the evidence that the figure for commercial acreage "needed" included any "cushion" or "margin of error." If the City has more land allocated for commercial future land use than is expected to be "needed" within the planning horizon of its Comprehensive Plan (the year 2011), it may be the result of pre-platting of the City by General Development Corporation. If so, the City also has an even greater excess of acreage allocated for residential future land use since approximately 90 percent of the City was pre-platted for small, quarter-acre residential lots. As a result of pre-platting, it now appears that, at build-out (expected in about 20-30 years), the City will have an excess of allocated for residential land use and a shortage of acreage allocated for commercial land use (among other non-residential uses.) As a result, there is a current need to begin to reduce the amount of acreage allocated for residential future land use and add commercial acreage (as well as other non-residential uses.) A disproportion of City land allocated to commercial future land use is in the northern part of the City, between Malabar Road and Palm Bay Road, a considerable distance from the intersection of Babcock Street and Valkaria Road. Before the plan amendments at issue in this case, there was hardly any commercial future land use in the City in the vicinity of the Babcock/Valkaria intersection. Almost all of what little commercial future land use could be found in the vicinity was in small parcels--the single exception being a 15-acre parcel at the intersection of Eldron and Grant approximately two miles to the south. There also was very little land allocated to commercial future land uses in the unincorporated County anywhere near the Babcock/Valkaria intersection. Almost all of the unincorporated County in the vicinity had Rural Residential future land use. There was some County Neighborhood Commercial across Babcock from the 15- acre parcel of City Commercial two miles to the south of the intersection. There also was some County Neighborhood Commercial and a small amount of County Community Commercial future land use east of Babcock about a mile to the north of the intersection. A 40-acre parcel approximately 650 feet to the east of the intersection was changed from County rural residential to general commercial zoning in 1988. But at around the time the City began to process the plan amendments at issue in this case, the County purchased the land and re-designated it for Public future land use and GML (Government-Managed Land) zoning. Most of the City's population growth in the last 20 years has been in the southern and western part of the City, to the west of the Babcock/Valkaria intersection. Between 1986 and 1999, residential development within 2-3 miles of the amendment sites increased approximately 160 percent. As a result, whereas 17 years ago most of the City's population was east of Interstate 95, now approximately half the population resides west of Interstate 95 (although 60 percent still resides north of Malabar Road.) Due to the sparse commercial use in the vicinity, either in the City or the unincorporated County, there is a need for more land designated for commercial future land uses in the southern part of the City to serve the rapidly growing population in that area. The applicant for the large-scale amendment submitted a letter projecting a need for 1.5 million square feet of retail space in the City based on a comparison of "current space" with average retail space per capita in Florida. The County criticized the professional acceptability of this submission as data and analysis to demonstrate need for additional commercial acreage in the City. Standing alone, the submission may be fairly subject to the County's criticism; but considered along with the other data and analysis, the submission adds to the demonstration of need for the plan amendments. It was estimated that commercial uses at the intersection of Babcock and Valkaria will generate an additional 12,000 vehicle trips on Babcock in the vicinity of its intersection with Valkaria. This estimate further demonstrates a need for additional commercial future land use in the vicinity. At least some of the vehicle trips expected to be generated in the vicinity of the Babcock/Valkaria intersection as a result of adding commercial future land use there would correspond to a reduction in vehicular traffic from the southern part of the City to and from commercial areas in the northern part of the City. For that reason, by helping balance the amount of commercial land use available in the northern and southern parts of the City, adding commercial future land use in the southern part of the City could be reasonably expected to reduce traffic overall. Commercial land uses generally generate higher tax revenue and demand fewer government services than residential land uses. Meanwhile, the City provides most of the government services in the Babcock/Valkaria vicinity and has a backlog of infrastructure projects. For that reason, an economic benefit reasonably is expected to accrue to the City from adding commercial in the southern part of the City.2 Future Land Use Element FLU Objective 3.1 in the City's Comprehensive Plan is to: "Provide additional commercial areas by type, size and distribution, based upon area need. . . ." FLU Policy 3.1A states: "The acreage of commercial land permitted by the Future Land Use Map shall not exceed projected needs." The County did not prove that the proposed FLUM amendments are inconsistent with either this Objective or this Policy. The plan amendments at issue are based upon area need and do not exceed projected needs, as reflected in the data and analysis. Compatibility and Internal Consistency The County contended that City Commercial future land use for the amendment parcels is incompatible with surrounding land uses and internally inconsistent with provisions the City's FLU Objective 2.3, to: "Prevent incompatible land uses from locating in residential areas in order to promote neighborhood stability and prevent deterioration." In the unincorporated County to the east of Babcock Street, there are primarily large-lot, rural residential land uses with some agricultural uses such as horses and tree-farming. But, as indicated, there are platted residential lots in the City to the west of Babcock Street that are urban (or suburban) in character. During the course of these proceedings, the County abandoned its contentions as to incompatibility of the small-scale amendment except for the existence of a residential structure on the property. In arguing that the existence of the residential structure on the property makes commercial future land use incompatible, the County relied on the City's zoning LDRs. But zoning and consistency of zoning with the requirements of zoning LDRs are not at issue in this comprehensive plan amendment case. See Conclusion 52, infra. Even if zoning and consistency with zoning LDRs were at issue, the applicant's residential structure would not defeat the applicant's proposed future land use change; rather, granting the application would mean that use of the residential structure would have to be discontinued after the future land use change. As to the large-scale amendment, the County also relies in part on alleged inconsistency with an LDR--in this instance, the City's LDR for Community Commercial zoning that these areas are "to be primarily located in or near the intersection of arterial roadways." But, again, zoning and consistency of zoning with the requirements of zoning LDRs are not issues for determination in this comprehensive plan amendment case. Id. Even if zoning and consistency of zoning with the requirements of zoning LDRs were at issue, consistency and compatibility still would be fairly debatable. The evidence was that Valkaria was designated as a collector road at the time of adoption of the proposed large-scale amendment and that Babcock was designated as an arterial roadway to the north of Valkaria and as a collector to the south of Valkaria. The City characterized Babcock as a minor arterial. By its terms, the LDR in question does not prohibit Community Commercial zoning except in or near the intersection of arterial roadways; it only provides that these areas are to be located primarily in or near these intersections. Even if City Community Commercial zoning were clearly inconsistent with the City's LDR for Community Commercial zoning, City Neighborhood Commercial zoning has no similar provision for location vis-a-vis arterial roads. Since the City only has one commercial future land use category, City Commercial would be the appropriate City future land use designation for City Neighborhood Commercial zoning. The County's contentions as to the large-scale amendment also are seriously undermined by the existence of both County Community Commercial and County Neighborhood Commercial future land use east of Babcock. In addition, a County-sponsored Small Area Study (SAS) of approximately 11,500 acres of land east of the intersection along Valkaria Road recommended County Neighborhood Commercial future land use for the northeast and southeast corners of the intersection of Babcock and Valkaria (as well as County Restricted Neighborhood Commercial zoning). As indicated, the City's Comprehensive Plan does not distinguish between the two categories of commercial future land use and, if any commercial future land use is compatible with surrounding land uses, City Commercial future land use is appropriate. Contrary to the County's argument, it makes no difference to the appropriateness of City Commercial future land use that County Neighborhood Commercial future land is more limited than City Commercial future land use (or that County Restricted Neighborhood Commercial zoning is more limited than City Community Commercial zoning). The County argued that the large-scale future land use amendment was inconsistent with City FLUE Policy 2.3A, which states that LDRs must "continue to contain provisions to ensure that land uses surrounded by and/or abutting residential areas are not in conflict with the scale, intensity, density and character of the residential area." There is nothing about the proposed FLUM changes that is inconsistent with this Policy. Consistency of LDRs with this Policy is not at issue in this proceeding. See Conclusion 53, infra. The County also questioned the adequacy of buffer between commercial uses on the large-scale parcel and nearby residential uses. Precise questions as to the adequacy of buffer are decided under the LDRs, during site development review and permitting. However, it is noted that there is a 50-foot wide "paper street" (i.e., a platted right-of-way that never was developed as a street) to the west of the large-scale parcel. In addition, zoning as City Community Commercial was conditioned upon additional buffer to the east (25 feet wide) and to the north (50 feet wide). Consideration also is being given to a Habitat Conservation Plan of an undetermined size in the northern portion of the site for use as a "fly-over" for scrub jays. In addition, actual use of the residential land in the unincorporated County to the north of the large-scale parcel includes a car repair business with garage and approximately 15 cars in various states of disrepair.3 For all of the foregoing reasons, the evidence did not establish either internal inconsistency or incompatibility of commercial uses on the large-scale parcel with existing residential uses. Infrastructure and Internal Consistency At the time of adoption of the plan amendments at issue, central water and sewer services had not yet been extended to the two parcels. However, it was clear from the evidence that adequate central water and sewer capacity existed to accommodate commercial development on these parcels and that central water and sewer was being extended to the parcels. The Capital Improvements Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan listed $1.7 million being budgeted for water and sewer improvements in fiscal year 2001/2002, and in excess of $15.3 million budgeted in fiscal year 2002/2003. FLU Objective 3.1 in the City's Comprehensive Plan is to: "Provide additional commercial areas by type, size and distribution, based upon . . . the availability of supporting infrastructure." The County did not prove that the proposed plan amendments are inconsistent with this Objective. Urban Sprawl and Internal Consistency The County maintains that the proposed plan amendments exacerbate urban sprawl. But the County provided no detailed analysis of the indicators of urban sprawl in Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, to support its contention. In arguing urban sprawl, the County relied on its contentions that there was no demonstrated need to convert County rural residential land use to City commercial land use. This argument has been rejected. See Findings 20-31, supra. The County's urban sprawl argument also focused on uses in the unincorporated County east of Babcock and characterizes the plan amendments as placing commercial land use in a rural area. This focus and characterization ignores the existence of urban residential uses in the City west of Babcock. Seen in proper perspective, the proposed plan amendments allow commercial land use that would tend to mitigate and discourage the kind of urban sprawl promoted by the pre-platting of the City. Instead of having to travel to access commercial uses in distant parts of the City, City residents in the vicinity would have a much closer option under the proposed amendments (as would County residents in the vicinity). FLU Objective 1.4 in the City's Comprehensive Plan is to: "Establish a Growth Management Area to control urban sprawl." FLU Policy 1.4B states: "City funds shall not be utilized to expand public facilities and services for future growth outside of the established Growth Management Area." The small-scale parcel was outside the established Growth Management Area (GMA) at the time of adoption of the small-scale amendment. But it does not follow that the small-scale amendment constitutes urban sprawl. Nor does it follow that the small-scale amendment is inconsistent with either the Objective or the Policy. The small-scale amendment can be made a GMA before any City funds are used to expand public facilities and services for future commercial use of the small-scale parcel.
