The Issue The issues in this case are: (1) whether City of Miami Ordinance 12911, which amends the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the City of Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan (MCNP), is a small-scale development amendment, as defined by Section 163.3187(1)(c), Florida Statutes; and (2) whether Ordinance 12911 is "in compliance," as defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. (Statutes refer to the 2007 codification.)
Findings Of Fact Based on all of the evidence, the following facts are determined: The Property Subject to the FLUM Amendment TRG-MH Venture, LTD. (TRG-MH), is a Florida limited partnership formed for the purpose of purchasing and developing a parcel of property in the southeast corner of a larger, 40- acre parcel owned by Mercy Hospital, Inc. (Mercy). TRG-MH and Mercy have executed a purchase and sale agreement for this corner parcel, which is located at approximately 3663 South Bayshore Drive in the Coconut Grove area of Miami, Florida (the Site). TRG-MH hired an architectural firm, Arquitectonica, to design on the Site a proposed residential development named 300 Grove Bay Residences (the Project). The Site, which currently serves as a paved parking lot for Mercy Hospital employees, measures 6.72 acres. The Site is abutted on the north, northwest, and northeast by the rest of the 40-acre parcel owned by Mercy and used for its hospital, professional offices, and patient and visitor parking. The tallest of these buildings is 146 feet. To the north of Mercy's property and medical complex is another 30-plus acre parcel owned by the Catholic Diocese of Miami and used for La Salle High School and a religious facility, Ermita de la Caridad. Abutting the northern boundary of the La Salle High School property is Vizcaya Museum and Gardens. To the west of the Site are a small convent, an administration building, and a modest-sized assisted living facility. To the west of these buildings is South Bayshore Drive, which is a four-lane road. Single-family residential neighborhoods are west of South Bayshore Drive. The Site is abutted on the southwest, south, southeast and east by Biscayne Bay. Grove Isle, a three-building, 18- story condominium/hotel/marina complex, is located on a small, man-made island (Fair Isle) in the Bay to the south of the Site. It is located approximately 1,300 feet from the Site and is separated from the Site by Bay water. Grove Isle has a future land use designation of Medium Density Multifamily Residential (M/D Residential) and is zoned Medium-Density Residential (R-3). However, Grove Isle is a legal nonconformity because it exceeds the densities allowed in M/D Residential and R-3. To the southwest of the Site, but separated from the Site by Bay water, are single-family and medium-density dwellings, including several multifamily structures. Petitioners Bloch and Steen reside in this neighborhood. No property zoned single-family residential (R-1) abuts the Site. Currently a paved parking lot, the Site has no archeological, environmental, or historical significance. Miami-Dade County had designated all of the City as an "Urban Infill Area." This designation is made in the County's Comprehensive Plan and is implemented in Policy LU-1.1.11 of the Future Lane Use Element (FLUE) of the City's Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan. The Parties The Vizcayans, Inc. (The Vizcayans), is a not-for- profit Florida corporation of volunteer members and a paid staff consisting of: an executive director, a membership director, and a controller. The purpose of the organization is to support the Vizcaya Museum and Gardens (Vizcaya), a publicly-owned and operated museum, through contributions and fundraising events. The Vizcayans' office at 3251 South Miami Avenue is located on the grounds of Vizcaya. The Vizcayans submitted comments in opposition to the proposed FLUM Amendment and appeared in person and through lawyers at the City Commission hearings. The Respondent and Intervenors stipulated that The Vizcayans have standing as affected persons under Sections 163.3187(3)(a) and 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, to challenge the small-scale development amendment in this proceeding based on allegations that The Vizcayans operate a business in the City. Miami-Dade County owns Vizcaya. By contract, The Vizcayans provides funds annually to Miami-Dade County for use in maintaining Vizcaya's properties and conducting educational programs. Any funds in excess of those owed to the County under the contract are used to pay staff and host fundraisers or are invested for future use. Vizcaya is governed by the County through the Vizcaya Museum and Gardens Trust, which is an agency of Miami-Dade County. Jason Bloch and Constance Steen reside in the City and own properties to the southwest of the Site. Glencoe is a not- for-profit corporation of homeowners in the Glencoe neighborhood to the southwest of the Site. Mr. Bloch formed the corporation during the pendency of the application proceedings for the primary purpose of opposing the proposed development of the Site. Bloch, Steen, and Glencoe submitted comments in opposition to the proposed FLUM amendment. Grove Isle is a not-for-profit Florida corporation of condominium owners. Grove Isle submitted comments in opposition to the proposed FLUM amendment. The City and Intervenors stipulated to Grove Isle's standing in these proceedings. The City is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. The City adopted its Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, including its FLUM, in 1989. The Comprehensive Plan and the FLUM have been amended from time to time as allowed by law. TRG-MH is a joint venture limited partnership. Its direct and indirect participants include Ocean Land Equities, Ltd., and The Related Group. TRG-MH contracted to purchase the Site from Mercy and applied to the City for the FLUM Amendment at issue in this proceeding. TRG-MH also submitted applications for a change of zoning and MUSP on the Site. The zoning and MUSP applications, and the resulting City ordinance and resolution arising from their approval, are not at issue in this proceeding. Mercy is a not-for-profit Florida corporation that owns and operates Mercy Hospital. Mercy has contracted to sell the Site to TRG-MH. The FLUM Amendment In June 2007, TRG-MH applied to the City for a small- scale development amendment to change the Site's land use designation on the City's Future Land Use Map (FLUM) from Major Institutional, Public Facilities, Transportation and Utilities (M/I) to High Density Multifamily Residential (H/D). TRG-MH submitted its application concurrently with its applications for a zoning change from G/I to R-4 and for a MUSP. According to the FLUM Amendment application, TRG-MH was seeking a map amendment for a 6.723-acre parcel of real property. With its FLUM Amendment application, TRG-MH submitted a survey prepared and certified by surveyors Fortin, Leavy & Skiles. The survey depicted: the Site, as a parcel with a "net lot area" of 6.723 acres; a Proposed Road, measuring 1.39 acres, that wrapped around the Site on its west and north sides (the Perimeter Road); and a Private Road, also known as Tract "C" or Halissee Street, measuring .95 acres, which accesses the Site and Perimeter Road from South Bayshore Drive. Accompanying the survey was a legal description for the Site, which included a description for the proposed new Perimeter Road abutting the Site. The legal description covered an area comprising 8.11 acres. Also accompanying the application was a traffic analysis showing the impact to existing road networks of traffic resulting from the proposed MUSP application, which sought to build 300 residential units on property currently having no existing residential units. TRG-MH's applications were reviewed by the City's Planning Department and its Planning Advisory Board (PAB). The City's Planning Department recommended approval of the land use designation change. The PAB's 3-3 tie vote operated as to deny the request for a change of the land use designation recommendation. On April 26, 2007, the City Commission voted to approve the FLUM amendment application and, with modifications, the accompanying zoning and MUSP applications. (The City Commission approved the zoning change and MUSP subject to the condition that the size and scale of the Project be reduced by 25 percent across the board. Thus, for example, the height of the tallest of the three condominium buildings was reduced from approximately 411 feet to 310 feet.) The FLUM change was adopted by Ordinance 12911, which the Mayor signed on May 7, 2007. Ordinance 12911 amended the FLUM by changing the land use designation "for the property located at approximately 3663 South Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida, more particularly described in Exhibit A attached and incorporated." Exhibit A to the ordinance was the legal description included on the Fortin, Leavy, Skiles survey. The section of the MCNP entitled "Interpretation of the Future Land Use Plan Map" describes the various future land use categories in the Plan. It describes the Major Institutional future land use category as follows: Major Institutional Public Facilities, Transportation and Utilities: Areas designated as "Major Institutional, Public Facilities, Transportation and Utilities" allow facilities for federal, state and local government activities, major public or private health, recreational, cultural, religious or educational activities, and major transportation facilities and public utilities. Residential facilities ancillary to these uses are allowed to a maximum density equivalent to "High Density Multifamily Residential" subject to the same limiting conditions. Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan (MCNP) at 21 (June 2006). The same section describes the H/D Residential, in pertinent part, as follows: Areas designated as "High Density Multifamily Residential" allow residential structures to a maximum density of 150 dwelling units per acre, subject to the detailed provisions of the applicable land development regulations and the maintenance of required levels of service for facilities and services included in the City's adopted concurrency management requirements. MCNP at 20 (June 2006). (By way of comparison, M/D Residential is described similarly except that the maximum density is 65 dwelling units per acre.) According to the MCNP, the FLUM land use designations "are arranged following the 'pyramid concept' of cumulative inclusion, whereby subsequent categories are inclusive of those listed previously, except as otherwise noted." Ordinance 12911 was not reviewed by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), as required for text changes and large- scale FLUM changes to a comprehensive plan. On June 4 and 6, 2007, Petitioners filed their petitions challenging the FLUM Amendment. Generally, the Petitioners alleged that the FLUM Amendment did not qualify for treatment as a "small-scale" development amendment; was internally inconsistent with other provisions of the City's Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan; was not supported by adequate data and analysis; and was not "in compliance" with Florida's Growth Management Act and its implementing regulations. Scale of the FLUM Amendment A small-scale development amendment may be adopted if the "proposed amendment involves a use of 10 acres or fewer." § 163.3187(1)(c)(1), Fla. Stat. According to the survey and architectural plans on file with the City, the "net lot area" of the Site measures 6.72 acres. The City Zoning Code defines "net lot area" as "[t]he total area within the lot lines excluding any street rights-of- way or other required dedications." § 2502, City Zoning Code. In determining how large (in square feet of floor area) the planned Project could be, the architects were permitted, under the City's zoning regulations, to multiply the "floor area ratio" (FAR) for the High Density Multifamily Residential zoning classification by an area larger than the "net lot area." See § 401, City Zoning Code. The Zoning Code allows the maximum square footage to be calculated using the Site's "gross lot area." Id. The City Zoning Code defines "gross lot area," in pertinent part, as "[t]he net area of the lot, as defined herein, plus half of adjoining street rights-of-way and seventy (70) feet of any other public open space such as parks, lakes, rivers, bays, public transit right-of-way and the like." § 2502, City Zoning Code. If the "gross lot area" to be used to calculate the maximum square footage involves properties under different ownership, either the owners must apply jointly for a MUSP, or they must enter a covenant-in-lieu of unity of title. Properties joined by a covenant-in-lieu of unity of title need not have the same land use designation or zoning classification. If a covenant-in-lieu of unity of title is required, it need not be submitted to the City until building permits are sought. At present, no covenant-in-lieu of unity of title has been prepared or executed for the Site. The "gross lot area" used to calculate the Project's maximum square footage of floor area measured 11.44 acres. Thus, the Petitioners argued that the FLUM Amendment "involved a use" of more than 10 acres. But the application requested a land use designation change on only 6.72 acres of land. Because High-Density Multifamily Residential use will not be made of the proposed Perimeter Road, the access road known as Halissee Street, or the proposed Bay Walk, a land use designation change was not required for that acreage. Indeed, according to the amended FLUM, there is no land use designation applied to Halissee or to the northern part of the Perimeter Road. Moreover, use of Halissee Street, the Perimeter Road, and the Bay Walk is not exclusive to the 6.72 acres but will remain shared with Mercy Hospital, its patients and employees, as well as with the public. The Petitioners attempted to prove that a marina was planned to serve the development, which would involve a total use of more than ten acres for residential purposes. Even if a marina was initially contemplated, the application on file with the City does not include one, and there are no approved plans for a marina to be incorporated into the proposed residential development. No marina is required to be developed in connection with the 300 Grove Bay project. Moreover, there was unrebutted evidence that it is highly unlikely that a marina would ever be permitted under the statutes now regulating Biscayne Bay. There is no evidentiary support for including any part of Biscayne Bay in the acreage subject to the small-scale FLUM Amendment because of a possible marina so as to support the Petitioners' claim that Ordinance 12911 should not have been processed as a small-scale amendment. Suitability and Compatibility of FLUM Amendment The Site is a parking lot. It is not environmentally sensitive and has no significant natural or archeological resources that would make it unsuitable for High Density Multifamily Residential future land use. Major Institutional accommodates the Vizcaya Museum and Gardens and the Mercy Hospital complex, which are compatible with and actually part of Coconut Grove. However, as pointed out by the City and the Intervenors, Major Institutional also allows future land uses that could be less compatible with the surrounding land uses, including the Vizcaya Museum and Gardens and the residential neighborhoods of Coconut Grove. While a lower density residential future land use would be appropriate and compatible with the surrounding uses, the issue in this case is the density allowed by H/D Residential--up to 150 residential units per acre, which Petitioners contend is incompatible with the surrounding land uses and inconsistent with previous efforts to protect Vizcaya and Coconut Grove from the intrusion of high- density residential development. The Petitioners also contend that the FLUM Amendment is not suitable on the bayfront. Suitability on the Bayfront The Petitioners contend that H/D Residential is not suitable on the bayfront for reasons related mostly to aesthetics and views. While it certainly would be possible and reasonable for a community to decide not to allow dense and intense development on significant water bodies, it was not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the City has done so, or that H/D Residential is unsuitable on the Site for that reason. 2005 Evaluation and Appraisal Report The City's 2005 Evaluation and Appraisal Report ("2005 EAR") focused on two citywide issues relevant here: (1) the preservation and enhancement of historic and similar resources; and (2) neighborhood integrity and the need to protect existing neighborhoods from incompatible development. Vizcaya Museum Gardens Industrialist James Deering built Vizcaya in 1916 as a winter home. The land Deering purchased in the early 1900s was developed into a 180-acre estate that included his Mediterranean-style home, Italianate gardens, farms, orchards, and lagoons. The mansion and gardens were designed by three well-known architects and designers and constructed using local materials. When Deering died nine years later in 1925, Vizcaya was left to his heirs, who eventually sold the south gardens and western agricultural fields to the Catholic Diocese. The southern acreage (which included the Site) was later developed into a church (Ermita de la Caridad), a school (La Salle), and medical and hospital facilities (Mercy). The Diocese sold the western acreage, which was eventually developed into single- family-home subdivisions. In the 1950s, the Deering heirs sold the remaining property, consisting of the mansion, gardens, and farm buildings, to Dade County. In 1952, Dade County opened Vizcaya to the public. Since then, the County has operated Vizcaya as a museum, which has welcomed thousands of visitors annually and is a popular site for tourists, social functions, and photo shoots. The Vizcaya mansion and gardens have historical, architectural, and botanical significance. The mansion is an "architectural masterpiece" and an "outstanding example of Italian Renaissance Revival architecture." Vizcaya has been on the National Register of Historical Places since 1977; it was designated as a City Heritage Conservation District in 1984; and, in 1994, it was designated a National Historical Landmark-- one of only three in Miami-Dade County. The southernmost part of Vizcaya's gardens is approximately 1,600 feet from the FLUM Amendment Site, and the mansion is approximately 2,300 feet from the Site. For the specific purpose of objecting to the 300 Grove Bay project, The Vizcayans commissioned the Vizcaya Viewshed Impact Assessment, which is referred to as the "balloon" study, and the Vizcaya View Corridor Study. According to the balloon study, the 300 Grove Bay condominiums would be visible from the balcony on the south side of the mansion. Although the balloon study was based on the original Project building heights and not re-done using the reduced heights in the zoning and MUSP approvals, the Petitioners' witnesses said that the Project would still be visible through the existing landscape, even at the reduced height. The Petitioners' witnesses opined that the development of 300 Grove Bay would "overpower and overshadow" the gardens on the south side of the mansion. No federal, state, or local statutes, rules or ordinances, including those relevant to this proceeding, protect the view corridors of Vizcaya's gardens. Coconut Grove The area known as Coconut Grove was settled in the late 1800s and was considered "off the beaten path" from the City which was incorporated in 1896. Coconut Grove was incorporated as a separate municipality in 1919, but in 1925 it was annexed to the City, as were five other municipalities. Petitioners' witnesses observed that Coconut Grove is the only one of these towns that has continued to retain a unique and recognizable character. Vizcaya and Mercy Hospital, including the parking lot site, are located in the northern area of Coconut Grove. Coconut Grove is primarily, but not entirely, a residential community. Coconut Grove has an active "downtown" business, commercial, and hotel district. The Petitioners maintained that the northern area of Coconut Grove is primarily single-family residential. However, it also includes a non- conforming high-density development (Grove Isle), medium-density residential, Mercy Hospital and its professional buildings, an assisted living facility, a school, a church, and governmental office buildings, as well as two museums (Vizcaya and the Museum of Science). A Coconut Grove Planning Study was commissioned and printed in 1974, but the City never adopted it; therefore, it has no official status. The Coconut Grove Neighborhood Conservation District In 2005, the City adopted by ordinance the Coconut Grove Neighborhood Conservation District (NCD-3). See § 803.3, City Zoning Code. According to the Code, a Neighborhood Conservation District is an "umbrella land use designation overlay," which allows for the tailoring of a master plan or of design guidelines for any area that meets certain criteria. See § 800, City Zoning Code. The intent of the Coconut Grove Neighborhood Conservation District is to "[p]reserve the historic, heavily landscaped character of Coconut Grove's residential areas and enhance and protect Coconut Grove's natural features such as tree canopy and green space." § 803.1, City Zoning Code. NCD-3 does not specify the High-Density, Multifamily Residential (R-4) zoning classification. But that does not mean that NCD-3 does not allow R-4. NCD-3 is enabling legislation that imposes greater restrictions within a geographic "overlay" for the zoning classifications addressed in Section 803.3. So far, NCD-3 has not addressed G/I and R-4 but only Single-Family Residential (R-1) and Commercial Districts. See § 803.3, City Zoning Code. For that reason, the ordinance does not apply to the Site. The "Grovenor Ordinance" The so-called Grovenor Ordinance was the City's response in July 2004 to the construction of a high-density residential project on property in Coconut Grove zoned "G/I Government and Institutional." The Grovenor Ordinance amended subsection of Section 401 of the City's Zoning Code to provide in pertinent part: G/I Government and Institutional Intent and Scale: The government/institutional category allows the development of facilities for federal, state and local government activities, major public or private health, recreational, cultural, religious, or educational activities, major transportation facilities, public utilities, and public and private cemeteries. Uses ancillary to these uses are allowed to a maximum density and intensity equivalent to the least intense abutting zoning district, subject to the same limiting conditions. Intensity: For residential uses: As for the least intense abutting zoning district. . . . * * * Permitted Principal Uses: Governmental and institutional uses as described in the City of Miami Comprehensive Development Plan designation of "Major Institutional, Public Facilities, Transportation and Utilities", however for accessory non-governmental or institutional uses-only such uses as may be permitted as principal uses in the least intense abutting zoning district . . . . § 401, City Zoning Code. The Grovenor Ordinance applies to property that is zoned G/I. The City's and Intervenors' witnesses testified that it applies only if G/I-zoned property ceases to be used for governmental or institutional purposes and is used instead for residential purposes. However, from the language of the ordinance itself, it is beyond fair debate that it also applies to G/I-zoned property that is used both for government or institutional uses and for ancillary residential uses. Clearly, without a FLUM change to a higher-density residential zoning category, in Coconut Grove the residential use on the Site would be restricted to the zoning classification of the "least intense abutting zoning district." Since it pertains to zoning, the Grovenor Ordinance does not directly apply to the issue of whether a FLUM amendment is "in compliance." However, it has some bearing on the proper interpretation and application of the "pyramid concept" of the MCNP's future land use designations, which is important to the issues for determination in this case. The Pyramid Concept The City and the Intervenors rely heavily on their interpretation of the MCNP's pyramid concept of cumulative future land use designations to support the FLUM Amendment in this case. According to them, the FLUM Amendment is compatible with surrounding land uses because high-density multi-family residential use already is a permitted use as a matter of right for land designated "Major Institutional." Similarly, they maintain that, under the "pyramid" concept, high-density multi- family residential use is permitted as a matter of right in all of the commercially designated land in Coconut Grove. But it is beyond fair debate that their interpretation of the "pyramid concept" is incorrect. As indicated, the "'pyramid concept' of cumulative inclusion" applies "except as otherwise noted." In the Major Institutional future land use category, it is noted that residential facilities with densities equivalent to "High Density Multifamily Residential" (i.e., up to 150 units per acre) are permitted only if "ancillary" to the listed major institutional uses. Similarly, in the General Commercial future land use category, it is noted that high-density residential uses "are allowed by Special Exception only, upon finding that the proposed site's proximity to other residentially zoned property makes it a logical extension or continuation of existing residential development and that adequate services and amenities exist in the adjacent area to accommodate the needs of potential residents." If the "pyramid concept" authorized high- density multi-family residential use as a matter of right on land designated either Major Institutional or