The Issue The issue for determination is whether Celina Hills Property Owner’s Association (the Association) violated the Fair Housing Act, in its enforcement of the Association’s deed restrictions. The Association refused to allow a homeowner within the Association’s community to put a fence around the front of the homeowner's property to accommodate the disability of the homeowner's son. A secondary issue, if the Association violated the Fair Housing Act, is whether the Association's action is sufficient to permit the award of damages to the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) for frustration of agency purposes in this matter.
Findings Of Fact Sheila and Fred Swasey purchased a home in the Celina Hills Community in 2001, where they currently reside. When they purchased their home, the Swaseys had full knowledge that the home was part of a homeowner’s association which had certain deed restrictions and covenants. The Swaseys furthermore understood that they were subject to the deed restrictions, and at the time of purchase, had no concerns regarding such restrictions. One such restriction was that they could not have a fence in the front yard of their property. The Swaseys have a 22-year-old, mentally retarded son, named Brad. The Swasey’s son has the mental capacity of a two- year-old, certain gait difficulties, and by stipulation of the parties, qualifies under the applicable Fair Housing Act as a handicapped individual in that he has physical and mental impairments that substantially limit one or more major life activities. The Association is a not-for-profit corporation organized in the mid 70's for the sole purpose of operating and maintaining the Celina Hills Community. Every home owner in Celina Hills is a member of the Association, and is subject to the deed restrictions, and covenants that attach to each of the properties within the Association. The Association is operated by a board of directors, which consists of volunteer homeowners, and is charged with the responsibility of enforcing the covenants, restrictions and other governing documents of the Association. The Association, through its officers, was fully aware of Brad's disability. As established by testimony of two of Brad’s doctors, Brad has the mental capacity of a young child approximately two to three years old. Although in the short term his mental capacity has stabilized and will probably not improve, his long- term capacity will be accelerated in regard to dementia, making him much harder to control or exhibit control. The supervisor of Brad’s sheltered workshop testified that, based on her observations, she believes he has the mental capacity of less than a two or three year old. Brad has recently, within the last 3 years, grown dramatically (from 5’3”/160 pounds to 6’2”/240 pounds) and, although he walks with a wide gait and has trouble walking on uneven surfaces, has become significantly harder to control and catch. His parents are in their fifties, and increasingly, subject to the health deficits imposed by the process of aging. Brad’s doctors have advised the Swaseys to have Brad spend time outside, breathe fresh air and get exercise. Brad’s parents’ testimony and observation of Brad at the final hearing establishes that he has the capacity of a two-year-old, but with no fear and no understanding of dangers that confront him in life. Further, he has only recently exhibited a predilection to run towards the street and trucks and cars that attract his attention. Brad is attracted to trucks and cars, especially yellow school buses and blue mail trucks, and attempts to run towards them when possible. With regard to motorists going up the hill on the street in front of the Swaseys and Brad’s home, visibility from the road to the yard (and yard to the road) is poor and cars on the street drive fast. The Swaseys’ home is located in the middle of the block and not at an intersection. The decision of the Swaseys to fence their front yard results in the provision of the best setting for Brad to fully enjoy the premises and gain needed fresh air and exercise. This choice by the Swaseys also provides better observation for them over Brad and more shade and opportunities for him to observe surrounding life and activities. Such a fence would protect Brad from running into the street and provide his parents an opportunity to allow Brad some “independence” while still being under their direct supervision when they work in the front yard. The fence would also keep him from running away from them into the street before they can catch him. Such a front yard fence requires an accommodation from the Association in order to build higher than the Association's allowable three feet and also along the required county set-back line for fences. The Swaseys' backyard has severe slopes, contains the screened-in pool and is generally unusable as an outside area for Brad because of his walking disability. Nevertheless, his parents also plan to fence the side and back- yards as well, which requires only the standard approval as to style, material and installation and no accommodation. Should they fence just the back and side yard, however, a problem would result in the form of entry problems, since the only direct entry to the backyard is through the pool area. Such an entry would redirect Brad’s attention to areas of the home and yard where the pool is located. Unfortunately, the backyard alone would not allow Brad full enjoyment because of the nature of the property (uneven with major slopes) and his walking disability. Further, direct observation of Brad would be difficult in some areas, if not impossible. On April 8, 2003, Brad's mother submitted a written request to the Association for a fence on the front, side and backyards. She also indicated that they would have the fence removed if they ever sold the house. On May 1, 2003, the Association's Board of Directors had a meeting at which Brad's father presented the request of he and his wife. Simply put, their request was to erect a front fence in a wooden picket style and an electric wood-faced gate for the front of the property (more in keeping with the covenants and restrictions placed on the property). As affirmed by Brad's father at the final hearing, he has no desire to denigrate property values in the community due to his own home investment. This summarizes the request of Brad's parents for need of an accommodation from the Association. The relevant restriction for which an accommodation was requested is found on page 6 of the Celina Hill’s Property Owners Handbook (January 2002 edition) which provides: No fence or wall shall be erected or maintained in the front beyond the front building setback line. No wire, chain link, or cyclone is permitted on any lot. No fence or hedge over three (3) feet in height shall be permitted along the front. No fence or hedge shall be erected or maintained which shall: i) unreasonably restrict or obstruct sight lines at corners and at intersections or driveways with streets; ii) detract from the overall appearance of the property (the use of rough hewn woods or natural plantings as fencing and screening materials is encouraged); or iii) stand greater than four (4) feet in height. The Swaseys met all conditions, except for the deed restriction, in their request for a front yard fence. As established by witnesses for the Swaseys, inclusive of the school bus driver who frequently drives a school bus by the Swaseys' property, there are no safety concerns about the proposed front yard fence obscuring motorists' view since it is not going to be at an intersection. On May 24, 2003, the Association denied the Swaseys' request stating that, “We cannot authorize your request for a fence of any style in your front yard, the Celina Hills Homeowners manual makes clear that no fence can be installed beyond the front setback line and that setback line is the front of your house.” In the same letter, the Association indicated it had no problem with the Swaseys' pursuing fencing the side and backyards since there was no deed restriction and only a style, materials and installation review. On June 18, 2003, FCHR issued a determination that there was reasonable cause to believe that the Association was engaging in a discriminatory housing practice in violation of Section 760.23, Florida Statutes. FCHR’s efforts to conciliate the case failed as stated in its Notice of Failure of Conciliation on July 30, 2003. FCHR also placed into evidence its calculation of damages, in addition to attorney’s fees and costs to be determined upon completion of the case, for “frustration of agency purpose.” These damages were calculated at $1,035.40 consisting of $358.70 for 20.6 investigative hours; $600.00 for legal review and advisor hours; $66.70 in direct travel costs; and $10.00 in photographic development costs.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter an order finding Respondent guilty of a discriminatory housing practice against the Complainant and her son in violation of Section 760.23 (7) and (9), Florida Statutes; prohibiting further unlawful housing practices by Respondent; and allowing the building of an esthetically acceptable fence in the front yard as necessary to provide containment and safety for Brad Swasey to use and enjoy his dwelling, with the proviso that such fence be removed when Brad is no longer a regular resident in the Swasey home. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of December, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of December, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Barry A. Postman, Esquire Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A. Pacific National Bank Building 1390 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 Sheila Swasey 2125 East Celina Street Inverness, Florida 34453 William J. Tait, Jr., Esquire Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-4830 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Stella Neville, Inc. (Neville) is the owner of a 4.5 acre tract of land which abuts State Road (SR)905 on north Key Largo, Monroe County, Florida. On June 21, 1985, Monroe County entered a development order approving Neville's amended permit application to excavate and mine coral rock from its property. The Department, pursuant to Section 380.07, Florida Statutes, filed a timely appeal with the Adjudicatory Commission. The Subject Property: The Neville property is located in that portion of Monroe County designated as an area of critical state concern, Section 380.0552, Florida Statutes, and is part of a tropical hardwood hammock which extends several miles north and a substantial distance south on either side of SR 905. To the immediate east, south and west of the Neville property, however, there has been some man-induced alteration of the topography. The Neville site is bounded on the east by SR 905;2 on the southwest by a 9-acre tract owned by Keystone Products, Inc. (Keystone), which is currently being quarried for coral rock; and to the west by a 60-acre trace of land, known as the "West Cappeletti Pit", which contains a large abandoned borrow pit dug to depths of up to 60 feet. With the exception of the west Cappeletti Pit and the Keystone quarry, the area west of US 9052 stands predominately undisturbed by humans. About 1970, however, the Neville property was disturbed by fire. Consequently, the tropical hardwood hammock community is presently characteristic of a successional hammock, as opposed to a mature hammock, with a dense understory of immature trees3 On site vegetation includes: Jamica Dogwood, Gumbo Limbo, Poisonwood, Spanish Stomper, Wild Lime, Bamboo, Lancawood, Crabwood, and Mahogany. While the successional hammock, which occupies the Neville site, may not be considered as rare or unique because it has not yet reached maturity, it does provide needed habitat for the fauna of the area. The Key Largo Woodrat, an endangered species, inhabits the Neville site notwithstanding its preference for mature hardwood hammocks. Several active Key Largo Woodrat stick nests have been located on the site; with one located approximately 125 feet from the proposed quarry area. The site also provides habitat for the indigo snake, a threatened species, observed on site. The Neville Application: Neville's revised application, dated February 27, 1985, sought authorization from Monroe County to mine coral rock from the westerly 1.6 acres of its 4.5-acre tract to create a lake.4 Neville proposed to mine the rock to a depth of -10' MLW (mean low water) by use of a trenching machine capable of cutting block 3' square and 8' deep; no dynamiting would be necessary under Neville's proposal. At hearing, Neville agreed to limit the depth of its excavation to -8' MLW to ensure good sunlight penetration and, consequently, good water quality. The quarry proposed by Neville would measure 300' x 232'; contain a safety shelf 3' wide around the perimeter of the quarry at a depth of -1' MLW; and be bermed to a height of 1' above grade to prevent storm water runoff from entering the quarry's waters. Dug as proposed, the quarry would result in the removal of 39,000 cubic yards of coral rock. Neville does not, itself, propose to mine the property. Neville's application was filed by its ''agent" Keystone, which is currently mining the property which abuts Nevilles'. Keystone, as lessee, proposes to cut the blocks from the Neville site and truck them to its plant in Florida City where they would be custom cut to provide a coral rock veneer construction material. Monroe County's Approval: At a regular meeting of the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners on June 21, 1985, Monroe County approved Neville's revised application conditioned upon: . . . the full restoration of the property as outlined; that at the time of the restoration period, the County would be contacted and have the option of using this as a site for disposal of materials, that bonding of half the amount of the value of the fill that it would take to fill in the excavation site would be required, that the site would be mined in such a way that the second half of the proposed mine could not be mined until the first half was restored; that all endangered species taking permits or other State or Federal permits would be had before this was allowed to proceed, and that no more than three years after completion of the excavation, the site will be totally restored or the bond will be forfeited.5 Areas of Concern: The Department's appeal charged that the proposed project was a non-permitted use under Monroe County's GU-general use district, Section 19-180 Monroe County Code (MCC); that the permitting of the subject mine was contrary to Section 19-ill(b), MCC, Excavation and Mining Activities, because of the alteration of hydrologic regime, violation of water quality standards, destruction of tropical hardwood hammock, and disturbance of endangered species; that the proposed project was contrary to Sections 18-18, 18-19, 18-21, and 18-23, MCC, because no land clearing permit was received and the project would adversely impact natural resources, scenic amenities, water quality, and tropical hardwood hammock; and, that the proposed project was contrary to the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, Coastal Zone Protection and Conservation Element, Chapter 4, because it failed to minimize the destruction of natural vegetation or to demonstrate special protective efforts for endangered species. Notwithstanding the Department 's charges, no party offered any part of the Monroe County Code or the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan in evidence. Therefore, only those portions of the Monroe County Code contained in paragraphs 7-9 of the Department's petition, which were admitted by Neville, are a part of the record in this case. The Neville property is zoned GU-general use. Section 19-180, MCC, provides: No land, body of water and/or no structure shall be used or permitted to be used, . in any zone of classification GU- general, which is designated, arranged or intended to be used or occupied for any purpose, except for one or more of the following uses, unless otherwise provided: Single family dwellings with their customary accessory uses. Agriculture uses. Clubs, including country, golf, gun and fish clubs or similar enterprises, and ranges. (4) Athletic fields and stadiums. (5) Power plants and sub-stations, water pumping stations, television, and radio transmission towers. (6) Fishing camps on isolated islands. Churches (two (2) acres). Horses: Horses may be kept only id a GU zone, on a minimum of one (1) acre. The area must be fenced, property drained and if a stable or other structure exists on the property it must meet all the building and setback regulations of Monroe County. Cemeteries, including crematories and mausoleums on a minimum of five (5) acres. An area of land set apart for the sole purpose of the interment of the remains of deceased persons and for the erection of customary markets [markers], monuments, and mausoleums. Monuments recognizing persons or points of historical interest (two (2) acres). And, Section 19-109, MCC, Interpretation of Permitted Uses, provides: In the administration and enforcement of this ordinance all uses not expressly permitted in any district are otherwise prohibited. Neville argues that simply because its property is zoned GU does not preclude issuance of the subject permit because excavation and mining activities within Monroe County are not restricted by zoning classification. To support its position, Neville asserts that the provisions of the Monroe County Code which establish the criteria for evaluating applications for excavation and mining permits do not require any specific zoning category, and that Monroe County has interpreted its code to allow excavation and mining activities in all zoning classifications. The record does not support Neville's assertion. The only part of the Monroe County Code dealing with excavation and mining permits of record in this proceeding is the following portion of Section 19-111, MCC: (b) Excavation and Mining Activities * * * Upland permit application. Application for a permit to excavate within upland areas, as defined above, with a proposed volume greater than one thousand (1,000) cubic yards shall be approved or denied by the board of county commissioners . Consideration, will be given to the county staff's comments and reports which will account for the effects to the natural biological functions and communities within the proposed site, and to the physical aspects of drainage and water quality within the proposed area of excavation. Mining permit application. Applications for a permit to conduct mining operations within Monroe County shall adhere to the following: * * * (b) A topographic map of the area signed by a professional engineer or land surveyor shall be submitted. (Emphasis added) From the foregoing provision, the conclusion cannot be drawn that excavation and mining activities may be permitted without regard for the zoning classification of the property. The only evidence of record that Monroe County may interpret its code as permitting excavation and mining activities in a GU-zone is the fact that the properties encompassed by the West Cappeletti Pit and the Keystone quarry are currently zoned GU.6 There is no evidence, however, which would demonstrate when those activities were permitted and what zoning ordinances or classifications were in effect when permitted. Accordingly' the existence of such quarries does not support Neville's contention. With the exception of the matters discussed in paragraphs 14 and 15, supra, Neville presented no evidence that Monroe County permitted mining and excavation in any zoning category or that Monroe County interpreted its code to permit such activities. Based on the evidence presented, Neville has failed to establish that its proposed mining and excavation activity is consistent with the land development regulations applicable to this case. In light of the foregoing conclusion, it is unnecessary to pass upon the impacts of the proposed project on the area's hydrologic regime, water quality, tropical hardwood hammocks, endangered species, or to evaluate Neville's mitigation proposals.