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 both the small-scale amendment and the large- scale amendment of the City of Palm Bay (adopted by Ordinance 2000- 79 and by Ordinance 2001-105, respectively) "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of December, 2002, 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 16th day of December, 2002.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the amendment to the Putnam County Comprehensive Plan adopted by Ordinance 2009-23 is "in compliance," as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2008).1/
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner Bonnie Conklin resides and owns property at 600 Stokes Landing Road. She submitted oral comments to the County at the adoption hearing on the amendment. Petitioner Wendy Goodson owns property at 595 Stokes Landing Road in Putnam County. She submitted oral comments to the County at the adoption hearing on the amendment. Putnam County is a political subdivision of the State and has adopted a comprehensive plan which it amends from time to time pursuant to Section 163.3167(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Intervenor Stokes Landing Enterprises, LLC (“Stokes Landing”), is a Florida limited liability company. It owns the Property affected by the amendment and submitted oral comments and evidence during the local hearings on the amendment. The Amendment The amendment changes the future land use designation of the Property from Agriculture II to Industrial. Section One of Ordinance 2009-23 provides that the re-designation of the Property is subject to the terms and conditions of the development agreement between the County and Stokes Landing, which is attached as an exhibit to the ordinance. The Property has approximately 220 feet of frontage on the St. Johns River. The development agreement requires that the Property be developed as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a “ship building and repair facility.” Contemporaneous with the adoption of the amendment, the County rezoned the Property to PUD. The development agreement includes the following recitals: Developer and the County wish to enter into this Agreement to set forth the conditions under which development of the facility shall be used. The County has entered into this Agreement in consideration of the commitment by Developer to construct certain improvements as further described in Section 3 below (hereinafter the “Improvements”); and to redevelop the site and utilize the Property as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) only, with the understanding that the Developer shall apply for a PUD to operate a ship building and repair facility. * * * G. The conditions specified within a Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning district established by Developer pursuant to this Agreement will aid redevelopment of the Property, limit localized impacts of the Property and advance the implementation of the County’s Comprehensive Plan. Section 3 of the development agreement requires that the developer make the following improvements: Access Roadway Improvement: Developer at its sole cost and expense shall design, engineer, permit, construct and install in accordance with all applicable laws, rules and regulations and the County’s approval of the design, the improvement(s) of the Access Roadway from Stokes Landing Road to the subject site via the established access easements. County approvals shall not be unreasonably withheld. Timing: Developer shall complete the Access Roadway Improvements prior to starting redevelopment of the site for the proposed ship building and repair use. Planned Unit Development (PUD) Zoning: Developer shall obtain approval of rezoning the Property to PUD prior to starting redevelopment of the site and shall maintain the approved PUD zoning throughout the duration of the Industrial future land use on the site. This requirement does not preclude any future request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to another future land use category and subsequent associated rezoning requests to a compatible zoning district. The Property and Surrounding Land Uses Most land uses contiguous to or adjacent to the Property are residential uses on lands designated Agriculture II. However, 100 feet south of the Property are lands along the St. Johns River designated Conservation. There are other Conservation lands across the river from the Property and north of the Property. The only other land uses in the area are a commercial well-drilling business on land designated Agriculture II, and a shipyard known as St. Johns Ship Building on lands designated Industrial. The St. Johns Ship Building facility is located on 101 acres and is approximately 900 feet north of the Property. The lands abutting the Property on the west, south, and east are currently undeveloped. Across the St. Johns River from the Property is Stokes Island, which is also undeveloped. About 60 percent of the Property lies within the 100- year flood zone. There are wetlands on the Property which are generally of low quality due to invasive vegetation. Historic Uses and Improvements on the Property The staff report for the amendment states that the purpose of the amendment is to “make the land use designation of the property consistent with the existing use of the land,” which “according to the applicant,” has been ship building since the 1960’s. This statement incorrectly characterizes both the existing use and the past use of the Property. Aerial photography shows that much of the Property was cleared in 1943. In the 1940s and early 1950s, the County hauled shell rock from the Property for road building. The Property was used intermittently to build fishing vessels between the 1970's and 1998. The number of vessels that were built on the Property was not established by the record evidence. Some barge demolition activities also occurred on the Property in 2006 and 2007. Intervenor started to build a barge on the Property in 2008, but was almost immediately stopped by a County code enforcement officer because such activities are not allowed under the Property’s agricultural zoning. The evidence shows that the barge building and barge demolition activities, and probably the earlier boat building activities, were conducted in violation of the agricultural zoning of the Property. Two steel mooring pilings and remnants of a dock or platform are still located on the Property. There was some dispute about whether there still exist on the Property the rails or “ways” used in the past for hauling vessels out of the water and for launching vessels. Although a 2008 survey of the Property (Joint Exhibit 12) shows the rails, they do not appear in recent photographs of the Property (Respondent/Intervenor’s Exhibits 3.1 through 3.4 and Petitioners’ Exhibits 13.1 through 13.3). The shoreline along the east boundary of the Property is not bulkheaded and, except for the clearing that has occurred on the Property, remains in a relatively natural condition. Whether the Subject Property is a Port The parties disputed whether the Property is an existing water port, which is relevant to the Comprehensive Plan policies regarding the location of industrial uses, as will be discussed below. The term “port” is not defined in the Comprehensive Plan. “Port facility” is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.003(92) as: [H]arbor or shipping improvements used predominantly for commercial purposes including channels, turning basins, jetties, breakwaters, landings, wharves, docks, markets, structures, buildings, piers, storage facilities, plazas, anchorages, utilities, bridges, tunnels, roads, causeways, and all other property or facilities necessary or useful in connection with commercial shipping. This definition is not particularly helpful in resolving the dispute in this case, because it is a list of facilities (e.g., buildings) that can be associated with a port, rather than an identification of the elements that are essential to being a port. In the traffic circulation section of the Putnam County Comprehensive Plan Data, Inventory, and Analysis, under the heading “Port Facilities,” there is one water port identified: Putnam County is currently served by a small barge port on the St Johns River, which is located between downtown Palatka and Rice Creek. . . . This barge facility is incorporated into a larger industrial park setting and provides an alternative method of moving certain types of goods and material into and out of the County. The word “port” is defined in Webster’s Dictionary as “a place where ships may ride secure from storms” and “a harbor town or city where ships may take on or discharge cargo.” Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary 889 (1979 ed.) The latter definition indicates that the transport of cargo by water between land sites (ports) is the core of the meaning. When deep harbors, channels, and turning basins occur naturally or are created and used by ships, there is little cause to dispute that a port exists. Here, there are no such natural or man-made features. The shoreline at the subject Property was not shown to differ from much of the shoreline along the St. Johns River.2/ As indicated above, a port is a transportation facility where waterborne goods are loaded and unloaded. A port is distinct from a “boatyard,” which is defined as “a yard where boats are built, repaired, and stored and often sold or rented.” Merriam-Webster’s On-Line Dictionary (2009) The remnant boat building facilities on the Property do not make a port. It is found that the Property was used intermittently in the past as a boatyard, but it was never a water port. Road Access to the Property The Property’s connection to the nearest public, paved road, is currently by easements over an unpaved drive. A 50- foot-wide easement extends north from the Property approximately 240 feet over an unpaved drive, then makes a 90-degree turn to the west along a 25-foot-wide, unpaved easement that runs about 325 feet to the beginning of a paved portion of the easement, then continues 545 feet further west to the publicly owned and paved Stokes Landing Road. Petitioners Conklin and Goodson own property and reside along the 25-foot easement. There are about a dozen other residences along the easements. There are many other residences along the public portion of Stokes Landing Road to its connection with U.S. 19. Petitioners attempted to show that Intervenor’s access to the Property from the public portion of Stokes Landing Road is legally insufficient because a small strip of land at the intersection of the 50-foot easement and the 25-foot easement is not included in the