General Commercial, there would be no reason to limit those uses by notation. Under the correct interpretation of the "pyramid concept" in the MCNP, free-standing high-density multi-family residential use of up to 150 units per acre is not already permitted as of right in either the Major Institutional or the General Commercial land use categories. Compatibility Notwithstanding the correct interpretation of the "pyramid concept" in the MCNP, the Petitioners failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that High Density Multi Family Residential future land use on the Site is incompatible with the surrounding uses or is inappropriate. The lower density residential and other less intense future land uses in the MCNP are buffered from the Site by Biscayne Bay and by Medium Density Multifamily Residential future land use. Vizcaya is buffered from the Site by Mercy Hospital and related medical facilities and by La Salle High School. The compatibility of a specific density of residential development on the Site with less dense residential use in Coconut Grove and with Vizcaya, including issues regarding building height and intrusion into Vizcaya's view corridors, can be addressed through zoning and MUSP proceedings. Data and Analysis Data and analysis is another matter. Because of their incorrect interpretation of the "pyramid concept" in the MCNP, the City and the Intervenors took the position that the FLUM Amendment constitutes "down-planning" and that the City was not required to perform the same level of analysis as it would have if the amendment sought a designation that permitted uses of greater impact, density, and/or intensity. The experts disagreed on whether "down-planning" is a concept in land use planning that can eliminate or minimize the requirement for data and analysis. In any event, the FLUM Amendment in this case could not be characterized as "down- planning." See Findings 57-59, supra. The MCNP's pyramid concept does not dispense with the need for data and analysis, and the data and analysis in this case was minimal and inadequate. The primary data and analysis in this case was the "Analysis for Land Use Change Request" (Analysis) that resulted from the City staff's review. After identifying the proposed land use designation and the uses permitted on it the Analysis recommended "Approval" of the FLUM Amendment and made four findings in support of "the position that the existing land use pattern in this neighborhood should be changed. These findings are as follows: It is found that the subject property is part of the Mercy Hospital and do [sic] not front South Miami Avenue. It is found that the "Major Institutional, Public Facilities, Transportation & Utilities" category allows 150 residential units per acre and the requested "High Density Multifamily Residential" designation will allow a maximum density of 150 residential units per acre. It is found that the requested change to "High-Density Multifamily Residential" designation will allow greater flexibility in developing the property at the above described location and therefore should be changed as part of the MUSP. It is found that MCNP Goal LU-1 maintains a land use pattern that (1) protects and enhances the quality of life in the city's residential neighborhoods, and (5) promotes the efficient use of land and minimizes land use conflicts. Id. (Emphasis in original.) As to the City’s third finding, a particular developer's flexibility is irrelevant to the determination of whether the land use change is consistent with the MCNP. To the extent that flexibility in general could be relevant to the inquiry, the finding was incorrect. While allowing a free- standing high-density residential project that would not otherwise be possible, the FLUM Amendment eliminates all of the non-residential uses permitted within the "Major Institutional" category. The second finding was based on the City's incorrect interpretation of the "pyramid concept" of the MCNP, which led the City to wrongly equate a primary use with an ancillary use and to simply assume no population increase would result from the FLUM Amendment, and that the FLUM Amendment would result in "down-planning." Attached to the City's Analysis was a separate "Concurrency Management Analysis," which addressed in summary form the data and analysis generated by the applicant and by the City's staff to address the "impact of [the] proposed amendment to land use map within a transportation corridor." The "Concurrency Management Analysis" also was predicated on the assumption that the FLUM change to HD Residential would not increase population. Essentially, it assumed without any data or analysis that infrastructure was available for 1,008 people living on the Site, even though the Site is being used as a parking lot at this time. This data and analysis was inadequate to support the FLUM Amendment. As to transportation, there was additional evidence of a traffic analysis performed by the City in support of the Project’s MUSP. This MUSP traffic analysis utilized a proper starting point of zero population on the Site at this time. It then projected the impact of the addition of 300 units. This was more than the 225 units ultimately approved in the MUSP but did not analyze the much larger potential increases in traffic that would be allowed under the FLUM Amendment, which is not limited to 300 units. There also was no data or analysis to show that limiting the analysis to 300 units was reasonable. It also only looked two years into the future. The MUSP traffic analysis also did not address the 2005 EAR finding that Bayshore Drive will be at level of service F by year 2025, without even any development on the Site. In short, the MUSP traffic analysis was inadequate to support the FLUM Amendment. The City and Intervenor took the position that the designation of the entire City as an urban infill area meant that every parcel is appropriate for high-density multi-family residential development. This is not correct. It is still necessary to look at comprehensive plan to determine which areas are appropriate for that kind of future land use and to have data and analysis to support it. See Payne et al. v. City of Miami et al., 32 Fla. L. Weekly D1885, *10-13 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 8, 2007) (on motion for rehearing). For these reasons, the Petitioners proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the data and analysis supporting the FLUM Amendment were inadequate. Inconsistency with City's Comprehensive Plan The Petitioners failed to prove beyond fair debate that the FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with any MCNP goals, objectives, or policies. State Comprehensive Plan Petitioners did not prove that the FLUM Amendment at issue is inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a final order that the FLUM Amendment adopted by City of Miami Ordinance 12911 is not "in compliance," as defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of July, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of July, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Barbara Leighty, Clerk Transportation and Economic Development Policy Unit The Capitol, Room 1801 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Jason Gonzalez, General Counsel Office of the Governor The Capitol, Suite 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Jorge L. Fernandez, City Attorney City of Miami Miami Riverside Center, Suite 945 444 Southwest 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33130-1910 Patrick J. Goggins, Esquire Patrick J. Goggins, P.A. Sun Trust Building, Suite 850 777 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131-2811 John Charles Lukacs, Esquire John C. Lukacs, P.A. 201 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 305 Coral Gables, Florida 33134-6616 H. Ray Allen, II, Esquire Carlton Fields, P.A. Post Office Box 3239 Tampa, Florida 33601-3239 Stephen J. Darmody, Esquire Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP Miami Center - Suite 2400 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131-4339 Lewis W. Fishman, Esquire Lewis W. Fishman, P.A. Two Datran Center, Suite 1121 9130 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami, Florida 33156-7848 John K. Shubin, Esquire Shubin & Bass, P.A. 46 Southwest First Street, Third Floor Miami, Florida 33130-1610
The Issue The issue is whether the City of Panama City's small scale development amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2055.1 on February 8, 2005, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background Creekstone is a limited liability corporation and presumed to be the owner of a 3.212-acre tract of land at 305 East Beach Drive, Panama City.3 (The record does not show when or if Creekstone actually purchased the property; when the application for a land use change on the property was filed with the City, Creekstone was a contract purchaser. In its Proposed Recommended Order, however, the City states that Creekstone "recently acquired" the property.) The property lies at the northwest edge of a residential area known as The Cove and is just south of the central business district of the City. The Cove is separated from the business district by a small waterbody known as Massalina Bayou (Bayou), which is spanned by the Tarpon Bridge (Bridge) at one of the Bayou's most narrow points. The 225-foot Bridge provides the most direct and easiest access between the two areas of the City. For many years, and beginning before the City adopted its Plan, Tibbetts Boat Works, Inc. (Tibbets) occupied the site and was engaged in the boat repair business, consisting of hull repair, engine maintenance, other mechanical services, and boat bottom painting, a legal but nonconforming use under the City's land development code. Photographs of the area suggest that the business is no longer active, presumably because the property has been sold. On or about December 8, 2004, SFB Investment Company, LLLP (SFB), who then owned the property but had a contract to sell it to Creekstone, filed an application with the City Planning Board seeking a change in the land use and zoning on the property. At the Planning Board meeting on January 10, 2005, the staff noted that the proposed change would "allow an encroachment of commercial into a predominately residential area" and recommended denial of the application on the ground that the change "is inconsistent with the LDR and the Comp Plan."4 By a 3-1 vote, the City Planning Board rejected the staff recommendation and recommended that the application be approved. On February 8, 2005, by a 4-1 vote, the City accepted the recommendation of the City Planning Board and adopted Ordinance No. 2055.1, which amended the FLUM by reclassifying the land use designation on the property from MU to GC for the purpose of allowing the owner to "develop [a] multi-family project on [the] property." (Simultaneously with that change, the City also changed the zoning on the property from Mixed Use- 3 to General Commercial-2, which allows a wide range of activities, including residential, professional office and services, low-intensity commercial, public/institutional/ utilities, and high-intensity commercial.) The MU land use classification "is intended to provide areas for medium to high density residential development and low intensity commercial development," allows a density of "not more than twenty (20) dwelling units per acre," and an intensity of "[n]o more than 75% lot coverage as determined by the size of the lot compared to the amount of impervious roof and driveway/ parking lot surface." On the other hand, the GC district is "intended to provide areas for high intensity commercial development, including retail sales and services, wholesale sales, shopping centers, office complexes, and other similar land uses." There are no density restrictions, but intensity is limited to "[n]o more than 90% lot coverage." Thus, while the two land uses are similar in some respects, the highest and best use on the property will now be "high intensity commercial development," such as shopping centers and office complexes, a much more intensive use than is presently permitted under the MU land use category. To address this concern, witness Harper indicated that SFB has filed a restrictive covenant on the property which includes a shoreline buffer, as well as use, height, and setback restrictions. At the Planning Board meeting on January 10, 2005, however, the staff stated "that a covenant would not be enforceable." Under the existing land use (MU), the owner can construct up to 64 residential units on the property. That number is derived by multiplying the size of the property (3.212 acres) times the allowed density (20 units per acre). However, the current zoning on the property (which is apparently tied to the MU land use category) prohibits the construction of buildings which exceed 65 feet in height. Because of this height restriction, which limits the number of residential units that can be constructed on the property, the owner has requested a change in the land use (and zoning) so that it can develop a multi-family residential condominium project (nine stories in height) with approximately 77 units. On March 10, 2005, Mr. Cooper filed his Petition challenging the small-scale amendment. He later filed an Amended Petition on April 21, 2005. Mr. Cooper resides and owns property one-half block south of the subject property (in an area designated as a special historical zone of the City) and submitted objections to the amendment during the adoption process. As such, he is an affected person and has standing to file this challenge. Joint Exhibit 9 reflects that Creekstone is a "contract purchaser" of the subject property. It also reflects that it appeared through counsel at the adoption hearing on February 8, 2005, and offered comments in support of the plan amendment. As such, Creekstone is an affected person and has standing to participate in this case. In the parties' Pre-Hearing Stipulation, Mr. Cooper (through his former counsel) identified numerous issues, many of which were not raised in his Amended Petition. At hearing, however, he contended only that the GC land use is incompatible with the character of the surrounding area, and that the amendment is internally inconsistent with Objectives 1.1 and 1.4 and Policies 1.1.1, 1.2.1, and 1.4.1 of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Plan. All of the objectives and policies relate to the compatibility issue. In all other respects, Petitioner agrees that the plan amendment is in compliance. Because the City's action involves a small scale (as opposed to a large scale) development plan amendment, the Department of Community Affairs did not formally review the plan amendment for compliance. See § 163.3187(3)(a), Fla. Stat. The Subject Property West Beach Drive runs in a northwest-southeast direction through the downtown business portion of the City until a few blocks north of the Bridge, where it changes to East Beach Drive. The roadway continues south across the Bridge and in a southerly direction along the eastern edge of St. Andrews Bay, a much larger waterbody which lies between the City and Panama City Beach. Approximately one-half mile south of the Bridge, East Beach Drive takes a 90-degree turn to the east. Most, if not all, of the peninsula south of the Bayou and Bridge and continuing until East Beach Drive turns to the east is known as The Cove, a part of which has been designated by the City as a historic special treatment zone because of its historical significance. The predominate character of The Cove is older, single-family homes. As noted above, the Bayou separates The Cove from the central business district and serves as a natural barrier between the two areas. The property is an odd-shaped parcel which sits just east of the southern terminus of the Bridge and fronts on the Bayou. (The central business district lies directly across the Bayou to the north and northwest, is classified as General Commercial or Public/Institutional, and includes a wide array of offices, government buildings, restaurants, and other commercial and public uses.) The western side of the property faces East Beach Drive. Immediately across East Beach Drive to the west (and facing St. Andrews Bay) is the Cove Harbor Condominium, a nine-story, multi-family residential condominium which was apparently constructed under MU standards, which apply to that parcel. Immediately to the east of the property is a single- family residence and then a two-story townhouse complex. The southern boundary of the property (which appears to run approximately 325 feet or so) faces East Second Court, a local road which begins on East Beach Drive and runs eastward until Watson Bayou (perhaps a mile or so away). Although a map of the historical district was not introduced into evidence by the parties, the northern and western reaches of the special treatment zone appear to begin just east of the intersection of East Second Court and East Beach Drive since the homes at 114 and 122 East Second Court are designated as having historical significance. See Respondent's Exhibit 4. These two homes appear to lie directly across the street from the southern boundary of Creekstone's property. Except for a two-story, multi-family structure (Cedar Cove Townhouses) which sits across East Second Court facing the southwest corner of the subject property, the remainder of the southern boundary of Creekstone's property faces four single-family homes. Several other multi-family structures are scattered throughout the area to the south and east, while the remainder of the neighborhood extending for at least one-half mile to the south and all the way to Watson Bayou on the east is predominately single-family residences. Finally, a condominium is located about one-half mile south of the property on the waterfront where East Beach Drive makes a 90-degree turn to the east. Except for Tibbets' activities, there is no commercial encroachment (by non-conforming use or land use classification) in the immediate area south of the Bridge and Bayou. The current FLUM shows that, with three exceptions, the entire area south of the Bridge and the Bayou to the end of the peninsula, and extending east at least a mile to Watson Bayou, is either classified as Mixed Use or Residential Low Density. (Perhaps a mile or so to the southeast there is one parcel classified as Recreation, another as Public/Institutional (which is probably a school), and a smaller adjoining parcel classified as General Commercial.) Thus, if the change is approved, the subject property will be the only parcel south of the Bridge and Bayou (except for the above exceptions which lie around a mile away) which is classified as commercial; the remainder is either mixed use or residential. Over the years, Tibbets has been the subject of City code enforcement actions, investigations by City code enforcement personnel, and investigations by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). It has also caused chronic environmental problems in the area. On August 27, 2002, DEP and Tibbets executed a Consent Order to resolve certain violations. Also, on April 10, 2001, Mr. Paul L. Benfield, who apparently either owned Tibbets or was associated with it in some manner, entered into a Consent Order with DEP because of his unlawful filling of 0.114 acres of jurisdictional wetlands on the site. It is fair to describe the subject property as blighted, unsightly, and in disrepair. Photographs received in evidence suggest that the business is no longer active. The parcel is fenced on three sides, and, besides an older structure which apparently housed Tibbets' office, the property contains a mixture of empty storage crates, pilings, and various pieces of equipment that were once used in the boat repair business. There are also several docks or small piers extending into the Bayou from the northwestern corner of the site. Finally, it appears that much of the eastern half of the parcel contains wetlands and is largely undeveloped. Although the staff report dated December 31, 2004, recommended denial of the application, noting that it would allow "an encroachment of commercial into a predominately residential area," it acknowledged that "[a]llowing this request can make a case for helping to rid this area of a problematic non- conforming use." See Joint Exhibit 6, page 2. Petitioner's Objections As narrowed at hearing, Mr. Cooper contends only that the plan amendment is not compatible with the character of the adjoining land in The Cove and is thus internally inconsistent with Objectives 1.1 and 1.4 and Policies 1.1.1, 1.2.1, and 1.4.1 of the FLUE. He also relies upon Policy 2.5.5(6)(e) of the City's Land Development Code. However, plan amendments do not have to be consistent with land development regulations in order to be in compliance. See § 163.3184(1)(b), Fla. Stat. Objective 1.1 requires that the City maintain a FLUM "which coordinates future land uses with . . . [compatibility]5 of adjacent land uses." Policy 1.1.1, which furthers that objective, provides in part that the City will regulate land uses through the designation of land use districts on a FLUM, and that the "location and extent of development within the City" should be "consistent with . . . compatibility of adjacent land uses." Under this objective and policy, then, land use districts on the FLUM should be located in a manner which assures compatibility with adjacent land uses. Objective 1.4 provides that the City shall "maintain procedures for the elimination or reduction of land uses inconsistent with the character of the City and the future land uses designated in the Plan." In furtherance of that objective, Policy 1.4.1 requires that the City "restrict proposed development which is inconsistent with the character of the community." Taken literally, the objective encourages the City to reduce or eliminate land uses that are inconsistent with the character of the surrounding area or other land use districts. In the same fashion, the policy requires that the City prohibit development that is not consistent with the character of the adjoining area. Finally, among other things, Policy 1.2.1 requires that the City "administer land development regulations for implementation of the Comprehensive Plan" in such a manner as to "ensure the compatibility of adjacent land uses." (The City has adopted such regulations for this purpose.) Because the implementation of land development regulations is not in issue, the provision does not appear to be relevant. According to the City's Director of Public Works, The Cove, or at least that part which lies in the area around Creekstone's property, is considered to be a part of the central business district since the two areas are "contiguous," and therefore the extension of the commercial land use district across the Bayou would be consistent with the character of the immediate area. The same view was also expressed by witness Grey. However, the two areas are physically separated by a waterbody (the Bayou) and are connected only by a 225-foot bridge which spans the Bayou at one of its most narrow points. At the same time, the land uses in the two areas are distinctly different: the business district contains a wide array of commercial and public/institutional uses while the predominate character of The Cove is single-family residential, with a scattering of multi-family residential dwellings such as townhouses and a condominium. The fact that the City interprets its GC district (presumably through its zoning regulations) as allowing certain residential uses does not change this dichotomy in character. Therefore, it is inappropriate to consider The Cove and the central business district as being contiguous, or to base a finding of compatibility on the fact that commercial uses are now found across the Bayou in the business district. The commercial land use classification has never been extended into the residential neighborhood south of the Bayou. If the change becomes effective, the new land use would be incompatible with the Residential Low Density and Mixed Use land uses which now make up the entire neighborhood. It would also be incompatible with the historic special treatment zone, which lies directly across the street from Creekstone's property. Finally, the creation of a commercial district in this area of The Cove would change the character of the neighborhood, and it is fair to infer that, even if SFB's covenant is enforceable, it would still lead to, and justify, the reclassification of other nearby parcels into commercial uses. Given these considerations, the proposed land use is internally inconsistent with the City's objective and policy that there be "[compatibility] of adjacent land uses," see Objective 1.1 and Policy 1.1.1, and Plan provisions encouraging the elimination of land uses and associated development which are inconsistent with the "character of the community." See Objective 1.4 and Policy 1.4.1. The minutes of the two meetings which culminated in the adoption of Ordinance No. 2055.1 reflect that the City's (and Planning Board's) principal rationale for the reclassification of the property was to eliminate an unsightly nonconforming use (boat repair business) which occupied the site. While it is true that the City's Plan encourages the revitalization and redevelopment of blighted areas, and provides that developers should be given "flexibility" when seeking to revitalize blighted areas, see Objectives 1.3 and 1.15 of the FLUE, there is no evidence that these objectives are intended to override (and trump) the provisions of the Plan which require that adjacent land uses be compatible with one another and preserve the character of the neighborhood.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a final order determining that the plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2055.1 is not in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of August, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of August, 2005.