The Issue Whether Orange County Comprehensive Plan Amendments 2015-2- P-FLUE-1 and 2015-2-A-5-1, adopted by Ordinance 2016-17 on July 12, 2016 (the Plan Amendments), are “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2016).1/
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Standing Petitioners, Seerina Farrell, Ariel Horner, Adele Simons, Marjorie Holt, and Kelly Semrad (the Individual Petitioners), own property and reside in the County. The Individual Petitioners submitted written or verbal comments, recommendations, or objections to the County during the period of time beginning with the transmittal hearing for the Plan Amendments and ending with the adoption of same (the Comment Period). Petitioner, Ronald Brooke, owns property and resides in the County. Petitioner Brooke submitted written or verbal comments, recommendations, or objections to the County during the Comment Period. Petitioner, Corner Lakes, owns property adjacent to the property subject to the Plan Amendments and operates a business in the County. Corner Lakes, by and through its representative, submitted comments, recommendations, or objections to the County during the Comment Period. The County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida with the duty and responsibility to adopt and amend a comprehensive growth management plan pursuant to section 163.3167. Intervenor Banksville is one of the co-applicants for the Plan Amendments and owns real property directly affected by the Plan Amendments. Banksville timely submitted oral or written comments to the County in support of the Plan Amendments during the Comment Period. Intervenor CHCG is one of the co-applicants for the Plan Amendments and is the agent of one of the owners of property directly affected by the Plan Amendments. CHCG timely submitted comments to the County in support of the Plan Amendments during the Comment Period. The Rybolt Intervenors are owners of property directly affected by the Plan Amendments and submitted comments to the County in support of the Plan Amendments during the Comment Period. The Property The property subject to the Plan Amendments is 2,796 acres of land located in eastern Orange County between State Road 50 (SR 50 or Colonial Drive) on the south and the Orange/Seminole County line on the north. The property lies wholly within the Econlockhatchee River Basin (Econ River Basin) and is open, active pasture land. The southern portion of the property is bounded on the west by South Tanner Road, a county road that intersects with SR 50 on the southwest corner of the subject property. Just beyond South Tanner Road to the west lies the Econlockhatchee Sandhills Conservation Area (ESCA). The northern portion of the subject property is directly adjacent to the County-mandated area buffering the Econlockhatchee River (Econ River). The subject property is bounded on the east by existing vested residential neighborhoods known as “rural settlements.” Corner Lake rural settlement is adjacent to the southern portion of the property, and Lake Pickett rural settlement is adjacent to the northern portion. Both of the adjoining rural settlements are served by Chuluota Road, another county road which intersects with SR 50 just beyond the frontage of the subject property. Chuluota Road runs north, where it intersects with Lake Pickett Road, which roughly bisects the subject property, and continues to run north to its intersection with McCulloch Road at the Seminole County border. The ESCA is approximately 710 acres of undeveloped property east of the Econ River previously used as pasture. Intervenors, Rolling R. Ranch and Rybolt, conveyed the property to the St. Johns River WMD in November 2008. The following language in the Agreement for Sale or Purchase is relevant to the case at hand: It is the intention of the Seller [Intervenors Rolling R. Ranch and Rybolt] to develop Seller’s Retained Lands into a mixed use project with Development of Regional Impact review and approval for substantial density. . . . Buyer expressly agrees Buyer, as a neighboring property owner, shall not require any buffering or setbacks on Seller’s Retained Lands. In the event any local authority requires a setback between the Property and the Seller’s Retained Lands, Buyer will accept 50% of such setback to be placed upon the Property up to a maximum of 35 feet. No roads, swales, ditches, fencing, landscaping, or other improvements shall be constructed by Seller within any setback area on the Property. The ESCA is owned by the St. Johns River WMD and, in part, by the County. The ESCA is a significant natural resource managed for a public benefit, namely, protection of the Econ River Basin, within which the Plan Amendments are located. The ESCA also hosts hiking and horseback riding trails and is open to the public for passive recreation use. The Plan Amendments The Plan Amendments comprise both a text amendment to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the County’s Comprehensive Plan and an amendment to the County’s FLUM. The Text Amendment The text amendment creates “Lake Pickett” (LP) as a new future land use category within FLUE Goal 6: Protection of Rural Land Resources and Other Assets. LP is codified in FLUE Objective 6.8, which limits the application of the category to the area designated as the “Lake Pickett Study Area,” or LPSA, established on the County’s FLUM by the corresponding map amendment, and describes the geographic boundaries of the LPSA. Acknowledging that the new category will allow dense development within rural areas, Objective 6.8 provides that “[t]he LP designation manages the transition of development from surrounding rural neighborhood densities and preservation areas to more dense development clustered towards the center of the [LPSA].” Objective 6.8 provides that “[c]ompatibility is ensured on LP designated lands through the use of ‘Transect Zones’,” among other practices. “Transect Zones allow development to occur by gradually transitioning from less to more dense development.” The objective continues, as follows: Each Transect Zone shall have a stated density unique to that Transect, and each series of Transect Zones shall build upon each other from the least dense Transect to the most dense Transect. Transect Zones allow contiguous rural character to be preserved which may include like-to-like lot configurations along the boundary. Objective 6.8 is implemented by new Policies 6.8.1 through 6.8.15, which establish “Guiding Principles” for all future development in the LPSA; define the type, density and intensity of development in each Transect Zone; provide for buffers and other compatibility measures along the perimeter; and provide requirements for open space, community space, agricultural uses, community centers, the street network, trail system, a “green infrastructure plan,” neighborhood schools, and service by public infrastructure, including water and wastewater. Policy 6.8.2 provides for the following Transect Zones: T1 Natural/Wetland: “[N]atural lands” and areas that will remain undeveloped and/or designated for agriculture use, passive recreation, conservation, or related activities ” T2 Rural: “[S]parsley settled lands in open or cultivated states.” The policy allows an “average density” of two dwelling units per acre (2du/acre). T3 Edge: “[P]redominately single-family detached residential uses within walkable neighborhoods” and includes community buildings, community gardens and parks, and “central focal point uses” which are undefined. The policy allows an “average density” of 5du/acre, a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of .25, or a combination thereof. T4 Center: Allows a “mix of residential . . . and non-residential uses, including commercial, office, service, and civic uses that serve a Lake Pickett community as well as the surrounding area.” The policy allows an “average residential density” of 6du/acre and an “average non- residential intensity” of .15 FAR. The policy requires location of “higher concentrations of development” within the “most southerly portion” of the Lake Picket Study Area “adjacent to SR 50, at a maximum FAR of 1.0.” Policy 6.8.8 calls for development of two separate communities: one north and one south of Lake Pickett Road. Policy 6.8.9 requires development to be organized into neighborhoods, maximum size of 125 acres each, organized around a “centralized focal point” such as a park, community garden, community center, civic building or use, day care facility, or “a similar type of use.” Neighborhoods shall contain a mix of housing styles and/or lot sizes “located within a 1/4-mile from the centralized focal point,” which shall “average a minimum of one acre in size,” and be connected to trails or “complete streets.” Policy 6.8.14 requires all development within the LPSA to be served by public water, wastewater, and reclaimed water facilities operated by the County, but acknowledges the County may require the developer to prepay for a portion of the capacity necessary to serve the development. Objective 6.9 and its implementing policies dictate the process for the property owners to obtain a FLUM amendment to LP. The FLUM amendment application must include a draft Conceptual Regulating Plan (CRP), a proposed development program, a justification statement, an Orange County Public Schools (OCPS) Consistency Determination Application, a Transportation Study, and a proposed community meeting schedule. The CRP is described as “a general and illustrative representation of the proposed development and location of the transects.” Policy 6.1.9 requires the following items to be depicted on the CRP, or attachments thereto: General location of Transect Zones; General location and types of the proposed agricultural uses (if applicable), natural areas, and transitional treatments; Location of existing and planned major roadways, trails or other transportation nodes; Location of potential and required connections, including external connections to adjacent roadways and those between the two Lake Pickett communities, and required internal connections between neighborhoods; General location of public school sites and a copy of the application for a Capacity Enhancement Agreement with OCPS; Net developable area for the project and for each of the Transect Zones; and Overall proposed community development program. According to Policy 6.1.9, a “CRP shall be provided during the transmittal process, and shall be refined throughout the review process” for the FLUM amendment. Properties obtaining the LP FLUM designation must be rezoned to Lake Pickett Planned Development (LP PD). The PD Regulating Plan (PD-RP) establishes the final locations of Transect Zones, open space and preservation areas, streets, neighborhoods, schools, trails, and parks. The text amendment does not require the PD-RP to be incorporated with the FLUM amendment to LP. The proposed development plan, including average densities and intensities by Transect Zone “shall be included and adopted as part of the Lake Pickett PD-RP.” The policy provides the development program “shall be substantially consistent with the program submitted with the CRP and approved with the LP FLUM amendment.” If the developer requests to increase the development totals for a Lake Pickett PD-RP, such change must be approved through an application to amend the Comprehensive Plan. The Map Amendment The FLUM amendment redesignates 1,237 acres of land, the southern portion of the LPSA, from the Rural to the LP category. The property encompasses “Lake Pickett South,” which is roughly bounded by Lake Pickett Road on the north, East Colonial Drive to the south, Chuluota Road on the east, and South Tanner Road on the west. The ESCA lies west of South Tanner Road, the property’s western boundary. The applicants proposed a FLUM amendment for the North Lake Pickett Community, which was not approved by the County and is not considered in the case sub judice. The property subject to the amendment is currently undeveloped and has a FLUM designation of Rural with a density limitation of 1du/10 acres. The LPSA is located wholly outside of the County’s Urban Service Area (USA). USA/RSA Concept The County employs the USA concept as “an effective fiscal and land use technique for managing growth.” The USA identifies areas where the County has primary responsibility for providing infrastructure and services to support urban development. The County has an overarching goal to direct its growth to the USA. FLUE Objective 1.1 states the County “shall use urban densities and intensities . . . to direct development to the [USA] and to facilitate such development.” Policy 1.1.1 states, “Urban uses shall be concentrated within the [USA]” except as specified in particular designations. Policy 1.2.2 requires that “Urban development during the 2007-2030 planning period . . . will occur only in the [USA]” and established exception areas. As part of its year 2000 update to the Comprehensive Plan, the County amended the plan consistent with a “strategy to focus development within the County’s USA.” See Policy 6.2.1. The USA boundary and acreage are based on the supply of usable land needed to accommodate the County’s population and employment forecasts through the year 2030. Policy 1.2.2 prohibits urban development outside the USA boundary, with certain inapplicable exceptions, during the 2007-2030 planning period. Residential development densities allowed within the USA range from Low Density Residential (LDR), up to a maximum of 4du/acre, to High Density Residential (HDR), up to a maximum of 50du/acre. That portion of the County outside the USA is designated as the Rural Service Area (RSA). The RSA designation is a tool for “managing agricultural lands, environmental lands, and historic resources.” To preserve and promote the “intended rural character” of the RSA, the County regulates the scale, density, and intensity of new development in the RSA. The only FLUE category correlating with the RSA is “Rural,” in which the County limits residential development to a maximum density of 1du/10 acres. Zoning Districts which correspond with the Rural land use category are Agriculture 1 (A-1), Agriculture 2 (A-2), Agriculture Residential (A-R), and Rural Country Estate Residential (R-CE-5). Exceptions to RSA Density Limitation The FLUE recognizes specific, established exceptions to the density limitation of residential development at 1du/10 acres within the RSA. These include Rural Settlements, Growth Centers, Specific Area Plans (SAP), and the Innovation Way (IW) Overlay. 1. Rural Settlements When the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1991, some “pockets” of existing development at densities greater than 1du/10 acres were intentionally excluded from the USA. These “rural settlements” are essentially “grandfathered” from the prohibition against urban densities within the RSA. Rural settlements recognize the need to maintain agricultural areas and rural uses in the RSA, while providing for rural communities. Some rural settlements “allow a transition of rural uses adjacent to the [USA] while avoiding development in active agricultural areas.” Pursuant to Policy 6.2.1, rural settlements may not be expanded beyond their current boundaries and the County may not establish any new rural settlements.2/ Rural Settlement (RS) categories were established at a range of densities between 1du/5 acres (RS 1/5) to 2du/acre (RSLD 2/1). These categories recognize and preserve the development patterns that existed at the time the Comprehensive Plan was adopted. Not all rural settlements were built out at the time of plan adoption. No plan amendments may be approved within rural settlements to RSLD (2du/acre) or higher densities, except for certified affordable housing projects. No plan amendments may be approved for densities in rural settlement at densities higher than 1du/acre. Lake Pickett South is located adjacent to the Corner Lake rural settlement, which is designated LDR and is built out at 4du/acre. Pursuant to Policy 6.2.15, new residential development in a rural settlement is restricted to a density of 2du/acre, which may only be located in limited areas adjacent to higher density or intensity urban development in adjacent municipal jurisdictions. 2. Specific Area Plans In 1995, the County created a Village land use classification to realize a long-range planning concept for Horizon West, a 16,846-acre development in west Orange County. FLUE Goal 4 and Objective 4.1 describe the purpose of the classification, as follows: GOAL FLU4 HORIZON WEST. It is Orange County’s goal to ensure sustainable, quality development in Southwest Orange County to allow a transition from rural to urban uses while protecting environmental quality. OBJ FLU4.1 The Village land use classification has been designed to address the need to overcome the problems associated with and provide a meaningful alternative to the leap-frog pattern of sprawl now occurring in western Orange and eastern Lake County; create a better jobs/housing balance between the large concentration of employment in the tourism industry and surrounding land uses; create a land use pattern that will reduce reliance on the automobile by allowing a greater variety of land uses closer to work and home; and, replace piecemeal planning that reacts to development on a project-by-project basis with a long-range vision that uses the Village as the building block to allow the transition of this portion of Orange County from rural to urban use through a specific planning process that uses a creative design approach to address regional, environmental, transportation, and housing issues. The Village land use classification shall be implemented through the adoption of Specific Area Plans (SAPs) for the Villages and a Town Center. FLUE Goal 4 is a long-range planning tool undertaken by the County in cooperation with the state land planning agency pursuant to section 163.3245, titled “Sector Plans.” This alternative to the Development of Regional Impact state review process was initiated by the 1998 Legislature to “promote and encourage long-term planning for conservation, development, and agriculture on a landscape scale,” and to “avoid duplication of effort” of data-gathering and analysis for developments of regional impact “while ensuring the adequate mitigation of impacts to applicable regional resources and facilities[.]” FLUE GOAL 4, Objective 4.1, and their implementing policies comprise 40 pages of the County FLUE and comprehensively govern the development planning for the area. The concept envisions development of a series of master planned “Villages,” ranging from 1,000 to 3,500 acres, with between two and four neighborhoods complete with diverse housing types, shops, workplaces, schools, parks, and civic facilities. Each Village is modeled on “an urban development pattern,” complete with a Village center, containing a mix of residential, office, commercial, institutional and public uses to serve surrounding neighborhoods; neighborhood centers, with a school, park, or other “focal point,” and convenience retail operations and offices to serve the immediate neighborhoods; and neighborhoods with open space, varying lot sizes and housing types, locating higher density housing closer to the neighborhood center. The approval process for Horizon West Village SAPs, includes development first of a recommended plan, based on public and County staff input on a presentation of alternative master plans at public workshops, then refinement of the recommended plan, through additional informational workshops, and submittal of a Final Master Plan to the County for review. The Village SAP is structured to require a minimum net density of 5du/acre. Thus, Horizon West is a specific exception to the density limit of 1du/10acres in the RSA. In the case at hand, the Intervenors have not applied for a SAP. However, the LPSA text amendment mirrors many of the development characteristics of Horizon West Village concept. 3. Growth Centers The Growth Center FLUE designation is available only as a Joint Planning Area with an outside jurisdiction (i.e., adjoining county or municipal government). Growth Centers recognize urban development outside of, and adjacent to, the unincorporated areas of the County. The County has established two Growth Centers: a Northwest Growth Center and a Growth Center/Resort located in the southeast. The density and intensity of the growth centers is established through a Planned Development (PD) process. 4. Innovation Way Overlay District The Innovation Way (IW) Overlay is established by FLUE Objective 5.1, which reads as follows: The Innovation Way Overlay is a conceptual transect-based overlay designation where the County envisions a transit-ready, multi- modal mixed-use, walkable community with sustainable economic development, adequate public infrastructure, and the protection and resource management of environmentally sensitive areas. The IW Overlay utilizes transect-based planning and “incremental urbanism” to “design complete communities requiring walkable streets, mix of uses, transportation options, and housing diversity.” FLUE Policy 5.1.5. The IW “Conceptual Urban Form” is adopted on the County FLUM as the “generalized and illustrative location and extent of transect zones that collectively depict the desired urban form for Innovation Way.” Similar to the plan amendment process provided for LP, the IW plan amendment process requires rezoning through as a PD, which will determine the adopted boundaries and locations of transect zones. The “proposed location of the transects shall be illustrated on the [Conceptual Regulating Plan] during the [FLUM] amendment process and finalized in the approved IW-PD- RP.” FLUE Objective 5.2. The IW Overlay district utilizes transect zones T1 through T5, and T-SD, a special district zone. Zone T3 accommodates neighborhood development which must be “walkable, highly connected by streets, trails and pedestrian paths, and adequately served by parks and open space.” Each neighborhood must contain a central “focal point.” Although the specific density will be set in the PD-RP, FLUE Policy 5.1.7 establishes a “planned yield” of 3-4du/acre within T3, with a range of 1-10du/acre. Zone T4 accommodates town centers within IW, and provides “a mix of residential, office, retail, light industrial, and high-tech/clean-tech uses.” FLU Policy 5.1.7 establishes a “planned yield” of 7du/acre within T4, with a range of 4- 20du/acre. The development pattern of the LP district is substantially similar to the urban form described for IW, and the use of transect-based planning to transition from surrounding rural development to more dense development within RP. Expansion of the USA The County allows for expansion of the USA boundary only in limited circumstances. FLUE Objective 1.3 and implementing policies provide a process for evaluating applications for expansion of the boundary. An applicant must submit data and analysis to demonstrate that the development would not constitute urban sprawl and is needed to satisfy acreage demands of the projected population. FLUE Policy 1.2.4 lists the applications which have met the criteria and are recognized as expansions to the USA boundary. The list contains approximately 38 developments ranging in size from 1.23 acres to 2,549 acres. In the case at hand, Banksville and CHCG have not applied for an expansion of the USA to encompass the LPSA. In fact, Jim Hall, one of the developer’s consultants, expressed his dismissal of an expansion to the USA to accommodate LPSA because expansions have “a ton of rules” associated with them. Challenges to the Plan Amendments A. Internal Inconsistency Petitioners allege the Plan Amendments are internally inconsistent with a number of Comprehensive Plan goals, objectives, and policies. Principle among them are the goals, objectives, and policies establishing the USA/RSA development framework: FLUE Goal 1, Objective 1.1, Policy 1.1.1, Objective 1.2, Policies 1.2.1 and 1.2.23/; Goal 6, Objective 6.1, and Policies 6.1.1, 6.1.2, and 6.1.3. The implicated goals, objectives, and policies read, as follows: GOAL FLU1 URBAN FRAMEWORK. Orange County shall implement an urban planning framework that provides for long-term, cost-effective provision of public services and facilities and the desired future development pattern for Orange County. OBJ FLU1.1 Orange County shall use urban densities and intensities and Smart Growth tools and strategies to direct development to the [USA] and to facilitate such development (See FLU1.1.2.B and FLU1.1.4). The [USA] shall