easements held by Intervenor. However, because Intervenor showed colorable easement rights over the entire private roadway, the Administrative Law Judge declined to take evidence on or determine the merits of the adverse real property claim. Stokes Landing Road is classified as a “local road” by Putnam County. It is not an arterial or collector road. Although the properties along the unpaved road have a mailing address of Stokes Landing Road, some of the official documents that describe or depict Stokes Landing Road do not include the private easement segments. It was estimated that the proposed boatyard would generate about 30 daily employee vehicle trips and one trip for pickup or delivery. Intervenor presented evidence that a truck with a wheel base of 50 feet (typical of a truck and semi-trailer) could make the 90-degree right turn from a 25-foot-wide roadway onto a 50-foot-wide roadway. However, to do so, the truck would have to use the left side of the 25-foot easement and the left side of the 50-foot easement (from the driver’s perspective). In other words, the truck would have to enter the lanes used by oncoming traffic. Internal Consistency Petitioners contend that the amendment is inconsistent with Policy A.1.9.3.A.6.d of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Comprehensive Plan. That policy states: Industrial Uses shall be located on sites that “use existing utilities or resources; utilize one or more transportation facilities such as air ports, water ports, collector roads, arterial roads, and railroads; do not require significant non- residential vehicular traffic to pass through established neighborhoods; and are sufficiently separated and/or buffered when necessary from residential and other urban uses to minimize adverse impacts of noise, glare, dust, smoke, odor or fumes. The Property is not located on a collector road or arterial road. It is not a water port. The amendment would require significant non- residential vehicular traffic to pass through an established neighborhood. The non-residential traffic is significant because it more than doubles the existing traffic in the most rural portion of Stokes Landing Road and would create an unsafe condition for every trip to and from the Property by a large truck. It is not sound planning to locate an industrial use on property that is served only by a narrow residential driveway. It is not sound planning to locate an industrial use on a road where access by large trucks will require that the trucks travel in the oncoming traffic lanes. The Property is not sufficiently separated or buffered from residential uses to minimize the adverse impacts of noise, glare, dust, smoke, odor, and fumes. Currently, there are vacant, wooded parcels adjacent to the Property, but the Intervenor has no control over these parcels and they will not always be vacant. The proposed industrial use is incompatible with the dominant pattern of development surrounding the Property, which is rural residential. Intervenor argues that the Agriculture II land use designation allows “intensive” agricultural land uses, such as slaughter houses, suggesting that the residents are already subject to the possibility of adverse impacts from noise, glare, dust, smoke, odor, and fumes. However, there are no intensive agricultural uses in the area and no evidence to suggest that such development is likely to occur in the future. The dominant land use is likely to remain rural residential. Petitioners contend that the amendment is inconsistent with Goal 1 of the FLUE, which is to maintain the quality of life by “establishing a pattern of development that is harmonious with the County’s natural environment and provides a desired lifestyle for County residents.” The proposed boat building and repair operation in this rural residential neighborhood would significantly degrade the desired lifestyle of the residents in the area. Petitioners contend that the amendment is inconsistent with FLUE Policy A.1.1.1.A.3., which prohibits land uses that generate, store, or dispose of hazardous waste in “areas of special flood hazard”. However, Policy A.1.1.1.A.2.b. expressly allows water-dependent components of a development to be located in areas of special flood hazard. When FLUE Objective A.1.1 and its accompanying policies are read in pari materia, they indicate that a water-dependent land use can be allowed in the floodplain as long as any generation, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste will occur outside of the floodplain. Petitioners did not show that the proposed boatyard cannot be operated in conformance with these policies. For similar reasons, Petitioners’ contention that the amendment is inconsistent with FLUE Policy A.1.1.E. is unpersuasive. That policy encourages the clustering of development away from flood-prone areas. However, in the case of water-dependent land uses, the water-dependent components of the land use must be located near the water. Petitioners contend that the amendment is inconsistent with FLUE Objective A.1.3 and FLUE Policy A.1.3.1, which encourage the elimination or reduction of non-conforming uses. Petitioners argue that past boat building and boat repair operations at the Property were non-conforming uses under the Agriculture II land use category and should be eliminated. Petitioners’ arguments are not persuasive because, if the amendment is approved, the boatyard uses would not be inconsistent with the FLUM. Furthermore, Petitioners showed that there is no existing, non-conforming use of the Property, so there is no non-conforming use that needs to be reduced or eliminated. Petitioners contend that the amendment is inconsistent with FLUE Policy A.1.3.2, which states: Adequate buffering and separation between land uses of different densities and intensities shall be provided in accordance with the Land Development Code to minimize compatibility issues. This policy directs that the Land Development Code (“Code”) shall establish buffering requirements to minimize incompatibility. Compatibility is also a comprehensive planning issue that can cause an amendment to be “not in compliance,” regardless of the buffering regulations contained in the Code, but this particular policy is only directed to the Code. Petitioners did not show that the Code does not contain buffering requirements. Petitioners contend that the amendment is inconsistent with FLUE Policy A.1.4.9, which requires a vegetated upland buffer for any waterfront development. The Petitioners’ evidence on this issue was insufficient to establish that the required buffer could not be provided. Furthermore, the policy directs the County to adopt regulations to establish the buffer requirements. Petitioners did not show that such regulations were not adopted by the County. Petitioners contend that the amendment is inconsistent with FLUE Policy A.1.6.1, which encourages infill within the designated urban service areas of the County. Water-dependent uses must be located where the water is located. Therefore, infill policies cannot be applied to water-dependent uses in the same manner as with other land uses. Although the availability of necessary urban services is still a relevant inquiry, Petitioners did not present evidence on this point. Consistency with Rule 9J-5 Petitioners contend that the amendment is inconsistent with Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.003(23), which defines the term “compatibility”; Rule 9J-5.006(3)(b)3., which encourages the reduction or elimination of inconsistent uses; Rule 9J-5.006(3)(c)2., which requires that comprehensive plans provide for “compatibility of adjacent land uses”; and Rules 9J- 5.006(5)(h)6. and 8., which require that amendments be reviewed for compatibility and “functional relationship” with adjacent land uses. The term “compatibility” is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.003(23) as: [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. A definition is not a regulation that requires compliance. A definition simply shows the intended meaning for a term used in a regulation. Therefore, a comprehensive plan amendment cannot be inconsistent with a definition. Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(3)(b)3. requires the future land use elements of comprehensive plans to contain one or more objectives that encourages the elimination or reduction of uses inconsistent with the community’s character and future land uses. This rule addresses existing non- conforming uses. The Property is no longer being used in a manner that is inconsistent with the community’s character. Therefore, there is no inconsistent use of the Property that needs to be reduced or eliminated. Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(3)(c)2. requires the future land use element of a comprehensive plan to contain one or more policies that provide for compatibility of adjacent land uses. It was found, above, that the rural residential neighborhood adjacent to the Property would be negatively impacted by boat building and boat repair uses of the Property. The amendment is incompatible with the surrounding rural residential neighborhood. Florida Administrative Code Rules 9J-5.006(5)(h)6. and relate specifically to the analysis of whether an amendment fails to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. Because Petitioners did not raise urban sprawl as an issue, they cannot claim inconsistency with these rules. Petitioners contend that the amendment is inconsistent with Section 163.3177(8), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(2), which require that an amendment be based on relevant and appropriate data and analysis. Petitioners believe that there is no demonstrated need for additional industrial uses in the County. Petitioners’ argument and evidence on the issue of need failed to take into account the water-dependent use that is proposed. Petitioners’ computations to show that there are substantial acres of unused industrial lands in the County fails to address the question of whether there is a need for additional water-dependent land uses.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a Final Order determining that the amendment adopted by Putnam County through Ordinance 2009-23 is not in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of December, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of December, 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 in this case is whether the County's comprehensive plan amendment 91B.9 is "in compliance" under the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act. (It must be found to be "in compliance" if the County's determination that it is "in compliance" is at least "fairly debatable.")