The Issue The issue is whether that portion of Plan Amendment 98-1ER known as LU-97-02 is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, including the stipulation of counsel, the following findings of fact have been determined: Background In this land use dispute, Petitioners, Janet Bollum (Bollum) and Glenn and Mary Brewer (the Brewers), who are property owners within or near the City of Deland, contend that a portion of Plan Amendment 98-1ER adopted by Respondent, City of Deland (City), is not in compliance. The portion of the amendment under challenge, known as Plan Amendment LU-97-02, changes the land use on 39.56 acres of land owned by Intervenor, Marcia Berman, Trustee (Berman), to Highway Commercial. The property is currently under contract to be sold to Intervenor, Wal-Mart Stores East, Inc. (Wal-Mart), who intends to construct a Wal-Mart super store on a part of the site. Respondent, Department of Community Affairs (Department), is the state agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing comprehensive land use plans and amendments. Until 1997, the Berman property was located in the unincorporated area of Volusia County (County). Prior to 1994, it carried an Urban Medium Intensity land use designation. That year, the County redesignated the property as Industrial. In 1997, the City annexed the Berman property and revised its Future Land Use Map the following year to change the land use to Highway Commercial. This change was accomplished through the plan amendment under challenge. On May 1, 1998, the Department issued its Statement of Intent to Find Portions of Plan Amendment Not in Compliance. More specifically, it found that the new land use designation would "generate traffic which causes the projected operating conditions of roadways to fall below adopted level of service standards and exacerbates projected roadway deficiencies." The Department also found that the amendment was "not supported by or based on, and does not react in an appropriate way to, the best available data and analyses." In making these findings, the Department relied in part upon a traffic study prepared by "TEI" in 1998 which reflected that the City's traffic system did not have sufficient capacity to accommodate the new land use. The Department determination triggered this action. On May 27, 1998, Petitioners, and 82 other property owners, filed a paper styled "Petition for Administrative Hearing and Petition to Intervene" challenging the change of land use on the Berman property in numerous respects. The paper was treated as a petition to intervene and was later granted. After the case was temporarily abated in August 1998 pending efforts to settle the matter, in January 1999, a new traffic study was prepared for the City by Ghyabi, Lassiter & Associates (GLA study), which determined that the existing and planned City transportation network could accommodate the impacts from the development allowed under the amendment. All parties except Petitioners then executed a Stipulated Settlement Agreement in February and March 2000, which resolved all issues originally raised by the Department. Thereafter, the Department issued an Amended Notice of Intent to find the plan amendment in compliance. As required by Section 163.3184(16)(f), Florida Statutes (1999), the parties were realigned consistent with their respective positions. Through an Amended Petition filed by Petitioners on July 19, 2000, all original Petitioners except Bollum and the Brewers have been dismissed, and the factual issues in this case narrowed to two: (a) whether the recent traffic studies "demonstrate a transportation concurrency failure, and a failure to fall within a lawful transportation concurrency exception under F.S. 163.3180(5)(c) and (d)"; and (b) whether the "plan amendment data and analyses continue a failure to show demand for additional 'highway commercial' land, as originally asserted by the Department's Notice of Intent." Standing of the Parties Bollum owns property, resides within, and owns and operates a business within the City. She also submitted written and oral comments to the City while the amendment was being adopted. The parties have stipulated that she is an affected person and thus has standing to participate. The Brewers own property and reside in an unincorporated area of the County in the immediate vicinity of the proposed plan amendment. They also reside within what is known as the "Greater Deland Area," as defined by Chapter 73-441, Laws of Florida. However, they do not own property, reside within, or own and operate a business within the corporate limits of the City, and thus they lack standing to participate. The parties have stipulated that Intervenors Berman and Wal-Mart have standing to participate in this proceeding. The Amendment The Berman property lies on the eastern side of U.S. Highway 17 just north of the intersection of U.S. Highways 17 and 92, approximately three miles north of the City's central business district. The land is currently undeveloped. Prior to being annexed by the City, the property was located within the unicorporated area of the County, just north of the City limits. The earliest County land use designation was Urban Medium Intensity, a primarily residential land use classification which also allowed some commercial development, including small neighborhood shopping centers. In 1993, the County began a comprehensive examination of land use and zoning restrictions in the vicinity of the Berman property. In May 1994, it redesignated the Berman property from Urban Medium Intensity to Industrial. This use allowed not only industrial development, but also some commercial development. Before the Berman property was annexed by the City, it was depicted on the City's Urban Reserve Area Map (map). That map established advisory designations for unincorporated County land abutting the City, and was meant to be a guide for City land use decisions when property was annexed. The property was designated on the map as approximately one-half Commercial and one-half Industrial. In 1997, the Berman property was annexed by the City. Because the City was then required to place a land use designation on the property, on May 16, 1998, it adopted Amendment 98-1ER, which redesignated the property from Volusia County Industrial to City Highway Commercial. The new mixed-use designation allows "a wide range of retail and service and office uses," as well as up to twenty percent residential land uses, including multi-family manufactured housing developments. Thus, the Highway Commercial land use designation is meant to accommodate major shopping centers like the one proposed by Wal-Mart. Transportation issue In their Amended Petition, Petitioners allege that accepting as fact the "most recent traffic studies," those studies still "demonstrate a transportation concurrency failure, and a failure to fall within a lawful transportation concurrency exception under F.S. 163.3180(5)(c) and (d)." The "most recent traffic studies" are the GLA study, and it shows that the existing and planned City transportation network can accommodate the traffic impacts arising from development allowed under the plan amendment. Some of the transportation impacts from the expected development on the Berman property will affect roadways within an area of the City that was formally designated in May 1992 as a Special Transportation Area (STA) or road segments with specialized level of service (LOS) standards. The STA includes the central business district and certain outlying areas essentially bounded by Minnesota Avenue, Amelia Avenue, the rear property lines of properties along the north side of New York Avenue (State Road 44), South Hill Avenue, Beresford Avenue, Boundary Avenue, and Clara Avenue, which extend to approximately one mile from the Berman property. None of the roadways within the STA are on the Florida Intrastate Highway System. Rule 9J-5.0055(2), Florida Administrative Code, requires that the City adopt LOS standards on roadways within its planning jurisdiction (which are not on the Florida Intrastate Highway System), including the disputed portion of U.S. Highways 17 and 92. The applicable LOS standards and STA provisions are found in Policies 3.1.7 and 3.1.10, respectively, of the Transportation Circulation Element of the plan. They read as follows: 3.1.7 For those roadways listed in Policy 3.1.6 [which include U.S. Highways 17 and 92], the City of Deland may permit development to occur until the peak hour traffic volumes exceed a 20% increase over the peak traffic counts published in the FDOT's 1989 Traffic Data Report. 3.1.10 As a result of FDOT's approval of the STA designation for US 17/92 (Woodland Boulevard), from Beresford Avenue to Michigan Avenue, and SR 44 (New York Avenue), from SR 15A to Hill Avenue, the following maximum LOS and/or traffic volumes shall be permitted. ROADWAY SEGMENT US 17/92, from Beresford to Michigan = 22,028 SR 44, from SR 15A to US 17/92 = LOS E SR 44, from US 17/92 to Hill = LOS E *The proposed maximum traffic volume is compatible with the maximum LOS for this section of roadway, as stated in Policy 3.1.7. These two policies have been found to be in compliance and are not subject to challenge in this proceeding. Although the STA is identified as a specific area, the City's Comprehensive Plan anticipates that development from outside of this area will impact the STA. As noted above, however, the undisputed GLA study demonstrates that the plan amendment will not allow development which would cause these adopted LOS standards to be exceeded. The STA was approved in May 1992, or prior to the enactment of Section 163.3180, Florida Statutes (1993), which allows certain exceptions from the otherwise blanket requirement to adopt and enforce a transportation LOS standard for roadways. Two planning tools made available to local governments by Section 163.3180(5), Florida Statutes (1993), are a Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) and a Transportation Concurrency Management Area, both of which allow exceptions to transportation concurrency requirements. The practical effect of a TCEA is to allow development to proceed without having to comply with transportation concurrency. Petitioners essentially contend that the STA created by the City for the central business district and certain outlying areas is "the substantial equivalent of a TCEA," and thus it should be treated as one for purposes of this proceeding. They go on to argue that while the City may grant an exception to concurrency requirements for transportation facilities for projects located within a TCEA, those benefits cannot be extended to any other area, including the Berman property. Based on this premise, Petitioners conclude that without the benefit of the TCEA exception, the anticipated traffic from the new development on the Berman property will cause a "continuation of a [LOS] failure on the constrained segments of US 17/92 and on the unconstrained segment from SR44 to Wisconsin Avenue," in violation of the law. Petitioners' contention is based on an erroneous assumption. The evidence shows that the City has never adopted a TCEA. Neither has the STA "transformed" into a TCEA, as Petitioners suggest. Moreover, as noted above, the undisputed GLA study shows rather clearly that the plan amendment will not allow development which would cause the adopted LOS standards to be exceeded. Petitioners further contend that the plan amendment is somehow inconsistent with the transportation exception requirements in Section 163.3180(5)(b) and (c), Florida Statutes (2000). However, these provisions apply to developments "which pose only special part-time demands on the transportation system[,]" that is, "one that does not have more than 200 scheduled events during the calendar year and does not affect the 100 highest traffic volumes." The evidence shows that the Highway Commercial land use category is not designed for such developments and, in fact, encourages far more intense uses. Is There a Need for Additional Commercial Land? Petitioners next contend that "the plan amendment data and analyses continue a failure to show demand for additional 'highway commercial' land, as originally asserted by the Department's Notice of Intent and not resolved by the Compliance Agreement." In the immediate vicinity of the Berman property, near the intersection of U.S. Highways 17 and 92 north of the City, "there is an emerging trend of 'regional-type' commercial developments." This area is already partially developed with commercial uses, and it has additional areas depicted for future commercial and industrial use. There are no other parcels in the City, especially in this area, of a sufficient size to accommodate this type of regional commercial development. There are numerous ways to project the raw, numerical need for commercial land in the City. The City's Comprehensive Plan, its Evaluation and Appraisal Report, and the GLA study all contain statements regarding projected population and employment, each portraying a slightly different result. In fact, Petitioners' own expert criticized the numbers used in these documents as being unreliable and suspect. The need calculus basically involves projecting population over a ten-year planning period and then allocating commercial, residential, and other land uses in an amount to match that projection. For the reasons set forth below, this process is imprecise, and it must be tempered by other factors. First, the planner must project population over the ten-year planning timeframe. Any mistake in this projection will skew the numbers. Second, employment ratios used in the calculus can change from year to year, especially in a smaller community. Also, other planning objectives are inherently subject to change year by year. Given this imprecision and changing market demands, it is appropriate for professional planners to overallocate land uses. An excess allocation of twenty-five percent (or an allocation factor of one hundred and twenty-five percent) is recognized by professional planners as being appropriate. The evidence supports a finding that this amount is reasonable under the circumstances present here. There are numerous professionally acceptable ways in which to allocate land uses. The City has not adopted a particular methodology in its Comprehensive Plan. The specifics of the plan amendment and the City's Comprehensive Plan make application of a strict numerical calculus even more difficult. The prior designation of the property was Industrial, which is not a pure industrial category, but actually allowed up to thirty percent of commercial uses. The amendment here simply changes the land use from Industrial, with some commercial uses allowed, to a mixed-use Highway Commercial designation. As noted earlier, the City's Comprehensive Plan anticipates regional commercial uses in the area of the Berman property. Finally, the parcel is relatively small (less than 40 acres) and is embedded within an urban area. Given the uncertainty of a numerical calculation of commercial need in the City, the size and location of the property, the property's inclusion in an urban area, and the surrounding commercial land uses, the evidence supports a finding that either Industrial or Commercial would be an appropriate land use for the property. The evidence further supports a finding that the need question is not a compliance issue here and does not support a finding that the plan amendment is not in compliance.
Recommendation Based on the Foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining Plan Amendment 98-1ER adopted by the City of Deland by Ordinance Number 98-07 on March 16, 1998, to be in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of November, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of November, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven M. Siebert, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 C. Allen Watts, Esquire Cobb, Cole & Bell Post Office Box 2491 Daytona Beach, Florida 32115 Shaw P. Stiller, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 315 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 F. Alex Ford, Jr., Esquire Landis, Graham, French, Husfeld, Sherman & Ford, P.A. Post Office Box 48 Deland, Florida 32721-0048 Mark A. Zimmerman, Esquire James, Zimmerman, Paul & Huddleston Post Office Drawer 2087 Deland, Florida 32721-2087 David L. Powell, Esquire Hopping, Green, Sams & Smith, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Margaret E. Bowles, Esquire Margaret E. Bowles, P.A. 205 South Hoover Street Suite 402 Tampa, Florida 33609 Cari L. Roth, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
The Issue Whether the amendment to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Putnam County Comprehensive Plan (Plan) adopted by Ordinance No. 2001-33 on December 11, 2001, which changes the future land use designation on the FLUM of an approximately 29-acre site from "Rural Residential" to "Commercial," is "in compliance" as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, for the reasons set forth in the Petition for Administrative Hearing.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Frances Z. Parsons, lives at 215 Woodbury Trail, Satsuma, Putnam County, Florida, which is approximately one mile from the racetrack (on the site subject to the Amendment, see Findings of Fact 14 and 15) and has resided there for over seven years. Dr. Parsons understood at the time she purchased the house that a racetrack had been in existence, but was not operational and that no evidence of a racetrack could be seen from the road. A couple of years ago, Dr. Parsons noticed construction-type activity (e.g., earth-moving machines and erection of stadium-type bleachers and lights) occurring on the Property (racetrack site). Trees along the road were "bulldozed down," the site cleared, and a fence erected, after which, Dr. Parsons could see the racetrack from the road and racing commenced. Dr. Parsons also stated that the racetrack is operational and the noise level bothers her at her home. Dr. Parsons described Satsuma as "about a half a mile wide" and "fairly settled for a rural areas, but not for -- it's certainly not downtown." Dr. Parsons stated that the community character has not changed in the last five years. Dr. Parsons submitted oral or written comments and objections regarding the disputed Amendment during the period of time beginning with the transmittal hearing for the amendment and ending with the adoption of the amendment. Respondent, Putnam County, is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. Section 7.54, Florida Statutes. The County is the local government that adopted the Amendment. Respondent, Department of Community Affairs, is the state land planning agency and has the authority to administer and enforce the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, which includes a determination of whether comprehensive plan amendments are "in compliance." Intervenor, Florida Racing, is a private corporation and is the owner of the approximately 29 acres that are the subject of the challenged Amendment. Oral or written comments and regarding the disputed Amendment were submitted on behalf of Florida Racing during the period of time beginning with the transmittal hearing for the Amendment and ending with the adoption of the Amendment. Robert Joseph Potter is the Vice- President and Comptroller for Florida Racing. The Amendment In April 2001, Florida Racing submitted to the County an "Application for Amendment to the Putnam County Future Land Use Map" (Application). This Application requested that the land use designation for an approximately 29-acre site, consisting of five contiguous parcels under the same ownership, be changed from "Rural Residential" to "Commercial" on the FLUM. The Amendment was approved and transmitted to the Department for review under Section 163.3184(6)(a), Florida Statutes. The Department conducted this review, and raised no objections to the proposed FLUM change. On December 11, 2001, the Putnam County Board of County Commissioners (Board) adopted the proposed Amendment by Ordinance No. 2001-33. The Department timely caused to be published a Notice of Intent to find the Amendment "in compliance." On or about February 28, 2002, Petitioner filed a Petition for Administrative Hearing regarding the Department's Notice of Intent. This Petition alleges that the Amendment should be found not "in compliance" on several grounds. This challenge involves an existing development, a racetrack, on the Property. However, the Amendment would allow commercial development on the approximately 29 acres, subject to compliance with applicable Plan and Putnam County Zoning Ordinance (Zoning Ordnance) provisions. (In the Application, Florida Racing advised that proposed uses included a raceway, mobile home park, restaurant, and related amenities.) The Putnam County Speedway, the Surrounding Area, and the Review Process The approximately 29-acre site (five parcels total (Property)) subject to the Amendment is the site of an existing dirt automobile racetrack with bleachers, a press box, associated structures, and a masonry building/house. A commercial mini-warehouse building (personal storage) is located on the westernmost parcel. The racetrack is currently known as the "Putnam County Speedway" (Speedway). The Property is located on the west side of U.S. Highway 17 South between the Dunn's Creek Bridge and Buffalo Bluff Road (County Road 309B). The land surrounding the Property on the west, south, and east are designated as "Rural Residential" on the FLUM, the same as the Property prior to the proposed FLUM change. The land to the north is designated as "Conservation" on the FLUM and designated as vacant and wetlands as existing land uses. The zoning is "A." See Endnote 8. The land to the east is zoned "A" and is vacant as the existing land use. The land to the north and east of the Property is part of the 1,707-acre Murphy Creek Conservation area owned and managed by the St. Johns River Water Management District. The land to the west is zoned "C-2; A" and has an existing land use of commercial, but a future land use designation on the FLUM of Rural Residential. There is also additional land to the west of the Property within the Murphy Creek Conservation Area, a couple of residences and a vacant subdivision that has been determined not to be vested for development. There is a parcel of land to the west that is also owned by Florida Racing. The land to the south is zoned "C-4, C-1, C-2, [and] A" and is designated as vacant and commercial residential as existing land uses, and has a Rural Residential future land use designation on the FLUM. See Endnote 8. The land south of the Property across U.S. 17 includes an existing commercial establishment that includes a mini-warehouse building with outside storage of equipment and semi-trailers. (The mini- warehouse was rezoned in 1986.) Also, further south and west along U.S. 17, there are two or three additional commercial businesses. Mr. Spofford referred to this area as "a commercial cluster." However, most of the uses are nonconforming uses as to the existing Rural Residential future land use, and they would not be able to change to anything more intensive or that would have more adverse impacts on the surrounding residential uses. 1 Behind the mini-warehouse building are two residential neighborhoods with two subdivisions, one with 22 lots of approximately one acre in size and the other with 19 lots, with most of the lots being significantly larger than those in the former subdivision. Another residential area further west than the two subdivisions consists of approximately 40 parcels of land which have been subdivided over time and never platted. About four of these parcels on U.S. 17 are zoned for commercial use. There is also an existing aluminum business west with a C-4 zoning. It appears that almost all of these residential lots and parcels were created after the racetrack was established. The racetrack was in operation prior to the adoption of the Plan and zoning regulations. There is evidence that a racetrack existed before 1975, but has not remained in continuous use throughout that time. The record does not detail the history of the racetrack from its initial approval some time prior to 1975 to the date of the adoption of the Amendment. There is inference that the racetrack was not actively or frequently used in the mid-1990s. (It is noted in the County Staff Report that "[a]n aerial from the Florida Department of Transportation dated February 1972 shows the subject property cleared with what appears to be an oval dirt track. A 1964 aerial photograph did not show a racetrack on the subject property. A review of property appraisal data indicate the racetrack was established around the 1970 to 1972 period.") At some point after approximately 1995, and prior to the adoption of the Amendment, racing returned to the Speedway. An automobile racetrack is not an