be the area for which Orange County is responsible for providing infrastructure and services to support urban development. POLICIES FLU1.1.1 Urban uses shall be concentrated within the [USA], except as specified for the Horizon West Village and Innovation Way Overlay (Scenario 5), Growth Centers, and to a limited extent, Rural Settlements. * * * OBJ FLU1.2 URBAN SERVICE AREA (USA) CONCEPT; USA SIZE AND MONITORING. Orange County shall use the [USA] concept as an effective fiscal and land use technique for managing growth. The [USA] shall be used to identify the area where Orange County has the primary responsibility for providing infrastructure and services to support urban development. POLICIES FLU1.2.1 The [USA] boundary, and its acreage allocation, shall be based on the supply of usable land needed to accommodate the County’s population and employment forecasts by Year 2030 with respect to the County’s desired development pattern, the County’s ability to provide urban services and facilities, and the County’s urban strategies to achieve its desired development pattern. FLU1.2.2 Urban development during the 2007- 2030 planning period, as identified in FLU1.2.1, will occur only in the [USA] and the established boundary for the Horizon West SAP (identified on Map 2 in the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan) and the Innovation Way Overlay (Scenario 5) . * * * GOAL FLU6 PROTECTION OF RURAL LAND RESOURCES AND OTHER ASSETS. The County will manage land uses within the [RSA], including agricultural lands, environmental land including the Wekiva Area, historic resources and Rural Settlements, so as to conserve these assets and their values. OBJ FLU6.1 RURAL SERVICE AREA. Orange County shall designate that portion of the County outside the [USA] as the [RSA]. The intended rural character and assets of the [RSA] shall be promoted through the following policies. POLICIES FLU6.1.1 The Future Land Use correlation for the [RSA] is: Future Land Use (R) Zoning Rural/Agricultural (1DU/10 AC) A-1, A-2, A-R, R-CE FLU6.1.2 Orange County shall enforce criteria to ensure the scale, and density and/or intensity of development within the [RSA] so that it promotes the intended rural character. The regulations may include, but shall not be limited to, height limitations and buffer requirements. FLU6.1.3 Residential uses in areas designated Rural shall be limited to a maximum density of 1du/10 acres. Density shall refer to the total number of units divided by developable land area, excluding natural water bodies and conservation areas (wetland areas). Agriculturally zoned areas that do not have active agricultural use may be rezoned to an appropriate residential category. Cluster zoning shall not be permitted in the [RSA] except where required for the protection of significant environmental features, such as Wekiva Study Area, Class I conservation area or rare upland habitat. Petitioners allege the Plan Amendments are inconsistent with the above-cited provisions because they allow urban development within the RSA, contrary to policy direction to concentrate urban uses within the USA; contrary to policies which prohibit urban development outside of the USA, Horizon West, and I W Overlay through 2030; and inconsistent with these strategies to achieve “the County’s desired development pattern” separating urban from rural uses through the USA/RSA tools. Respondent and Intervenors meet this allegation with an argument that the LP category does not constitute urban development. Indeed, much of the expert witness testimony on all sides focused on the issue of whether the development authorized by the Plan Amendments is urban in character. The experts agreed that the Comprehensive Plan does not define “urban development” and that the County has discretion to determine the characteristics of urban development within its jurisdiction. The experts further agreed that the “urban-ness” of development is not solely a factor of density, but also depends on factors, such as the uses themselves, as well as buffering, height limitations, and relationship between uses. The experts are correct that the Comprehensive Plan contains no glossary definition of “urban development,” which determines the specific threshold at which residential density becomes “urban.” The experts disagreed over whether a residential density of 4du/acre was rural or urban, and the parties’ arguments in their Proposed Recommended Orders rely on that testimony to varying degrees. None of the expert witness testimony on the issue of urban versus rural was persuasive. Testimony regarding whether 4du/acre was urban or rural was essentially irrelevant, in light of the fact that the Plan Amendments authorize densities of 6du/acre in T4. Whether 4du/acre is an urban or rural density is not dispositive of the issue. Moreover, because the Plan Amendments regulate density in terms of averages, they authorize densities greater than 4du/acre and 6du/acre in T3 and T4 zones. The experts on all sides ignored the plethora of evidence within the Comprehensive Plan itself that reflects the County’s determination of what constitutes urban development. The testimony of Petitioners’ experts, combined with the Comprehensive Plan itself, was the most reliable and persuasive evidence on this issue. For residential development within the USA, the Comprehensive Plan identifies four corresponding FLUM categories, ranging from LDR at up to 4du/acre, to HDR at up to 50du/acre. By contrast, for residential development within the RSA, the County has identified only one corresponding FLUM category, Rural/Agricultural at 1du/10 acres. See Policy 6.1.1. It is of primary importance to note that this is the only future land use category which corresponds with the RSA. In setting its goals for future development within the RSA, the County has adopted a policy limiting future residential development to a very low density. Even where the Comprehensive Plan acknowledges and grandfathers the preexisting “rural settlements” within the RSA at densities greater than 1du/10 acres, the Comprehensive Plan restricts the density of future buildout. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes rural settlements with LDR and Low-Medium Density Residential (LMDR) (max. 10du/acre) FLUM designations, but prohibits other properties within rural settlements from being amended to allow future development at those densities (except for certified affordable housing projects). See Policy 6.2.7. In fact, the Comprehensive Plan prohibits any FLUM amendments to residential densities in rural settlements exceeding 1du/acre. See Policy 6.2.9. Further, the boundaries of rural settlements may not be expanded, and no new rural settlements may be established. See Policy 6.2.1. In summary, the Comprehensive Plan acknowledges preexisting rural settlements in the RSA at densities as high as 10du/acre, but recognizes those as urban, not rural, densities. Even recognizing those urban densities preexisted the RSA designation, the Comprehensive Plan limits future changes to a much lower density of 1du/acre. Much of Respondent and Intervenors argument turned on the fact that the development surrounding the LPSA was at densities as high as 4du/acre, which was not inconsistent with the density proposed for the LPSA. This argument misses the point that the County grandfathered in those densities as urban within the RSA. The argument that the maximum densities proposed for the LPSA, up to 6du/acre in T4, is consistent with surrounding development is a red herring. It ignores the clear direction the Comprehensive Plan has set for future development, regardless of the exceptions that exist. It is contradictory for the County to treat the preexisting densities as exceptions, but justify the Plan Amendments, which propose future similar densities, based on the existence of those exceptions. In an apparent attempt to overcome the fact that the LPSA densities are similar to surrounding development and, thus, may be found to be urban densities, Respondent and Intervenors argue that density must be calculated based upon the net allowable acreage of the community, rather than the acreage of the individual T3 or T4 zone. Lake Pickett South contains 835 developable acres and the LP category authorizes 2,078 dwelling units across that community. Calculated using that method, the average net residential density for Lake Pickett South is 2.49du/acre. Hence, the proponents argue, the Plan Amendments authorize development at densities lower than the surrounding vested communities, thus, the LPSA development is at rural densities. Assuming, arguendo, Respondent’s and Intervenors’ contention is true, then the Plan Amendments cluster the average density of 2.49du/acre within the T2, T3, and T4 zones at densities as high as 6du/acre. Under that scenario, the Plan Amendments are internally inconsistent with FLUE Policy 6.1.3, which does not allow clustering of development within the RSA. As all the experts agreed, density alone does not determine whether the development authorized by the Plan Amendments is urban as opposed to rural. Other considerations include the uses authorized, as well as the development pattern and restrictions thereon. The Comprehensive Plan, clearly and specifically, articulates exceptions to the 1du/10acre density limit for future development in the RSA based upon particular considerations. For Horizon West, the consideration is the Village program of development directed at comprehensive, rather than piecemeal, development of a huge undeveloped area in the County’s southwestern area. For the Growth Centers, it is the recognition of the impact of development in the unincorporated County on adjoining local governments, and requiring joint planning for that development. Significantly, the Comprehensive Plan recognizes these exceptions as urban development, based upon both the densities and intensities of uses allowed, as well as development patterns and restrictions. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes Growth Centers as urban development implemented through PD zoning. See Policy 1.1.4.F. Villages within Horizon West have been approved with minimum overall net densities as high as 4du/acre (Village H and Town Center) and as high as 7du/acre (Village I). See Policy 4.1.4. These residential densities are recognized as urban densities. Furthermore, the development plan for Village development is specifically recognized in the Comprehensive Plan as an “urban development pattern.” See Policy 4.1.1 The characteristics identifying the Villages as an urban development pattern include the following: The requirement for a “series of integrated neighborhoods containing housing, shops, workplaces, schools, parks, and civic facilities essential to the daily life of Village residents.” The Village, and each neighborhood, shall be developed with a “center focus,” such as commercial, civic, cultural or recreational uses. Housing must be within a 1.2 mile radius of the Village Center, and where possible, housing units within a neighborhood should be within one-half mile of the neighborhood center. Neighborhoods shall encourage development of a variety of lot sizes and housing types. Each Village must have a well-defined edge, such as greenbelts or wildlife corridors permanently protected from development, as well as open space to serve the residents recreational needs in the form of squares, greens and parks. See Policy 4.1.1A., B., E., F., and G., and 4.1.5 In addition to the requirement for “ample open space,” in the form of squares, greens, and parks, an additional 7.5 percent of the developable land within each project must be permanently allocated to public open space. The LPSA encompasses a smaller land area than Horizon West, and will develop on a smaller scale, but in a very similar development pattern under the Plan Amendments. Similar to the “Village Principles” for Horizon West, the LP “Guiding Principles” require that each of the two communities: Be organized as neighborhoods designed around a “centralized focal point,” such as a park, community center, or civic building/use. Interconnect the communities within the LPSA by a multi-purpose trail linking each neighborhood focal point, such as the school or civic use. Have a minimum 35 percent open space, which may be comprised of both preservation areas, agricultural areas, buffers, neighborhood parks, and trail systems, as well as civic uses, community centers, and other built facilities. In addition, the LP Guiding Principles require each neighborhood to: Provide for a mix of housing styles and/or lot sizes. Be walkable, and no more than 125 acres in size. Locate housing within a quarter mile of the central focal point. Connect the central focal point to trails or “complete streets,” as well as schools and community parks. The Plan Amendments authorize a pattern of development in the LPSA recognized in the Comprehensive Plan as an urban development pattern.4/ Like the IW Overlay district, the RP category utilizes transect-based planning to provide a transition from rural uses outside the LPSA, to the more dense and intense uses at its core. The transect-based approach is specifically recognized by the Comprehensive Plan as comprising an “urban form” of development.5/ See Policy 5.1.2. Further, the development pattern for LP is similar to IW: T2 Low density development in a traditional rural setting; T3 Walkable neighborhoods, highly connected by streets, trails and pedestrian paths, and adequately served by parks and open space; Neighborhoods designed around a central focal point with dwellings located in close proximity thereto; School sites centrally located to serve neighborhoods; T4 Town Centers with a mix of residential, office, retail, etc. The Comprehensive Plan further identifies certain uses as urban, rather than rural. Policy 1.1.4 denotes office, commercial, industrial, institutional, and educational uses, as “predominantly urban” in use. The policy notes that these uses are predominantly found in the USA, but “may also be located within the rural settlements on a limited basis.” The policy goes on to acknowledge these uses are available in the USA as “Urban Mixed Use Option,” such as PD category. This policy also acknowledges allowance of these types of urban development within the RSA exception areas--Horizon West, International Drive Activity Center, and Growth Centers--as discussed previously. By contrast, Objective 6.1 and its implementing policies address only rural residential, agricultural, and agribusiness uses, and some institutional uses (e.g., wastewater treatment plants and landfill facilities) as allowable future land uses in the RSA. This section of the Comprehensive Plan also allows for consideration, by special exception, location of uses “that by their nature are appropriate to locate in the [RSA],” such as hazardous operations, gun ranges, landfills, and kennels. The Plan Amendments authorize development of predominantly urban uses within the RSA, but not within rural settlements or one of the previously designated exception areas. Nevertheless, Respondent and Intervenors maintain that development authorized by the Plan Amendments is not urban because the Plan Amendments “prohibit development which would have an overall urban density or intensity.” It is undisputed that the LPSA will allow residential development at a density of up to 5du/acre in T3 zones, and up to 6du/acre in T4 zones. Respondent and Intervenors refer to these as “small pockets of property” within the RSA which would have higher densities “more associated with urban development levels.” However, Respondent and Intervenors argue these small pockets are not prohibited by Policy 1.1.1 which requires that “[u]rban uses shall be concentrated in” rather than “limited to” the USA. Respondent and Intervenors ignore the language that the existing Comprehensive Plan also specifically limits future urban densities, which are not “concentrated in” the USA, to Horizon West, Growth Centers, IW Overlay, and “to a limited extent,” Rural Settlements. The policy language does not allow urban density anywhere else within the RSA. Instead, the policy directs urban densities outside of the USA to areas previously designated and planned for those densities. Based on the preponderance of the evidence, under the existing Comprehensive Plan, the density, uses, and pattern of development authorized by the Plan Amendments is urban, rather than rural. Jim Hall, Intervenors’ planning expert, acknowledged that he based the LPSA concept on these “exception areas” where “new rules” apply. Additionally, Dwight Saathoff, contractor purchaser of portions of Lake Pickett South, as much as admitted that the development approved for Lake Pickett South is urban, rather than rural, when he prepared a power point presentation for the adoption hearing. Based on the power point, Mr. Saathoff testified that “the Rural Service Area acreage would go from 58.6 percent of the total land, and with the Grow, it would be 58.4 percent. The Urban Service Area land was 41.4 and 41.6 with approval of the Grow.” [Tr. 595:3-6]. Mr. Saathoff’s testimony further supports a finding that the project converts rural land to urban use, without expanding the USA boundary to do so. The Plan Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Goal 1, Objective 1.1, Policy 1.1.1, Objectives 1.2, Policies 1.2.1 and 1.2.2; Goal 6, Objective 6.1, Policies 6.1.1, 6.1.2, and 6.1.3.6/ Petitioners next challenge the Plan Amendments as inconsistent with FLUE Objective 1.3 and Policies 1.3.1 and 1.3.2. FLUE Objective 1.3 is titled “Application for Urban Service Area Expansion,” and prohibits new expansions of the USA unless supported by data and analysis that the expansion is consistent with other objectives, and requires expansions to be evaluated by the criteria established in Policies 1.3.1 and 1.3.2. Intervenors did not submit the Plan Amendments as an application to expand the USA boundaries. The Plan Amendments do not implicate this objective and these policies. The Plan Amendments are not inconsistent with FLUE Objective 1.3 and Policies 1.3.1 and 1.3.2. Petitioners next challenge the Plan Amendments as internally inconsistent with FLUE Objectives 6.2 and 6.3. FLUE Objective 6.2 reads as follows: RURAL SETTLEMENT. Rural Settlements provide for a rural residential lifestyle. In some instances, Rural Settlements allow a transition of rural uses adjacent to the [USA] while avoiding development in active agricultural areas. Rural Settlements were intended to recognize and preserve existing development patterns at the time the CP was adopted in 1991. The creation of Rural Settlements recognized the need to maintain agricultural and rural uses in the [RSA], while providing for rural communities. The Plan Amendments do not propose a rural settlement, a land use change within a rural settlement, or a boundary expansion of an existing rural settlement. Petitioners offered no persuasive evidence that the Plan Amendments implicate this policy. FLUE Objective 6.3 reads as follows: OBJ FLU6.3 Orange County shall protect and preserve certain existing Rural Settlements and their established neighborhoods, which by their particular location may be impacted by adjacent urban uses. This objective shall be made measurable by implementing the following policies: Petitioners did not challenge the Plan Amendments as inconsistent with any of the implementing policies, which enumerate development restrictions and procedures applicable to the following rural settlements: Lake Hart/Lake Whippoorwhil, Lake Avalon, and Wedgefield. The LPSA is not located in proximity to the listed rural settlements and Petitioners introduced no evidence that the Plan Amendments would have any impact on those rural settlements. The Plan Amendments are not inconsistent with FLUE Objectives 6.2 and 6.1. Petitioners also challenge the Plan Amendments as inconsistent with FLUE Goal 2, Objective 2.1, and Policy 2.2.17 which read, as follows: GOAL FLU2 URBAN STRATEGIES. Orange County will encourage urban strategies such as infill development, coordinated land use and transportation planning, and mixed-use development, which promote efficient use of infrastructure, compact development and an urban experience with a range of choices and living options. * * * OBJ FLU2.1 INFILL. Orange County shall promote and encourage infill development through incentives identified in the Land Development code for relatively small vacant and underutilized parcels within the County’s established core areas in the [USA]. * * * FLU2.2.17 Throughout the planning horizon, the County shall provide policy and program mechanisms that further the principles of sustainability, including limiting urban sprawl, protecting wildlife and environmentally sensitive natural areas, promoting efficient use of land and water, and creating an environment conducive to quality building and promoting sustainable economic development. The Plan Amendments interfere with and contradict the stated goal of promoting urban strategies such as infill. The Plan Amendments do, as Petitioner’s expert testified, exactly the opposite by directing urban development to areas outside the USA.7/ Objective 2.1, by its plain language, provides strategies applicable only to “relatively small vacant and underutilized parcels within” the [USA]. The objective is inapplicable to the LPSA. The cited policy requires the County to undertake policies and programs to limit urban sprawl, protect wildlife and environmentally sensitive areas, and promote efficient use of land and water. Petitioners presented no evidence that the County has not undertaken such broad policies and programs. The County introduced in evidence its Conservation Ordinance (Article X, Orange County Land Development Code), and its Econ River Protection Ordinance (Article XI), local programs appearing to implement Policy 2.2.17. Whether the Plan Amendments conflict with any of the implementing land development regulations is a matter beyond the scope of this proceeding. The Plan Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Goal 2, but, at least arguably, consistent with Objective 2.1 and Policy 2.2.17. Petitioners next challenge the Plan Amendments as internally inconsistent with FLUE Policy 6.4.7, which reads as follows: Orange County shall provide for compatible public and/or private land uses adjacent to significant natural resources that are managed for public benefit. Methods of protection to be considered may include, but shall not be limited to, coordination with appropriate State agencies, Notice of Proximity, the use of density and intensity limitations on land use and development, and the use of buffers. Petitioners contend that the proposed LPSA is inconsistent with this policy due to its proximity to the ESCA. The ESCA is adjacent to the western boundary of the LPSA along South Tanner Road. Proposed policy 6.8.3 notes that “[l]ands located along the perimeter within the [LPSA] shall be compatible with adjacent land outside of the [LPSA], with the exception of the [ESCA].” (emphasis added). Thus, the text amendment acknowledges that the development proposed within the LPSA may not be compatible with the adjacent ESCA. To protect the adjacent ESCA from the impacts of development proposed within the LPSA, the text amendment requires “transitional treatment of the edges” of the LPSA, including a minimum 100-foot vegetative buffer along South Tanner Road “to preserve existing rural view sheds or create a visual buffer from the proposed development within Lake Pickett Communities.” The buffers must consist of “Florida native plant species, as required by Chapter 15 Article XI” of the County Code. The proposed policy also requires these buffer areas to be utilized only as natural/wetland zones. The approved RP for Lake Pickett South depicts all property adjacent to South Tanner Road as either T1 wetlands or T1 natural, with the exception of the property at the corner of SR 50 and Tanner Road, which is designated T4 with no buffer along South Tanner Road. Just inside the buffer, the RP designates property within Lake Pickett South for either T2 (2du/acre), stormwater retention, or agricultural (working farm) uses. The RP places higher density and intensity uses further from the “edge,” thus further from the border with the ESCA. The Plan Amendments were reviewed by both the St. Johns River WMD and the South Florida WMD (SFWMD). The St. Johns River WMD reported on September 9, 2015, that its review “focused on flood protection and floodplain management, wetlands and other surface