Findings Of Fact The Subject Parcel. Fiske-Mar Land Trust owns property in Brevard County located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Fiske Boulevard, which runs north and south, and Martin Road, which runs east and west. 17.42 acres of the Fiske-Mar property, adjacent to the intersection, is the subject of an amendment to the Brevard County comprehensive plan to change the land use classification of the property from "Residential" to "Mixed Use." It will be referred to as the "subject parcel." The incorporated City of Rockledge lies to the east of the subject parcel, across Fiske Boulevard, and to the north of the subject parcel. Enterprises International, Inc. (Enterprises), one of the two petitioners in this case, owns approximately 30 acres of commercially-zoned property in the City of Rockledge directly across Fiske to the east of the subject parcel. The Future Land Use Element. Goal 1 of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Brevard County comprehensive plan is: TO MANAGE GROWTH IN BREVARD COUNTY IN A MANNER WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CAPABILITES OF THE NATURAL AND MAN-MADE SYSTEMS AND WHICH MEETS THE PUBLIC'S SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC NEEDS. Objective 4 under Goal 1 states: Brevard County shall provide for adequate and appropriate lands for the location of commercial land uses, through the Land Development Regulations, to serve the needs of the projected residents and visitors of the County. Policy 4.1 under Objective 4 is to: Adopt mixed-use districts on the Future Land Use Maps and establish performance standards in the Land Development Regulation for development within the mixed-use districts. The following criteria, at a minimum, should be used in the application of the mixed-use districts and formulation of the performance standards: Criteria: The location of mixed-use districts are to be based upon existing commercial development trends, commercial zoning trends and population projections. Appropriate land uses within mixed-use districts include commercial, professional office, residential, institutional, conservation, recreational, and public facility land uses. Performance standards for development occurring within the mixed-use districts should address: 1. Land use compatibility, buffering and landscaping; * * * 5. Open space provisions; * * * Character of an area; Guidelines for the appropriate amounts of each land use type within a mixed-use district; and Limitations for the expansion of mixed-use districts into established residential areas. The boundaries of the mixed-use districts are intended to be flexible in their application and may extend 700 feet beyond the limits established on the Future Land Use Maps to protect the environment, to accommodate property lines, rights-of-way, or easements, and to allow extension to major physical or man-made boundaries; or if a binding development restriction is volutarily submitted to the Planning and Zoning Bord and approved by the County Commission. * * * Commercial development within the mixed-use districts must occur commensurate with the commercial acreage allotments identified to meet the needs of the anticipated population, except for Developments of Regional Impact. The locational criteria and development standards for specific types of commercial land uses, as provided in Policies 4.3 through 4.11 of this element, shall be utilized in the development of commercial land uses both within and outside the mixed-use districts to regulate the distribution and intensity of commercial development in these areas. The distribution, location and density of residential development within the mixed-use districts shall be determined based upon the density guidelines established in Policies 1.1 through 1.6 of this element; the distribution and density guidelines of Policies 3.1 and 3.2 of this element; and the land use compatibility guideliness established in Figure 1 of this element, except [as stated]. Residential development should be encouraged within mixed-use districts as transitioinal uses between commercial uses and established residential land uses. * * * I. Development within mixed-use districts shall be conditioned upon the availability of public facilities and services at or above the adopted acceptable levels of service as identified in the Capital Improvements element of this Comprehensive Plan. * * * K. Institutional uses within mixed-use districts should be accommodated as permitted or conditional uses within residential or commercial zoning classifications; these zoning classifications would be subject to the provisions of Criteria E and F of this policy. Policy 4.2 is to: As part of the Land Development Regulations, develop a periodic commercial acreage allocation to be used in the review of applications for commercial development orders. The allocations shall be based upon the following minimum criteria: Criteria: Commercial acreage allocations shall be based upon population projections and allow for fluctuations in the marketplace. * * * Application of Criterion A Under Policy 4.1. It is clear, and cannot be seriously disputed, that the Brevard comprehensive plan utilizes mixed-use districts to provide for the County's need for commercial development. But that does not mean, as the Petitioners contend, that, in order for land to be designated for mixed-use under Criterion A of Policy 4.1, the present situation (population and built-out commercial development) must establish a present need for new commercial development in the location being considered for mixed-use designation. This is not a certificate of need proceeding. The "existing commercial development trends, commercial zoning trends and population projections," referred to in Criterion 4.1 of Policy 4.1 as the basis for designation of land as a mixed-use district, means: (1) commercial development trends, as those trends presently exist; (2) commercial zoning trends; and (3) population projections. It does not mean, as the Petitioners seem to assert, that there must be a present need for more commercial land use based on present commercial development, present commercial zoning and present population. The subject parcel is located to the west of the Enterprises commercially-zoned property, just across Fiske Boulevard. The Enterprises property is northeast of the corner of Fiske and Martin Avenue and continues for some distance to the east of the corner. The trend evident from actual use, and from present zoning, is for the land on either side of Fiske to be used for more commercial development. There are a number of properties zoned commercial or some other non-residential zoning along both sides of Fiske to the north of Martin. There is a Knights of Columbus building immediately to the south of the subject parcel, across Martin, on the southwest corner of Fiske and Martin. There is property designated mixed-use district further to the south on Fiske, between Martin and the I-95 interchange. (The centerpoint of the interchange is just over a half mile from the subject parcel; the intersection of the exit ramp off the interstate and Fiske is within a half mile of the subject parcel.) Despite the commercial trend along Fiske, there is considerable commercially zoned property in the vicinity that is still vacant, including the approximately 30 acres owned by Enterprises. But there also has been recent commercial development in the vicinity. Within the last three years, Enterprises has developed a successful child care center that serves approximately 30 children on 0.6 acres at the northern extreme of its property along Fiske. In addition, Enterprises sold five acres of its property along Fiske to Florida Power and Light, which has built an office building on the site. Immediately to the north of the Florida Power building, Enterprises sold another five acres for development of a 20-unit motel and related tennis center. This development on Enterprises property has occurred even though, for approximately three years prior to the final hearing, Enterprises was not actively promoting development of its commercially-zoned property. There also is a real estate sales office in the vicinity. Recently, there has been discussion for the possible development of the Enterprises commercially-zoned property for a regional skating rink that would serve international functions and draw attendance from a regional market. Population projections for the area also are revealing. The 1988 comprehensive plan was based in part on projections that population in Census Tracts 630 and 631, which lies immediately to the west and to the east of Fiske, respectively, in the vicinity of the subject parcel, would reach 9,758 by 1990. But, accordingly to the data collected in the 1990 Census, the actual population in Tracts 630 and 631 was 12,032 in 1990, 23 percent more than projected. The Petitioners emphasize that most of this unanticipated population growth occurred within the City of Rockledge and within the permitted development of regional impact to the south known as Viera. The 1988 population projections utilized for the County's comprehensive plan projected that population in Census Tract 631, which lies immediately to the east of Fiske, primarily in the City of Rockledge, would reach 6,382 by 1990. Accordingly to the data collected in the 1990 Census, the actual population in Tract 631 was 9,306 in 1990. The 1988 population projections utilized for the County's comprehensive plan projected that population in Census Tract 630, which lies immediately to the west of Fiske, in part in unincorporated Brevard County, would reach 3,376 by 1990. According to the data collected in the 1990 Census, the actual population in Tract 630 was just 2,726 in 1990. Of the figure for actual population in 1990, 2073 is in Traffic Analysis Zone 225, which includes Viera. The evidence was that the Viera DRI accounted for the provision of adequate commercial property in connection with the population growth in Viera, and that plans probably would not have been made for the Viera residents to heavily utilize commercial development in the vicinity of the subject parcel, due to the available road networks. But the Petitioners did not closely analyze how much of the actual 1990 population in Census Tract 631 is in Viera, or how much of it was anticipated in the 1988 County and City comprehensive plans. The Petitioners also did not quantify the population growth attributable exclusively to Viera, or whether either the County or the City accounted for the commercial development in Viera in their comprehensive plans. Clearly, the City would have attempted to provide for adequate commercial development within the City in its comprehensive plan. The City Manager testified that the City's 1988 comprehensive plan made provision for adequate commercial development within the City for the unexpected population growth in Census Tracts 630 and 631. But it is not clear how the City was able to anticipate and plan for unanticipated population growth. In addition, the City Manager testified that the City's comprehensive plan is restricted to preserve low to medium intensity residential development and limited commercial development. It would not have planned for more intense commercial uses. In summary, the Petitioners did not prove that the unanticipated population growth cannot form the basis for making the subject parcel a mixed- use district under Criterion A of Policy 4.1. Roadways also are an indicator of commercial development trends. Fiske Boulevard, at the location of the subject parcel, is presently classified as a minor arterial roadway. Interstate 95 is approximately a half mile to the south. Murrell, Barnes and Barton are other roads in the area serving the growing population. The subject parcel is presently at the intersection of Fiske and Martin, a local road. But the Gus Hipp Extension is planned to be constructed in the near future. It is in the City of Rockledge capital improvement element for construction in 1993, and it has been agreed by the County, the City and the State of Florida Department of Transportation that $50,000 from the County's Impact Fee Trust Fund be used for engineering studies for the project. Once built, the Gus Hipp Extension will intersect Fiske at the present Martin intersection and will serve as, and be classified as, at least a collector roadway. It will serve multiple residential areas expected and planned to be developed to the north of the Gus Hipp Extension to accommodate projected population growth. In summary, the Petitioners did not prove that existing commercial development trends, commercial zoning trends and population projections cannot form the basis for making the subject parcel a mixed-use district under Criterion A of Policy 4.1. The Locational Criteria. Policies 4.3 through 4.11 are minimum locational criteria for different kinds of commercial land uses. See Criterion E under Policy 4.1. They are applicable to zoning and permitting decisions for particular parcels under conditions present at the time of the zoning or permit application. They are not applicable to land use planning for mixed use districts except in one respect. The designation of a mixed use district would be inconsistent with the FLUE if it were not foreseeable that, at a point in time within the planning period, the land to be designated would meet criteria for at least some commercial use. Otherwise, for example if it were foreseeable that the subject parcel could be zoned or permitted only for residential development, there would be no reason to designate the land as a mixed use district. At this time, it is foreseeable that the subject parcel could be zoned and permitted for a number of the commercial uses described in the locational criteria. Specifically, and after consideration of the issues addressed in the following findings, it is foreseeable that the subject parcel could be zoned and permitted for the commercial uses described in Policies 4.3, 4.4, 4.6, 4.8, 4.9, and 4.11. Acreage Limitations. Policy 4.3 describes appropriate locations for "neighborhood commercial land uses." Policy 4.4 describes appropriate locations for "community commercial land uses." Under the criteria, the former "should incorporate no more than four acres," and "[s]ites for community commercial complexes should not exceed 20 acres." None of the criteria for the other commercial uses include acreage limitations. The acreage limitations in Policies 4.3 and 4.4 do not preclude the development of "neighborhood commercial" or "community commercial" land uses on the subject parcel. As for the former, it is not necessary that the entire 17.42 acres contained in the subject parcel, or more than four acres of it, be developed as "neighborhood commercial." Other commercial uses, as well as uses other than commercial, also are allowed in a mixed use district. (In practice, about 80 percent of the land in mixed use districts are developed commercially.) As for the latter, the entire 17.42 acres, or a part of it, could be developed as "community commercial." Roadway Requirements. Policy 4.10 (governing "tourist commercial") and Policy 4.5 (governing "regional commercial centers") contain requirements regarding adjacent roadways that would seem to preclude the development of those uses on the subject parcel. Criterion A under Policy 4.5 provides that regional commercial centers "should be located at intersections of major arterials or roadways of a higher classification." Criterion F.1. under Policy 4.10 provides in pertinent part that "tourist commercial land uses . . . on the mainland" are limited to the following locations: "Intersections of major 'through-county' transportation corridors with major arterials or roadways of a higher classification." Other than Policies 4.5 and 4.10, the roadway requirements in the locational criteria would not preclude the other kinds of commercial development described. Policy 4.9 (governing "transient commercial") provides in pertinent part: "Transient commercial land uses shall be limited to locations at interstate interchanges and should be located within a 1/2 mile radius of the center point of the interchange." The subject parcel is close to, but a little bit further than, 1/2 mile of the center point of the intersection of I-95 and Fiske, but it is within a half mile of the center point of the I-95/Fiske Boulevard interchange, i.e., the intersection of the I-95 exit ramp and Fiske. The commercial use described in Policy 4.11 also is permissible. Criterion B under Policy 4.11 provides in pertinent part: "Recreational vehicle parks should be located within mixed-use districts with access to interstate interchanges and major 'through-County' transportation corridors." (Emphasis added.) There is access to I-95 via Fiske. The locational requirements regarding adjacent roadways in Policies 4.3, 4.4, and 4.6 all will allow development of the commercial uses set out in those policies concurrent with the construction of the Gus Hipp Extension. See Finding 19. Criterion A under Policy 4.3 states: "Neighborhood commercial clusters should be located at collector/collector or collector/arterial intersections " Criterion A under Policy 4.4 states: "Community commercial clusters should be located at minor/major arterial intersections. Collector/arterial intersections are acceptable, however, the collector roadways must serve multiple residential areas." Criterion A under Policy 4.6 states: "Office land uses should be located with access to roadways of a collector or higher classification, if they are located within mixed-use districts." Office Transitional. Criterion B under Policy 4.6 also provides that office land use "should be utilized as a transitional use between residential and more intense land uses such as commercial, planned industrial parks, or industrial." Although the criteria under Policy 4.7 would seem to preclude industrial use on the subject parcel, the subject parcel could be used for office use to serve as a buffer between the Enterprises commercially-zoned property to the east and the residential property to the west and north of the subject parcel (or residential use on parts of the subject parcel itself.) Strip Commercial. Criterion A under Policy 4.8 provides: "Additional commercial land uses in strip commercial areas may only be considered where that pattern of development is established or appropriate." It is fairly debatable that a pattern of strip commercial development already is established along Fiske to the north of the subject parcel and that strip commercial land use would be appropriate under Criterion A at this time. Certainly, it is foreseeable that, once the Enterprises and other commercially- zoned property along Fiske is developed, strip commercial will be established in the area. Criterion E under Policy 4.8 provides: "Infill development into the established commercial strip areas shall be preferred over the expansion of strip commercial areas." Although there currently is vacant commercially-zoned property along Fiske, including the Enterprises property, and under Criterion E, that property arguably should be developed as strip commercial before the subject parcel, it is foreseeable that, once the Enterprises and other commercially-zoned property along Fiske is developed, Criterion E would not preclude strip commercial on the subject parcel.