allowable or conforming use on land designated "Rural Residential." According to the Plan's Future Land Use Element (FLUE), "[t]he Rural Residential land use category depicted on the [FLUM] consists of water front development and developed areas interspersed within the active agricultural areas. These areas are somewhat isolated from the urban areas and rural centers. The development is situated primarily on large lots in the one to five-acre range and is either a homestead or a second home for people who seek the quiet enjoyment of living in a rural environment." As a nonconforming use, the Speedway (racetrack) is subject to County land use and zoning provisions that limit or restrict the ability to undertake improvements. For example, according to the Putnam County Zoning Ordinance 88-1, as amended by Ordinance 91-31 (collectively referred to as County Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Ordinance), the racetrack, as a nonconforming use, is restricted from being extended or enlarged, and repair of its structures is limited. For example, work may be done in any 12-consecutive month period on ordinary repairs, or on repair or replacement of 15 percent of the current assessed value of the particular structure if a nonconforming structure is involved, provided the cubic content of the structure as it existed on the date it became nonconforming shall not be increased in size.2 The intent of these nonconforming use restrictions is to "permit these nonconformities to continue until they are removed, but not to encourage their survival," and it is intended that such uses would become extinguished over time as a result of being prevented from expanding or extensively renovating their structures. See, e.g., County Zoning Ordinance, Sections 2-701-2-708. On March 20, 1998, John Salmons, the Putnam County Planner, advised Tim Keyser, Attorney, that the nonconforming status of the Speedway was still in effect. Mr. Keyser was also informed, in part, that the "Putnam County Speedway may continue to operate under the provisions of the nonconforming use section of the Zoning Ordinance." At the time Florida Racing purchased the racetrack in the 1990's (the specific date is uncertain), some of the existing structures had deteriorated and were in need of repair and/or replacement. To accommodate the renewed activity in racing and the need to upgrade the racetrack, seating at the racetrack was rearranged, new seating was added for children, and a second access driveway was installed north of the existing driveway. In 2000, in a series of letters to Mr. Potter, County staff raised concerns regarding plans to significantly upgrade the racetrack. On September 26, 2000, Mr. Salmons advised Mr. Potter "that the current zoning status for the [S]atsuma racetrack is Nonconforming. As a nonconforming use, the zoning ordinance acknowledges their existence, but does not encourage their survival. As such, there are very strict rules for repairing or maintaining a nonconforming use." Mr. Salmons also informed Mr. Potter that the Property had been designated "Rural Residential" on the County's FLUM at some point subsequent to the racetrack's initial operation. (The racetrack on the Property pre-dates the Plan, including the FLUM land use categories, including "Rural Residential.") Mr. Salmons understood at the time that Mr. Potter had plans to "significantly upgrade the racetrack" and advised Mr. Potter that he "would not be able to proceed with [his] plans." In order to upgrade, Mr. Salmons advised Mr. Potter that he would need to have the Property rezoned and given the current land use designation for the Property, Mr. Potter would need to obtain an amendment to the FLUM to change the Property's land use designation from "Rural Residential" to "Commercial." However, Mr. Salmons further advised that without doing an analysis of the proposed change, he suspected that "it would be difficult for staff to support such a change" "based upon what Future Land Use patterns surround the property." Finally, Mr. Potter was told that he could continue operations "as they were in the past." But, he could not "add seating, restaurants, structures, pave the track or do much more than do some minor maintenance at this time." On December 27, 2000, Mr. Salmons sent Mr. Potter another letter similar in content to the September 26, 2000, letter. Apparently, Mr. Salmons was advised by Mr. Potter that he had already spent in excess of the 15 percent allowed in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Potter was advised to stop making improvements until the land use designation was changed and rezoning approved. (There have not been any legal proceedings initiated to determine whether the 15 percent threshold was crossed.) On April 16, 2001, Florida Racing submitted the Amendment Application and requested the FLUM change suggested by County staff for the Property.3 (Florida Racing also requested rezoning of the Property which is not the subject of this proceeding.) Deficiencies in the applications were noted and additional information requested. The County's FLUE of the Plan was adopted on December 12, 1991, and amended on August 24, 1993. Policy A.1.9.3.A.5. of the FLUE describes the "Commercial" land use category and provides in part: The Commercial land use areas depicted on the [FLUM] are current locations of commercial development in the County with expansion areas provided and are intended to serve as the primary commercial locations for the next 10 years. Secondary commercial locations are provided for in the policies for development in the urban service, urban reserve and rural center land use categories. Commercial land uses include activities that are predominantly associated with the sale, rental, and distribution of products or performance of service. Future development shall be allowed as follows: The maximum permitted floor area for a site shall be 1:1. The maximum permitted impervious surface shall be 70 percent of the site.4 The Staff Report dated July 11, 2001, was prepared by Mr. Spofford, A.I.C.P., a senior planner with Putnam County. As noted in the Staff Report, the purpose of the land use "change is to bring a non-conforming automobile racetrack into compliance with the" Plan. Mr. Spofford testified that the scope of the Staff Report was broader than examining the racetrack. However, the primary focus of the Staff Report is the Property being used as a racetrack and not another commercial use. It was determined that the automobile racetrack is a commercial attraction because it attracts spectators for a fee and further noted: As such, the use is not appropriate for the Agriculture I and II and Rural Residential future land use categories. The site and surrounding area do not meet the intent and description of an Urban Service or Urban Reserve future land use category because urban type infrastructure does not currently exist and is not likely within the next 10 years. This means that the use is most appropriate for a Commercial future land use category. The subject site meets the intent of the Commercial category because it is a current location of a commercial- recreational-entertainment type use. Mr. Spofford explained that the data to support the FLUM change is set forth in the Staff Report. (Mr. Salmons, Mr. Spofford's superior, believed the data in the Staff Report was adequate to support the FLUM change.) The Application was reviewed for consistency with the Plan and various provisions of Rule 9J-5. Staff made the following recommendation: The existing automobile racetrack must go through a two step process to become compliant with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. First, this proposed map amendment must be approved and adopted by the County, and found to be in compliance by the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA). The purpose of this public hearing is to determine whether or not the proposed map amendment should be transmitted for state agency review. Therefore, the Planning Commission must recommend to either transmit the map amendment as proposed, transmit the amendment with recommended changes or not to transmit the map amendment. If the proposed map amendment is transmitted, then state agencies will review the proposed map amendment and return comments to the County in October. The County would then likely hold public hearing[s] to consider actual adoption of the map amendment in November and December. When these public hearings are held to consider the map amendment, a rezoning application would simultaneously be reviewed. A rezoning to Planned Unit Development is a negotiable process where the County can gain greater control of the use. If the proposed map amendment is not transmitted, the a rezoning will not be necessary and the automobile racetrack will continue to be a non-conforming use. As a non-conforming use, code enforcement action will be taken to have the improvements removed that consist of an expenditure greater than 15 percent of the assessed value of the structure(s), with the exception of the permitted work that includes the press box and new lighting. All other improvements could be subject to removal. However, as a non-conforming use, the racetrack would be allowed to continue operation so long as it does not expand. This means that the County would not have much control over the days and hours of operation and other critical site design issues. Although this is not the ideal location for a racetrack, the fact is it has existed on the subject property and has been determined to be a bona fide non- conforming use. Research of County records and other known available sources of information indicates that the racetrack was established prior to the residential development in close proximity south of the subject site. The request for a large-scale comprehensive plan map amendment from Rural Residential to Commercial appears to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, staff recommends that the proposed map amendment be transmitted to the Florida Department of Community Affairs with a request for their review. On July 11, 2001, the Putnam County Planning Commission unanimously approved the FLUM change after receiving comments. On July 24, 2001, the Board held a public hearing to consider the Amendment and approved same. The FLUM Amendment was transmitted to the Department. Pursuant to the Department's review of the Amendment, a Memorandum dated October 4, 2001, was prepared by Russell Paul Darst, a planner with the Department, and routed to James Stansbury and Mike Sherman, the section administrator, and ultimately to Charles Gauthier, A.I.C.P., and Bureau Chief, who issued the Department's Notice of Intent. Mr. Darst, as well as others at the Department, had no objections to the Amendment. In the Memorandum, Mr. Darst concluded: "The proposed FLUM change for this 29-acre property is from Rural Residential to Commercial. The property has been used for a race track since about 1970. The amendment would change the FLUM designation for the property to reflect the actual and long-standing use of the property. This use is not allowed in the Rural Residential FLUM category." This was the crux of the data and analysis relied on by Mr. Stansbury of the Department. The Memorandum also reflected the Northeast Florida Regional Planning Council comment: "Since the raceway already exists, the land use change will not create any additional impacts to regional resources. The proposed land use change may even protect regional resources in the future by granting the County the ability to regulate the property under the most appropriate zoning classification." Dr. Darst stated that in reviewing a FLUM amendment for the Department, it would be typical to examine the existing use of the land before making his recommendation. In reviewing the County's proposed FLUM change, Mr. Darst believed, based on his discussions with County staff, that the racetrack was not expected to expand (and not that it could not) and that the change in the FLUM would give the County "part of a means of gaining effective control over [the operation of the racetrack]." He reiterated that the FLUM change would reflect the actual and long-standing use of the Property as a racetrack. On December 11, 2001, during the public hearing, the Board approved the FLUM Amendment and transmitted the approval package to the Department. On February 13, 2002, the Department had published its Notice of Intent to find the Amendment "in compliance." The Challenges Petitioner alleges that the Amendment is not "in compliance" on several grounds: first, there is no "need" for additional land to be designated for a commercial use in Putnam County; second, the Amendment and proposed land use is not compatible with the community character and surrounding land uses; and, third, the Amendment is inconsistent with provisions of the Plan, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. Need The term "need" as used in growth management refers to the amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth. Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes. Local governments are to analyze by acreage how much land within each land use category5 they need to accommodate projected growth through the planning timeframe, and then base their comprehensive plan on this estimate. Rule 9J-5.006(2)(c), Florida Administrative Code. The calculus of need is rather simple and, for that reason, inexact. The calculation of how much land is needed to accommodate the projected population involves comparing what is available for development under the comprehensive plan with the projected population over the same planning timeframe applicable to the plan. An "allocation ratio" to express this need can be derived by dividing the development potential by the projected population. For example, if a comprehensive plan allocated 100 residential dwelling units over the planning timeframe and the jurisdiction's population was projected to increase by 100 over the same time, there would be an allocation ratio of 1:1. This ratio would express an exact match between supply and demand. A ratio of 2:1, on the other hand, would demonstrate that the jurisdiction had twice as much land as designated for use as the projected population is expected to need. There is no allocation ratio adopted by statute or rule by which all comprehensive plans and plan amendments are judged. There is evidence that the County has more vacant land designated "Commercial" than is needed to accommodate its projected population.6 There is data and analysis which indicates an excess of vacant commercially-designation land on a County-wide basis. For example, Florida Racing Exhibit 1 is a copy of data and analysis in support of the FLUE. This data and analysis indicates that at least as of 1991, and projected to 2001, the County has an over-allocation of need for commercial land of about two times or, stated otherwise, the County has a 2:1 allocation ratio for commercial. This data is reflected in Petitioner's Exhibit P. Mr. Spofford explained that the population data was compiled prior to 1991, has not been updated, is not meant to provide a "detailed analysis," and it is only useful for providing the acreage for each planning district. The population for each planning district is then compared to the acreage to determine the allocation of commercial to service that population. From a very general standpoint, Mr. Spofford analyzed the FLUM Amendment application in light of whether more commercial acreage was needed. Mr. Spofford explained that because the Property was so close to the edge of the planning district, it was difficult to compare the commercial and population need. However, Mr. Spofford opined that the Planning District 1 (which includes the Property) and the one to the northeast are not over-allocated for commercial use. He also opined that, generally, "more is needed, if -- especially if you're looking out 20, ten or twenty years." Petitioner did not come forward with any independent or up-to-date analysis to demonstrate the County is in fact over-allocated for commercial land use. On the other hand, Fred Goodrow, A.I.C.P., opined that the County was over-allocated regarding the need for more commercial in light of the data previously mentioned. The existence and extent of any commercial over- allocation in Putnam County is, at best, fairly debatable. Nonconforming Use, Inconsistency, and Incompatibility Petitioner asserts that the Amendment is not "in compliance" because it fails to eliminate or reduce a nonconforming use in violation of Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5.006(3)(b)3. and (3)(c)2., Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner also argues that the Commercial land use designation which would attach to the Property is incompatible with the character of the community and adjacent land uses. Petitioner also contends that the Amendment is inconsistent with several Plan provisions. Section 163.3177(2), Florida Statutes; Rule 9J-5.005(5), Florida Administrative Code. Objective A.1.3 of the FLUE requires that "[u]pon plan adoption, Putnam County shall act to eliminate or reduce uses inconsistent with the uses identified on the [FLUM] and associated adopted Goals, Objectives and Policies through implementing the following policies." Policy A.1.3.1 of the FLUE requires revision of the County's Land Development Regulations, specifically the County Zoning Code, "to reinforce its current provisions regarding the elimination of nonconforming land uses by expanding the definition of nonconforming land uses to include all uses which are inconsistent with the Future Land Use Map 2001 or cannot be made compatible with adjacent land uses. The requirements of this provision shall be enforced upon application for building permits to repair or improve such structures."7 The nonconforming use provisions of the Zoning Ordinance apply to and implement the FLUM. An automobile racetrack is not an appropriate use to put in a Rural Residential future land use category. In theory, one purpose of this land use designation is to protect residents from the intrusion of noisy racetracks which can impact an adjacent residential user. The dispute in this case is clearly framed. Petitioner contends that because the Property was designated "Rural Residential" when the County's Plan was adopted, the Speedway (racetrack) is a nonconforming use which must be restricted and eventually eliminated. Petitioner argues that the County lacks the authority to amend its FLUM to make the Speedway a conforming use under the Plan. Respondents and Florida Racing contend that the County has the authority to amend the FLUM, and acted properly in this instance in adopting the Amendment. The County has the authority to amend its FLUM, including the designations of properties as long as the designations are consistent with other provisions of the Plan and applicable provisions of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. The persuasive evidence indicates that an automobile racetrack is an allowable use in the Commercial future land use category as opposed to the Rural Residential category. If the Amendment is approved, the raceway would no longer be considered a nonconforming use for Plan purposes, and could undertake improvements without the restrictions that accompany such a use, subject to compliance with applicable zoning requirements. Stated otherwise, the racetrack could expand without complying with the nonconforming use restrictions, subject to compliance with the nonconforming standards in the Zoning Ordinance because the Property would remain a nonconforming use under the Zoning Ordinance. (Of course, a zoning change for the Property, as contemplated in the County's Staff Report, would create different considerations as noted below.) The Property is currently zoned C-2 and A, with the bulk of the property zoned agriculture.8 If the Amendment is approved, the next step would be for the Property owner to apply for a zoning change, e.g., special exception, or pursue a planned unit development. Under either scenario, the County could impose conditions on the use of the Property such as the amelioration of off-site impacts. On the other hand, if the racetrack continued as a nonconforming use, the persuasive evidence indicates that the County would be limited in establishing any further limitation on the use of the Property, such as duration and frequency of use, e.g., hours of operation and other site design issues. There is no persuasive support for the proposition that all subsequent Boards of County Commissioners are bound in every instance by the decision of one Board regarding the land use of a particular parcel. There is some evidence that leads to at least a fair inference that the designation of the racetrack site as "Rural Residential" may have been in error. The data and analysis that was used to support the original designation indicates the area including the racetrack as being "woodlands." The County planner involved in the preparation of the Plan, including the FLUM, testified that he did not know there was a racetrack on the land designated "woodlands." The FLUM was based "to a great extent" on this data, and very well may have designated the Property as "Rural Residential" by "oversight" based on the incorrect representation of the area as woodlands. Several other commercial uses exist within the immediate vicinity of the site of the Property, are similarly depicted as "woodlands" by the referenced data, and are designated "Rural Residential" on the FLUM. These parcels, too, may be nonconforming by error, and not by some deliberate choice. Whether the original designation of the Property as nonconforming was erroneous or not, the true question is what is the proper standard by which to weigh a FLUM amendment when it affects a site on which there exists a nonconforming use. Neither Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, nor Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, directs the Department to review a FLUM amendment involving a nonconforming use under some specific provisions. Such an amendment must be subjected to the same standards applicable to any FLUM amendment. The Property has been used intermittently as a racetrack for approximately 30 years. A racetrack has operated on the Property as a nonconforming use, and has the right to continue do so under applicable County land use and zoning regulations. The racetrack is, in fact, eligible to expand by 15 percent under these regulations. The County would not have some absolute right to cease racetrack operations if it remained nonconforming, and would not have unlimited authority to address noise and traffic concerns. The uncontradicted testimony is that it is likely that the racetrack would continue to operate even if it remained a nonconforming use. The County does not lose any authority to address noise and traffic by virtue of the Amendment. Credible evidence in the record indicates that the County may actually have a better ability to address these concerns should the racetrack be made a conforming use. Nevertheless, the fact that the racetrack, operated as the Speedway, currently exists in the area as a nonconforming use does not mean that the use is automatically compatible with the adjacent land uses and surrounding area or is otherwise consistent with the character of the community. The nonconforming use designation only means that the racetrack can continue to operate, not that the racetrack can achieve a potentially more useful and elevated land use status by virtue of being an existing raceway and commercial use. Otherwise, an existing nonconforming use would have greater rights to a new and more permissive land use designation than a new entrant into the marketplace. Stated otherwise, the FLUM Amendment, if approved, will further and encourage the nonconforming use rather than its eventual elimination as contemplated by the Plan and Zoning Ordinance. In this case, it is beyond fair debate that if a new automobile racetrack were proposed on the Property today, it would be inconsistent with the existing residential and conservation areas surrounding the property, notwithstanding the existence of several commercial properties in the vicinity. The only reasonable conclusion to be reached is that that the Amendment is not "in compliance."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued concluding that the Amendment adopted by Putnam County in Ordinance No. 2001- 33 is not "in compliance" as defined in Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of May, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ CHARLES A. STAMPELOS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of May, 2003.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether an amendment to the future land use map of the Martin County comprehensive plan, Amendment No. 98-3, is "in compliance" as those terms are defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2000).