waters . . . as they relate to important state resources and facilities that will be adversely impacted by the amendment, if adopted.” The applicable staff had no comments on the proposed amendments, but noted that the property subject to the amendments is located within the WMD’s Econ River Hydrologic Basin and any environmental resource permit will have to meet additional surface water management basin criteria. The SFWMD reported, “There appear to be no regionally significant water resource issues; therefore, the District has no comments on the proposed amendment package.” The Department of Environmental Protection “conducted a detailed review [of the Plan Amendments] that focused on potential adverse impacts to important state resources and facilities, specifically . . . wetlands and other surface waters of the state; federal and state-owned lands and interest in lands . . . .” The Department found “no provision that, if adopted, would result in adverse impacts to important state resources subject to the Department’s jurisdiction.” The County coordinated with appropriate state agencies for siting the LPSA adjacent to the ESCA. The RP reflects the use of buffers and density and intensity limitations as methods to protect the adjoining ESCA from development within Lake Pickett South. The text amendment reflects the use of “edge” buffers and transitional density and intensity limitations, through the transect zone approach, to achieve compatibility with the adjacent ESCA. The Plan Amendments are not inconsistent with FLUE Policy 6.4.7. Similarly, Petitioners allege the Plan Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Objective 8.2, which reads as follows: COMPATIBILITY. Compatibility will continue to be the fundamental consideration in all land use and zoning decisions. For purposes of this objective, the following policies shall guide regulatory decisions that involve differing land uses. Petitioners did not identify any implementing policy with which the Plan Amendments are alleged to be inconsistent. Compatibility is not defined by the Comprehensive Plan. Compatibility is defined by the Community Planning Act 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.” § 163.3164(9), Fla. Stat. The parties did not dispute that this definition was applicable to analyzing consistency with Objective 8.2. Petitioners allege the development authorized by the Plan Amendments is incompatible with (1) adjacent rural settlements, and (2) its location in an important wildlife corridor. Petitioners first allege the LPSA is incompatible with the adjacent Corner Lake Estates and Lake Pickett rural settlements, due to the density, intensity, and mix of uses allowed by the Plan Amendments. The Lake Pickett rural settlement located adjacent to the LPSA on the northeast is vested at 1du/acre. The Corner Lakes rural settlement has an existing density of 4du/acre. As discussed previously, these densities are grandfathered from the RSA density limitation of 1du/10acres. The Comprehensive Plan clearly establishes densities of no greater than 2du/acre for future development in rural settlements. Regardless of whether the existing density of these two rural settlements is 4du/acre or greater, the Comprehensive Plan limits future development within the settlements to lower densities more consistent with the RSA. Because no RP has been approved for the northern section of the LPSA, it is impossible to discern what specific density of development may be allowed adjacent to the Lake Pickett rural settlement. Proposed Policy 6.8.3 will apply to development of the north LPSA, which provides that “lands located along the perimeter within the [LPSA] shall be compatible with adjacent lands outside of the [LPSA] . . . .” Aside from the statement that “substantial buffers consisting of Florida native plant species, as required by Chapter 15 Article XI of the Orange County Code, shall be used to replace or enhance perimeter transition treatment,” the Plan Amendments contain no specific requirement for buffer size between the LPSA and the Lake Pickett rural settlement.8/ Mr. Hall, accepted as an expert in land use planning and growth management, testified at length regarding the “edge” treatment, buffering, and lot sizes, designed to make the layout of Lake Pickett South compatible with the adjoining Corner Lakes rural settlement. The edges of Lake Pickett South abutting Corner Lake are all designated as wetlands, buffer areas, or stormwater facilities, with the exception of a strip of T3 residential at 4du/acre with minimum 50-foot lots. However, this strip adjoins existing undeveloped natural buffer area within Corner Lake, not existing residential lots. Overall, Lake Pickett South allows urban development to locate next to the existing Corner Lake rural settlement. The overall density, intensity, and mix of uses allowed in Lake Pickett South is inconsistent with the single-use residential rural community setting of Corner Lake. However, given the transect-based planning approach and the buffering and “edge” treatments required by proposed Policy 6.8.3, it is at least arguable that the development is compatible with the adjacent rural settlements. Petitioners next allege the LPSA is inconsistent with FLUE Objective 8.2 because it is located within an important wildlife corridor and introduces physical obstacles which impede movement of wildlife through the corridor. None of the Petitioners addressed this particular objective in their Proposed Recommended Order.9/ Petitioners did not prove that the LPSA is inconsistent with FLUE Objective 8.2, which specifies compatibility as the fundamental consideration in all land use decisions. Petitioners next challenge the Plan Amendments as inconsistent with Conservation Objectives C1.7 and C1.9. Objective C1.7 reads as follows: OBJC1.7 Orange County shall manage and protect plant and wildlife species designated as threatened, endangered or species of special concern through programmatic and planning approaches for ecosystem analysis and through adoption of land development regulations. The final environmental surveys conducted by Intervenor Banksville’s consultant, Bio-Tech Consulting, Inc., revealed the presence of six wildlife10/ species designated by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) as either threatened, endangered, or of special concern. The County’s conservation regulations are limited to identification and protection of wetlands and the watershed of the Econ River Basin. The County has no regulatory authority over wildlife conservation or preservation. Petitioners introduced credible expert witness testimony regarding the presence of wildlife in the LPSA, and opinions regarding the adverse effects which development in the area, as proposed, is likely to cause. Petitioners clearly would have the County regulations go further to address, or perhaps prohibit, development impacting the wildlife habitats. The question at hand, however, is not whether the County’s adopted “programmatic and planning approaches for ecosystem analysis,” and the County’s land development regulations, adequately address the stated objective, to “manage and protect plant and wildlife species designated as threatened, endangered.” The inquiry in this case is limited to whether the Plan Amendments, as proposed, are inconsistent with the stated objective. Petitioners did not prove that the Plan Amendments are inconsistent with Objective C1.7. Objective C1.9 reads as follows: OBJ C1.9 Orange County shall require the protection of natural resources by minimizing adverse impacts from adjacent developments. This objective shall be made measurable by implementing the following policies. Petitioners are clearly concerned with the impact of the Plan Amendments on the plant and wildlife habitats in the adjoining ESCA. Petitioners’ expert ecologist testified extensively regarding the impact of new communities on the ESCA --increased passive recreational use, such as horseback riding, hiking, and picnicking, as well as the impact of domesticated pets on wildlife in the ESCA. Petitioners’ experts were insistent that the text amendment does nothing to minimize these adverse effects because proposed FLUE Policy 6.8.3 requires no buffer for the ESCA.11/ On the contrary, Policy 6.8.3 requires a minimum 100-foot native vegetated buffer along South Tanner Road, the border between the LPSA and the ESCA. Petitioners did not identify any measurable policy implementing Objective C1.9 with which the Plan Amendments are alleged to be inconsistent. Policy C1.9.2 mirrors the requirements of FLUE Policy 6.4.7, requiring “enhanced protective mechanisms, such as, but not limited to . . . buffers, vegetative buffers, setbacks, density restrictions, easements . . . that will permit continued habitat management practices in areas adjacent to major managed natural resources.” As discussed previously, the Plan Amendments incorporate buffers and density and intensity limitations, through the use of transect-based planning, to address the impact of the proposed development on the adjacent ESCA. Petitioners did not establish that the Plan Amendments are inconsistent with Objective C1.9. Petitioners allege the Plan Amendments are inconsistent with Conservation Goal 2, Objective 2.3, and Policy 2.3.1, which read as follows: GOAL C2 Orange County’s goal is to protect, enhance and maintain the unique and irreplaceable values, functions, diversity and benefit of the natural resources within the Econlockhatchee River Basin, Wekiva Protection Area and the Lake Apopka Drainage Basin. * * * OBJ C2.3 Orange County shall protect and preserve the surface water quality and quantity, wildlife populations and habitat, aesthetics, open space, historical and archaeological resources, floodplains, wetland areas, native upland areas and recreation lands of the Econlockhatchee River Basin by implementing the following policies. * * * C.2.3.1 The Land Development Code shall provide for the protection of the Econ River Basin through mechanisms such as upland buffers, specific restrictions within a 2,200 foot total width protection zone, requiring habitat and historical/archaeological resource assessments and protection, allowing for mitigation, open space or density credits, requiring landscaping to include use of native plant species, utilization of wetland areas as part of drainage facility systems, requiring State or Federal listed species protection, clustering of development, restricting floodplain encroachment, and limiting forested habitat fragmentation. Petitioners introduced no evidence to support a finding that the County’s land development code fails to provide the listed protections for the Econ River Basin. Respondent and Intervenors introduced in evidence Article XI of the County code, titled “Econlockhatchee River Basin Protection.” The article includes basin-wide regulations which include management plans for protection of endangered, protected, and species of special concern, use of native plant species in landscaping, regulations to limit adverse impact of development on hydrologic functions of conservation areas, upland buffers of 50 feet for conservation areas, and limits on discharge rates for stormwater management systems. John Miklos, Intervenor’s expert in environmental and ecological assessments and environmental and ecological planning, testified, credibly, that the County’s land development code is even more stringent than the St. Johns River WMD requirements because it imposes development restrictions within a 2,200 foot corridor on either side of the Econ River, in addition to the 1,100 foot “critical area regulations” imposed by the St. Johns River WMD. The article also contains specific regulations for a “critical area” defined as the main river channel extending 1,100 feet landward of the Econ River and its major tributaries. Nothing in the Plan Amendments exempts the development authorized thereby from the requirements of Article XI. Petitioners did not prove the Plan Amendments are inconsistent with Conservation Goal C2, Objective 2.3, and Policy C2.3.1. Petitioners next allege the Plan Amendments are inconsistent with Transportation Element Goal T1 and Policy T1.1.1.3, which read, as follows: GOAL T1 A safe, accessible, convenient, efficient and financially feasible multimodal transportation system which minimizes environmental impacts. * * * T1.1.1.3 Whenever reasonably possible, future roadway projects shall be designed to promote livability and land use- transportation integration, in part by avoiding the severing or fragmenting of existing neighborhoods. The County will coordinate with FDOT, the Central Florida Expressway Authority, and other appropriate entities to help ensure that limited access and other roadway projects which are constructed by them avoid or minimize negative impacts to existing neighborhoods, wildlife corridors, and sensitive natural areas and to coordinate these projects with conservation and land use decisions. Petitioners introduced no credible evidence that the transportation improvements necessary to serve the proposed development would sever or fragment existing neighborhoods or that the County would not coordinate the improvements to SR 50 with appropriate state agencies. Chuluota Road will require widening in conjunction with the proposed development. That road serves both Corner Lake and Lake Pickett rural settlements, but there is no evidence that the road project would sever or fragment those neighborhoods. Petitioners also alleged the Plan Amendments were inconsistent with Neighborhood Element Objective N1.1, which reads, “Orange County shall ensure that future land use changes are compatible with or do not adversely impact existing or proposed neighborhoods.” For the reasons cited in the discussion related to consistency with FLUE Objective 8.2, the Plan Amendments are consistent with adjoining neighborhoods based on the edge treatment requirements and transect-based approach to density. Finally, the Petitioners challenge the Plan Amendments as internally inconsistent with the Potable Water Element Goal 1, Objective 1.1 and Policies 1.4.2 and 1.4.3, which read, as follows: GOAL PW1 It is Orange County’s goal to provide an efficient and adequate level of water service and facilities in a cost effective manner to accommodate existing and future development. OBJ PW1.1 Orange County shall continue to provide for the correction of its existing water system deficiencies. This objective shall be made measurable by implementing the following policies. * * * PW1.4.2 Potable water service shall not be extended to areas outside the [USA] except in the following circumstances: The facilities to be extended will serve a Growth Center or other exception areas as provided in the Comprehensive Plan (CP); The Board of County Commissioners has made an affirmative finding that a public health hazard exists for existing development. Such facilities shall not serve as the basis for additional new development; The facilities are to be extended to provide adequate fire flows to existing developments which are located within one- half (1/2) mile of an existing waster transmission main; For approved sector plans as provided for in the CP; and The circumstances described under Policy PW1.5.2 and Policy PW1.5.3.12/ The Petitioners presented no evidence regarding deficiencies in the county’s water system or how the instant amendment would relate to the county addressing said deficiencies. No evidence was introduced on which to base a finding that providing water service to the LPSA would be inefficient, inadequate, or not cost-effective. The Plan Amendments do not require extension of water utilities to serve the proposed development. The County utilities department evaluated the Plan Amendments and reported that water mains on SR 50, Lake Pickett Road, and North Tanner Road are available to serve the development, as well as wastewater mains in the vicinity. The developer will be paying to connect the development to the existing water mains, as well as install the water and wastewater infrastructure within the development boundaries. The Plan Amendments are not inconsistent with PW Goal 1, Objective 1.1, and Policies 1.4.2 and 1.4.3. Urban Sprawl Petitioner Brooke additionally challenges the Plan Amendments as contrary to section 163.3177(6)(a)9., which provides that “any amendment to the future land use element shall discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl.” The Act defines urban sprawl 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.” The statute sets forth 13 primary indicators that a plan amendment does not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl, and eight factors which, if met, determine a plan amendment discourages urban sprawl. Petitioner’s expert testified that the Plan Amendments are characterized by the at least nine of the indicators of sprawl. Intervenors’ expert disagreed. The first primary indicator implicated by Petitioner Brooke is that the development “[p]romotes, 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.” § 163.3177(6)(a)9.a.(II)., Fla. Stat. The Plan Amendments do direct urban development to locate within a rural area. The evidence did not establish how far the LPSA is located from the boundary of the USA.13/ Based upon Map 11 of the FLUM series, Corner Lake rural settlement is located 1.5 miles east of the USA boundary. The LPSA is located west of Corner Lake, thus closer than 1.5 miles from the USA boundary. Intervenors demonstrated the location of major employment centers within two miles of the LPSA, including the University of Central Florida and the Central Florida Research Park, both of which are located within the USA. The LPSA is not located at a substantial distance from existing urban areas. Assuming, arguendo, the location of the LPSA was considered to be at “a substantial distance” from existing urban areas, Petitioner Brooke introduced no evidence of undeveloped lands within or closer to the USA which are available and suitable for the proposed development. Petitioner Brooke did not prove that the Plan Amendments meet primary indicator (II). Petitioner next contends that the Plan Amendments fail to “adequately protect and conserve natural resources, such as wetlands, floodplains, native vegetation, environmentally sensitive areas, natural groundwater recharge areas, lakes, rivers . . . .” § 163.3177(6)(a)9.a.(IV), Fla. Stat. As previously addressed, the Plan Amendments do not exempt the development from the County’s existing land development code requirements for identification and protection of conservation areas and special protection for the Econ River Basin, which are the County’s primary protection and conservation mechanisms. It is clear that Petitioners wish the County regulations went further, but that issue is beyond the scope of this proceeding. Petitioner did not prove that the Plan Amendments trigger primary indicator (IV). Petitioner next contends that the Plan Amendments “[f]ail[] to adequately protect adjacent agricultural areas and activities, including active agricultural and silvicultural activities, passive agricultural activities, and dormant, unique, and prime farmland and soils.” § 163.3177(6)(a)9.a.(V). Adjacent uses to the south and east of the LPSA are rural residential settlements. The ESCA is adjacent to the west. No evidence was introduced establishing the uses to the north in Seminole County. No evidence was introduced to establish the use of adjacent rural settlement for any agricultural or silvicultural activities, either active or passive. The only evidence demonstrated that Corner Lake consists of residences and wetland conservation areas. Petitioner did not prove that the Plan Amendments trigger primary sprawl indicator (V). Primary indicator (XI) is that the development “[f]ails to maximize use of existing public facilities and services.” Potable water and wastewater facilities exist, and uncommitted capacity is available to serve the development as proposed. The County utilities department reviewed the Plan Amendments and reported sufficient plant capacity to serve the development at adequate levels of service. Parks and Recreation also reviewed the Plan Amendments and reported sufficient acreage capacity to serve the proposed development. The County fire rescue department reported that those portions of the property which are within 2.5 miles of Station 82 are within an “optimal emergency services delivery” area. Other portions are not within an optimal delivery area, but are within a seven-minute response time. Anecdotal testimony from the Corner Lakes HOA President regarding a delayed response time to a residential security alarm is not competent evidence on which to base a finding that the existing emergency response service is inadequate. The development will require significant investments in public roadway facilities in order to meet level of service requirements. Several segments of the major county roadways to be impacted by the development authorized by the Plan Amendments, Lake Pickett Road and Chuluota Road, are already overcapacity. Segments of SR 50 currently operate at an acceptable level of service, based on a six-laning project currently underway, but are projected to operate at an unacceptable level of service by the 2035 planning horizon. Transportation analysis shows significant and adverse impacts from the proposed development on all three roadways (at varying rates depending on the time of the day modeled). In order to approve the Plan Amendments, the developer has entered into a Transportation Network Agreement, and corresponding Term Sheet, by which it has committed to pay an estimated $16,000,000 to the State for widening impacted segments of SR 50, and an estimated $14,844,000 to the County for widening Chuluota Road from SR 50 to Lake Pickett Road. The Plan Amendments do not fail to maximize use of existing transportation infrastructure. The existing infrastructure is, apparently, over-maximized. The Plan Amendments do not trigger primary sprawl indicator (XI). Next, Petitioner Brooke argues the Plan Amendments “[f]ail[] to maximize use of future public facilities and services.” § 163.3177(6)(a)9.a.(VII), Fla. Stat. Because the Comprehensive Plan provides a strategy of designating the USA as the area for which the County is responsible for providing infrastructure and services to support urban development, Petitioner Brooke argues that location of urban development outside the USA fails to maximize use of future public facilities and services. While Petitioner Brooke’s arguments sounds theoretically correct, it is not supported by the evidence. The evidence shows that the potable water and wastewater service lines previously constructed under the Econ River are sized for capacity to serve the demands generated by the Plan Amendments, and that the plant capacity exists as well. Petitioner introduced no evidence that service capacity to meet the future demand generated by the Plan Amendments would reduce, or otherwise interfere with, the County’s ability to provide those services to development inside the USA. Moreover, the Plan Amendments dictate that the developer, rather than the County, will incur the costs of constructing connections to the existing potable water and wastewater lines. As to the transportation facilities, the impacted segments of Lake Pickett and Chuluota Road are currently deficient and included in the County’s long-range transportation plan for widening as “partnerhip projects,” meaning the County requires a partner to fund these future projects. Through the transportation funding agreements, the Plan Amendments will provide the funding partner the County needs to eliminate the current backlog on these roadways, as well as mitigate the projected impacts of the future development. The Plan Amendments do not fail to maximize use of future public facilities and services, which is primary urban sprawl indicator (VII). Petitioner Brooke next cites primary indicator (VIII), that the Plan Amendments “[a]llow 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.” § 163.3177(6)(a)9.a.(VIII), Fla. Stat. Petitioner introduced no evidence of increased costs associated with providing services to the development authorized by the Plan Amendments, with the exception of transportation. As previously discussed, the Plan Amendment actually reduces the County’s cost to provide transportation services to existing and committed developments through the planning horizon, and funds much of the cost to improve the impacted roadways to serve the new development. Petitioner did not prove the Plan Amendments trigger primary urban sprawl indicator (VIII). Next, Petitioner implicates section 163.3177(6)(a)9.a.