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 dismissing the Petition for Administrative Hearing in this case and determining that the plan amendment in question is "in compliance." RECOMMENDED this 14th day of April, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of April, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-2990GM To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1991), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioners' Proposed Findings of Fact. A.1. Accepted: a), unnecessary; b), incorporated. A.2.-A.3. Accepted, but unnecessary. A.4. Accepted and incorporated. B.1.-B.3. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. C.1.-D.1. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. D.2. Second sentence of 3)(b), rejected as not proven. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. E.1.-E.3. Accepted but largely subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. F.1.-F.6. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. b.1) and 3), rejected as not proven and as contrary to facts found. Third sentence of b.4), subordinate to facts not proven and contrary to those found. Fourth sentence of b.4), same as 3), and also conclusion of law and argument. As to 5), same as 3) and 4). (It was not the County's burden to prove "need.") c.4), rejected as not proven and as contrary to facts found. As to 5), all except the first sentence, same as b.5), above. As to 6) and 7), rejected in part because the Petitioners did not quantify the population growth attributable exclusively to Viera, or whether either the County or the City accounted for the commercial development in Viera in their comprehensive plans. As to 7), it was not the County's burden to prove "need." Generally accepted but subordinate to facts not proven and contrary to those found, and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven and as contrary to facts found, and as argument. As to 1), accepted in part, if "vicinity" means at or near the Fiske- Martin intersection. As to 1)(a), rejected as not proven that the sale was "at a reduced price," or that no additional demand has been created, or has occurred, especially in view of the cessation of active promoting by Enterprises for about three years prior to final hearing. As to (c), rejected as not proven that it was the only "strictly business" transaction, or that the properties "have not been profitable." As to 2), rejected in part as argument and not proven ("overwhelming majority"). As to 3), rejected as not proven and as contrary to facts found, and in part as argument ("drop in the bucket" and "overwhelming majority") and conclusion of law (that the County had to prove "need" and that data and analysis for a plan amendment must exist prior to final hearing.) Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. I. Rejected in part as conclusion of law (that the County had to prove "need"), in part as argument (great stability) and in part as not proven, and as contrary to facts found, that it is not at least fairly debatable that planning for additional commercial development is supported by commercial zoning trends. a., generally accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. , rejected in part as not proven and as contrary to facts found: in 1), that the actual commitment of funding was not "new information"; in 3), that the criteria require the roads to be existing and in service; in 4), that there is no possibility that the subject parcel could be used as a transitional zone or that location on a transportation corridor is necessary; and in 6) that it is not fairly debatable that strip commercial uses already exist on Fiske just north of the subject parcel (besides the Enterprises property to the east just across the street from the subject parcel could become strip commercial). Otherwise, generally accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. First sentence, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Second sentence, rejected as not proven and as contrary to facts found. County's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-3. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 4.-9. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Characterization "numerous" rejected as argument. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as contrary to the evidence that the entire subject parcel is "not desirous" for residential. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 13.-15. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. "Need" rejected as conclusion of law. (The issue is planning, not immediate "need.") Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. 18.-21. Accepted but generally subordinate and unnecessary. 22.-23. Conclusions of law. 24. Accepted and incorporated. 25.-27. Generally accepted but subordinate and unnecessary and in part argument. 28. Accepted but subordinate to facts found. 29.-30. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted. First sentence, subordinate and unnecessary; rest, incorporated. Rejected as to "transient commercial" as being contrary to facts found and to the greater weight of the evidence. Otherwise, accepted. Last sentence, subordinate. 34.-35. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. First sentence, accepted and incorporated. Rest, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. DCA's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-13. Generally accepted. Largely subordinate and unnecessary. Incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 14.-16. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected in part as conclusion of law (that the issue is immediate "need" rather than adequate planning.) Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted. First two sentences, incorporated; last sentence, subordinate to facts found, and unnecessary. 20.-26. Accepted and incorporated. COPIES FURNISHED: Bradley Roger Bettin, Esquire Amari Theriac Eisenmenger & Woodman Suite 302 96 Willard Street Cocoa, Florida 32922 Lisa Troner, Esquire County Attorney's Office 2725 St. John's Street Melbourne, Florida 32940 Karen Brodeen, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 John Kabboord, Esquire Reinman, Harrell, Graham, Mitchell & Wattwood 775 East Merritt Island Causeway Merritt Island, Florida 32952 Linda Loomis Shelley Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 G. Steven Pfeifer, Esquire General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether the amendments to the Palm Beach County Comprehensive Plan (“the Comp Plan”) adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Palm Beach County by Ordinance No. 14-030 (“Proposed Amendments”) are “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2014).