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Hobe Sound Citizens Alliance, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the "Alliance"), is a not-for-profit corporation organized under the laws of Florida. The Alliance was organized in July 1998 primarily to respond to proposed land use designation changes for the property that is the subject of this proceeding and for other property. The Alliance has three officers (a President, Secretary, and Treasurer) and an eight-member Board of Directors. The officers and directors of the Alliance all reside in Martin County, Florida. The members of the Board of Directors are from different neighborhoods in Martin County. The Alliance maintains a mailing list of approximately 500 individuals who are considered "members" of the Alliance. These individuals have all expressed interest in the activities of the Alliance, but have not taken any formal steps to join the Alliance, such as paying dues or completing an application for membership. In fact, the Alliance does not collect dues or have a membership application. Petitioner, Mary A. Merrill, is an individual who resides in an area of unincorporated Martin County, Florida, known as "Hobe Sound." Ms. Merrill serves as President of the Alliance. During the process of adopting the amendment which is the subject of this matter, Ms. Merrill and the Alliance made comments and objections. Respondent, Martin County (hereinafter referred to as the "County"), is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. The County is located on the east coast of Florida. The County is bordered on the east by the Atlantic Ocean, on the south by Palm Beach County, on the north by St. Lucie County, and on the west by Lake Okeechobee and a portion of Okeechobee County. Intervenor, Hobe Sound Land Company, Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Land Partnership"), is a limited partnership organized under the laws of Florida. The Land Partnership's general partner is Hobe Sound Land Company, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the "Land Company") and the limited partners are a number of trusts organized for the benefit of various members of the Reed family. The Land Partnership is the owner of the property which is the subject of this proceeding (hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property"). The County's Comprehensive Plan. General The County has adopted a comprehensive land use plan as required by the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Part II, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). The Martin County Florida Comprehensive Growth Management Plan 1999/00 (hereinafter referred to as the "Plan"), has been determined to be "in compliance" as those terms are defined in the Act. The Future Land Use Element The Plan includes a Future Land Use Element (hereinafter referred to as the "FLUE"), consisting of the following: Section 4-1, "Background Information"; Section 4-2, "Analysis of Land Use Features"; Section 4-3, the "Future Land Use Map and Map Series"; Section 4-4, "Goals, Objectives and Policies"; Section 4-5, "Performance Standards"; and Section 4- 6, "Implementation Strategies." Sections 4-1 and 4-2 consist of what the County refers to as "narrative" sections which the County gives less weight to in determining whether an amendment to the Plan is "in compliance" than it gives Section 4-4, which contains the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Plan. These narrative sections of the Plan, however, are not "data and analysis." They were adopted as a part of the Plan. See the second unnumbered page of the Plan. The FLUE establishes 13 separate and distinct land-use categories. These land-use categories determine the uses to which property subject to the Plan may be put. The Plan's Future Land Use Map and Map Series (hereinafter referred to as the "FLUM"), depicts all property subject to the Plan and depicts the land use category assigned to all property in the County. Among the land use categories established in the FLUE pertinent to this proceeding is the "Institutional" land use category. To distinguish this category from the "Institutional- County" land use designation of the FLUE, the category is referred to as the "General Institutional" category. Property designated as General Institutional is subject to the following sub-categories or intensities of use: "retirement home, churches, schools, orphanages, sanitariums, convalescent, rest homes, cultural organizations, military, colleges, hospitals, federal, municipal, utilities, and rights- of-way." Section 4-4.M.1.h.(3). of the FLUE, provides the following Policy governing the use of General Institutional property: General Institutional - The General Institutional category accommodates public and not-for-profit facilities such as, but not limited to schools, government buildings, civic centers, prisons, major stormwater facilities, fire and emergency operation center facilities, public cemeteries, hospitals, publicly owned public water and sewer systems, dredge spoil management sites, and airports. Investor owned regional public water and sewer systems and private cemeteries may be allowed in General Institutional. . . . While Institutional use is reserved for the above uses, this shall not prohibit for- profit medical offices and other ancillary facilities owned by a non-profit hospital as long as they are part of a Planned Unit Development. . . . . . . . The Plan also establishes land use categories in the FLUE for the residential use of property. All land which is designated for residential development on the FLUM is subject to Section 4-4.M.1.e. of the FLUE: The Land Use Map allocates residential density based on population trends; housing needs; past trends in the character, magnitude, and distribution of residential land consumption patterns; and, pursuant to goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Growth Management Plan, including the need to provide and maintain quality residential environments, preserve unique land and water resource and plan for fiscal conservancy. There are seven types of designated residential land use categories created by the Plan. Those uses include the following: 10 units per acre for "high density;" 8 units per acre for "medium density;" 5 units per acre for "low density residential;" 2 units per acre and 1 unit per acre for "estate density;" .5 units per acre for rural areas. There is also a "mobile home density" category. The lowest density of .5 units per acre is reserved for those areas that are designated as rural. The estate density categories are used for areas are located "generally on the fringe of the urban service districts and generally are not accessible to a full complement of urban services." Sections 4-4.M.1.e.(1) and (2) of the Plan. Of primary pertinence to this proceeding is the residential land use designation of "Low Density Residential." Residential land designated "Low Density Residential" is limited by Section 4-4.M.1.e.(3). of the FLUE as follows: Low Density Residential Development. The low density residential designation is reserved for land accessible to existing urban service centers or located in the immediate expansion area. Densities permitted in this area shall not exceed five (5) units per gross acre. Review of specific densities shall be directed toward preserving the stability and integrity of established residential development and toward provided equitable treatment to lands sharing similar characteristics. Design techniques such as landscaping, screening and buffering shall be employed to assure smooth transition in residential structure types and densities. Generally, where single family structures comprise the dominant structure type within these areas, new development on undeveloped abutting lands shall be required to include compatible structure types on the lands immediately adjacent to existing single family development. Excessive Residential Property and the Active Residential Development Preference Planning System. Section 4-2.A.6.c. of the Plan recognizes that the County has designated an excessive amount of land for residential use. This section of the Plan indicates that, at the time the Plan was adopted, there was a projected need for 26,231 acres of land to accommodate the projected population of the County to the Year 2005. It also indicates that, as of the date of the Plan, 35,834 acres of vacant land had been designated for residential use, well in excess of the amount of land necessary to meet demand. Despite the requirements of the Act and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, requiring appropriate planning for residential needs within a local government's jurisdiction, the Plan was approved by the Department as being "in compliance" with the designation of an excessive amount of land for residential use in the County. Instead of requiring strict compliance with the provisions of the Act and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, dealing with planning for future residential land use needs, the County and the Department entered into a Stipulated Settlement Agreement specifying that the Plan include a requirement that the County undertake the collection of more current land use data and refine the various land use predictive factors it had been using. The Stipulated Settlement Agreement also required that the County institute an Active Residential Development Preference Planning System (hereinafter referred to as the "ARDP System"), to monitor the timing and location of residential development in the County. Section 4-2.A.8. of the Plan provides a Policy dealing with future residential land use requirements for the County. The Policy reports the over-allocation of vacant land designated for residential uses in the County and the need for the ARDP System. The Policy specifically provides, in part: While the current pattern on the Future Land Use Map will remain as is, an active residential development "125% test" will be used in conjunction with location and land suitability requirements in the review and approval of future land use and/or project requests. These requirements shall include, at a minimum, location within the Primary, or Secondary Urban Service District; consistency with the Capital Improvement Element; protection of natural resources; and adequate provision of facilities and services at the adopted level of service. The Policy goes on to provide that residential development in the County will be maintained at 125 percent capacity through the ARDP System and describes other measures to reduce the amount of excessive residential property to be developed in the County. Section 4-4.A.6. of the Plan establishes a Policy requiring that the County implement the ARDP System by May 1991. Consistent with Section 4-4.A.6. of the Plan, the County has adopted the ADRPP System. Environmental Protection Considerations in the FLUE Section 4-2.A.6.d. of the Plan recognizes that residential use of land located near or on the coast can threaten the "preservation of the very attributes of the area which make it attractive for growth." Therefore, the Policy provides that any such development is to be planned to minimize the threat by "assuring that the environmentally sensitive and threatened habitats are preserved." The Policy also provides: Certain areas in Martin County are recognized and beginning to be identified by federal, state and local programs as environmentally sensitive. These areas provide special value in producing public benefits, including: recreational opportunities, life support services, tourism, commercial and sport fishing, scenic values, water purification, water recharge and storage, and sensitive habitats critical to the survival of endangered wildlife and plants. Urban development in or adjacent to environmentally sensitive areas can significantly reduce their environmental values. Additionally, there are important public health concerns associated with development in these areas, particularly in relation to potable water and waste disposal in low lying areas. . . . Section 4-2.A.6.f. of the Plan recognizes the importance of natural vegetation. The Policy also recognizes that urban development removes or alters the County's natural vegetation. Coastal Management Element Section 8.4 of the Plan establishes the Goals, Objectives, and Policies for the Coastal Management Element of the Plan. The area subject to this Element is described on maps adopted as part of the Element, including the map depicted in Figure 8-1. The Subject Property is not located within the coastal management area established by the Element. Section 8.4.A.2.a. of the Plan provides "land use decisions guidelines" requiring a consideration of the impacts of development on fish, wildlife, and habitat, including cumulative impacts. These guidelines, however, apply to development within the coastal management area established by the Plan. Conservation and Open Space Element Chapter 9 of the Plan establishes the Conservation and Open Space Element. The Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Element are set out in Section 9-4 of the Plan. Section 9-4.A. of the Plan establishes the following Goal: The goal of Martin County is to effectively manage, conserve and preserve the natural resources of Martin County giving consideration to an equitable balance of public and private property rights. These resources include air, water, soils, habitat, fisheries and wildlife with special emphasis on restoring the St. Lucie Estuary and the Indian River Lagoon. Section 9-4.A.2.a. of the Plan requires that the County continue to enforce and improve its Wellfield Protection Ordinance. The Wellfield Protection Ordinance is intended to regulate land use activities within the zones of influence of major wellheads. Section 9-4.A.2.b. of the Plan provides the following: New potable water wells and wellfields shall be located in areas where maximum quantities of regulated materials (e.g. hazardous and toxic materials) do not exceed the proposed criteria of the Wellfield Protection Ordinance. At the time future wellfield locations are identified, establishment of incompatible land uses within the zones of influence of such wells shall be prohibited. Objective 9-4.A.9. of the Plan provides for the protection and enhancement of wildlife and habitat. Policy 9- 4.A.9.a. of the Plan provides the following: Land use decisions shall consider the effects of development impacts on fish, wildlife and habitat and the cumulative impact of development or redevelopment upon wildlife habitat. In cases where rare, endangered, threatened or species of special concern are known to be present, a condition of approval will be that a preserve area management plan be prepared at the time of site plan submittal. . . . To ensure adequate protection, protected plants and animals, which cannot be provided with sufficient undisturbed habitat to maintain the existing population in a healthy, viable state on site, shall be effectively relocated in accordance with local, state and federal regulations. Potable Water Service Element Chapter 11 of the Plan establishes a Potable Water Service Element. The Goals, Objectives, and Policies of this Element are contained in Section 11-4. Section 11-4.A.5 of the Plan provides that, by 1991, the County was to establish programs to conserve and protect potable water resources within the County. The specific components of the programs are provided. None of those provisions are relevant to this matter. Drainage and Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Element Chapter 13 of the Plan establishes a Drainage and Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Element. The Goals, Objectives, and Policies of this Element are contained in Section 13-4. Section 13-4.A.1. of the Plan establishes the following Objective: Martin County will maintain existing ground water and surface water quality, improve areas of degraded ground water and surface water quality and prevent future contamination of ground water supply sources. Section 13-4.A.2. of the Plan establishes the following Objective: "Enhance the quantity of ground water recharge and maintain desirable ground water levels." The Objectives, and the Policies established to carry them out, recognize the significance of ground waterrecharge and groundwater levels in the County. Preservation of groundwater recharge and groundwater levels is a significant goal of the County. None of the Policies established to carry out the foregoing Objectives specifically eliminate the use of vacant land located near wells for residential purposes. Plan Amendment Adoption Procedures Procedures for the adoption of amendments to the Plan are established in Section 1.11, "Amendment Procedures," of the Plan. Section 1.11.C.2. of the Plan provides the following procedures for evaluating changes to the FLUM: In evaluating each land use map amendment request, staff begins with the assumption that the 1982 Land Use Map, as amended, is generally an accurate representation of the Board of County Commissioners and thus the community's intent for the future of Martin County. Based on this assumption, staff can recommend approval of a requested change providing consistency is maintained with all other Elements of this Plan if one of the following four items is found to be applicable. That past changes in land use designations in the general area make the proposed use logical and consistent with these uses and there is adequate availability of public services; or That the growth in the area, in terms of development of vacant land, redevelopment and availability of public services, has altered the character of the area such that the proposed request is now reasonable and consistent with area land use characteristics; or That the proposed change would correct what would otherwise appear to be an inappropriately assigned land use designation. That the proposed change would meet a necessary public service need which enhances the health, safety or general welfare of County residents. In the event that staff can not make a positive finding regarding any of the above items, then staff would recommend denial. (Emphasis added). The Plan requires that the Director of the County's Growth Management Department, after review of a proposed amendment, submit recommendations to the Local Planning Agency for consideration. The Local Planning Agency is required to certify its findings and recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners of Martin County (hereinafter referred to as the "Board"). Miscellaneous Provisions of the Plan. Section 4-2.A.6.e. of the Plan deals with agricultural use and vacant land. The evidence failed to prove that the amendment at issue in this case is inconsistent with this portion of the Plan. Section 4-4.A.1.a. of the Plan establishes a Policy that requires that the County revise its Land Development Regulations in existence at the time the Plan was adopted. The evidence failed to prove that the amendment at issue in this case is inconsistent with this portion of the Plan. Section 4-4.E.1. of the Plan requires that the County revise its Land Development Code by July 1990. The evidence failed to prove that the amendment at issue in this case is inconsistent with this portion of the Plan. The County's Sustainable Communities Designation Agreement. The County and the Department of Community Affairs (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), entered into a Sustainable Communities Designation Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the "Designation Agreement"). The Designation Agreement was entered into pursuant to Section 163.3244 of the Act. Pursuant to the Designation Agreement, the Department designated the County as a "sustainable community." Among other things, the designation of the County as a sustainable community eliminates the need for the County to have the Department review and comment on amendments to the Plan that affect areas within the urban growth boundary or "Primary Urban Services District" created by the Plan. The Subject Property. The Subject Property is a parcel of real property located in the Hobe Sound area of unincorporated Martin County. The Subject Property consists of approximately 24.5 acres of land. The land use designation for the Subject Property on the FLUM is General Institutional. The Subject Property is undeveloped, vacant land. It is comprised of sandy soils, native upland scrub habitat with native Sand Pine groundcover. The Subject Property was described in an Executive Summary of the proposed plan amendment considered by the County as follows: The parcel is located in an area considered to be one of the last contiguous large areas of native upland scrub habitat in Florida. Groundcover is almost entirely native Sand Pine with some primitive trails and small areas of disturbed land. Endangered species found on the parcel include the Florida Scrub Jay and Gopher Tortoise. Sand Pine is considered to be endangered, unique or rare and the Comprehensive Plan policy 9- 4.A.7.f(2) states that "Where possible, increased conservation (twenty-five (25) percent of the total upland area) of native upland habitats which are determined to be endangered, unique or rare in Martin County, or regionally rare will be required by Martin County." The Subject Property is bounded on the north by Saturn Avenue, a two-lane residential street; on the south and west by undeveloped land; and on the east by U.S. Highway One, a multi- lane divided highway. The property to the north is designated Low Density Residential; the property to the east is designated for commercial uses; and the property to the south and west is designated General Institutional. While located relatively close to the Intercoastal Waterway, the Subject Property is not located on the "coast." The Subject Property was previously owned by the Hobe Sound Water Company, a privately owned water utility. At the request of Hobe Sound Water Company, the Subject Property was designated as General Institutional. No wells currently are located on the Subject Property. The Subject Property was acquired from the Hobe Sound Water Company by the Land Partnership. The undeveloped land located to the south of the Subject Property is owned by South Martin Regional Utilities (hereinafter referred to as "SMRU") and is utilized for a water plant and wells. SMRU acquired this land and the remainder of the land used by the Hobe Sound Water Company from the water company. There are five wells located on the property to the south of the Subject Property. The property to the west of the Subject Property is also owned by SMRU but is not being utilized for wells. The property acquired by SMRU was, and remains, designated as General Institutional. The Subject Property serves as a significant ground water recharge area because of the porous nature of the soils of the Subject Property. The Subject Property is located within the Primary Urban Services District of the Plan. The Subject Amendment and Its Review. The amendment at issue in this proceeding was initiated by the Land Partnership after it acquired the Subject Property from the Hobe Sound Water Company. At the time of the acquisition of the Subject Property, the Land Partnership knew or should have known that it was designated for General Institutional use. The Land Partnership requested a change in the land use designation for the Subject Property on the FLUM from General Institutional to Low Density Residential or "the most appropriate land use designation." The proposed amendment was reviewed by the staff of the County's Growth Management Department. Among other things, the staff considered whether any of the four items specified in Section 1-11.C.2 of the Plan applies to the amendment. The staff determined that the first and fourth items listed in finding of fact 41 did not apply, that the second item was somewhat applicable, and that the third item applied to the amendment. The proposed amendment was also reviewed by the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (hereinafter referred to as the "TCRPC"). Comments concerning the proposed amendment were prepared by the TCRPC, but were withheld because review by the TCRPC is not required due to the sustainable communities designation for the County. The draft comments of the TCRPC, however, raised objections to the proposed amendment due to concerns over the potential endangerment to the wellfields in the area and the potential destruction of critical habitat and vegetation. No copy of the TCRPC's regional plan was offered in evidence in this case. Nor did anyone associated with TCRPC testify about the draft comments. The Department also informally reviewed the proposed amendment. Rather than prepare an Objections, Comments, and Review report on the proposed amendment, the Department prepared informal comments, which it provided to the County. Those comments were responded to by the County. Hearings to consider the proposed amendment were conducted by the Local Planning Agency. On January 21, 1999, the Local Planning Agency voted to recommend that the proposed amendment not be adopted. The proposed amendment was designated Amendment No. 98-3 (hereinafter referred to as the "Amendment"). The Amendment was adopted by the Board on September 28, 1999, as a part of Ordinance No. 553. The evidence failed to prove that any relevant procedure for adopting the Amendment was violated by the County. The Amendment changed the land use designation for the Subject Property from General Institutional to Low Density Residential on the FLUM. This designation would allow the development of the Subject Property for a maximum of 122 residential units. Data and analysis supporting a potential increase of 122 units of additional residential property did not exist when County adopted the Amendment. Nor does such data and analysis exist now. ARDP System Data. Since the implementation of the ARDP System the County has been collecting and