(IX), that the Plan Amendments fail to provide a clear separation between rural and urban uses. On this primary indicator, Petitioner is correct. The Plan Amendment directs urban uses to a location surrounded by development recognized in the Comprehensive Plan as rural agricultural, rural residential, and conservation, or specified exceptions thereto. The Plan Amendments do trigger primary urban sprawl indicator (IX). Petitioner Brooke next argues the Plan Amendments constitute urban sprawl because they “discourage[] or inhibit[] infill development or redevelopment of existing neighborhoods and communities.” § 163.3177(6)(a)9.a.(X). Fla. Stat. As previously found, the Plan Amendments direct urban development to the RSA, which is contrary to an urban infill strategy. The Plan Amendments discourage infill by authorizing urban development outside of the designated urban area. The Plan Amendments do trigger primary urban sprawl indicator (X). Lastly, Petitioner Brooke alleges the Plan Amendments “result[] in poor accessibility among linked or related land uses.” § 163.3177(6)(a)9.a.(XII), Fla. Stat. Petitioner’s expert, Ms. Diettrich, opined that the proposed development is not sited adjacent to or continuing from any related use, thus fails to connect related uses. Based on that evidence alone, the undersigned was unable to find that the Plan Amendment triggers primary indicator (XII). Altogether, Petitioner proved the Plan Amendments trigger two primary indicators of urban sprawl. Once primary sprawl indicators are identified, the urban sprawl analysis shifts to whether the Plan Amendments meet four of eight criteria which determine that an amendment discourages urban sprawl. Respondent and Intervenors introduced testimony from their expert planner, Mr. Hall, that the Plan Amendments satisfy six of the criterion: (1) promote the efficient and cost- effective provision or extension of public infrastructure or services; (2) promote walkable and connected communities and provide for compact development and a mix of uses at densities and intensities that will support a range of housing choices and a multimodal transportation system; (3) promote the conservation of water and energy; (4) preserve agricultural areas and activities; (5) preserve open space and natural lands and provide for public open space and recreation needs; and (6) create a balance of land uses based upon demands of the residential population for the nonresidential needs of the area. Mr. Hall testified that the LPSA promotes efficient and cost-effective provision or extension of public infrastructure because the developer is paying, rather than the County. That arrangement is more cost-effective than taxpayer investment. Proposed policies 6.8.6, 6.8.12, and 6.8.13 require the neighborhoods within the LPSA to be designed as walkable and with interconnected greenspaces, trails, and paths. However, the LPSA does not promote a range of housing choices. Proposed policy 6.8.2 limits T3 to single-family detached housing, with some single-family attached housing limited to the perimeter and close to T4. Zone T4 allows single-family attached and “vertically-integrated uses,” which is undefined. Multifamily uses are prohibited. The proposed development does not promote a multimodal transportation system. The Department of Transportation reports there are “no transit service links adjacent to the project site,” and although “significant transit improvements are planned for the UCF/East Orange County area over the next six to 10 years,” funding for the projects had not been identified. The Plan Amendments do promote conservation of water and energy through the requirement in proposed FLUE Policy 6.8.4 that each community adhere to a “Green Infrastructure Plan” including a Master Stormwater Plan utilizing Low Impact Development (LID) practices, and a Master Conservation, Open Space and Community Space Plan identifying connections of the internal greenspaces to countywide trail systems. The Plan Amendments do require a substantial amount of open space and natural lands, and provide for public open space and recreation needs. Pursuant to proposed Policy 6.8.6, each community within the LPSA must provide 35 percent open space, no more than five percent of which may be community spaces.14/ Further, each neighborhood will be organized around a community focal point, such as a community park, garden, center, etc. Finally, the LPSA is designed with a mix of land uses to meet many of the demands of the residents in the area for nonresidential needs. Zone T4 areas will include commercial, office, service and civic uses to serve the communities, “as well as the surrounding area.” The LP Guiding Principles and Policies meet four of the criterion which determine that a plan amendment discourages urban sprawl. Petitioners did not prove that the Plan Amendments fail to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. Data and Analysis The next basis on which Petitioners challenge the Plan Amendments is supporting data and analysis. Section 163.3177(1)(f) requires all plan amendments to be “based on relevant and appropriate data and an analysis by the local government that may include, but not be limited to, surveys, studies, community goals and vision, and other data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the . . . plan amendment.” The statute continues, “To be based on data means to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the . . . plan amendment.” Id. The Individual Petitioners, with the exception of Petitioner Brooke, maintain that the Plan Amendments do not react appropriately to data and analysis regarding the impact of the Plan Amendments on natural resources and environmentally sensitive areas within the LPSA and the adjacent ESCA.15/ For purposes of this section, these Petitioners will be referred to as the “Farrell Petitioners.” Petitioner Brooke additionally maintains the Plan Amendments do not react appropriately to the community goals and vision codified by the USA/RSA concept. 1. Natural Resources On the issue of natural resources and environmentally sensitive areas, the Farrell Petitioners presented the testimony of Ariel Horner, who was accepted as an expert in Florida ecology and ecosystem conservation. Ms. Horner performed research in the ESCA during her undergraduate and graduate studies, and currently teaches courses in ecology and conservation utilizing the ESCA as a teaching tool. The Farrell Petitioners introduced photographs taken by Ms. Horner utilizing game cameras installed in the ESCA in March and April 2015, and February and March 2016. The photographs depict a number of “listed species,” including the Florida black bear, Sherman’s fox squirrel, gopher frogs, and ovenbirds. The pictures document the presence of endangered, threatened, or species of special concern, within the ESCA. Ms. Horner testified extensively regarding the habitat requirements for these species and expressed her expert opinion that these same species are very likely present on the LPSA property as well. Ms. Horner’s opinion regarding the habitat needs of the various listed species was informed, in part, by management plans prepared by the FWC. Petitioners did not introduce any FWC management plans into evidence and Ms. Horner did not use any excerpts or maps from said plans as demonstratives. The Farrell Petitioners also offered the testimony of Dr. John Fauth, accepted as an expert in conservation biology, vertebrate and invertebrate zoology, and statistical analysis. Dr. Fauth testified that the LPSA is located within a bio diversity hotspot, the North American Coastal Plain, which data that does not support development of the property for the density and intensity authorized by the Plan Amendments. The North American Coastal Plain extends from southeast Texas east to Florida and north along the east coast as far as coastal Connecticut and Massachusetts. Within the southeast, the plain includes the entirety of Louisiana and Mississippi, large portions of Alabama, Georgia, and North and South Carolina, Arkansas, and western Tennessee. The presence of the LPSA within this vast region was not persuasive evidence to support any specific development restriction on the particular parcel. Both Dr. Fauth’s and Ms. Horner’s expert opinions regarding the high ecological value of the LPSA, is due to its location within a regional wildlife corridor. Dr. Fauth testified extensively regarding the importance of maintaining corridors for listed species, such as the Florida panther and black bear, to travel from southern to northern Florida and further on to other areas within the North American Coastal Plain. The ability of species to migrate without barriers from human development is important to mating, feeding, reproduction, and many other essentials for long-term viability of various listed species. The Farrell Petitioners introduced, through the testimony of Dr. Fauth, a map from the St. Johns River WMD Management Plan for the ESCA. The map depicts the location of the ESCA within a “larger, multi-corridor system.” The map encompasses east Orange and Seminole, south Volusia, and western Brevard counties. The map depicts “District-Owned Conservation Easements,” “FNAI [Florida Natural Areas Inventory] Public Lands,” “Management Areas,” including managed preserves, state forests, and conservation areas; as well as, properties designated “Priority 1” through “Priority 5.” The map does not indicate what the priority properties are listed for and no witness testified to the meaning of the priority areas. Based on the totality of the evidence, the undersigned infers the properties are designated by priority for public acquisition. The LPSA lies within a corridor extending between the Hal Scott Regional Preserve in southeastern Orange County to the Little Big Econ State Forest north in Seminole County. Further east lie the Bronson State Forest and the Seminole Ranch Conservation Area, extensive “Management Areas” in the region. The scale of the map is large, and no witness testified as to the exact location of the LPSA on that particular map. Based upon the evidence of record, it appears the LPSA lies wholly within an area designated “Priority 1.” The LPSA is one of thousands, if not tens or hundreds of thousands, of Priority 1 properties within the corridor between the Hal Scott Regional Preserve and the Little Big Econ State Forest. No evidence of record supports a finding that development of the ESCA will prevent wildlife from traversing the larger corridor, or prevent the WMD from acquiring other properties or conservation easements that could, eventually, link the preservations areas. The St. Johns River WMD staff reviewed the proposed Plan Amendments “focused on flood protection and floodplain management, wetlands and other surface waters . . . as they relate to important state resources and facilities that will be adversely impacted by the amendment, if adopted,” and had no comments, other than to note that the property’s location in the Econ River Basin will require additional criteria to be met for issuance of environmental resource permits in the area. The Department of Environmental Protection reviewed the proposed Plan Amendments for “potential adverse impacts to important state resources and facilities” including “federal and state-owned lands and interest in lands, including state parks, greenways and trails, [and] conservation easements.” The Department found “no provision that, if adopted, would result in adverse impacts to important state resources subject to the Department’s jurisdiction.” The County has limited jurisdiction with regard to protection of wildlife; the protection of endangered, threatened, and species of special concern is within the authority of the state and federal government. Although the County was required to transmit the proposed Plan Amendments to the FWC for review, pursuant to section 163.3184(3)(b), no evidence was introduced regarding any comment from the FWC on the proposed Plan Amendments. The state agency with authority for regulating wildlife had no comment regarding the impact of the Plan Amendments on any state or regional resource, including the proposed corridor. Despite the County’s limited authority to regulate wildlife, the County environmental staff included the following in its staff report on the Plan Amendments in a section titled “Habitat Protection”: It appears that portions of the [property] have been identified as part of the Florida DEP, Priority Ecological Greenway Network 2013. This project of the Florida Ecological Greenway Network (FEGN) identifies areas of opportunity for protecting a statewide network or ecological hubs and linkages designed to maintain large landscape-scale ecological functions including focal species habitat and ecosystem services throughout the state. The FEGN aggregates various data identifying areas of ecological significance from the Florida Natural Areas Inventory, [FWC], existing and proposed conservation lands, and other relevant data. These data were combined to identify large, landscape-scale areas of ecological significance (ecological hubs), and a network of landscape linkages and corridors connecting the hubs into a statewide ecological greenways system (ecological greenways and wildlife corridors). Developing portions of this ecologically significant area without proper ecological design consideration would diminish the functionality of the area as a greenway and move the land use from a state of higher sustainability to a state of lower sustainability in terms of resources needed to sustain the lower state. The applicant shall provide reasonable assurances that the habitat and ecological function of this ecosystem will not be diminished as a result of the proposed development. Road and pedestrian crossings of wetland and environmentally sensitive corridors shall be minimized over wetlands and floodplains and be designed to allow for unimpeded passage of wildlife. (emphasis added). The text amendment addressed the issue of habitat and ecological function through the use of the transect planning. Objective 6.8, and Policies 6.8.1 and 6.8.2, dictate a development pattern that transitions from open space and conservation areas on the edges of the LPSA through gradually increasing densities of residential, to a center of highest density, intensity, and mix of uses. This approach minimizes disturbance of the “corridor” by concentrating the most intense uses to the center while maintaining relatively undisturbed edges. Petitioners maintain that the proposed development, as reflected in the PD-RP, does not provide reasonable assurances that the habitat and ecological function of the property will not be diminished, primarily because road and pedestrian crossings of wetland and environmentally sensitive areas, as planned, fragment habitat which does not allow for unimpeded passage of wildlife. Petitioners argument on this point is a challenge that the zoning (PD-RP) is inconsistent with the Plan Amendments as reflected in the text amendment. The exclusive method to challenge the consistency of the zoning (or any other land development order) with the Comprehensive Plan, is section 163.3215, which provides for an action in an appropriate circuit court. Petitioners argument is not cognizable in the instant proceeding. Furthermore, the Plan Amendments do not exempt the proposed development from the land development code, Article X, which governs the identification, classification, and corresponding protection of wetlands, during the development permitting process. Many of Petitioners’ concerns will be addressed in the permitting process for the proposed development. Likewise, the process triggering evaluation of the specific property for presence of listed species is the local permitting process. The developer’s preliminary environmental assessment confirmed the presence of several listed species on the subject property, including Sherman’s fox squirrel, Florida Sandhill Crane, Little Blue Heron, White Ibis, gopher tortoise, and bald eagle. The report identifies whether each species is state- or federal-listed, and details the corresponding development restrictions to be imposed during permitting. The LPSA lies within the Econ River Basin, and is subject to Article XI of the County’s land development code. Section 15-442 specifically requires all development applications to include a survey of listed species utilizing FWC Wildlife Methodology Guidelines. The code provides, “[a] management plan shall be required of the development for the protection of an endangered, threatened or species of special concern and shall become part of the conditions for approval of the project.” The data gathered from such surveys is generally good for about a 90-day period because of the relative transient nature of certain species. Listed-species surveys are performed during the permitting phase in order to base permitting decisions on “fresh” data. The Farrell Petitioners did not prove that the Plan Amendments do not react appropriately to the data concerning the location of the property within a larger wildlife ecosystem to the extent necessary during the planning process. The Farrell Petitioners next argue that the Plan Amendments do not react appropriately to the data regarding natural resources within the ESCA because the development proposed by the Plan Amendments will negatively impact the ESCA. Testimony on this issue pertained to increased use of the ESCA by adjoining residents in the proposed development, particularly with respect to planned additional horse trails, hiking and other passive recreation, as well as the introduction of pets, especially cats, which hunt and kill many wildlife species, especially birds. The testimony on this issue was part hearsay, part speculation and unpersuasive. Neither the state nor the local agency charged with managing the ESCA mentioned a concern with increased public usage when reviewing the Plan Amendments for impact on these resources. The Plan Amendments do not prohibit the managing entities from limiting, or otherwise regulating, the use of the ESCA to maintain its ecological integrity or from conducting public information and awareness campaigns. The Farrell Petitioners did not prove that the Plan Amendments fail to react appropriately to data regarding the natural resources present on the adjacent ECSA. Additionally, Petitioner Brooke argues the Plan Amendments do not react appropriately to data and analysis in the form of the community goals and vision established by the Comprehensive Plan USA/RSA concept. Brooke states that FLUE Goal 1 and its implementing objectives and policies establish the community’s “desired future development pattern” directing all urban densities and intensities to the USA. Thus, Brooke argues that the Plan Amendments, which direct urban densities and intensities of use to the RSA, do not react appropriately to the community goal and vision established by the Comprehensive Plan. Section 163.3177(1)(f) lists “community goals and vision” as a type of data, along with surveys, studies, and other data available at the time the plan amendment was adopted, on which the plan amendment must be based. The statute anticipates “community goals and vision” as something separate from, or other than, the comprehensive plan itself. Many communities have a free-standing vision statement which may, in part, inform future planning decisions. See Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Hendry Co., Case No. 14-1441GM (DOAH Feb. 12, 2015). As such, the separate statement is a community vision or goal which may support a subsequent plan amendment. In this case, Petitioner Brooke has just repackaged an internal inconsistency argument as a data and analysis argument. Under the rubric of the Community Planning Act, the comprehensive plan must be based upon data and analysis that form the basis for crafting the goals, objectives, and policies of the plan. In order for that construct to make sense as the plan is amended going forward, plan amendments must be supported by data and analysis documented outside of the comprehensive plan itself. The comprehensive plan cannot constitute the supporting data and analysis for an amendment to itself.16/ While the undersigned applauds Petitioner Brooke’s creativity, the argument is not well-taken. The internal inconsistency argument was, however, both well-plead and well- proven. 2. Infrastructure and Services In both their Petition and PRO, the Farrell Petitioners raise the issue of whether the Plan Amendments react appropriately to data and analysis regarding the provision of infrastructure and services. However, their PRO fails to address this issue, focusing instead solely on the natural resources issue. It is unclear whether the Farrell Petitioners abandoned this claim, so it is addressed here in an abundance of caution. The Farrell Petitioners did not prove the Plan Amendments fail to react appropriately to data and analysis regarding the availability of infrastructure and services. The Plan Amendments require developer-funded connection to, and construction of onsite, wastewater and potable water services. The Plan Amendment is also contingent upon written infrastructure agreements to provide for public schools, emergency services, and parks and recreation services. Transportation impacts and funding of needed improvements are addressed through the transportation network agreements required by proposed FLUE Policies 6.9.3 and 6.9.4. No persuasive evidence supported a finding that these terms are not an appropriate reaction to data and analysis regarding the availability of infrastructure and services. Meaningful and Predictable Standards Finally, Petitioners challenge the Plan Amendments as contrary to section 163.3177(1), which requires comprehensive plans to establish “meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development regulations.” The Farrell Petitioners’ allegation in the pre- hearing stipulation is generalized: “[T]he Plan Amendments . . . eliminate existing meaningful and predictable guidelines for development.” In their PRO, the Farrell Petitioners allege the Plan Amendments “eliminate[] . . . existing meaningful maximum allowable density limitations and replace[] density with average densities that are much higher urban densities” exceeding the RSA cap of 1du/10acres but outside the USA, thereby failing to provide meaning and predictable standards. The Farrell Petitioners did not elaborate this argument. Contrary to Petitioners’ assertion, the use of non- specific densities with mixed-use transect-based urban development in the County is neither new nor novel. The most prominent example being Innovation Way, which establishes a range of densities within each transect zone, allowing the final density to be established by the IW-PD-RP. See FLUE Policy 5.1.7. In fact, the process for approving a plan amendment to IW is identical to the LPSA text amendment: The proposed location of transect zones are depicted on a CRP during the IW map amendment process. No development within the IW boundary may be approved without an approved IW-PD-RP, which determines the adopted boundaries and location of the transect zones. See FLUE Objective 5.2 and implementing policies. What is new and novel about the LPSA approach is the County’s position that the development pattern and densities are rural, rather than urban. The Farrell Petitioners did not introduce evidence regarding whether the LPSA amendment process itself provides meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land.17/ The allegation that the use of average densities renders the Plan Amendment devoid of meaningful and predictable standards was not proven. Petitioner Brooke maintains that the Plan Amendments do not provide meaningful and predictable standards because they are internally inconsistent with the goals, objectives, and policies directing urban densities and intensities of use outside the USA. Petitioner Brooke’s arguments are, again, creative, but yet another attempt to get the proverbial second, or in this case, third bite at the apple. Repackaging an internal inconsistency issue as a “meaningful and predictable standards” issue does not ipso facto make it an meaningful and predictable standards issue. The Petitioners did not prove that the Plan Amendments fail to provide meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development regulations.