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner Alerts of PBC, Inc. (“Alerts”), is a Florida not-for-profit corporation doing business in Palm Beach County. Alerts made timely objections and comments to the County on the Proposed Amendments. Petitioner Patricia Curry is a resident and landowner in Palm Beach County. Ms. Curry made timely objections and comments to the County on the Proposed Amendments. Petitioner Robert Schutzer is a resident and landowner in Palm Beach County. Mr. Schutzer made timely objections and comments to the County on the Proposed Amendments. Petitioner Karen Schutzer is a resident and landowner in Palm Beach County. Ms. Schutzer made timely objections and comments to the County on the Proposed Amendments. Respondent Palm Beach County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and has adopted the Comp Plan, which it amends from time to time pursuant to section 163.3184. Intervenor Minto is a Florida limited liability company doing business in Palm Beach County. Minto is the owner of all of the 3,788.6 acres (“the Property”) which are the subject of the Proposed Amendments, with the exception of two parcels totaling 40.04 acres, which are owned by the Seminole Improvement District. Minto appointed the board of supervisors of the Seminole Improvement District pursuant to state law. Background FLUE Objective 1.1 establishes a unique Managed Growth Tier System “to protect viable existing neighborhoods and communities and direct the location and timing of future development.” The Property is located in the County’s Rural Tier and is bounded by Exurban Tier to the north and east. North of the Property is a large subdivision known as the Acreage, which was described by Respondents as “antiquated” because it was developed in a manner that was common decades ago before modern community planning concepts and growth management laws. The Acreage is dominated by 1.25-acre residential lots, laid out in a grid pattern with few other uses. Although the residents of the Acreage have a strong sense of community, it is apparently a matter of aesthetics, familiarity, and social intercourse, because the Acreage is not a community in the modern planning sense of providing a mix of uses where residents can live, shop, work, and play. It is a development pattern that is now discouraged by state law and the Comp Plan, because it is inefficient with respect to the provision and use of public services. The Property and the Acreage are within a 57,000-acre area known as the Central Western Communities (“CWC"). The CWC has been the subject of extensive planning efforts by the County for many years to address land use imbalances in the area. There are many residential lots, but few non-residential uses to serve the residents. In 2008, the previous owner of the Property, Callery- Judge Groves (“Callery”), obtained an Agricultural Enclave (AGE) future land use designation for essentially the same area as the Property. The Comp Plan was amended to establish an AGE future land use designation, AGE policies, a conceptual plan of development, and implementing principles (“the 2008 Amendments”). Under the 2008 Amendments, the site was limited to 2,996 residential units and 235,000 square feet of retail and office uses. No development has been undertaken pursuant to the 2008 Amendments. In 2013, the site was sold to Minto, which submitted a Comp Plan amendment application in November 2013, and a revised application in July 2014. On October 29, 2014, the County adopted the Proposed Amendments. The Proposed Amendments change the future land use designation of 53.17 acres (“the outparcels”) from RR-10 to AGE, and increase residential density to 4,546 units and increase intensity to two million square feet of non-residential uses, 200,000 square feet of civic uses, a 150-room hotel and a 3,000- student college, and revise the Conceptual Plan and Implementing Principles. The Proposed Amendments would also revise text in the Introduction and Administration, Future Land Use, and Transportation Elements. The Map Series would be amended to add 53.17 acres to the Limited Urban Service Area on Map LU 1.1 and Map LU 2.1, and to identify new Rural Parkways on Map TE 14.1. Petitioners’ Challenge Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are not “in compliance” because they fail to establish meaningful and predictable standards; do not comply with the agricultural enclave provisions of section 163.3164(4); are not based upon relevant and appropriate data and analysis; promote urban sprawl; are incompatible with adjacent communities and land uses; and create inconsistencies within the Comp Plan. Many of the issues raised and the arguments made by Petitioners fail to acknowledge or distinguish the 2008 Amendments that address future development of the Property. In several respects, as discussed below, the 2008 Amendments already authorize future development of the Property in a manner which Petitioners object to. In several respects, the types of impacts that Petitioners are concerned about are actually diminished by the Proposed Amendments from what is currently allowed under the 2008 Amendments. Meaningful and Predictable Standards Petitioners contend that proposed FLUE Policies 2.2.5-d, 2.2.5-e, and 2.2.5-f, and Maps LU 1.1 and 2.1 fail to establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land and fail to provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development and use regulations, in violation of section 163.3177(1). The Proposed Amendments add more detail to the standards that were adopted in the 2008 Amendments. The Proposed Amendments establish substantially more direction for the future development of the Property than simply a land use designation and listing of allowed uses, which is typical in comprehensive plans. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments lack adequate standards because they refer to the use of “appropriate new urbanism concepts,” which Petitioners say is vague. New urbanism refers to land use planning concepts such as clustering, mixed-use development, rural villages, and city centers. See § 163.3162(4), Fla. Stat. (2014). In land use planning parlance, new urbanism creates more “livable” and “sustainable” communities. The term “appropriate new urbanism concepts” used in the Proposed Amendments is the same term used in section 163.3162(4), dealing with the development of agricultural enclaves. There are many concepts that are part of new urbanism, which can be used in combination. Which concepts are “appropriate” depends on the unique opportunities and constraints presented by the area to be developed. Use of the term “appropriate new urbanism concepts” in the Proposed Amendments adds detail to the future development standards applicable to the Property. It does not create vagueness. Petitioners contend the proposed amendments of Maps LU 1.1 and 2.1 do not provide meaningful and predictable standards and guidelines. However, the maps are only being amended to show that 53.17 acres of outparcels within the Property are being added to the existing Limited Urban Service Area. The map amendments do not diminish the meaningfulness or predictability of any standards in the Comp Plan. The preponderance of the evidence shows the Proposed Amendments establish meaningful and predictable standards. Agricultural Enclave Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments fail to meet the requirements for an agricultural enclave in section 163.3164. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, consistency with section 163.3164 is not a component of an “in compliance” determination. Furthermore, the Property is already designated Agricultural Enclave in the Comp Plan. Data and Analysis Petitioners contend the amendment of the Limited Urban Service Area is not supported by relevant and appropriate data and analysis as required by section 163.3177(1)(f). The inclusion of the outparcels is logical and reasonable. It is consistent with the Comp Plan policies applicable to Limited Urban Service Areas. It is supported by data and analysis. Petitioners contend the increases in density and intensity allowed by the Proposed Amendments are not supported by data and analysis showing a need for the increases. However, the increases are supported by relevant and appropriate data and analysis, including population projections and extensive analysis of the need for non-residential uses in the CWC. Population projections establish the minimum amount of land to be designated for particular uses; not the maximum amount of land. See § 163.3177(1)(f)3., Fla. Stat (2014). Petitioners make several claims related to the availability of public utilities and other services to the Property. The data and analysis show sufficient capacity for roads, transportation, schools, water supply, wastewater treatment, fire, emergency and police either already exists or is contemplated in the Comp Plan to accommodate the development authorized by the Proposed Amendments. The preponderance of the evidence shows the Proposed Amendments are supported by relevant data and analysis. Urban Sprawl Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments do not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. Urban sprawl is defined in section 163.3164(51) as “a development pattern characterized by low density, automobile-dependent development with either a single use or multiple uses that are not functionally related, requiring the extension of public facilities and services in an inefficient manner, and failing to provide a clear separation between urban and rural uses.” Petitioners contend the Property does not qualify for the presumption against urban sprawl under the criteria in section 163.3162(4), but Minto did not rely on that statutory presumption. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments create five of the 13 primary indicators of urban sprawl set forth in section 163.3177(6)(a)9.: Promotes, allows, or designates for development substantial areas of the jurisdiction to develop as low-intensity, low-density, or single-use development or uses. Promotes, allows, or designates significant amounts of urban development to occur in rural areas at substantial distances from existing urban areas while not using undeveloped lands that are available and suitable for development. Fails to maximize use of existing public facilities and services. Allows for land use patterns or timing which disproportionately increase the cost in time, money, and energy of providing and maintaining facilities and services, including roads, potable water, sanitary sewer, stormwater management, law enforcement, education, health care, fire and emergency response, and general government. Fails to provide a clear separation between rural and urban uses. The evidence presented on this issue by Petitioners was inconsistent with generally accepted land use planning concepts and principles. The Proposed Amendments do not promote urban sprawl. They go far to rectify existing sprawl conditions in the CWC. Findings relevant to the five indicators have already been made above. Compatibility with adjacent uses is discussed below. There are ample data and analysis which show the Proposed Amendments discourage urban sprawl. Respondents’ characterization of the Proposed Amendments as the opposite of urban sprawl is not unreasonable. The preponderance of the evidence shows the Proposed Amendments discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. Compatibility Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are “incompatible with the lifestyle of the existing and surrounding communities and adjacent agricultural and other land uses.” Protection of Petitioners’ lifestyle cannot mean that surrounding areas must remain undeveloped or must be developed in a similar suburban sprawl pattern. Land use imbalances in the CWC are rectified by the Proposed Amendments while providing large buffers and a transition of land uses on the Property to protect adjacent land uses. The Acreage is more accurately characterized as suburban rather than rural. Moreover, the Proposed Amendments include a conceptual plan and development guidelines designed to create a clear separation between urban uses on the Property and less dense and intense external uses. Residential densities near the perimeter of the Property would correspond to the density in the Acreage. The proposed distribution of land uses and large open space buffers would not establish merely an adequate transition. They would provide substantial protection to adjacent neighborhoods. A person at the periphery of the Property would likely see only open space, parks, and low-density residential uses. The distribution of land uses and natural buffers in the Proposed Amendments provide more protection for external land uses than the 2008 Amendments. The more persuasive evidence presented indicates that Petitioners and other persons living near the Property would be beneficiaries of the Proposed Amendments because they could use and be served by the office, commercial, government, and recreational uses that will be available nearby. The preponderance of the evidence shows the Proposed Amendments are compatible with adjacent land uses. Internal Consistency The Comp Plan’s Introduction and Administration Element and FLUE contain statements of intent. They are not objectives or policies. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with some of the statements. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with the Introduction and Administration Element statements discouraging growth to the west where services are not adequate, do not provide for orderly growth or the provision of facilities and services to maintain the existing quality of life in an economical manner, and do not recognize countywide growth management strategies or maintain the diversity of lifestyles. Findings that refute this contention have been made above. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with several general statements in FLUE Sections I A, I B, and I C. regarding respect for the character of the area, protection of quality of life and integrity of neighborhoods, prevention of “piecemeal” development, and efficient provision of public services. Findings that refute this contention have been made above. Petitioners contend FLUE Policy 2.2.5-d allows land uses which are inconsistent with the policies applicable to the Rural Tier in which the Property is located. In the proposed policy, the County exempts the Project from any conflicting Rural Tier policies that would otherwise apply. Under the County’s Managed Growth Tier System, the tiers are the “first level” land use consideration in the FLUE. Therefore, it would have been helpful to amend the Rural Tier section of the FLUE to indicate the exceptions to Rural Tier policies for agricultural enclaves, in general, or for the Property, in particular. Instead, the Proposed Amendments place the new wording about exceptions in the section of the FLUE dealing with agricultural land uses. However, as stated in the Conclusions of Law, where the exception is located in the comprehensive plan is not a consistency issue. The County has shown there are unique considerations involved with the CWC that justify the exceptions. It also demonstrated that the Proposed Amendments would accomplish numerous objectives and policies of the Comp Plan that could not be accomplished without creating exceptions to some Rural Tier policies. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Objective 1.1-3 because they encourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. That contention has been rejected above. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Objective 1.1-6 because they do not protect agricultural land and equestrian uses. The evidence shows that agricultural and equestrian uses are enhanced by the Proposed Amendments over the existing provisions of the Comp Plan. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Policy 1.1-b, which addresses criteria re- designating a tier. This policy is not applicable because the Proposed Amendments do not re-designate a tier. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Policy 1.1-c, which requires the review of the tier system as part of each Evaluation and Appraisal review. Evaluation and Appraisal Reviews are no longer required by state law. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Policy 1.1-d, which states a tier shall not be re-designated if it would cause urban sprawl. This policy is not applicable because the Proposed Amendments do not re- designate a tier. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Policy 1.4-a, which requires the County to protect and maintain the rural residential, equestrian, and agricultural areas within the Rural Tier. The Proposed Amendments and Conceptual Plan increase the level of protection for these uses over what is currently in the Comp Plan. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Policy 1.4-d, which generally prohibits subdividing parcels of land within the Rural Tier unless certain conditions are met. The Proposed Amendments do not subdivide any parcels. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Policy 1.4-k, which addresses the designation of “sending areas” for Transfer of Development Rights (“TDR”). This policy only applies to parcels with a RR20 future land use designation and there are no such parcels existing or that would be created by the Proposed Amendments. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Policy 1.4-l, which requires the County to provide rural zoning regulations for areas designated Rural Residential. The Property does not have any Rural Residential designations. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Policy 2.4-b, which provides that the TDR program is the required method for increasing density within the County. The County applies this policy only to density increases in urban areas, because they are the only areas authorized to receive TDRs. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Objective 2.1 and some related policies, which promote balanced growth. The preponderance of the evidence shows the Proposed Amendments will further this objective and its policies because they correct the current imbalance of land uses in the CWC and provide for a balanced mix of residential, agricultural, commercial, light industrial, office, recreation, and civic uses. Petitioners presented no evidence to support their claim that Proposed Amendments would exceed the natural or manmade constraints of the area. Petitioners presented no credible evidence that transportation infrastructure and other public services could not be efficiently provided to the Property. The data and analysis and other evidence presented show otherwise. Petitioners contend there is no justification for the increased density and intensity authorized by the Proposed Amendments. There was ample justification presented to show the increases were needed to create a sustainable community where people can live, work, shop, and play. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Objective 2.2 and some related policies, which require development to be consistent with land use designations in the Comp Plan. Petitioners’ evidence failed to show any inconsistencies. The Proposed Amendments are compatible with and benefit adjacent land uses, as found above. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments fail to include “new urbanism” concepts as required by section 163.3164(4) and Policy 2.2.5-i. The evidence presented by Respondents proved otherwise. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Objective 3 and some related policies, which address the provision of utilities and other public services. Petitioners presented no credible evidence to support this claim. The data and analysis and other evidence presented show that public services are available or planned and can be efficiently provided to the Property. Petitioners argued the Proposed Amendments were inconsistent with several other FLUE policies generally related to compatibility with adjacent land uses and the provision of public services, all of which Petitioners failed to prove as explained above. The preponderance of the evidence shows the Proposed Amendments would not create internal inconsistency in the Comp Plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Economic Opportunity issue a final order determining the Proposed Amendments adopted by Palm Beach County Ordinance No. 2014-030 are in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of April, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER 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 17th day of April, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: Ralf G. Brookes, Esquire 1217 East Coral Parkway, Suite 107 Cape Coral, Florida 33904 (eServed) Gary K. Hunter, Jr., Esquire Hopping, Green and Sams, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 (eServed) Tara W. Duhy, Esquire Lewis Longman and Walker, P.A. 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 1500 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 (eServed) Amy Taylor Petrick, Esquire Palm Beach County Attorney's Office 301 North Olive Avenue, Suite 601 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 (eServed) Jesse Panuccio, Executive Director Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed) Robert N. Sechen, General Counsel Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building, MSC 110 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed) Katie Zimmer, Agency Clerk Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed)
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Ordinance 679-L of the City of St. Petersburg ("City"), which amended the Future Land Use Map (“FLUM”) of the City's Comprehensive Plan on certain property generally located at the northeast corner of 9th Avenue North and 66th Street North within the boundaries of the City (the "Subject Property") from Institutional to Residential Office Retail (R/O/R) land use on 2.98 acres, Residential Office General (R/OG) on 2.98 acres, and Residential Urban (RU) on 12.02 acres (the “Plan Amendment”), is "in compliance" as defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes,i notwithstanding Petitioners' contentions that the Plan Amendment is internally inconsistent and not based on data and analysis.
Findings Of Fact Parties Each Petitioner submitted oral and/or written comments, recommendations and/or objections to the City regarding the disputed land use amendments that are the subject of this case between the day of the transmittal hearing (July 18, 2006) and the day of the adoption hearing (February 15, 2007). Each individual Petitioner owns and/or resides on property within the boundaries of the City. The Eagle Crest Civic Association, Inc., f/k/a Eagle Crest Neighborhood Association, Inc., is a Florida not-for- profit corporation conducting business within the boundaries of the City. The Eagle Crest Civic Association, Inc., collects dues from membership, conducts monthly business and informational meetings at the St. Petersburg College Gibbs Campus Library in the City, and advocates interests on behalf of its membership before the St. Petersburg Council of Neighborhood Associations and various City and County governmental boards, commissions and councils. The Department is the state land planning agency that is statutorily charged with the duty of reviewing comprehensive plans and their amendments, and determining whether a plan or amendment is “in compliance,” as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. The City is a municipality and political subdivision of the State of Florida and has adopted a comprehensive plan that it amends from time to time pursuant to Section 163.3167(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Sembler is a Florida corporation headquartered and conducting business in the City; by virtue of a contract for the purchase of the property that is the subject of this dispute, Sembler is an equitable owner of the property that is affected by the challenged FLUM Amendment in this case. Background The Subject Property has been owned by the Catholic Diocese of St. Petersburg since 1952. Notre Dame High School, a Catholic girls-only high school, was constructed on the Subject Property in the early 1960’s. In 1977, Notre Dame High School merged with Bishop Barry High School (a Catholic boys-only high school to the east of the Subject Property) and the improvements on the Subject Property were used for various Catholic diocesan offices and other administrative purposes. Notre Dame High School was eventually demolished, and the only improvements remaining on the Subject Property are a former field house used for storage purposes and a former convent used for a multi-purpose building. The Subject Property is otherwise currently completely vacant. Since 1977 the Subject Property has had a FLUM designation of Institutional. In January of 2006, Sembler applied to the City for a change in the FLUM designation on the Subject Property from Institutional to Commercial General for an approximately 13.25 acre portion of the Subject Property fronting predominately along the west side 66th Street North between 9th Avenue North and 13th Avenue North. On March 7, 2006, Sembler requested a deferral of its pending application to consider a modification of the development plan to less intensive commercial uses. The deferral was granted by the City Planning Commission. On March 29, 2006, Sembler submitted a new application, abandoning the prior request to change the FLUM designation for the approximately 13.25-acre portion from Institutional to Commercial General. The new application (March 29, 2006) by Sembler requested a change to the Future Land Use designation for an approximate 6.19-acre portion of the Subject Property from its existing Institutional designation to Residential Office Retail ("R/O/R"). This new application was assigned City File Number PC-700 (“PC-700”). The intention of the PC-700 application was to develop multifamily residential units on approximately 11.8 acres of the Subject Property and to develop neighborhood commercial uses on the approximate 6.19-acre portion of the Subject Property. The PC-700 application included a Development Agreement proposed by Sembler which, among other things, limited the actual commercial development of the 6.19 acre portion to 26,000 square feet of space, and required that a quarter, or 25 percent, of that space be developed under the zoning regulations for Residential Office General ("R/OG"), instead of R/O/R. On May 2, 2006, the City’s Planning Commission (the “LPA”) conducted a public hearing to consider the PC-700 Application, and voted 6-2 to recommend approval of the PC-700 application to the St. Petersburg City Council (the “City Council”). On July 18, 2006, the City Council conducted a public hearing for the First Reading of the PC-700 application, and unanimously adopted a resolution approving the transmittal of a proposed ordinance adopting PC-700 to the Department, among others, for review and comment pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. On September 29, 2006, the Department published its Objections, Recommendations and Comments (“ORC”) Report on the Plan Amendment contained in PC-700. The Department raised no objections to the proposed Plan Amendment. Sometime between September 29, 2006, and December 14, 2006, Sembler modified its application PC-700. The modified application was intended to address some of the concerns raised by neighborhood associations representing citizens who owned property and resided in areas adjacent to the Subject Property. The modified PC-700 application requested a FLUM amendment for 2.98 acres of the Subject Property to be changed from Institutional to R/O/R, for 2.98 acres of the Subject Property to be changed from Institutional to R/OG, and for 12.02 acres of the Subject Property to be changed from Institutional to RU (“PC-700 Modified”). The PC- 700 Modified application also included a proposed Development Agreement which, among other things, limited the actual development of the R/O/R acreage to a maximum of 13,000 square feet, and limited the total combined development of the R/O/R and ROG acreage to 26,000 square feet. On December 14, 2006, the City Council conducted its