analyzing data concerning residential development in the County. No timely annual update of that data and analysis had been prepared prior to the adoption of the Amendment. The most recent data available was from 1995. During the adoption process for the Amendment, at the request of a member of the Board, an ad hoc report containing data and analysis concerning residential development in the County was prepared and presented to the Board. A full and detailed report was prepared subsequent to the adoption of the Amendment. The report, the ARDP Memorandum of June 7, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the "ARDP Memo"), was reviewed and approved by the Board. The report was also received in evidence during this de novo proceeding and has been fully considered in preparing this Recommended Order. Pursuant to the ARDP Memo for the five-year period 2000-2004, there is a need for 6,252 residential units needed to serve population increases. The 125 percent cap of the ARDP System on new residential units allowed in the County is 7,816 units. This amounts to an additional 1,564 units authorized by the ARDP System over the actual number of units needed based upon population projections. The number of approved/unbuilt units and other offsets against the number of allowed new residential units for the County during this period totals 7,015 units. Consequently, there are 801 units (7,816 minus 7,015) available for development through the end of 2004. These available units are more than sufficient to cover the additional units which may arise as a result of the development of the Subject Property pursuant to the Amendment. For the five-year periods of 2005-2009 and 2010-2014, there are 6,314 and 6,578 units available for development through the end of these periods, respectively. Despite the foregoing, the approval of an addition of 122 units of residential property will increase an already excessive designation of property for residential use. The Impact of the Amendment. The most significant impact of the Amendment is to further increase the amount of land allocated for residential use in the County. An estate density designation, although generally used for urban fringe areas, with a density of 1 or 2 units per acre, would reduce the amount of the increase in the amount of land allocated for residential use in the County. The Amendment will also negatively impact sensitive habitat for endangered species of plants and animals. Development of the Subject Property, however, as Low Density Residential or General Institutional has the potential for the same general negative impact on sensitive habitat. That negative impact is not inconsistent with what the Plan allows. The Amendment will not have a negative impact on the role of the Subject Property as a ground water recharge area or the availability of potable water in the County. Any development of the Subject Property will be subject to County and South Florida Water Management District regulations requiring that there be no effect on the quality or quantity of ground water in and around the Subject Property as a result of development. The only action that will preserve the environmental features of the Subject Property and its role as a recharge area would be to keep the property undeveloped. Neither the current land use designation of General Institutional nor the proposed land use designation of Low Density Residential will ensure that the Subject Property remains undeveloped. An estate density designation, although generally used for urban fringe areas, with a density of 1 or 2 units per acre, would reduce the negative impacts of the environmental features of the Subject Property and its role as a recharge area. The evidence failed to prove that the Amendment constitutes "urban sprawl" as defined in the Plan. The Need for a FLUM Amendment. In order for the Amendment to be approved, since it is an amendment to the FLUM, it must be shown that one of the four items listed in Section 1.11.C.2. of the Plan is met. The evidence proved, and the parties agreed, that the first and fourth items listed in Section 1.11.C.2. of the Plan do not apply to this Amendment. The remaining two items of Section 1.11.C.2. of the Plan are: That the growth in the area, in terms of development of vacant land, redevelopment and availability of public services, has altered the character of the area such that the proposed request is now reasonable and consistent with area land use characteristics; or That the proposed change would correct what would otherwise appear to be an inappropriately assigned land use designation. While there has been an increase in the amount of development to the north of the Subject Property, the area immediately around the Subject Property has not changed. The evidence failed to prove that any change in the character of the area surrounding the Subject Property "has altered the character of the area such that the proposed request is now reasonable and consistent with area land use characteristics. . . ." The second item listed in Section 1.11.C.2. of the Plan has not been met. The County's determination that the remaining item, that the proposed change would correct what appears to be an inappropriately assigned land use designation, is based upon the fact that the current owner, the Land Partnership, is not the type of entity the Plan identifies as an appropriate owner of General Institutional property. Section 4-4.M.1.h. of the Plan provides the following concerning the ownership of General Institutional designated property: Except for investor owner public water and sewer systems and private cemeteries, Institutional land shall be owned by public agencies or non-profit service providers. As a consequence of the foregoing, the only use to which the Land Partnership may put the Subject Property under its current land use classification would be as a cemetery, public water, or sewer system. The latter two uses are not practicable uses for the Subject Property. Although the fact that the Land Partnership knew or should have known of the land use category of the Subject Property and the limitation of the uses to which it could put the property before it purchased it, it still appears reasonable to conclude that the third item of Section 1.11.C.2. of the Plan applies to the Amendment. I. Petitioners' Challenge. On October 28, 1999, the Alliance and Ms. Merrill, jointly filed a Petition for Administrative Hearings with the Division challenging the Amendment pursuant to Section 163.3244(5)(a), Florida Statutes. Petitioners requested a formal administrative hearing pursuant to Sections 163.3187(3)(a) and 120.57, Florida Statutes. On February 1, 2000, Petitioners filed an Amended Petition for Administrative Hearing. Pursuant to the Amended Petition, Petitioners alleged that the Amendment is inconsistent with the requirements of Sections 163.3177 and 163.3180 of the Act, the TCRPC's strategic regional policy plan, and portions of Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioners also alleged in the Amended Petition that the Amendment is inconsistent with Sections 163.3161, 163.3167, 163.3194, and 163.3244 of the Act. These allegations are not relevant to the determination of whether the amendment is "in compliance" as those terms are defined in the Act.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Commission enter a final order finding that the Amendment is not "in compliance" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of February, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Virginia P. Sherlock, Esquire Howard K. Heims, Esquire Littman, Sherlock & Heims, P.A. Post Office Box 1197 Stuart, Florida 34995 David A. Acton Senior Assistant County Attorney Martin County Administration Center 2401 South East Monterey Road Stuart, Florida 34996-1197 Raymond W. Royce, Esquire Carrie Beth Baris, Esquire Holland & Knight LLP 625 North Flagler Drive, Suite 700 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-3208 Steven M. Seibert, Secretary Department of Community Affairs Suite 100 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Cari L. Roth, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs Suite 315 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Barbara Leighty, Clerk Growth Management and Strategic Planning The Capitol, Suite 2105 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Charles Canaday, General Counsel Office of the Governor The Capitol, Suite 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
Findings Of Fact The Parties Coniglio through a profit sharing plan owns property in Sumter County which is affected by the plan adoption at issue here. He submitted written and oral comments, objections and recommendations during the plan review and adoption proceedings. He is a person affected by the plan adoption. Similarly Pownall, Cherry, Jones, the Turners and the Dixons as property owners and individuals who submitted written and oral comments, objections and recommendations during the plan review and adoption proceedings are affected persons. Moreover, Pownall, Cherry, Jones and Turner reside in Sumter County. The Dixons own and operate mining sites within Sumter County. Their residence and business interests in Sumter County create additional bases for determining that those individuals are affected persons. The department is the state land planning agency which has the responsibility of reviewing comprehensive plans in accordance with Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. That function was performed on this occasion associated with the comprehensive plan submitted by the county. The county is a local government required to adopt a comprehensive plan in accordance with Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. This county is a non-coastal county located in central Florida which is bordered by Citrus, Hernando, and Pasco counties to its west, Polk county to the south, Marion county to the north and Lake county to the east. It has within its boundaries five incorporated municipalities, Bushnell, Center Hill, Coleman, Webster and Wildwood. The unincorporated area of the county include approximately 350,000 acres. The 1991 unincorporated population of the county was 25,030 and was projected to increase to 30,773 within the ten-year planning horizon contemplated by the plan, in the year 2001. Plan Preparation, Adoption and Approval On March 27, 1991, the county submitted its proposed plan to the department for review as contemplated by Section 163.3184(3)(a), Florida Statutes. By such submission the county did not commit itself to the terms found within the proposed plan. Chapter 163, Part II, contemplates that the text within the proposed plan may change through the review, adoption and approval process that follows that submission. As anticipated by Section 163.3184(4), Florida Statutes, the department forwarded copies of the proposed plan to other agencies for review. The department in accordance with Section 163.3184(6), Florida Statutes, took into account the comments received from the other governmental agencies and prepared and transmitted its report of written objections, recommendations and comments (the ORC). The transmittal date for the ORC was July 2, 1991. The purpose of the ORC was to acquaint the county in detail concerning the department's objections, recommendations and comments. It was left over to the county to decide whether the suggested modifications recommended by the department would be adopted in an effort at establishing a plan which would be found "in compliance". The county considered the ORC report, to include the recommendations and made revisions to the text in the proposed plan when it adopted its plan on February 3, 1992. The adopted plan was transmitted to the department on February 28, 1992, for final review. In preparing and adopting the plan the county gave appropriate notice and provided the opportunity for public participation envisioned by law. On March 31, 1992, the department's secretary determined that the adopted plan met the requirements set forth in Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. Thus, the plan was found "in compliance". The determination finding the plan "in compliance" was memorialized through a memorandum dated March 24, 1992. On April 9, 1992, the department gave notice of its intent to find the plan "in compliance". The Coniglio Petition The Coniglio profit sharing plan owns 19.44 acres in Sumter County which Coniglio claims should be classified on the future land use map to the plan as industrial property not commercial property as the plan now describes. In particular, Coniglio asserts that the 19.44 acres that were designated as commercial was not by a decision based upon a survey, studies or data concerning that parcel and that the designation as commercial is inconsistent with the character of other parcels found within the immediate area. Coniglio argues that the analysis that was performed in classifying the property for designation in the future land use map has resulted in a land use which does not allow the best use or highest economic use of the subject property. This 19.44 acres is depicted on map VII-19 and is located to the north and east of the City of Wildwood. There is commercial acreage in the plan immediately adjacent to the property in question, all of which is part of a triangular shaped piece of land. There are present commercial uses adjacent to the property. Generally, the triangular shaped property, to include the 19.44 acres, is surrounded by other properties whose classification is municipal, industrial and rural residential. The property is further detailed in a sketch which is Respondent's Exhibit No. 1 and a Joint Exhibit No. 2. The property is south of County Road 462, west of the Seaboard Coastline Railroad line and east of U.S. 301. The southern boundary of the property is adjacent to an overpass which is 40 to 45 feet high. Coniglio's property has its longest axis fronting the railroad, contact with County Road 462 but no immediate contact with U.S. 301. The railroad line which is adjacent to the parcel is a principal track for the Seaboard Coastline Railroad carrying north/south traffic between Jacksonville and Tampa and Jacksonville and Orlando. The track splits in the City of Wildwood with some traffic going to Tampa and some traffic going to Orlando. A manufacturing plant is located east of the railroad in the vicinity where the subject property is found. This plant is Florida Corrugated which makes corrugated boxes. West of U.S. 301 in the vicinity of the property in question is found a company known as AST that manufactures steel pipes. In the vicinity of the property in question at the junction of County Road 462 and U.S. 301 a business is located known as McCormick Electric. In the immediate vicinity of the property is also found a convenience store and what previously was a motel that has been turned into rental units. Northeast of the intersection of County Road 462 and the railroad is property owned by Florida Power Corporation which is classified as industrial. The corrugated box plant is also on property classified as industrial, again referring to classifications in the future land use map. The AST property where stainless steel pipes are manufactured is on a parcel which is classified as industrial on the future land use map. As stated, the parcel in question is part of a larger triangular shaped parcel, that had been the topic for establishing an industrial park. In the proposed plan the subject parcel, a part of the larger parcel, had been classified as industrial. That designation of the parcel in the proposed plan was through the future land use map. Arrangements were made to provide water service to the industrial park. At present that service is available at the property in question. Arrangements, though not consummated, have also been made to extend sewer service from the City of Wildwood to the subject parcel. In anticipation of the use of the subject property under an industrial classification, Coniglio expended large sums of money. That included $85,000 for a railroad spur and in addition; $12,000 for track extensions, $8,500 for a water line and contribution of right-of-way for water service, sewer service and a road. All this effort was made by Coniglio's in the anticipation of the opening of the industrial park. Sumter County had been involved in the industrial park project through the process of an application to the Florida Department of Commerce seeking appropriation of $96,000 to construct a road associated with the industrial park. The county administered construction of the road and it is that road which Coniglio had donated right-of-way for. The railroad spur, water and sewer services would serve parcels other than the subject parcel owned by Coniglio. The county in preparing its proposed plan had worked with the Sumter County Development Council and other persons in the community in establishing the location for commercial and industrial classifications. One reason for designating the parcel in question as industrial was based upon its proximity to the railroad and as part of the overall industrial park which was being projected in the planning efforts by the county, the development council and others. Chemical Development Corporation appeared before the Sumter County Board of Adjustments to seek approval to operate its business of storage and treatment of hazardous waste on the subject property. The need to appear before the Sumter County Board of Adjustments, which operates independent of Sumter County and its governing board, the Sumter County Commissioners, was to gain a special exception to operate that type business in the county. A special exception needed to be granted by the Sumter County Board of Adjustments because the business to be engaged in involved hazardous waste. The decision by the Sumter County Board of Adjustments was upon a vote of 8 to 2 to grant the special exception following visitation to a plant similar to those activities the applicant for special exception hoped to be engaged in. That approval was granted in May, 1991 by the Sumter County Board of Adjustments. Following that approval the plan was adopted on February 3, 1992, and it changed the classification from industrial in the proposed plan to commercial in the adopted plan. Chemical Development Corporation the prospective tenant for the parcel in question was not granted an occupational license by the county and could not proceed with its operations. One of the enterprises that located in the proposed industrial park was Dairyman's Supply. It had completed construction and was ready for business before the plan was adopted. It began its operations in July, 1991. The decision to change the designation in the parcel in question from industrial to commercial was upon the recommendation of Glen Nelson, Director of Public Services for Sumter County. Among other reasons for the change, according to Nelson, was to thwart the purposes of Chemical Development Corporation in recognition that the change in classification from industrial to commercial would prohibit activities by that company. Notwithstanding the decision by the Sumter County Board of Adjustments to grant the special exception, that prohibition existed because industrial zoning was necessary for the would be tenant to proceed with its business at the site in question. By way of history, following the decision by the Sumter County Board of Adjustments to grant the special exception there was some opposition to the activities envisioned by the Chemical Development Corporation. That is to say, the establishment of a hazardous waste treatment facility. This community opposition predated the recommendation by Mr. Nelson, the decision by the Sumter County Commissioners to reject the application for an occupational license issued from the county, and the determination to present the subject parcel on the future land use map in the adopted plan as a commercial classification. The principal planner whom the county relied upon in preparing its plan was Jack Sullivan. He did not participate in the decision to change the subject parcel from industrial to commercial as reflected on the future land use map in the adopted plan. As explained by Mr. Nelson, other reasons for changing the plan related to the overall attempt by the county to meet perceived needs for balancing the amount of commercial and industrial acres within its adopted plan. To that end the March, 1991, proposed plan had contained approximately 200 acres on State Road 44 east of Wildwood designated as commercial that had been put there at the request of the Sumter County Development Council based upon the Council's discussions with a company that was considering the establishment of a distribution center. Between the time the proposed plan had been transmitted and the plan adoption took place the potential project located in Pasco County or some county south of Sumter County. Therefore, as stated by Mr. Nelson, the commercial designation was no longer needed. The commercial designation at that site changed to rural residential in the plan as adopted. To compensate for the loss of commercial on that 200 acres Mr. Nelson requested that an approximately 40 acre tract of land adjacent to Wildwood on the east side of State Road 44 be placed in the adopted plan as commercial together with 30 to 35 acres including the subject parcel. In making his recommendation to place the subject parcel as commercial Mr. Nelson was aware of those industrial activities in the general area surrounding the parcel in question that have been described. Mr. Nelson made his recommendation for change in the classification one or two months before the February 3, 1992 plan adoption. At the plan adoption hearing on February 3, 1992, Mr. Nelson indicated that the reason for changing the classification for the subject parcel was that the existing uses there were commercial and that the future land use map should reflect that reality. At the hearing no mention was made, by the provision of details, that the reason for changing was to compensate for the loss of the aforementioned 200 acres of commercial acres between the time of the proposed plan and the adoption of the plan on February 3, 1992. As Mr. Nelson explains, the action by the Sumter County Board of Adjustments in granting a special use exception to Chemical Development Corporation did not preclude the necessity to acquire the proper zoning on the parcel before proceeding with the business. That zoning had to be industrial and not commercial. In the more ordinary course the industrial zoning would have been sought first before the Sumter County Commissioners and the Sumter County Board of Adjustments would then have considered the special use. In this instance the Board of Adjustments acted first and the county made its determination second. Bill Keedy who sells industrial real estate expressed the opinion that the 19.44 acres would not be saleable as commercial real estate at least in the foreseeable future. Jim Morton who sells commercial, residential and agricultural properties expressed the opinion that the parcel in question has limited commercial value. Willard Peeples who owns a number of commercial rental properties did not believe that the subject property had commercial value due to limited access to road frontage. None of these individuals are certified in real estate appraisal. Mr. Keedy pointed out that the majority of commercial activity in the Wildwood area is in the middle of the town. Mr. Peeples observed that the commercial activity in Wildwood was located south of the city hall and on U.S. 301 and east and west on State Road 44. Mr. Morton expressed the belief that the highest and best use of the subject property was industrial. Mr. Keedy expressed the belief that an industrial use was promoted by the fact that the property on its east side was bordered by the railroad track. Mr. Nelson in making his recommendation to classify the property in question as commercial made that choice outside any experience in selling, owning or dealing in commercial property. There had been no commercial development north of the City Hall in Wildwood in the preceding ten years prior to hearing. Tony Arrant is an expert in land use planning employed by the department. He had significant involvement in the plan review performed by the department. He pointed out that the department's concerns about the plan and its land use classifications were based upon distribution of land uses throughout the entire county. The ORC did not offer objections to classification of any particular parcel. In the ORC there had been objection as to the extent and distribution of land uses based upon the belief that inadequate data and analysis had been provided to support the extent and distribution of land use. Moreover, the ORC found the plan in its proposed form deferred the establishment of densities and intensities for some land use categories within the plan. The ORC expressed concern about data and analysis supporting the future land use map. Therefore, objection was directed to the future land use map. However, the impression of the proposed plan was not based upon a policy to avoid commenting on specific parcels when occasion arose for such criticism. Mr. Arrant did not perceive that a change in classification of land use between the time that the proposed plan was reviewed by the department and the adoption of a plan was an irregular outcome. In fact, that possibility is a normal expectation. Mr. Arrant recalls the explanation by Mr. Nelson on February 3, 1992, when the plan was adopted concerning the change from the proposed plan to the adopted plan affecting the parcel in question, to have been based upon existing circumstances, existing land uses at that place and a movement in the distribution of parcels in the overall county associated with commercial and industrial classifications. Mr. Arrant pointed out, in the final