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 Orange County Comprehensive Plan Amendments 2015-2-P-FLUE-1 and 2015-2-A-5-1, adopted by Ordinance 2016-17 on July 12, 2016, are not “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of August, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of August, 2017.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is RECOMMENDED THAT: The Board enter an order finding that the 275 acre site itself proposed for Unit 3 is consistent and in conformity with existing land use plans and zoning ordinances; The Board find the railroad spur to be consistent with Polk County's zoning ordinance. The Board find that the proposed 46 mile associated transmission line is consistent and in conformity with existing land use and zoning ordinances with the exception of that portion of the line which traverses the Green Swamp area; and The Board hold the transmission line within the Green Swamp area not to be in conformance or compliance with the Green Swamp regulations, and that the applicant must apply for a variance from such regulations to Polk County officials before any further consideration of this certification by the Board. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 12th day of September, 1978. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner’s performance under its lawn care service contract with the Department of Management Services was deficient, and, if so, whether the amounts deducted by the Department from the monthly payments made to Petitioner under the contract were reasonable and appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner provides lawn care services to residential and commercial properties in the central Florida area. Andre Smith is Petitioner’s owner and president. In November 2004, the Department entered into a contract with Petitioner for lawn care services at nine Department buildings. The contract was awarded to Petitioner through a competitive procurement process in which Petitioner was the low bidder. The contract number was ITN No. 26-991- 490-Z. Petitioner was to be paid a total of $7,384.92 per month under the contract. Each of the nine buildings was apportioned a specific amount of the total price in the contract. The scope of work under the contract generally included lawn care services, open field mowing, and irrigation system maintenance. The lawn care services required under the contract included mowing, edging, weed control, fertilizing, watering, shrub and tree pruning, mulching, and clean-up. The contract specified the frequency that the services were to be performed. Mowing was to be done weekly between April and November, and every two weeks between December and March; hedges and shrubs were to be trimmed at least monthly unless more frequent trimming was required for aesthetic reasons; and mulching was to be done in March and September. The contract required Petitioner to take soil samples at the beginning of the contract and annually thereafter. The results of the soil samples were to be used to determine whether Petitioner needed to apply iron, lime, or other minerals to the lawns. The contract required Petitioner to inspect each building’s irrigation system at the beginning of the contract, and required Petitioner to provide a report to the building manager regarding any repair work needed on the system. Petitioner was also required to check the irrigation system on every visit to ensure that it was operating properly. The contract required Petitioner to apply pre-emergent weed control and fertilizer. The weed control was to be applied in the spring and the fall, and the fertilizer was to be applied three times during the year on an agreed upon schedule. The mulching required by the contract was to be done in March and September. The mulch was to be maintained at a depth of four inches throughout the year. The contract required Petitioner to use cypress mulch. The day-to-day operation of the buildings subject to the contract was the responsibility of on-site building managers, not the Department staff in Tallahassee. The building managers were responsible for the direct oversight of Petitioner’s work under the contract, and they were also responsible for reviewing and evaluating Petitioner’s performance. Petitioner began providing services under the contract in December 2004. Petitioner received full payment from the Department for the services that it provided from December 2004 through March 2005, even though several of the building managers were not satisfied with Petitioner’s performance under the contract during that period. Several of the building managers spoke with Mr. Smith regarding their concerns with Petitioner’s performance under the contract. They also documented Petitioner’s performance deficiencies on the monthly summary report forms that the contract required Petitioner to submit in order to obtain payment. Starting in April 2005, the building managers were required to fill out evaluation forms in addition to the monthly summary report forms. The impetus for the creation and use of the evaluation forms was Petitioner’s continuing unsatisfactory performance under the contract. The building managers used the evaluation forms to rate Petitioner’s performance as “good,” “fair,” or “poor” on the 20 categories of service that Petitioner was required to perform under the contract. Each service was assigned an equal weight -- e.g., one twentieth or five percent of the contract -- and if all 20 services were not applicable to a particular building, the weight assigned to each service was adjusted accordingly. The evaluation form was developed by Kris Parks, who was the contract administrator for Petitioner’s contract. Ms. Parks developed the form on her own. She did not get the input of the building managers in developing the form, and Mr. Smith was not consulted regarding the development of the form. The evaluation forms were used by Ms. Parks in conjunction with the monthly summary report forms in order to reduce the payments made to Petitioner under the contract. Each service for which Petitioner was given a “poor” rating by a building manager resulted in a five percent deduction in the amount paid to Petitioner. Typically, a “poor” rating reflected work that was not performed at all by Petitioner, rather than work that was performed unsatisfactorily. In some situations, a smaller deduction was made if the comments on the evaluation form or the monthly summary report form reflected partial performance despite the “poor” rating. For example, if Petitioner received a “poor” rating for mowing, but the comments reflected that Petitioner provided services twice during the month rather than the required four times, the deduction was 2.5 percent rather than five percent. The reduction of payments under the contract for unsatisfactory performance or unperformed work is specifically authorized by Section 3.13 of the contract. Section 3.13 of the contract states that the monthly summary report form “will be used by [the building managers] to track performance of services, in order to determine a proportional deduction in payment for services that are not performed as agreed” in the contract. It does not mention any other form. The contract does not define “proportional deduction” and it does not include the methodology to be used in calculating the deduction. The contract is silent on those issues. Petitioner’s contract with the Department was amended in May 2005 to reduce the number of buildings that Petitioner served from nine to three. The three remaining buildings were the ones closest to Petitioner’s business location in Lakeland, i.e., the Hargrett and Trammel Buildings in Tampa and the Peterson Building in Lakeland. The reduction in the scope of the contract was the result of Petitioner’s continuing unsatisfactory performance under the contract, and it reflected the Department’s well- founded view that Petitioner was not able to handle all nine buildings. The Department staff was trying to help Mr. Smith by allowing Petitioner to retain a portion of the contract rather than canceling the contract altogether based upon Petitioner’s poor performance. The invoices submitted by Petitioner for April 2005 through July 2005 were as follows: $7,384.92 (April); $7,384.92 (May); $1,938.64 (June); and $1,938.64 (July). The April and May invoices were based upon the nine buildings served by Petitioner in those months. The June and July invoices were based upon the three buildings served by Petitioner in those months. The Department did not pay the invoices for April 2005 through July 2005 in full. It paid Petitioner $2,451.782 for April (33.2 percent of the invoice), $835.82 for May (11.6 percent), $453.393 for June (23.4 percent), and $904.66 for July (46.7 percent). The amounts deducted -- $4,933.14 for April; $6,531.10 for May; $1,485.25 for June; and $1,033.98 for July -- were based upon the Department’s determination that Petitioner failed to perform certain work under the contract. The amounts deducted were calculated by Ms. Parks using the information provided to her by the building managers on the evaluation forms, as described above. The letters by which the Department informed Petitioner of the payment reductions advised Petitioner that it “may have the right to an administrative hearing regarding this matter, pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.” The letters explained what Petitioner was required to do to request a hearing and advised Petitioner that the "[f]ailure to timely request a hearing will be deemed a waiver of [the] right to a hearing." Petitioner timely filed letters challenging the deductions for April, June, and July 2005. The total deductions for those months were $7,452.37. Petitioner did not file anything challenging the deduction for May 2005. Therefore, the $6,531.10 deduction for that month is not at issue in this proceeding. Petitioner is not entitled to the full amount billed to the Department for April, June, and July 2005 because all of the services required under the contract were not performed during those months. Mr. Smith conceded this point in his testimony at the final hearing.4 Mr. Smith contended at the hearing that the amounts deducted by the Department were not reasonable in light of the services that Petitioner did provide. However, Mr. Smith did not identify what he would consider to be a reasonable deduction for the work that Petitioner admittedly did not perform. Petitioner routinely failed to provide mowing services at each of the buildings at the intervals required under the contract. For example, Petitioner only mowed one time during the month of June 2005 at the Hargrett and Trammel Buildings, rather than the four times required under the contract. Petitioner did not put down mulch at any of the buildings in March 2005, as required by the contract. When the building managers asked Mr. Smith about the mulch, he told them that he would get to it. Mr. Smith testified that he was told by the Department staff in Tallahassee that the mulch could be put down in any month so long as it was done twice a year. That uncorroborated, self-serving testimony was not persuasive. Petitioner put down mulch at some, but not all of the buildings in April and May 2005. The mulch that Petitioner put down did not cover all of the areas requiring mulch and it was not put down at the required four-inch depth. At the Trammel Building, for example, the mulch put down by Petitioner was less than half of that required by the contract. No mulch was ever put down at the Hurston Building in Orlando or the Grizzle Building in Largo. Petitioner’s performance was often deficient in regards to trimming and clean-up of debris. For example, on one occasion at the Trammel Building, Petitioner left more than 60 bags of leaves in and around the building’s dumpster; at the Hargrett building, there were overhanging tree limbs that went untrimmed for an extended period; and Petitioner routinely failed to do trimming at the Grizzle Building, although he did a good job picking up debris at that building. The services provided by Petitioner at the Trammel Building got so bad that the building manager had to hire another company at a cost of approximately $1,800 to clean up the site so that it would be presentable for an event in the vicinity of the building that was attended by a U.S. Senator and other dignitaries. The building managers were never given the results of the soil samples that Petitioner was required to take at the beginning of the contract even though they repeatedly requested that information. When Mr. Smith was asked about the soil samples by the building managers, he told them that he would get them done. Mr. Smith claimed at the hearing that he sent the results of the soil samples to the Department staff in Tallahassee, although he could not recall whom specifically he sent the results to, and he offered no documentation to corroborate his testimony on this issue. Petitioner’s testimony regarding the soil samples was not persuasive. The Department’s witnesses credibly testified that they never received the results of the soil samples from Petitioner. Indeed, the evidence was not persuasive that Petitioner ever took the soil samples required by the contract. The print-outs presented at the final hearing, Exhibit DMS-11, do not have any identifying information that would corroborate Mr. Smith’s testimony that the samples described in the print- outs were from the buildings that were the subject of the contract.5 Moreover, the print-outs are dated March 8, 2005, which is more than four months after the samples were supposed to have been taken by Petitioner, and several of the soil samples had pH levels outside of the range set forth in the contract. Mr. Smith testified that Petitioner applied fertilizer and pre-emergent weed control at each of the buildings, as required by the contract. That uncorroborated, self-serving testimony was not persuasive. The more persuasive evidence establishes that Petitioner did not apply fertilizer or pre-emergent weed control. On this issue, the building managers credibly testified that they were never advised by Mr. Smith that the fertilizer or pre-emergent weed control was being applied, even though those services were to supposed be performed pursuant to a schedule agreed upon with the building managers; the building managers credibly testified that they did not observe any signs that fertilizer had been applied, such as the greening of the grass; and fertilizer could not have been applied at the Hurston Building without killing all of the grass because the fertilizer needs to be watered into the lawn, and the sprinkler system at the building was not working at the time. Petitioner failed to perform the required inspection of the irrigation system at several of the buildings, including the Hurston Building, at the beginning of the contract in order to determine whether any repairs needed to be done. The system at the Hurston Building did not work for an extended period of time, which caused large sections of grass around the building to die from a lack of water. The performance deficiencies described above were cited on the monthly summary report forms and the evaluation forms completed by the building managers, which in turn were used by Ms. Parks to calculate the amount deducted from the monthly payments made to Petitioner under the contract. Petitioner was responsible for the costs of the mulch, fertilizer, and pre-emergent weed control required under the contract. The money that Petitioner “saved” by not providing those services likely exceeds the amounts deducted by the Department pursuant to Section 3.13 of the contract. For example, the mulch purchased by Petitioner for the Trammell Building cost approximately $2,250, and that was only half of the mulch needed for that building alone. Petitioner is no longer providing lawn care services to the Department under the contract. The contract was revoked based upon Petitioner’s unsatisfactory performance. The revocation of the contract, which occurred at some point prior to August 2005, is not at issue in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services issue a final order rejecting Petitioner’s challenge to the payment reductions made by the Department for the months of April, June, and July 2005. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of November, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd of November, 2006.
The Issue The issue to be determined in this bid protest matter is whether Respondent, Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s, intended award of funding under Request for Applications 2017- 108, entitled “SAIL Financing of Affordable Multifamily Housing Developments To Be Used In Conjunction With Tax-Exempt Bond Financing And Non-Competitive Housing Credits” was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact Florida Housing is a public corporation created pursuant to section 420.504, Florida Statutes. Its purpose is to provide and promote public welfare by administering the governmental function of financing affordable housing in Florida. Florida Housing is designated as the housing credit agency for Florida within the meaning of section 42(h)(7)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code. As such, Florida Housing is authorized to establish procedures to distribute low income housing tax credits and to exercise all powers necessary to administer the allocation of these credits. § 420.5099, Fla. Stat. For purposes of this administrative proceeding, Florida Housing is considered an agency of the State of Florida. To promote affordable housing in Florida, Florida Housing offers a variety of programs to distribute housing credits. (Housing credits, also known as tax credits, are a dollar-for-dollar offset of federal income tax liability.) One of these programs is the State Apartment Incentive Loan program (“SAIL”), which provides low-interest loans on a competitive basis to affordable housing developers. SAIL funds are available each year to support the construction or substantial rehabilitation of multifamily units affordable to very low- income individuals and families. See § 420.5087, Fla. Stat. Additional sources of financial assistance include the Multifamily Mortgage Revenue Bond program (“MMRB”) and non- competitive housing credits. Florida Housing administers the competitive solicitation process to award low-income housing tax credits, SAIL funds, nontaxable revenue bonds, and other funding by means of request for proposals or other competitive solicitation. Florida Housing initiates the competitive application process by issuing a Request for Applications. §§ 420.507(48) and 420.5087(1), Fla. Stat.; and Fla. Admin. Code R. 67-60.009(4). The Request for Application at issue in this matter is RFA 2017-108, entitled “SAIL Financing of Affordable Multifamily Housing Developments to Be Used in Conjunction with Tax-Exempt Bond Financing and Non-Competitive Housing Credits.” Florida Housing issued RFA 2017-108 on August 31, 2017. Applications were due by October 12, 2017.6/ The purpose of RFA 2017-108 is to distribute funding to create affordable housing in the State of Florida. Through RFA 2017-108, Florida Housing intends to award approximately $87,000,000 for proposed developments serving elderly and family demographic groups in small, medium, and large counties. RFA 2017-108 allocates $46,279,600 to large counties, $32,308,400 to medium counties, and $8,732,000 to small counties. RFA 2017-108 established goals to fund: Two Elderly, new construction Applications located in Large Counties; Three Family, new construction Applications located in Large Counties; One Elderly, new construction Application located in a Medium County; and Two Family, new construction Applications located in Medium Counties. Thirty-eight developers submitted applications in response to RFA 2017-108. Of these applicants, Florida Housing found 28 eligible for funding, including all Petitioners and Intervenors in this matter. Florida Housing received, processed, deemed eligible or ineligible, scored, and ranked applications pursuant to the terms of RFA 2017-108, Florida Administrative Code Chapters 67- 48 and 67-60, and applicable federal regulations. RFA 2017-108 provided that applicants were scored based on certain demographic and geographic funding tests. Florida Housing sorted applications from the highest scoring to the lowest. Only applications that met all the eligibility requirements were eligible for funding and considered for selection. Florida Housing created a Review Committee from amongst its staff to review and score each application. On November 15, 2017, the Review Committee announced its scores at a public meeting and recommended which projects should be awarded funding. On December 8, 2017, the Review Committee presented its recommendations to Florida Housing’s Board of Directors for final agency action. The Board of Directors subsequently approved the Review Committee’s recommendations and announced its intention to award funding to 16 applicants. As a preliminary matter, prior to the final hearing, Florida Housing agreed to the following reassessments in the scoring and selection of the applications for funding under RFA 2017-108: SP Lake and Osprey Pointe: In the selection process, Florida Housing erroneously determined that SP Lake was eligible to meet the funding goal for the “Family” demographic for the Family, Medium County, New Construction Goal. (SP Lake specifically applied for funding for the “Elderly” demographic.) Consequently, Florida Housing should have selected Osprey Pointe to meet the Family, Medium County, New Construction Goal. Osprey Pointe proposed to construct affordable housing in Pasco County, Florida. Florida Housing represents that Osprey Pointe is fully eligible for funding under RFA 2017-108. (While Osprey Pointe replaces SP Lake in the funding selection for the “Family” demographic, SP Lake remains eligible for funding for the “Elderly” demographic.) Sierra Bay and Northside II: In the scoring process, Florida Housing erroneously awarded Sierra Bay proximity points for Transit Services. Upon further review, Sierra Bay should have received zero proximity points. Consequently, Sierra Bay’s application is ineligible for funding under RFA 2017-108. By operation of the provisions of RFA 2017-108, Florida Housing should have selected Northside II (the next highest ranked, eligible applicant) for funding to meet the Elderly, Large County, New Construction Goal. Florida Housing represents that Northside II is fully eligible for funding under RFA 2017-108. Harbour Springs: Florida Housing initially deemed Harbour Springs eligible for funding under RFA 2017-108 and selected it to meet the Family, Large County, New Construction Goal. However, because Harbour Springs and Woodland Grove are owned by the same entity and applied using the same development site, under rule 67-48.004(1), Harbour Springs is ineligible for funding. (Florida Housing’s selection of Woodland Grove for funding for the Family, Large County, New Construction Goal, is not affected by this determination.) The sole disputed issue of material fact concerns Liberty Square’s challenge to Florida Housing’s selection of Woodland Grove to meet the Family, Large County Goal. Liberty Square and Woodland Grove applied to serve the same demographic population under RFA 2017-108. If Liberty Square successfully challenges Woodland Grove’s application, Liberty Square, as the next eligible applicant, will be selected for funding to meet the Family, Large County Goal instead of Woodland Grove. (At the hearing on December 8, 2017, Florida Housing’s Board of Directors awarded Woodland Grove $7,600,000 in funding.) The focus of Liberty Square’s challenge is the information Woodland Grove provided in response to RFA 2017-108, Section Four, A.5.d., entitled “Latitude/Longitude Coordinates.” Liberty Square argues that Woodland Grove’s application is ineligible because its Development Location Point, as well as the locations of its Community Services and Transit Services, are inaccurate. Therefore, Woodland Grove should have received zero “Proximity” points which would have disqualified its application for funding. RFA 2017-108, Section Four, A.5.d(1), states, in pertinent part: All Applicants must provide a Development Location Point stated in decimal degrees, rounded to at least the sixth decimal place. RFA 2017-108 set forth scoring considerations based on latitude/longitude coordinates in Section Four, A.5.e, entitled “Proximity.” Section Four, A.5.e, states, in