First Reading of the PC-700 Modified application, approving the application and setting the Second Hearing for the application for February 15, 2006. On February 6, 2006, the Pinellas County Commission, meeting as the County Planning Authority (the “CPA”), held a public hearing to consider the PC-700 Modified application. The CPA approved the PC-700 Modified application. On February 15, 2007, the City Council conducted its Second Reading public hearing of the PC-700 Modified application and voted to adopt Ordinance 679-L, amending the FLUM designation of the Subject Property from Institutional to R/O/R on 2.98 acres, R/OG on 2.98 acres, and RU on 12.02 acres (the “Plan Amendment”). Petitioners do not challenge the FLUM amendment for the RU portion of the Subject Property. On February 23, 2007, the City transmitted the adopted Ordinance 679-L, together with staff reports from the December 14, 2006, and February 15, 2007, public hearings and certain other pertinent information, to the Department for its review pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. On April 16, 2007, the Department published in the St. Petersburg Times newspaper its NOI to find the City’s Plan Amendment “in compliance.” Petitioners' Challenge The Petitioners assert that the FLUM amendment adopted by the City in Ordinance 679-L is not “in compliance” pursuant to Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, because: (1) the FLUM amendment is not based on adequate data and analysis as required by Section 163.3177(8), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a) iii; and (2) the FLUM amendment is not internally consistent with specific objectives and policies of the City’s Plan as required by Section 163.3177(2), Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5.005(5)(a) and (b). The Petitioners’ challenge is centered on three specific objectives and policies contained in the Future Land Use Element ("FLUE") of the City’s Plan: Policy LU3.17, Objective LU4(2), and Objective LU18.iv The Petitioners assert that the challenged Plan Amendment is inconsistent with those objectives and policies and is not based on data and analysis. The Department and the Intervenors assert that those objectives and policies are not applicable, that the Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with those objectives and policies, and that the Plan Amendment is based on data and analysis. The Intervenors also assert that, even if the Plan Amendment were inconsistent with those objectives and policies, consistency with other goals, objectives, and policies in the plan should be "balanced" against the inconsistency and that the consistencies outweigh the inconsistencies, so that the Plan Amendment still would be "in compliance." The Petitioners and the Department do not subscribe to such a balancing of consistencies and inconsistencies, citing Dept. of Community Affairs v. Lee County and Leeward Yacht Club, LLC, AC-06-006, DOAH Case No. 06-0049GM, 2006 Fla. ENV LEXIS 158 (Admin. Comm'n Nov. 15, 2006). Pertinent City Comprehensive Plan Provisions The City's FLUE Policy LU3.17 states: The City has an adequate supply of commercial land use to meet existing and future needs. Future expansion of commercial uses shall be restricted to infilling into existing commercial areas and activity centers, except where a need can be clearly identified. The City's FLUE Objective LU4 states in pertinent part: The Future Land Use Plan and Map shall provide for the future land use needs identified in this Element: * * * Commercial – additional commercial acreage is not required to serve the future needs of St. Petersburg. An oversupply exists based upon the standard of 1 acre of commercial land for every 150 persons in the community. * * * 4. Mixed Use – developments are encouraged in appropriate locations to foster a land use pattern that results in fewer and shorter automobile trips and vibrant walkable communities. The City's FLUE Objective LU18 states: Commercial development along the City’s major corridors shall be limited to infilling and redevelopment of existing commercially designated frontages. Section 1.2.2 of the General Introduction to the City’s Plan describes the format of the elements of the Plan and includes the following pertinent sub-headings and language: 1.2.2.3 Goals, Objectives, and Policies The Goals, Objectives, and Policies have been developed in response to and in accordance with the needs and directions of growth and determined levels of service requirements as identified within the Inventory and Analysis which can be found in the accompanying 1989 Technical Support Documents [TSDs] and the 1996 Evaluation and Appraisal Report [EAR]. All objectives are designed to identify the measurable achievements necessary to support the related goal. In those cases, where the Objective is not specific and/or measurable, but rather, the actual specificity and measurability is found in the supporting policy(ies), the policy(ies) shall be used for the purposes of monitoring and evaluation. The policies are intended to act as implementation mechanisms identifying programs and procedures to be used to accomplish the related objective. This Comprehensive Plan is intended to be utilized as a document in its entirety. It shall hereby be established that no single goal, objective or policy or minor group of goals, objectives or policies, be interpreted in isolation of the entire plan. 1.2.2.5 Status and Use of the TSD and the EAR . . . . The 1989 TSD and the 1996 EAR are hereby referenced and established as the supporting data and analysis for this Comprehensive Plan. The TSD and the EAR may be used to assist in the interpretation of this comprehensive plan and to aid in the review of proposed changes to this plan. It should be updated as necessary to maintain the usability of the data and analysis as an interpretive and advisory aid. * * * 1.3.1.2 Competing Policies Where two or more policies are competing when applied to a particular set of factual circumstances, such conflict shall be resolved first by administrative interpretation of the Comprehensive plan policies. The objective of any such interpretation shall be to obtain a result which maximizes the degree of consistency between the proposed development or public sector activity and this Comprehensive Plan considered as a whole. The City’s Plan also includes the following pertinent definitions in Section 1.7: Commercial Uses - Activities within land areas which are predominately connected with the sale, rental, and distribution of products, or performance of services. * * * Mixed Use - A site that has a combination of different land uses, such as residential, office and retail. In addition, Policy LU3.1(B) of the City’s FLUE defines "Commercial and Mixed Use Categories" to include: Residential/Office General (R/OG) - allowing mixed use office, office park and medium density residential up to a floor area ratio of 0.5 and a net residential density of 15 dwelling units per acre. . . . Commercial General (CG) - allowing the full range of commercial uses including retail, office, and service uses up to a floor area ratio of 0.55. . . . Retail/Office/Residential (R/O/R) - allowing mixed use retail, office, service, and medium density residential uses generally up to a floor are ratio of 0.4 and a net residential density of 15 dwelling units per acre. . . . Finally, FLUE Policy LU3.1(D) defines "Public/Semi- Public Categories" to include: 2. Institutional (I) - Limited to designation of federal, state and local public buildings and grounds, cemeteries, hospitals, churches, and religious institutions and educational uses. Residential uses having a density not to exceed 12.5 dwelling units per acre, are also allowed. Residential equivalency uses are not to exceed 3 beds per dwelling unit. Non-residential uses permitted in the land development regulations are not to exceed a floor area ratio of 0.55. Consistency with Commercial Use Restrictions The Petitioners proved beyond fair debate that the Plan Amendment at issue increases "the supply of commercial land use to meet existing and future needs." FLUE Policy LU3.17. This is clear not only from the potential for commercial use in the mixed use R/O/R and R/OG future land use categories, but also from the City's inclusion of nine-tenths of the former's and one-tenth of the latter's acreage in the inventory of commercial land use for purposes of determining the "supply of commercial land use to meet existing and future needs" in FLUE Policy LU3.17 and the ratio described in FLUE Objective LU4.2. The question is whether the restrictions on commercial future land uses reflected in those Plan provisions apply to the mixed use categories of R/O/R and R/OG. Prior to adoption, the City's staff reports stated that the commercial restrictions do apply, and that the Plan Amendment at issue was inconsistent with those restrictions, but that the Plan Amendment was consistent with several other Plan provisions and "on balance, consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan." However, in this de novo proceeding, the staff reports are not controlling on the applicability of the commercial restrictions and the consistency of the FLUM amendments at issue with those restrictions. In the first place, in light of the contrary testimony of staff during the final hearing, the intent of staff in using the language in the reports is fairly debatable. Second, after the staff reports were prepared, significant testimony on need and demand for commercial land use at the particular location of the FLUM amendments at issue was presented during the final public hearing on the PC-700 Modified application on February 15, 2007, which could have changed staff's mind on at least some of the issues. Finally, the extent to which the City Council may have relied on the staff reports in determining that the Plan Amendment was "in compliance" is not clear from the evidence and is fairly debatable. The City now takes the position, along with the Department, that the restrictions on commercial future land use in FLUE Policy LU3.17 and Objective LU4.2 do not apply to R/O/R and R/OG because they are mixed use future land use categories, not commercial future land use categories. In support of this position, they point out that Objective LU4 treats "Mixed Use" and "Commercial" "future land use needs" differently and applies the restriction only to "Commercial" "future land use needs," while encouraging mixed use developments in appropriate locations. Several of the specific Plan provisions cited in the staff reports as being consistent with the Plan Amendment addressed the appropriateness of a mixed use development at the proposed location, including: FLUE Policy LU3.18, which states that "retail and office activities shall be located, designed and regulated so as to benefit from the access afforded by major streets without impairing the efficiency of operation of these streets or lowering the LOS [level of service] below adopted standards, and with proper facilities for pedestrian convenience and safety"; FLUE Policy LU3.4, which states that "[t]he Land Use Plan shall provide for compatible land use transition through an orderly land use arrangement, proper buffering, and the use of physical and natural separators"; FLUE Policy LU3.6, which states that "[l]and use planning decisions shall weigh heavily the established character of predominately developed areas where changes of use or intensity of development are contemplated"; FLUE Policy LU3.8, which seeks to "protect existing and future residential uses from incompatible uses, noise, traffic and other intrusions that detract from the long term desirability of an area through appropriate land development regulations"; and FLUE Policy LU3.5, which states that "[t]he tax base will be maintained and improved by encouraging the appropriate use of properties based on their locational characteristics and the goals, objectives and policies within this Comprehensive Plan." There also was considerable testimony at the hearing concerning the appropriateness of a mixed use development at the proposed location.v Petitioners also contend that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with FLUE Objective LU18 concerning commercial development along major corridors. In favor of Petitioners' position, 66th Street North, where the Subject Property is located, is a major north-south corridor in the City. However, the Department and the Intervenors argue that the objective does not apply because the policies under it only specify 4th Street and Central Avenue and do not mention 66th Street. Taking all of the evidence and the City's Plan into consideration, including Sections 1.2.2.3, 1.2.2.5, and 1.3.1.2 of the General Introduction, it is found that Petitioners did not prove beyond fair debate that FLUE Policy LU3.17, Objective LU4.2, or Objective LU18 apply to the FLUM amendments at issue; even if those Plan provisions applied, Petitioners did not prove beyond fair debate that the FLUM amendments at issue do not constitute "infilling into existing commercial areas" or "infilling . . . of existing commercially designated frontages," or that "a need can[not] be clearly identified."vi All but one witness testified that, if those Plan provisions applied, the FLUM amendments would constitute commercial infill under the pertinent Plan provisions; the lone dissenter was using what he called a "narrow definition" of infill and agreed that the FLUM amendments would constitute commercial infill using the broader definition held by the majority view. There also was ample evidence that there was a clearly identified need for the FLUM amendments at issue, especially when considered along with the unchallenged RU FLUM amendment. Based on the foregoing findings on internal consistency, which is the context of Petitioners' data and analysis argument, Petitioners also did not prove beyond fair debate that the Plan Amendment was not based on data and analysis.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the City's Ordinance 679- L is "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of October, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of October, 2007.