perception he held about the adopted plan, that if the suitability analysis provided would support a commercial classification, that is to say, that it was equally suitable for commercial development or industrial development and there was data and analysis providing the need and extent of distribution for the classification, then it is the local government's choice to determine which site will be designated commercial and which site will be designated industrial. With that in mind, Mr. Arrant found no reason to take issue with the county in its commercial classification for the subject parcel. Mr. Arrant in his knowledge of the parcel in question found no wildlife habitat, wetlands, topographical, geographical or geophysical constraints which would limit the use of this property as commercial or industrial. Consequently, the choice in classification was left to the local government. Having in mind the facts previously found, it is recognized that the reasons for changing the land use classification on the subject parcel from industrial to commercial had a political component, stopping Chemical Development Corporation from doing business in Sumter County, unrelated to appropriate land use planning. Nonetheless other reasons the county gave for changing the classification from industrial to commercial when compared to the criticisms directed to the classification do not convince, to the exclusion of fair debate, that the county should be required to change the plan to reflect an industrial classification for the parcel in question. This finding is supported by review directed to the overall plan for land use classification within the county which is supported by appropriate data and analysis. Finally, Coniglio's expenditures associated with this parcel are not an appropriate topic for disposition in this case. Mining Policy 1.9.1 at pages VII-48 and 49 states the following in its preamble: Mining uses shall be provided for in areas designated as agricultural on the Future Land Use Map and shall be permitted upon approval of a conditional use permit and approval of an operating permit pursuant to a mining site plan as provided for in the Land Development Regulations. It was not proven to the exclusion of fair debate, in fact, no proof was offered to suggest that the approval of a conditional use permit as opposed to a zoning permit should be the proper approach in describing this policy. Consequently, that allegation concerning the county's policy choice in the mining element is without merit. Policy 1.9.1 at page VII-49 goes on to describe the guidelines for controlling land allocation for mining purposes where it states: The following guidelines shall be used to control land allocation for mining: Allocation of mining land use shall be based on a projected average need of 100 acres per year or a total of 1,000 acres during the ten year time period of the Plan and may be permitted pursuant to the goals, objectives and policies of the Plan as needed up to 1,000 acres. Allocation of mining land use above this projected need shall require a Plan amendment. For purposes of determining the amount of mining land permitted, the Board of County Commissioners shall issue a finding with each operating permit that clearly delineates the amount of land dedicated to the actual mined area plus ancillary uses such as processing plants, overburden piles, roads, administrative offices and other buildings necessary for the actual mining of land. Areas allocated for wetlands, buffers and other lands required in the application to insure compatibility with adjacent land uses or protection of resources shall not be counted toward the ten-year allocation of land for mining purposes. To ensure that an equitable balance among applicants is maintained in allocation of mining land, the following criteria shall apply: Within each calendar year, no individual mining operation shall receive more than 10% of the ten year allocation; No individual mining operation shall receive more than 25% of the ten year allocation within any five year period; Any land allocation requirement for mining purposes larger than those indicated in 1-2 above shall require a plan amendment. The calculation concerning the number of acres per year and total acreage allocated during the ten year review is based upon data collected from the Withlacoochee Regional Planning Council field survey of 1975 incorporated into the county's 1976 comprehensive plan which showed 2190 acres in mining effective 1975. That constitutes the base point for calculation and is related to a further data point in 1986 taken from the county tax assessor's data which established that 3082 mining acres existed in the county upon that date. The use of the data points is described in the data and analysis at page VII-104 where it states: The 1991 acreage was assumed to be the same as the 1986 analysis. The following methodology was used to calculate mining growth to the year 2001: Assume an additional 100 acres per year from 1986-2001 including buffer area. This estimate is based on 2,190 acres in mining in 1976 (1976 Comprehensive Plan) and 3,082 acres in 1986 (See Appendix A). This yields an average of 89 acres per year for the ten year period. This has been rounded upward to 100 acres per year to allow for market fluctuations. Mining shall be a permitted activity in agriculture districts. Applicants shall secure a conditional use permit to mine in agriculture areas; then a mining operating permit will be secured to delineate the exact location of the mined area. 100 acres/year X 15 years = 1,500 acres. 3. 3,082 + 1,500 = 4,582 acres mining in 2001. The goals and policies concerning allocation of mining acreage is clearly based upon appropriate data. The methodology utilized for data collection was appropriately applied and the use of the methodology to derive the allocation was a professionally acceptable methodology. The Petitioners challenge to the county's treatment of the future land use element related to mining would substitute a methodology which examines the amount of land devoted specifically to the mining activity as contrasted with the methodology here which takes into account the mined areas plus ancillary uses such as processing plants, overburden piles, roads, administrative offices and other buildings. In addition, the methodology that the challengers would employ does not take into account that the 100 acre per year allocation excludes wetlands, buffers, and other land required to ensure compatibility with adjacent land uses and protection of resources. This attempt at comparison of methodologies is not allowed in the compliance review. In criticizing the data supporting the allocation process, the challengers question whether that data is the best available existing data. They have failed to prove beyond fair debate that the data used in the plan element is not the best available existing data. The decision to exclude areas allocated for wetlands, buffers and other lands required to ensure compatibility with adjacent land uses and to protect resources from the mining acreage count is not part of the allocation methodology. It is an appropriate planning decision in protecting wetlands and other resources and ensuring compatibility with adjacent land uses. In further describing the manner in which the county will ensure compatibility of the mining uses with adjacent land uses and the preservation of natural resources, Policy 1.9.2 at page VII-49 states: Sumter County shall insure compatibility of mining uses with adjacent land uses and preservation of natural resources through the following requirements: Sumter County shall regulate mining to control buffer areas, maintenance of the mining area, groundwater withdrawals, unpermitted deposition of materials, soil stabilization, disturbance of wetlands, noise, vibration, air quality, security and reclamation of mined lands pursuant to Sumter County Ordinance 90-12(1990). Blasting shall be regulated pursuant to Sumter County Ordinance 81-11(1981). All mining lands permitted pursuant to these policies must be adjacent to existing legally permitted mine sites with no intervening non-compatible uses. Lands proposed for mining that are not adjacent to an existing permitted mine site shall require a plan amendment prior to approval of zoning and the mining plan. Enforcement of mining regulations shall be funded through operating permit fees levied against mining operators. The Petitioners challenging the mining element take issue with the term "adjacent" found at Policy 1.9.2c. They note that Sumter County Ordinance No. 90-12(1990), the mining ordinance, uses the term "contiguous". They argue that this difference in terminology between the ordinance and the plan describes an inconsistency between that ordinance and the plan. Moreover, the challengers claim that there is an internal inconsistency between Policy 1.9.2 and Policy within the conservation element. Policy 1.7.1 in the conservation element at pages III-13 and 14 states: Sumter County shall insure compatibility of mining uses with adjacent land uses and preservation of natural resources through the following requirements: Sumter County shall regulate mining activities to control buffer areas, maintenance of the mining area, groundwater withdrawals, unpermitted deposition of materials, soil stabilization, disturbance of wetlands, noise, vibration, air quality, security and reclamation of mined lands pursuant to Sumter County Ordinance 90-12 (1990). Blasting shall be regulated pursuant to Sumter County Ordinance 81-11 (1981). All mining lands permitted pursuant to these policies must be adjacent to existing legally permitted mine sites with no intervening non-compatible uses. Lands proposed for mining that are not contiguous to an existing permitted mine site shall require a plan amendment prior to approval of zoning and the mining plan. Enforcement of mining regulations shall be funded through operating permit fees levied against mining operators. The challengers claim that Policy 1.9.2 is inconsistent with the Land Development Code for Sumter County, Chapter 13 as it discusses mining activities. Finally, the challengers take issue with the decision to change policy 1.9.2 in its use of the word "contiguous" in a plan draft and the final decision to use the word "adjacent". In Webster's New World Dictionary the word "adjacent" is defined as: near or close to something; adjoining, joining. "Contiguous" is defined as: 1. in physical contact; touching. 2. near; adjoining. To the extent that the county chose to change the previous terminology in policy 1.9.2 found within the earlier draft from the word "contiguous" to the word "adjacent" in the adopted plan, there is no impropriety in that choice. Such changes are anticipated as being involved in the process. The plan as adopted in its use of the terminology "contiguous" or "adjacent" in the conservation and future land use elements as they discuss mining activities is not an internal inconsistency. The terms adjacent and contiguous taken in context are the same. The use of those terms affords no greater nor lesser protection for the benefit of adjacent land owners or in the protection of resources. Treatment of the mining issue within Sumter County Ordinance 90-12 and the Land Development Code for Sumter County, Chapter 13, when compared to the plan does not point to some inconsistency in using the terms "contiguous" and "adjacent". On balance the treatment afforded the mining element within the plan has adequately responded to the need for proper allocation for future land use compatible with adjacent land uses and the protection of resources.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered which finds the plan for Sumter County to be "in compliance" and dismisses the petitions. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of February, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of February, 1993. APPENDIX CASE NO. 92-2683GM The following discussion is given concerning the proposed fact finding of the parties: Coniglio: The proposed facts are accepted with the exception that Paragraph 4 is contrary to facts found. and Paragraph (w) is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Department: Paragraphs 1-12 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 13 is contrary to the facts in its suggestion that there is a lack of significant industrial activity in the area of the subject parcel. Otherwise, that paragraph is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 14 through 18 are subordinate to facts found with the exception that the latter sentence in Paragraph 18 is not accepted in its suggestion that the allegation of political considerations has not been proven. Paragraphs 19 and 20 constitute legal argument. Paragraphs 21 through 23 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 24 through 27 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 28 and 29 constitute conclusions of law. Paragraphs 30 and 31 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 32 and 33 constitute conclusions of law. Paragraph 34 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 35 constitutes conclusions of law. Paragraphs 36 through 40 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 41 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 42 is subordinate to facts found. Pownall, Cherry, Jones and Turner: Paragraph 1 is contrary to facts found in its suggestion that appropriate notice and opportunity for public participation was not afforded. Paragraph 2 through 4 are contrary to facts found. The County and Intervenors: Paragraphs 1 through 7 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 8 constitutes conclusions of law. Paragraphs 9 through 13 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 14 and 15 constitute conclusions of law. Paragraphs 17 through 22 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 23 constitutes conclusions of law. Paragraphs 24 and 25 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 26 constitutes conclusions of law. Paragraphs 27 through 31 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 32 and 33 constitute conclusions of law. Paragraphs 34 through 39 are subordinate to facts found. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael P. Donaldson, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 C. John Coniglio, Esquire P. O. Box 1119 Wildwood, Florida 34785 Bill Pownall 202 W. Noble Street Bushnell, Florida 33513 Randall N. Thornton, Esquire P. O. Box 58 Lake Panasoffkee, Florida 33538 Theodore R. Turner Nancy Turner Carousel Farms Route 1 Box 66T Post Office Box 1745 Bushnell, Florida 33513 Frances J. Cherry 3404 C R 656 Webster, Florida 33597 Kenneth L. Jones 3404 CR 656 Webster, Florida 33597 Steven J. Richey, Esquire P.O. Box 492460 Leesburg, Florida 34749-2460 Felix M. Adams, Esquire 236 North Main Street Bushnell, Florida 33513 Randal M. Thornton, Esquire Post Office Box 58 Lake Pnasoffkee, Florida 33538 Linda Loomis Shelley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the amendments to Miami- Dade County’s Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP), adopted through Ordinance Nos. 08-44 and 08-45, are “in compliance” as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2008).1
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Department is the state land planning agency and is statutorily charged with the duty to review amendments to local comprehensive plans and to determine whether the amendments are “in compliance,” pursuant to Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes. The County is a political subdivision of the State and has adopted a local comprehensive plan that the County amends from time to time. 1000 Friends is a Florida not-for-profit corporation that maintains its headquarters in Tallahassee, Florida. Its corporate purpose is to ensure the fair and effective implementation of the Growth Management Act, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, through education, lobbying, research and litigation. 1000 Friends has approximately 3,500 members, 174 of whom live in the County. NPCA is a foreign, not-for-profit corporation that is registered to do business in Florida. Its headquarters are in Washington, D.C. It has a branch office in Hollywood, Broward County, Florida. NPCA’s purpose is to protect and preserve national parks, including Everglades National Park. NPCA has approximately 340,000 members, 1,000 of whom live in the County. Barry White and Karen Esty are residents of the County. Lowe’s is a for-profit corporation that owns and operates a business in the County. David Brown, along with his father and brother, is a co-applicant for the Brown amendment. For the purpose of this Recommended Order, the Department and the Intervenors aligned with the Department will be referred to, collectively, as Petitioners. Standing Lowe’s filed the application with the County that resulted in Ordinance No. 08-44 (Lowe’s Amendment). Lowe’s submitted comments to the County concerning the Lowe’s Amendment during the period of time from the County’s transmittal of the amendment to the County’s adoption of the amendment. Brown filed the application with the County that resulted in Ordinance No. 08-45 (Brown Amendment). Brown resides in the County. Brown is a manager/member of BDG Kendall 172, LLC, which has a contract to purchase the larger of the two parcels on the application site. Brown is also a manager/member of BDG Kendall 162, LLC, which owns and operates a business in Miami-Dade County. Brown submitted comments to the County at the transmittal and adoption hearings. 1000 Friends submitted comments to the County during the period of time from the transmittal of the amendments to their adoption. 1000 Friends presented its comments to the County on behalf of its members who reside in the County. 1000 Friends does not own property or maintain an office in the County. 1000 Friends does not pay local business taxes in the County and did not show that it is licensed to conduct a business in the County. 1000 Friends has engaged in fundraising, lobbying, and litigation in the County. Its activities include efforts to promote growth management, affordable housing, and Everglades restoration. 1000 Friends did not show that its activities in the County subject it to the provisions of the CDMP. NPCA submitted comments to the County during the period of time from the transmittal of the amendments to their adoption. NPCA presented its comments to the County on behalf of NPCA members who reside in the County. NPCA does not own property or maintain an office in the County. No evidence was presented to show that NPCA pays business taxes in the County or that it is licensed to conduct business in the County. NPCA did not show that its activities in the County subject it to the provisions of the CDMP. Barry White and Karen Esty are residents of the County. They submitted comments to the County regarding the amendments during the period of time from the transmittal of the amendments to their adoption. The Amendment Adoption Process The applications which resulted in the Lowe’s and Brown Amendments were submitted to the County during the April 2007 plan amendment cycle. The County’s review process for comprehensive plan amendments includes a public hearing before the community council which has jurisdiction over the area of the County where the affected lands are located. Following the public hearings on the proposed Lowe’s and Brown Amendments, the community councils recommended that the Board of County Commissioners approve the amendments. The County’s Planning Advisory Board also reviews proposed amendments before the transmittal and adoption hearings. Following public hearings on the proposed Lowe’s and Brown Amendments, the Planning Advisory Board recommended that the Board of County Commissioners approve the amendments for transmittal and for adoption. The County planning staff recommended that the proposed amendments be denied and not transmitted to the Department. The principal objection of the planning staff was that the expansion of the Urban Development Boundary (UDB), an aspect of both proposed amendments, was unjustified. In November 2007, the Board of County Commissioners voted to transmit the amendments to the Department. The Department reviewed the proposed amendments and issued its Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report on February 26, 2008. In the ORC Report, the Department stated that expanding the UDB would be internally inconsistent with the CDMP because the need for the expansion had not been demonstrated. In addition the Department determined that the Lowe’s Amendment was inconsistent with CDMP policies regarding the protection of wetlands, and the Brown Amendment was inconsistent with CDMP policies regarding the protection of agricultural lands. When the amendments came before the Board of County Commissioners after the ORC Report in March 2008, the County planning staff recommended that the amendments be denied, repeating its belief that the expansion of the UDB would be inconsistent with the CDMP. Under the County’s Code of Ordinances, an expansion of the UDB requires approval by a two-thirds vote of the Board of County Commissioners. The County adopted the amendments through Ordinances No. 08-44 and 08-45 on April 24, 2008. On April 30, 2008, the Mayor Carlos Alvarez vetoed the ordinances, citing inconsistencies with the UDB policies of the CDMP. His veto was overridden by a two-thirds vote of the Board of County Commissioners on May 6, 2008. On July 18, 2008, the Department issued its Statement of Intent to Find Comprehensive Plan Amendments Not in Compliance. The Lowe’s Amendment The Lowe’s Amendment site consists of two parcels located in close proximity to the intersection of Southwest 8th Street, also known as Tamiami Trail, and Northwest 137th Avenue. The easternmost parcel, Parcel A, is 21.6 acres. The adjacent parcel to the west, Parcel B, is 30.1 acres. Neither parcel is currently being used. About 50 percent of both Parcels A and B are covered by wetlands. The wetlands are partially drained and show encroachment by exotic vegetation, including Melaleuca and Australian pine. The Lowe’s site is located within the Bird Trail Canal Basin, which the CDMP characterizes as containing “heavily impacted, partially drained wetlands.” Both Parcels A and B are currently designated Open Land under the CDMP, with a more specific designation as Open Land Subarea 3 (Tamiami-Bird Canal Basins), and can be used for residences at densities of up to one unit per five acres, compatible institutional uses, public facilities, utility and communications facilities, certain agricultural uses, recreational uses, limestone quarrying, and ancillary uses. East of the Lowe’s site is another parcel owned by Lowe’s that is designated Business and Office and is within the UDB. North and west of the Lowe’s site is Open Land. The Lowe’s site is bordered on the south by Tamiami Trail, a six- lane road. Across Tamiami Trail is land designated Business and Office. The Lowe’s amendment would reclassify Parcel A as Business and Office and Parcel B as Institution, Utilities, and Communications. The Lowe’s Amendment would also extend the UDB westward to encompass Parcels A and B. The Business and Office designation allows for a wide range of sales and service activities, as well as compatible residential uses. However, the Lowe’s amendment includes a restrictive covenant that prohibits residential development. The Institution, Utilities, and Communications land use designation allows for “the full range of institution, communications and utilities,” as well as offices and some small businesses. Parcel A is subject to another restrictive covenant that provides that Lowe’s shall not seek building permits for the construction of any buildings on Parcel A without having first submitted for a building permit for the construction of a home improvement store. The use of Parcel B is restricted to a school, which can be a charter school. If a charter school is not developed on Parcel B, the parcel will be offered to the Miami-Dade County School Board. If the School Board does not purchase Parcel B within 120 days, then neither Lowe’s nor its successors of assigns have any further obligations to develop a school on Parcel B. The Brown Amendment The Brown Amendment involves four changes to the CDMP: a future land use re-designation from “Agriculture” to “Business and Office”; an expansion of the UDB to encompass the Brown site; a prohibition of residential uses on the site; and a requirement that the owner build an extension of SW 172nd Avenue through the site. The Agriculture designation allows agricultural uses and single family residences at a density of one unit per five acres. The proposed Business and Office land use designation allows a wide range of commercial uses, including retail, professional services, and office. Residential uses are also allowed, but the Declaration of Restrictions adopted by the County with the Brown Amendment prohibits residential development. The Brown Amendment site is 42 acres. Some of the site is leased to a tenant farmer who grows row crops. The balance is vacant and not in use. The Brown site has a triangular shape. Along the sloping northern/eastern boundary is Kendall Drive. Kendall Drive is a major arterial roadway, a planned urban corridor, and part of the state highway system. On the site's western boundary is other agricultural land. There is commercial development to the east. Along the southern boundary is the 1200-unit Vizcaya Traditional Neighborhood Development, which is within the UDB. The entirety of the Brown site has been altered by farming activities. In the southwest portion of the site is a four-acre, degraded wetland that is part of a larger 28-acre wetland located offsite. The wetland is not connected to any state waters and the Army Corps of Engineers has not asserted jurisdiction over it. The wetland is