pertinent part: The Application may earn proximity points based on the distance between the Development Location Point and the Bus or Rail Transit Service . . . and the Community Services stated in Exhibit A. Proximity points will not be applied to the total score. Proximity points will only be used to determine whether the Applicant meets the required minimum proximity eligibility requirements and the Proximity Funding Preference ” In other words, the Development Location Point identified the specific location of an applicant’s proposed housing site.7/ Applicants earned “proximity points” based on the distance between its Development Location Point and selected Transit and Community Services. Florida Housing also used the Development Location Point to determine whether an application satisfied the Mandatory Distance Requirement under RFA 2017-108, Section Four A.5.f. To be eligible for funding, all applications had to qualify for the Mandatory Distance Requirement. The response section to Section Four, A.5.d., is found in Exhibit A, section 5, which required each applicant to submit information regarding the “Location of proposed Development.” Section 5 specifically requested: County; Address of Development Site; Does the proposed Development consist of Scattered Sites?; Latitude and Longitude Coordinate; Proximity; Mandatory Distance Requirement; and Limited Development Area. Section 5.d. (Latitude and Longitude Coordinates) was subdivided into: (1) Development Location Point Latitude in decimal degrees, rounded to at least the sixth decimal place Longitude in decimal degrees, rounded to at least the sixth decimal place In its application, Woodland Grove responded in section 5.a-d as follows: County: Miami-Dade Address of Development Site: NE corner of SW 268 Street and 142 Ave, Miami-Dade, FL 33032. Does the proposed Development consist of Scattered Sites? No. Latitude and Longitude Coordinate; Development Location Point Latitude in decimal degrees, rounded to at least the sixth decimal place: 25.518647 Longitude in decimal degrees, rounded to at least the sixth decimal place: 80.418583 In plotting geographic coordinates, a “-” (negative) sign in front of the longitude indicates a location in the western hemisphere (i.e., west of the Prime Meridian, which is aligned with the Royal Observatory, Greenwich, England). A longitude without a “-” sign places the coordinate in the eastern hemisphere. (Similarly, a latitude with a negative value is south of the equator. A latitude without a “-” sign refers to a coordinate in the northern hemisphere.) As shown above, the longitude coordinate Woodland Grove listed in section 5.d(1) did not include a “-” sign. Consequently, instead of providing a coordinate for a site in Miami-Dade County, Florida, Woodland Grove entered a Development Location Point located on the direct opposite side of the planet (apparently, in India). At the final hearing, Florida Housing (and Woodland Grove) explained that, except for the lack of the “-” sign, the longitude Woodland Grove recorded would have fallen directly on the address it listed as its development site in section 5.b., i.e., the “NE corner of SW 268 Street and 142 Ave, Miami-Dade, FL 33032.” In addition to the longitude in section 5.d., Woodland Grove did not include a “-” sign before the longitude coordinates for its Transit Services in section 5.e(2)(b) or for any of the three Community Services provided in section 5.e(3). Again, without a “-” sign, the longitude for each of these services placed them in the eastern hemisphere (India) instead of the western hemisphere (Miami-Dade County). In its protest, Liberty Square contends that, because Woodland Grove’s application listed a Development Location Point in India, Florida Housing should have awarded Woodland Grove zero proximity points under Section Four, A.5.e. Consequently, Woodland Grove’s application failed to meet minimum proximity eligibility requirements and is ineligible for funding. Therefore, Liberty Square, as the next eligible applicant, should be awarded funding for the Family, Large County Goal, under RFA 2017-108.8/ Liberty Square asserts that a correct Development Location Point is critical because it serves as the beginning point for assigning proximity scores. Waiving an errant Development Location Point makes the proximity scoring meaningless. Consequently, any such waiver by Florida Housing is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to competition. At the final hearing, Woodland Grove claimed that it inadvertently failed to include the “-” sign before the longitude points. To support its position, Woodland Grove expressed that, on the face of its application, it was obviously applying for funding for a project located in Miami-Dade County, Florida, not India. In at least five places in its application, Woodland Grove specified that its proposed development would be located in Miami-Dade County. Moreover, several attachments to Woodland Grove’s application specifically reference a development site in Florida. Woodland Grove attached a purchase agreement for property located in Miami-Dade County (Attachment 8). To satisfy the Ability to Proceed requirements in RFA 2017-108, Woodland Grove included several attachments which all list a Miami-Dade address (Attachments 9-14). Further, Woodland Grove submitted a Local Government Verification of Contribution – Loan Form executed on behalf of the Mayor of Miami-Dade County, which committed Miami-Dade County to contribute $1,000,000.00 to Woodland Grove’s proposed Development (Attachment 15). Finally, to qualify for a basis boost under RFA 2017-108, Woodland Grove presented a letter from Miami-Dade County’s Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources, which also referenced the address of the proposed development in Miami-Dade County (Attachment 16). In light of this information, Woodland Grove argues that its application, taken as a whole, clearly communicated that Woodland Grove intended to build affordable housing in Miami-Dade County. Nowhere in its application, did Woodland Grove reference a project in India other than the longitude coordinates which failed to include “-” signs. Accordingly, Florida Housing was legally authorized to waive Woodland Grove’s mistake as a “harmless error.” Thus, Florida Housing properly selected the Woodland Grove’s development for funding to meet the Family, Large County Goal. Florida Housing advocates for Woodland Grove’s selection to meet the Family, Large County Goal, under RFA 2017- 108. Florida Housing considers the omission of the “-” signs before the longitude coordinates a “Minor Irregularity” under rule 67-60.002(6). Therefore, Florida Housing properly acted within its legal authority to waive, and then correct, Woodland Grove’s faulty longitude coordinates when scoring its application. In support of its position, Florida Housing presented the testimony of Marisa Button, Florida Housing’s current Director of Multifamily Allocations. In her job, Ms. Button oversees the Request for Applications process; although, she did not personally participate in the review, scoring, or selection decisions for RFA 2017-108. Ms. Button initially explained the process by which Florida Housing selected the 16 developments for funding under RFA 2017-108. Ms. Button conveyed that Florida Housing created a Review Committee from amongst its staff to score the applications. Florida Housing selected Review Committee participants based on the staff member’s experience, preferences, and workload. Florida Housing also assigned a backup reviewer to separately score each application. The Review Committee members independently evaluated and scored their assigned portions of the applications based on various mandatory and scored items. Thereafter, the scorer and backup reviewer met to reconcile their scores. If any concerns or questions arose regarding an applicant’s responses, the scorer and backup reviewer discussed them with Florida Housing’s supervisory and legal staff. The scorer then made the final determination as to each application. Ms. Button further explained that applicants occasionally make errors in their applications. However, not all errors render an application ineligible. Florida Housing is authorized to waive “Minor Irregularities.” As delineated in RFA 2017-108, Section Three, A.2.C., Florida Housing may waive “Minor Irregularities” when the errors do not provide a competitive advantage or adversely impact the interests of Florida Housing or the public. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 67- 60.002(6) and 67-60.008. Such was the case regarding Woodland Grove’s application. Heather Green, the Florida Housing staff member who scored the “Proximity” portion of RFA 2017-108, waived the inaccurate longitude coordinates as “Minor Irregularities.” Ms. Green then reviewed Woodland Grove’s application as if the proposed development was located in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Florida Housing assigned Ms. Green, a Multifamily Loans Manager, as the lead scorer for the “Proximity” portion of RFA 2017-108, which included the Development Location Point listed in Exhibit A, section 5.d. Ms. Green has worked for Florida Housing since 2003 and has scored proximity points for Request for Applications for over ten years. At the final hearing, Florida Housing offered the deposition testimony of Ms. Green. In her deposition, Ms. Green testified that she is fully aware that, to be located in the western hemisphere (i.e., Miami-Dade County), a longitude coordinate should be marked with a negative sign or a “W.” Despite this, Ms. Green felt that the longitude coordinates Woodland Grove used without negative signs, particularly its Development Location Point, were clearly typos or unintentional mistakes. Therefore, Ms. Green waived the lack of a negative sign in front of the longitude coordinates in section 5.d. and section 5.e. as “Minor Irregularities.” Ms. Green understood that she was authorized to waive “Minor Irregularities” by rule under the Florida Administrative Code. Ms. Green felt comfortable waiving the inaccurate longitude coordinates because everywhere else in Woodland Grove’s application specifically showed that its proposed housing development was located in Miami-Dade County, not India. Accordingly, when scoring Woodland Grove’s application, Ms. Green corrected the longitude entries by including a negative sign when she plotted the coordinates with her mapping software. Ms. Green then determined that, when a “-” was inserted before the longitude, the coordinate lined up with the address Woodland Grove listed for the Development Location Point. Therefore, Woodland Grove received proximity points and was eligible for funding under RFA 2017-108. (See RFA 2017-108, Section Five.A.1.) However, Ms. Green acknowledged that if she had scored the application just as it was presented, Woodland Grove would not have met the required qualifications for eligibility. Ms. Button relayed that Florida Housing fully accepted Ms. Green’s decision to waive the missing negative signs in Woodland Grove’s response to section 5.d. and 5.e. as “Minor Irregularities.” Ms. Button opined that Woodland Grove’s failure to place a “-” mark before the longitude was clearly an unintentional mistake. Ms. Button further commented that Florida Housing did not believe that scoring Woodland Grove’s development as if located in the western hemisphere (instead of India), provided Woodland Grove a competitive advantage. Because it was evident on the face of the application that Woodland Grove desired to develop a housing site in Miami-Dade County, Ms. Green’s decision to overlook the missing “-” sign did not award Woodland Grove additional points or grant Woodland Grove an advantage over other applicants. Neither did it adversely impact the interests of Florida Housing or the public. However, Ms. Button also conceded that if Ms. Green had scored the application without adding the “-” sign, Woodland Grove would have received zero proximity points. This result would have rendered Woodland Grove’s application ineligible for funding. Ms. Button also pointed out that Ms. Green waived the omission of “-” signs in two other applications as “Minor Irregularities.” Both Springhill Apartments, LLC, and Harbour Springs failed to include negative signs in front of their longitude coordinates. As with Woodland Grove, Ms. Green considered the development sites in those applications as if they were located in Miami-Dade County (i.e., in the western hemisphere). Ms. Green also waived a mistake in the Avery Commons application as a “Minor Irregularity.” The longitude coordinate for the Avery Commons Development Location Point (section 5.d(1)) was blank. However, Ms. Green determined that Avery Commons had placed the longitude in the blank reserved for Scattered Sites coordinates (section 5.d(2)). When scoring Avery Commons’ application, Ms. Green considered the coordinate in the appropriate section. According to Ms. Button, Florida Housing felt that this variation did not provide Avery Commons a competitive advantage. Nor did it adversely impact the interests of Florida Housing or the public. Finally, Ms. Button explained that the application Florida Housing used for RFA 2017-108 was a relatively new format. In previous Request For Applications, Florida Housing required applicants to submit a Surveyor Certification Form. On the (now obsolete) Surveyor Certification Form, Florida Housing prefilled in an “N” in front of all the latitude coordinates and a “W” in front of all the longitude coordinates. However, the application used in RFA 2017-108 did not place an “N” or “W” before the Development Location Point coordinates. Based on the evidence presented at the final hearing, Liberty Square did not establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Florida Housing’s decision to award funding to Woodland Grove for the Family, Large County Goal, under RFA 2017-108 was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. Florida Housing was within its legal authority to waive, then correct, the missing “-” sign in Woodland Grove’s application as “Minor Irregularity.” Therefore, the undersigned concludes, as a matter of law, that Petitioner did not meet its burden of proving that Florida Housing’s proposed action to select Woodland Grove for funding was contrary to its governing statutes, rules or policies, or the provisions of RFA 2017-108.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a final order dismissing the protest by Liberty Square. It is further recommended that Florida Housing Finance Corporation rescind the intended awards to Sierra Bay, SP Lake, and Harbour Springs, and instead designate Northside II, Osprey Pointe, and Pembroke Tower Apartments as the recipients of funding under RFA 2017-108.10/ DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of April, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER 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 19th day of April, 2018.
The Issue At issue in this case is whether the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (FLWAC) should grant the Petition to Amend the Boundary of the Villages of Westport Community Development District (CDD, or District) filed on December 23, 2005 (Petition), as amended and supplemented.
The Issue The issue before the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (FLWAC) in this proceeding is whether to grant the Petition to Establish Hawk’s Haven Community Development District (Petition), dated July 6, 2004. The local public hearing was conducted for the purpose of gathering information in anticipation of rulemaking by FLWAC.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether a small scale amendment to the Cooper City comprehensive plan adopted pursuant to Section 163.3187(1)(c), Florida Statutes, is "in compliance."
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, The Sunshine Ranches Homeowners Association, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the “Homeowners Association ") is a not-for-profit corporation. The Homeowners Association has members who reside within the residential area known as Sunshine Ranches, located in Broward County. The address of the principal office of the Homeowners Association is 12400 Flamingo Road, Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida. (Stipulated Facts). The Homeowners Association was formed on or about December 4, 1968. The Homeowners Association is involved in working for the betterment of residents and land owners within Sunshine Ranches to secure political, social, and economic improvement within Sunshine Ranches. Petitioner, Charles F. Seip, resides at 4661 Southwest 128th Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Mr. Seip lives two blocks west of the parcel of property which is the subject of this proceeding. Mr. Seip has lived at his current location for 26.5 years. (Stipulated Facts). Petitioner, Anthony E. Coulson, resides at 4710 Southwest 126th Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Mr. Coulson lives approximately four blocks from the subject property. (Stipulated Facts). Petitioner, Jeffrey Price, resides at 5001 Southwest 126th Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Mr. Price lives approximately four blocks west of the subject property. (Stipulated Facts). Each Petitioner submitted oral and written objections to the City of Cooper City during the review and adoption proceedings conducted by the City of Cooper City on the adoption of the comprehensive plan amendment which is the subject of this proceeding. Petitioners submitted objections to the Cooper City Planning and Zoning Board and the City of Cooper City Commission. The parties stipulated that Petitioners are "affected persons." Respondent, the City of Cooper City (hereinafter referred to as the "City"), is a municipality of the State of Florida. The City is located in Broward County, Florida. The City is a "local government" as defined in Section 163.3164(13), Florida Statutes. The City's address is 9090 Southwest 50th Place, Cooper City, Broward County, Florida. (Stipulated Facts). Intervenor, George H. Lange, Trustee, is the representative of a trust that owns the property which is the subject of the amendment at issue in this proceeding. The Amendment. By Ordinance Number 96-10-3, the City adopted an amendment, L.L.U.P.A. 96-S-1 (hereinafter referred to as the "Plan Amendment") to the Cooper City Land Use Plan. (Stipulated Facts). The Plan Amendment was adopted on October 22, 1996. (Stipulated Facts). Also adopted with the Plan Amendment was a Development Agreement establishing conditions for the development of the property which is the subject of the Plan Amendment (hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property"). The Plan Amendment was also identified as Ordinance Number PS96-15 in some notices published by the City. (Stipulated Facts). The Plan Amendment changes the land use designation of approximately 8.45 acres of land from "Estate Residential" to "Commercial" for the eastern 3.82 acres and to "Community Facility" for the western 4 acres. (Stipulated Facts). The Plan Amendment is a "small scale amendment" pursuant to Section 163.3187(1(c), Florida Statutes. Therefore, the Plan Amendment was not reviewed by the Department of Community Affairs. (Stipulated Facts). The petition challenging the Plan Amendment was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings within 30 days of October 22, 1996, the date the Plan Amendment was adopted. (Stipulated Facts). The City and Its Comprehensive Plan. The City is a relatively small municipality located in southwestern Broward County. Geographically, the City consists of approximately six-and-a-quarter square miles. The City is located directly to the east of Sunshine Ranches. The City and Sunshine Ranches are bounded on the north and south by the same roads: Griffin Road and Orange Road in the north; and Sheridan Street in the South. The western boundary of the City either abuts Sunshine Ranches or is separated by Flamingo Road. The City is bounded on the north by the Town of Davie. It is bounded on the south by Pembroke Pines. The City adopted the Cooper City Comprehensive Plan in 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the "Plan"). It consists of Volumes I, II, and III. Volume I contains the text of the Plan. Volumes II and III contain the data and analysis for the Plan. Pursuant to a Compliance Agreement entered into between the City and the Department of Community Affairs, the Plan was found to be "in compliance" as defined in Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. The City's Evaluation and Appraisal Report. The City was required to submit an Evaluation and Appraisal Report to the Department of Community Affairs on or before March 11, 1996. At the time of the formal hearing of this case, the City had prepared a draft of its Evaluation and Appraisal Report. See Respondent's and Intervenor's Exhibit 5. The draft of the City's Evaluation and Appraisal Report had not, however, been filed with the Department of Community Affairs. Sunshine Ranches. Sunshine Ranches is an unincorporated area of Broward County. It is generally bounded by the following roads: On the north by Orange Road and Griffin Road; On the south by Sheridan Street; On the west by Volunteer Road (148th Avenue); and On the east by Flamingo Road. Griffin Road abuts the entire length of the northern boundary of Sunshine Ranches. Orange Road is located immediately to the north of Griffin Road. The two roads are separated by a canal which runs the entire length of the northern boundary of Sunshine Ranches. The area to the north of Orange Road and Griffin Road is largely undeveloped. Flamingo Road on the eastern boundary of Sunshine Ranches is a six-lane road with a wide right-of-way. There is also a canal that runs the length of Flamingo Road. The canal separates Flamingo Road from Sunshine Ranches and other parcels of property located west of Flamingo Road. The right- of-way and canal are approximately 270 feet wide. The roads along the north, south, and west of Sunshine Ranches are contiguous with Sunshine Ranches' boundaries. On the east, Flamingo road is contiguous with most of Sunshine Ranches' eastern boundary. There are, however, several parcels of property located west of Flamingo Road which are a part of the City. Sunshine Ranches consists of approximately four square miles of land, or approximately 2,500 acres. Sunshine Ranches is a rural community with a significant number of small and large horse farms. There are also large homesites, the majority of which are five acres or larger. Many homesites have barns on them. A substantial number of homes in Sunshine Acres have animals, such as horses, chickens, and cows. Most of the roads in Sunshine Ranches are dirt roads. There are no sidewalks or traffic lights. There are a few fire hydrants in Sunshine Ranches. Most areas, however, are served by fire wells. There is a volunteer fire department consisting of two vehicles. The vehicles are leased from Broward County. Sunshine Ranches is a unique community in Broward County, both in terms of the size of lots and its rural, equestrian and agricultural character. There are signs at each entrance road into Sunshine Ranches that include the following: "Welcome to Sunshine Ranches: A Rural Estate Community." Most commercial enterprises within Sunshine Ranches are involved in equestrian-related activities. These activities consist of providing boarding facilities, riding schools, and horse training facilities. There is also a plant nursery located in Sunshine Ranches. Horses owned by non-residents of Sunshine Ranches are boarded at facilities in Sunshine Ranches. Non-residents also ride horses at facilities located in Sunshine Ranches. The land use designations for Sunshine Ranches consist of the following: "Rural Ranches," which allows one residential unit per two and one-half acres; and "Rural Estate," which allows one residential unit per one acre. The designation of Sunshine Ranches as Rural Ranches and Rural Estate was accomplished by an amendment to the Broward County comprehensive plan. It was the first area in Broward County to receive these designations. The designations resulted from a study conducted by Broward County to identify, preserve, and protect rural lands from urban encroachment. Property designated Rural Ranches may be used for "Community Facilities" also. Community Facilities include schools, fire stations, churches, etc. Churches require five- acre lots. There are several parcels located along Flamingo Road in Sunshine Ranches which are used by Churches. There are also schools located within Sunshine Ranches. Approximately 90% of Sunshine Ranches is designated Rural Ranches. Approximately 10% of Sunshine Ranches is designated Rural Estate. The portion of Sunshine Ranches designated Rural Estate is located along Giffin Road. Commercial Activities Around Sunshine Ranches. There are only a few commercial sites located near the boundaries of Sunshine Ranches. One is located on the western boundary of Sunshine Ranches at Volunteer Road and Griffin Road. This site is located on the side of Volunteer Road opposite to Sunshine Ranches. The site is, therefore, separated from Sunshine Ranches by the road and a canal. The largest amount of commercial property in the vicinity of Sunshine Ranches is located near the eastern boundary of Sunshine Ranches and Flamingo Road. At the corner of Flamingo Road and Giffin Road, immediately across Flamingo Road from the Subject Property, is Wal-Mart Shopping Center. Abutting Flamingo Road is the parking lot for the shopping center. The shopping center is located to the east of the parking lot. The shopping center is currently separated from Sunshine Ranches by approximately 700 feet of parking lot, the six-lanes of Flamingo Road, the canal located on the west side of Flamingo Road and the Subject Property. Immediately to the south of the Wal-Mart parcel are properties designated "Low 5" and "Low-Medium 10." Both designations allow residential uses. Flamingo Road and the canal on the western side of Flamingo Road act as a buffer between the existing commercial activities on Flamingo Road and Sunshine Ranches. Flamingo Road has historically acted as a dividing line between commercial activities and Sunshine Ranches. Commercial activities have been limited to the eastern side of Flamingo Road. On the west side of Flamingo Road there are several parcels of land which have been annexed as part of the City. None of these parcels are currently approved for commercial uses, however. They are all currently designated for residential ("Estate Residential") or Community Facilities. Most remain undeveloped. The Estate Residential designation allows use of the property for Community Facilities. Immediately to the south of the Subject Property is a 16-acres parcel designated Estate Residential. The largest parcel of property in the City located on the western side of Flamingo Road has been developed under the name of County Glen. There are no commercial sites within County Glen. Steps were taken in developing County Glen to minimize the impact of its higher density on Sunshine Ranches. These steps included restricting the number of traffic lights within the development and a limitation on density of the lots directly abutting Sunshine Ranches to one residential unit per acre. Although County Glen is more urban than Sunshine Ranches, steps were taken to buffer Sunshine Ranches from the impact of the development, consistent with development allowed west of Flamingo Road. The Need for Commercial Property in the City. Volume II of the Plan contains an analysis of the amount of commercial acreage within the City necessary to support the residents of the City. The analysis indicates that the City has one of the lowest ratios of commercial to residential acreage in Broward County. The ratio of commercial property to residential property was 7.2 percent. Although this ratio is lower than the ratio for Broward County, the City and the Department of Community Affairs agreed that the Plan, including the amount of acreage designated for commercial use, was "in compliance." The City has not amended its Plan to change this ratio. The City has adopted two Plan amendments reducing the amount of acreage in the City designated "Commercial" under the Plan. One amendment involved approximately 14.4 acres. The evidence failed to prove the size of the other parcel. Currently, there are a number of parcels of land designated Commercial under the Plan which are vacant. One is known as the Transflorida Bank Plaza. It is located to the east of the Subject Property at the corner of Griffin Road and 100th Avenue. The property was formerly a Winn Dixie Supermarket. Part of the property is still used for commercial uses. Another vacant commercial parcel is located on Pine Island Road across from David Poenick Community Center. This parcel is 6.5 acres. The City has approved use of this property for a 55,000 square-foot Albertson's. Another vacant commercial parcel is located on Stirling Road across from the Cooper City High School. On the east side of Flamingo Road, between Stirling Road and Giffin Road, there is a shopping center known as Countryside Shops. There are vacant parcels to the south and north of this property which could be used for commercial purposes. Finally, there are other vacant commercial parcels located in the central part of the City. The location of commercial property is an important factor in determining whether the property will actually be used. Therefore, the fact that there are vacant commercial properties located in the City fails to prove that there is not a need for the total amount of property designated Commercial under the Plan. Overall, the City has reduced the amount of property designated Commercial under the Plan. The amount of land being classified as Commercial pursuant to the Plan Amendment will not increase the amount of property originally designated Commercial pursuant to the Plan. The "Industrial" land use designation under the Plan allows some uses which may be considered commercial. This was true when the Plan was found to be in compliance, however, and the amount of land designated Commercial was still approved. The evidence failed to prove that the amount of property designated Commercial, including the portion of the property being designated Commercial pursuant to the Plan Amendment, is not supported by the data and analysis that supported the amount of commercial property found to be in compliance under the Plan when it was adopted. In light of the fact that the City has not submitted its Evaluation and Appraisal Report to the Department of Community Affairs for review as required by Section 163.3191, Florida Statutes, the amount of property designated Commercial in the originally approved Plan should not be relied upon to support the Plan Amendment. While the draft of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report prepared by the City indicates a need for additional commercial acreage in the City, the Department of Community Affairs has not reviewed the report. Nor has the City amended the Plan "based on the recommendations contained in the adopted evaluation and appraisal report " Section 163.3191 (4), Florida Statutes. The Subject Property and the Impact of the Plan Amendment. The Subject Property is currently classified as "Estate Residential" in the Plan. This classification allows the use of the Subject Property for residential purposes. The Subject Property is located at the southwestern corner of Flamingo Road and Griffin Road. It is located on the west of Flamingo Road. The Subject Property abuts the northeastern corner of Sunshine Ranches. Under the Plan Amendment, the eastern approximately four acres of the Subject Property will be designated Commercial (hereinafter referred to as the "Commercial Property"). This will be the first property on the west side of Flamingo Road designated for commercial uses. The Commercial Property will be separated from Sunshine Ranches by the remaining 3.82 acres of the Subject Property. This portion of the Subject Property will be designated Community Facilities (hereinafter referred to as the "Community Facilities Property"). The Subject Property abuts an area of Sunshine Ranches which consists of Rural Estate property. This designation makes up approximately 10 percent of the property in Sunshine Ranches. The Plan Amendment allows stormwater facilities required for the Commercial Property and the Community Facilities Property to be located on the Community Facilities Property. I. Compatibility of Land Classifications with Surrounding Classifications; The Impact of the Plan Amendment on Sunshine Ranches. Policy 1.1.3 of the Plan provides that the compatibility of a proposed land use with existing land uses is a primary consideration in determining whether a land use should be allowed. Residential and commercial land uses are not inherently compatible. Despite this fact, residential and commercial land uses often abut each other. Where this occurs, steps can be taken to minimize the negative impact of the commercial use of property on the residential use of adjoining property. Flamingo Road and the adjacent canal provide a good boundary and buffer between rural Sunshine Ranches and the urbanized area of the City. The Plan recognizes this fact by requiring that the City conduct a study of the application of an urban growth boundary line for areas of the City located west of Flamingo Road. Regardless of the size of the Commercial Property, the designation of the Commercial Property for commercial uses would be the first commercially authorized use of property west of Flamingo Road or inside any of the other boundary roads of Sunshine Ranches. Comparing the uses allowed on the Commercial Property with the uses of property in Sunshine Ranches, it is evident that the uses are not compatible. This conclusion, however, does not necessarily mean that the City's approval of the Commercial Property for commercial uses is not "in compliance." Although the uses allowed on the Commercial Property and in Sunshine Ranches are incompatible, there are steps which can be taken to minimize the negative impacts which occur when commercial activities approach residential activities. One of those steps was taken when the City approved the Plan Amendment with the Community Facilities Property located between the Commercial Property and Sunshine Ranches. The Community Facilities Property, in conjunction with other measures, can be an effective buffer between the Commercial Property and Sunshine Ranches. The Development Agreement adopted by the City was adopted, in part, to address compatibility concerns. The Development Agreement eliminates various uses of the Commercial Property which would otherwise be allowed by the City's zoning for commercial parcels. The Development Agreement also provides that the Community Facilities Property will be dedicated to community facilities uses once the development of the Commercial Property is approved. The Development Agreement also includes certain development standards and requirements intended to reduce the impact on Sunshine Ranches due to incompatibility, such as requiring berms and landscaping to buffer the Subject Property from Sunshine Ranches. Horse trails along the Subject Property are to be included in the development. Land development regulations will require that steps be taken in the development of the Subject Property to reduce the negative impact on adjoining property, including Sunshine Ranches. The designation of the Commercial Property for commercial uses could, however, have a "domino affect" on other property located west of Flamingo Road. Once one parcel is approved, it will be difficult for the City not to approve similarly situated parcels. The Plan Amendment will increase the expectation of others who own property west of Flamingo Road that the land- use designation of their property can be changed to Commercial. The evidence, however, failed to prove that there are other parcels of property located west of Flamingo Road which are sufficiently similar to the Subject Property that they would be allowed to be used for commercial purposes. The evidence also failed to prove that any parcels of property located west of Flamingo Road which may be considered in the future for commercial uses cannot have conditions imposed on their use for commercial purposes which will adequately protect Sunshine Ranches from an incompatible use. The Plan Amendment could also negatively impact the ability to use adjoining property for residential purposes. In particular, the sixteen-acre parcel located immediately to the south of the Subject Property will more difficult to develop as residential if the Plan Amendment is approved. The evidence failed to prove, however, that with effective buffering adjoining property cannot be used for residential purposes. The evidence failed to prove that, with proper measures to reduce the impacts of the development on the Subject Property on Sunshine Ranches, the development of the Subject Property allowed by the Plan Amendment would necessarily be incompatible with Sunshine Ranches. The evidence failed to prove that the uses allowed for the Community Facilities Property are incompatible with the uses allowed in Sunshine Ranches. The Availability of Infrastructure. The evidence failed to prove that the Plan Amendment is not in compliance due to the lack of available vehicle trips on roads that would be impacted by development of the Subject Property. This issue, which involves the question of whether development of the Subject Property is consistent with relevant transportation levels of service, is one that should be considered at the time a development order is sought. It is not an issue for consideration in determining whether a land use designation amendment is in compliance. The same conclusion applies to other services such as sewer and water, which currently are available for the Subject Property. Urban Sprawl, the State and Regional Plan, Internal Inconsistency, and Inconsistency with the Broward County Comprehensive Plan. The evidence failed to support allegations concerning urban sprawl, the state and regional plans, internal inconsistencies, and inconsistencies with the Broward County comprehensive plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Administration Commission finding the Plan Amendment is invalid because it was adopted in violation of Section 163.3187(6), Florida Statutes, and is not "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of July, 1997, 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 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of July, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Grosso, General Counsel Scott SznitRen, Certified Law Intern ENVIRONEMENTAL and LAW USE LAW CENTER, INC. Civil Law Clinic Shepard Broad Law Center Nova Southeastern Center 3305 College Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33314 Alan Ruf, City Attorney City of Cooper City 9090 Southwest 50th Place Cooper City, Florida 33328 Richard G. Coker, Jr., Esquire BRADY and CORER 1318 Southeast 2nd Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Barbara Leighty, Clerk Administration Commission Growth Management and Strategic Planning 2105 Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Gregory Smith, Esquire Administration Commission 209 Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
The Issue Whether the permit Harbor Woods seeks should be denied lest effluent from a sewage treatment plant enter the proposed basin? Whether the proposed project will cause odors and degradation of water quality in contravention of DER standards and rules, as a result of stormwater runoff?
Findings Of Fact On Merritt Island in Brevard County, Harbor Woods owns an 80-acre parcel on the western shore of Newfound Harbor. From the north, Sykes Creek flows into Newfound Harbor, which opens into the Banana River to the south. The parties stipulated that Newfound Harbor, which is navigable, contains Class III waters. Paralleling the northern boundary of the Harbor Woods property is a ditch through which 800,000 gallons or more of effluent from a sewage treatment plant operated by Brevard County pours into Newfound Harbor daily, at a point about 400 feet north of the proposed flushing channel. A mile or so south of the proposed flushing channel is the nearest boundary of the Banana River Aquatic Preserve. PETITIONER'S INTEREST Robert B. Sampson, Carl Seidel and Betty Holcombe have all been boating in Newfound Harbor and expect to use the waters of Newfound Harbor in the future. Ms. Holcombe is an avid angler and has fished those waters often. MAN vs. MOSQUITO At one time an arm of Newfound Harbor extended onto the property Harbor Woods now proposes to develop. As a means of mosquito control, the authorities caused a dike to be built along the eastern edge of the property, wailing off the shallows and interdicting the tidal flow. The impoundment was then filled with fresh water in an effort to keep the bottom covered. The idea was to deprive mosquitoes of mud they need for depositing eggs. The effort was not completely successful, and the area continues to be sprayed with insecticides. The mosquitoes that now breed in the vicinity of the impounded fresh water are capable of transmitting encephalitis and other diseases and constitute a more serious problem than the mosquitoes whose larvae formerly hatched on the salt mud flats. The area of the original impoundment was reduced some time after 1967 by filling in conjunction with development to the north of the Harbor Woods property. PARTIAL RESTORATION PROPOSED Barber Woods, which owns the bottom landward of the dike, proposes to drain the fresh water to an unspecified upland site, uproot some seven and a half acres of cattails, remove the muck, and fill with clean sand so as to reshape the perimeter of the impoundment and its bottom contours; and consolidate four small islands into a single "recreational" island within the newly formed basin, which would only then be connected to Newfound Barber by dredging a flushing channel through the dike. Unplugging the dike would entail removal of about a quarter acre of productive wetlands, mainly mangroves, which would be transplanted inside the basin. The project would improve the property aesthetically and result in more land area for the "mid-rise" condominium buildings Barber Woods intends to erect. Although the project would not restore the site to its precise pro-impoundment state, the proposed basin is designed, in part, to fill the ecological role the pristine embayment once played. The level bottom of the new basin would lie at 1.5 feet NGVD; once the dike was breached, saltwater would fill the basin to a uniform depth of one and one half feet, and spill over to submerge five acres of cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) which would be planted along the northern and southern shores of the basin. The unplanted bottom of the basin would comprise another five acres. After removing 330 feet of the dike, and in order to insure the movement of water in and out of the basin, a channel 150 feet wide would be dug out into Newfound Harbor 92 feet waterward of the mean high water line. Turbidity curtains would be used during dredging. If the cordgrass and the mangroves, which are to be planted in the same area, take hold and flourish, white mangroves would dominate in five years' time, and the quarter acre strip along the dike which would be lost would then have been replaced by an area twenty times as large. Eventually red mangroves should become dominant. The uncontroverted evidence was that, because of all the new vegetation proposed, the project would ameliorate water quality in Newfound Harbor and provide a new food source, habitat and nursery area for various organisms, including mosquitophagous fish. AMBIENT POLLUTION The objectors raised the question whether any plantings in the new basin could be expected to survive in light of the poor water quality in Newfound Harbor. The waters of Newfound Barber do not meet minimum standards for Class III waters now, and would not be brought up to those standards by any project like the one proposed. Brevard County's Fortenberry Sewage Treatment Facility, the source of the effluent pouring into Newfound Harbor, has been the object of administrative proceedings in which DER has alleged that the facility is discharging excessive amounts not only of nutrients like phosphorous but also of copper, mercury, lindane, and malathion. Petitioners Exhibit No. 4. Excess nutrients in the water would foster, not retard, the growth of submerged plants, but some of the substances DER itself claims are being introduced into Newfound Harbor could be lethal to plants. DER has alleged in a notice of violation that effluent from the Fortenberry Sewage Treatment Facility "is acutely toxic." Petitioners' Exhibit No. 4. Reese Kessler, a DER employee, noted "a six inch layer of black ooze" along the Newfound Barber side of the dike in September of 1981, which, he reported, "Presumably resulted from a recent heavy discharge of sewage effluent." DER's Exhibit No. 2. If constructed as proposed, the basin would exchange waters with Newfound Barber, primarily under the influence of the wind. Southeast winds predominate at the site. When the wind blows from the southeast, a clockwise gyre in Newfound Barber takes the effluent due east from the mouth of the ditch and away from the proposed flushing channel, but a northeast wind would result in sewage effluent entering the basin, if it blew hard enough. Runoff entering the basin from upland would also be a motive force, as would the ebb and flow of the tide, to a lesser extent; the tidal range in the area is on the order of one-tenth of a foot. Ninety percent of the water in the basin would leave it and enter Newfound Barber in 30 days' time, even without any wind. The flushing channel is fairly wide and not much deeper than the surrounding bottom; natural circulation should be enough to keep it clear of siltation. Because water quality in Newfound Harbor is so bad, the water in the proposed basin would also fall below minimum standards for Class III waters. According to uncontroverted testimony, however, the new basin would not cause or aggravate water quality standard violations. The new vegetation would be protected from most boat traffic by being planted in shallow beds. The experts unanimously predicted it would thrive and ameliorate a bad situation. STORMWATER RUNOFF The dike not only keeps the waters of Newfound Harbor out; it also prevents any additional pollution of Newfound Harbor from upland source. Harbor Woods intends to construct parking lots, in conjunction with the multi-story condominium buildings it plans to build around the proposed basin. The precise location and dimensions of the buildings and parking lots have not been decided upon but it is clear that rainwater draining over the parking lots would make its way to the proposed basin and, eventually, to Newfound Harbor. Harbor Woods has proposed to encircle the new basin with grassy swales large enough to hold the first half inch of rain that would otherwise drain directly into the basin. Water overflowing the swales could reach the basin only by passing through a sand filter, which would remove all oil. Gasoline is not ordinarily split in most parking lots and quickly evaporates, in any case. But rain washing over parking lots picks up oils, greases and heavy metals. Bow badly water traversing a parking lot Is polluted depends principally on what the parking lot surface is. The optimal parking surface is concrete block, which allows for some percolation. The first inch of rainfall washes off 90 percent of the substances that pollute runoff The evidence was uncontroverted that the runoff would meet Class III standards before it entered the proposed basin. PROPOSED FINDINGS CONSIDERED Respondent DER filed proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommended order. DER's proposed findings of fact have been considered and in large measure adopted, in substance. To the extent they have been rejected, they have been deemed unsupported by the weight of the evidence, irrelevant, immaterial, cumulative or subordinate.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That DER grant petitioner's application on the conditions proposed and on the additional condition that any parking lots over which draining water would eventually reach Newfound Harbor be paved with concrete block. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of November, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Joe Teague Caruso, Esquire Post Office Box 757 Cocoa Beach, Florida 32931 Dennis R. Erdley, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert B. Sampson Post Office Box 431 Merritt Island, Florida 32952 Carl Seidel c/o Robert B. Sampson Post Office Box 431 Merritt Island, Florida 32952 Betty Holcombe c/o Robert B. Sampson Post Office Box 431 Merritt Island, Florida 32952 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