not on the map of “Future Wetlands and CERP Water Management Areas” in the Land Use Element of the CDMP. The dominant plants in the wetland are exotic species. There is no evidence that any portion of the site is used by any threatened or endangered species. The Urban Development Boundary and Urban Expansion Area The principal dispute in this case involves the application of Policies LU-8F and LU-8G of the CDMP regarding the expansion of the UDB. Policy LU-8F directs that adequate supplies of residential and nonresidential lands be maintained in the UDB. If the supply of lands becomes inadequate, Policy LU-8G addresses where the expansion of the UDB should occur. The UDB is described in the Land Use Element: The Urban Development Boundary (UDB) is included on the LUP map to distinguish the area where urban development may occur through the year 2015 from areas where it should not occur. Development orders permitting urban development will generally be approved within the UDB at some time through the year 2015 provided that level- of-service standards for necessary public facilities will be met. Adequate countywide development capacity will be maintained within the UDB by increasing development densities or intensities inside the UDB, or by expanding the UDB, when the need for such change is determined to be necessary through the Plan review and amendment process. The UDB promotes several planning purposes. It provides for the orderly and efficient construction of infrastructure, encourages urban infill and redevelopment, discourages urban sprawl, and helps to conserve agricultural and environmentally-sensitive lands. The County only accepts applications for amendments seeking to expand the UDB once every two years, unless they are directly related to a development of regional impact. In contrast, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, allows two amendment cycles in a calendar year, Amendments that would expand the UDB must be approved by at least two-thirds of the total membership of the Board of County Commissioners. Other types of amendments only require a majority vote of the quorum. Outside the UDB are County lands within the relatively small Urban Expansion Area (UEA), which is described in the CDMP as “the area where current projections indicate that further urban development beyond the 2015 UDB is likely to be warranted some time between the year 2015 and 2025.” The UEA consists of lands that the CDMP directs “shall be avoided” when the County is considering adding land to the UDB. They are (1) future wetlands, (2) lands designated Agriculture, (3) hurricane evacuation areas, and (4) lands that are part of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. The “future” wetlands on this list are existing wetland areas delineated by the County on Figure 14 of the Land Use Element. A far larger area of the County, mostly west of the UDB and UEA, consists of lands that the CDMP directs “shall not be considered” for inclusion in the UDB. These are water conservation areas, lands associated with Everglades National Park, the Redland agricultural area, and wellfield protection areas. Policy LU-8F Policy LU-8F of the Land Use Element provides: The Urban Development Boundary (UDB) should contain developable land having capacity to sustain projected countywide residential demand for a period of 10 years after adoption of the most recent Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) plus a 5-year surplus (a total 15-year Countywide supply beyond the date of EAR adoption). The estimation of this capacity shall include the capacity to develop and redevelop around transit stations at the densities recommended in policy LU-7F. The adequacy of non- residential land supplies shall be determined on the basis of land supplies in subareas of the County appropriate to the type of use, as well as the Countywide supply within the UDB. The adequacy of land supplies for neighborhood- and community- oriented business and office uses shall be determined on the basis of localized subarea geography such as Census Tracts, Minor Statistical Areas (MSAs) and combinations thereof. Tiers, Half-Tiers and combinations thereof shall be considered along with the Countywide supply when evaluating the adequacy of land supplies for regional commercial and industrial activities. There is no further guidance in the CDMP for determining the “adequacy of land supplies” with respect to nonresidential land uses. Neither Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, nor Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J-5 requires that local governments use a particular methodology to determine the adequacy of nonresidential land supplies. The County’s usual methodology for determining need is described in the Planning Considerations Report that the County planning staff prepared for the 2007 amendment cycle. A report like this one is prepared by the staff for each amendment cycle to evaluate the adequacy of the CDMP to accommodate growth and to evaluate pending amendment applications. The County compares a proposed use to its immediate surroundings and the broader area of the County in which the proposed use is located. The basic geographic unit used in the County’s need analysis is the Minor Statistical Area (MSA). Larger planning areas, called Tiers, are groupings of MSAs. The County is divided into 32 MSAs and four Tiers. The Lowe’s Amendment site is in MSA 3.2, but it is on the border with MSA 6.1, so the two MSAs were consolidated for the County’s need analysis regarding the Lowe’s Amendment, even though MSA 3.2 is in the North Central Tier and MSA 6.1 is in the South Central Tier. The Brown Amendment is in MSA 6.2, but it is close to MSA 6.1, so the County combined the two MSAs for its need analysis for the Brown Amendment. Both MSAs are in the South Central Tier. The Planning Considerations Report contains a 2007 inventory of commercial land. The only vacant land used in the analysis of available commercial land supply was land zoned for business, professional office, office park, or designated Business and Office on the Land Use Map. Although it is stated in the Planning Considerations Report that lands zoned or designated for industrial uses are often used for commercial purposes, this situation was not factored into the calculation of the available supply of commercial lands. The County also excluded any supply that could be gained from the redevelopment of existing sites. Petitioners contend, therefore, that the County’s need for commercial land is less than the planning staff calculated in the Planning Considerations Report. On the other hand, Respondents contend that the County’s need for commercial land is greater than the planning staff calculated in the Planning Considerations Report because the County planning staff did not apply a “market factor” for commercial lands as it does for residential lands. A market factor is considered by some professional planners to be appropriate for commercial land uses to account for physical constraints and other factors that limit the utilization of some vacant parcels, and to prevent situations where the diminished supply of useable parcels causes their prices to rise steeply. The CDMP recognizes the problem in stating that: impediments can arise to the maximum utilization of all lands within the boundaries [of the UDB]. In some urbanized areas, it may be difficult to acquire sufficiently large parcels of land. In other areas, neighborhood opposition to proposed developments could alter the assumed density and character of a particular area. The County used a market factor of 1.5 (50 percent surplus) to determine the need for residential land. The County did not use a market factor in its analysis of the need for commercial land. The Department’s expert planning witness, Mike McDaniel, testified that the Department generally supports use of a 1.25 allocation (25 percent surplus). The County’s most recent UDB expansions for nonresidential uses (other than Lowe’s and Brown) were the Beacon Lakes and Shoppyland amendments in 2002. The Beacon Lakes and Shoppyland UDB expansions were approved despite the fact that the County did not project a need for more industrial land within the planning horizon. The need determinations for these amendments were not based on the use of a market factor, but on a percieved2`` need for the particular land uses proposed – warehouses and related industrial uses on large parcels to serve the Miami International Airport and the Port of Miami. The evidence indicates that the County’s exclusion from its analysis of industrial lands that can be used for commercial purposes, and additional commercial opportunities that could be derived from the redevelopment of existing sites, is offset by the County’s exclusion of a market factor. If the supply of commercial land had been increased 25 percent to account for industrial lands and redevelopment, it would have been offset by a 1.25 market factor on the demand side. The calculations made by the County in its Planning Considerations Report would not have been materially different. The Planning Considerations Report analyzes commercial demand (in acres) through the years 2015 and 2025, and calculates a “depletion year” by MSA, Tier, and countywide. A depletion year is the year in which the supply of vacant land is projected to be exhausted. If the depletion year occurs before 2015 (the planning horizon for the UDB), that is an indication that additional lands for commercial uses might be needed. The County planning staff projected a countywide depletion year of 2023, which indicates there are sufficient commercial lands in the County through the planning horizon of 2015. The County then projected the need for commercial land by MSA and Tier. MSA 3.2, where the Lowe’s site is located, has a depletion year of 2025, but when averaged with MSA 6.1’s depletion years of 2011, results in an average depletion year of 2018. The North Central Tier, in which the Lowe’s Amendment site is located, has a depletion year of 2023. The County’s depletion year analysis at all three levels, MSA, Tier, and countywide, indicates no need for more commercial lands in the area of the Lowe’s site. MSA 6.2, where the Brown site is located, has a depletion year of 2017, but when combined with MSA 6.1’s depletion of 2011, results in an average depletion year for the two MSAs is 2014. The South Central Tier, in which the Brown Amendment site is located, has a depletion year of 2014. Therefore, the County’s depletion year analysis, at the MSA and Tier levels, indicates a need for more commercial lands in the area of the Brown site. The County also analyzed the ratio of commercial acres per 1,000 persons by MSA, Tier, and county-wide. The countywide ratio is not a goal that the County is seeking to achieve for all Tiers and MSAs. However, if a Tier or MSA shows a ratio substantially lower than the countywide ratio, that MSA or Tier might need more commercial lands. The countywide ratio of commercial lands per 1,000 persons is projected to be 6.1 acres per 1,000 persons in 2015. MSA 3.2, in which the Lowe’s site is located, has a ratio of 11.3 acres per 1,000 persons. MSA 6.1 has a ratio of 2.6 acres. The average for the two MSAs is 6.95 acres. The ratio for all of the North Central Tier is 6.3 acres per 1,000 persons. Therefore, a comparison of the countywide ratio with the MSAs and Tier where the Lowe’s site is located indicates there is no need for additional commercial lands in the area of the Lowe’s site. MSA 6.2, where the Brown site is located, has a ratio of 4.1 acres per 1,000 persons. When combined with MSA 6.1’s ratio of 2.6 acres, the average for the two MSAs is 3.35 acres. The ratio for all of the South Central Tier is 4.5 acres per 1,000 persons. Therefore, a comparison with the countywide ratio of 6.1 acres indicates a need for additional commercial lands in the area of the Brown site. The County’s need analysis treated the Kendall Town Center as vacant (i.e., available) commercial land, but the Kendall Town Center is approved and under construction. If the Kendall Town Center had been excluded, the County’s projected future need for commercial land in the area of the Brown site would have been greater. The Planning Considerations Report does not discuss parcel size in its commercial need analysis. Lowe’s contends that the County should have considered whether there is a need for larger “community commercial” uses in the area of the Lowe’s site. Policy LU-8F refers only to the need to consider (by “Tiers, Half-Tiers and combinations thereof”) the adequacy of land supplies for “regional commercial activities.” Lowe’s planning expert testified that there are few undeveloped commercial parcels in MSAs 3.2 and 6.1 that are ten acres or more, or could be aggregated with contiguous vacant parcels to create a parcel bigger than ten acres. Lowe’s submitted two market analyses for home improvement stores, which conclude that there is a need for another home improvement store in the area of the Lowe’s site. The market analyses offered by Lowe’s differ from the County’s methodology, which focuses, not on the market for a particular use, but on the availability of commercial lands in appropriate proportion to the population. Even when it is reasonable for the County to consider the need for a unique use, the County’s focus is on serving a general public need, rather than on whether a particular commercial use could be profitable in a particular location. Some of the assumptions used in the market analyses offered by Lowe’s were unreasonable and biased the results toward a finding of need for a home improvement store in the study area. The more persuasive evidence shows that there is no need for more commercial land, and no need for a home improvement store, in the area of the Lowe’s site. Lowe’s Parcel B is proposed for use as a school. The elementary, middle and high schools serving the area are over- capacity. Lowe’s expects the site to be used as a charter high school. Using an inventory of lands that was prepared by the County staff, Lowe’s planning expert investigated each parcel of land located within MSAs 3.2 and 6.1 that was over seven acres2 and determined that no parcel within either MSA was suitable for development as a high school. The record is unclear about how the Lowe’s Amendment fits into the plans of the County School Board. The proposition that there are no other potential school sites in the area was not firmly established by the testimony presented by Lowe’s. The need shown for the school site on Parcel B does not overcome the absence of demonstrated need for the Business and Office land use on Parcel A. It is beyond fair debate that that the Lowe’s Amendment is inconsistent with Policy LU-8F. The County’s determination that the Brown Amendment is consistent with Policy LU-8F is fairly debatable. Policy LU-8G Policy LU-8GA(i) identifies lands outside the UDB that “shall not be considered for inclusion in the UDB. Policy LU- 8G(ii) identifies other lands that “shall be avoided,” including (1) future wetlands, (2) lands designated Agriculture, (3) hurricane evacuation areas, and (4) lands that are part of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. A peculiarity of the UEA is that it is composed entirely of lands that “shall be avoided” when the County considers adding lands to the UDB. The Department contends that “shall be avoided” means, in this context, that the County must make “a compelling showing that every other option has been exhausted” before the UDB can be expanded. However, the CDMP does not express that specific intent. The CDMP does not provide any direct guidance about how compelling the demonstration must be to expand the UDB. Policies LU-8F and LU-8G appear to call for a balancing approach, where the extent of the need for a particular expansion must be balanced against the associated impacts to UEA lands and related CDMP policies. The greater the needs for an expansion of the UDB, the greater are the impacts that can be tolerated. The smaller the need, the smaller are the tolerable impacts. Because the need for the Lowe’s Amendment was not shown, the application of the locational criteria in Policy LU- 8G is moot. However, the evidence presented by Lowe’s is addressed here. Within the meaning of Policy LU-8G(ii)(a), the wetlands that “shall be avoided” are those wetlands that are depicted on the Future Wetlands Map part of the Land Use Element of the CDMP. About 50 percent of the Lowes site is covered by wetlands that are on the Future Wetlands Map. Petitioners speculated that the construction of a Lowe’s home improvement store and school on the Lowe’s site could not be accomplished without harm to the wetlands on the site, but they presented no competent evidence to support that proposition. The wetland protections afforded under the environmental permitting statutes would not be affected by the Lowe’s Amendment. Nevertheless, this is a planning case, not a wetland permitting case. It is a well-recognized planning principle that lands which have a high proportion of wetlands are generally not suitable for land use designations that allow for intense uses. The Lowe’s Amendment runs counter to this principle. Policy LU-8F(iii) identifies areas that “shall be given priority” for inclusion in the UDB: Land within Planning Analysis Tiers having the earliest projected supply depletion year; Lands contiguous to the UDB; Locations within one mile of a planned urban center or extraordinary transit service; and Lands having projected surplus service capacity where necessary services can be readily extended. The Lowe’s site satisfies all but the first criterion. The Lowe’s site is in the Tier with the latest projected supply depletion year. It is beyond fair debate that that the Lowe’s Amendment is inconsistent with Policy LU-8G. Because a reasonable showing of need for the Brown Amendment was shown, it is appropriate to apply the locational criteria of Policy LU-8G. The Brown Amendment would expand the UDB into an area of the UEA that is designated Agriculture. The single goal of the CDMP’s Land Use Element refers to the preservation of the County’s “unique agricultural lands.” The CDMP refers elsewhere to the importance of protecting “viable agriculture.” Brown argued that these provisions indicate that the County did not intend to treat all agricultural lands similarly, and that agricultural activities like those on the Brown site, that are neither unique nor viable, were not intended to be preserved. Petitioners disagreed. The County made the Redland agricultural area one of the areas that “shall not be considered” for inclusion in the UDB. Therefore, the County knew how to preserve “unique” agricultural lands and prevent them from being re-designated and placed in the UDB. The only evidence in the record about the economic “viability” of the current agricultural activities on the Brown site shows they are marginally profitable, at best. The Brown site is relatively small, has a triangular shape, and is wedged between a major residential development and an arterial roadway, which detracts from its suitability for agricultural operations. These factors also diminish the precedent that the re-designation of the Brown site would have for future applications to expand the UDB. The Brown site satisfies all of the criteria in Policy LU-8G(iii) to be given priority for inclusion in the UDB. The County’s determination that the Brown Amendment is consistent with Policy LU-8G is fairly debatable. Policy EDU-2A Policy EDU-2A of the CDMP states that the County shall not purchase school sites outside the UDB. It is not clear why this part of the policy was cited by Petitioners, since the Lowe’s Amendment would place Parcel B inside the UDB. Policy EDU-2A also states that new elementary schools “should” be located at 1/4 mile inside the UDB, new middle schools “should” be located at least 1/2 mile inside the UDB, and new high schools “should” be located at least one mile inside the UDB. The policy states further that, “in substantially developed areas,” where conforming sites are not available, schools should be placed as far as practical from the UDB. Petitioners contend that the Lowe’s Amendment is inconsistent with Policy EDU-2A because Parcel B, the school site in the Lowe’s Amendment, would be contiguous to the UDB if the Lowe’s Amendment were approved. However, when a policy identifies circumstances that allow for an exception to a stated preference, it is necessary for challengers to show that the exceptional circumstances do not exist. It was Petitioners’ burden to demonstrate that there were conforming school sites farther from the UDB in the area of the Lowe’s site. Petitioners did meet their burden. The County’s determination that the Lowe’s Amendment is consistent with Policy EDU-2A is fairly debatable. Urban Sprawl 1000 Friends and NPCA allege that the Brown and Lowe’s Amendments would encourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. The Department did not raise urban sprawl as an “in compliance” issue. Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) identifies 13 “primary indicators” of urban sprawl. The presence and potential effects of multiple indicators is to be considered to determine “whether they collectively reflect a failure to discourage urban sprawl.” Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J- 5.006(5)(d). Indicator 1 is designating for development “substantial areas of the jurisdiction to develop as low- intensity, low-density, or single use development or uses in excess of demonstrated need.” It was found, above, that the County had a reasonable basis to determine there was a need for the Brown Amendment, but not for the Lowe’s Amendment. Therefore, this indicator is triggered only by the Lowe’s Amendment. Indicator 2 is designating significant amounts of urban development that leaps over undeveloped lands. The facts do not show that undeveloped lands were leaped over for either of the amendments. Indicator 3 is designating urban development “in radial, strip, isolated, or ribbon patterns.” The Lowe’s and Brown Amendments do not involve radial or isolated development patterns. What would constitute a “ribbon” pattern was not explained. Not every extension of existing commercial uses constitutes strip sprawl Other factors need to be considered. For example, both the Lowe’s and Brown sites are at major intersections where more intense land uses are commonly located. Under the circumstances shown in this record, this indicator is not triggered for either amendment. Indicator 4 is premature development of rural land that fails to adequately protect and conserve natural resources. This indicator is frequently cited by challengers when an amendment site contains wetlands or other natural resources, without regard to whether the potential impact to these resources has anything to do with sprawl. In the area of the Lowe’s site, the UDB generally divides urbanized areas from substantial wetlands areas that continue west to the Everglades. The Lowe’s Amendment intrudes into an area dominated by wetlands and, therefore, its potential to affect wetlands is an indication of sprawl. In the area of the Brown Amendment, the UDB generally separates urbanized areas from agricultural lands that already have been substantially altered from their natural state. The Brown Amendment invades an agricultural area, not an area of natural resources. Therefore, the potential impacts of the Brown Amendment on the small area of degraded wetlands on the Brown site do not indicate sprawl. Indicator 5 is failing to adequately protect adjacent agricultural areas and activities. Because this indicator focuses on “adjacent” agricultural areas, it is not obvious that it includes consideration of effects on the amendment site itself. If this indicator applies to the cessation of agricultural activities on the Brown site, then the Brown Amendment triggers this primary indicator. If the indicator applies only to agricultural activities adjacent to the Brown site, the evidence was insufficient to show that this indicator is triggered. Indicators 6, 7, and 8 are related to the orderly and efficient provision of public services and facilities. Urban sprawl is generally indicated when new public facilities must be created to serve the proposed use. Petitioners did not show that new public facilities must be created to serve the Lowe’s or Brown sites. The proposed amendments would maximize the use of existing water and sewer facilities. Petitioners did not show that the amendments would cause disproportionate increases in the costs of facilities and services. Indicator 9 is failing to provide a clear separation between rural and urban uses. The Lowe’s Amendment would create an irregular and less clear separation between urban and rural uses in the area and, therefore, the Lowe’s Amendment triggers this indicator. The Brown Amendment does not trigger this indicator because of it is situated between the large Vizcaya development and Kendall Drive, a major arterial roadway. The Brown Amendment would create a more regular separation between urban and rural uses in the area. Indicator 10 is discouraging infill or redevelopment. The CDMP delineates an Urban Infill Area (UIA) that is generally located east of the Palmetto Expressway and NW/SW 77th Avenue. Petitioners did not demonstrate that the Brown and Lowe’s Amendments discourage infill within the UIA. Petitioners did not show how any particular infill opportunities elsewhere in the UDB are impaired by the Lowe’s and Brown Amendments. However, the expansion of the UDB would diminish, at least to a small degree, the incentive for infill. This indicator, therefore, is triggered to a small degree by both amendments. The CDMP promotes redevelopment of buildings that are substandard or underdeveloped. Petitioners did not show how any particular redevelopment opportunities are impaired by the Lowe’s and Brown Amendments. However, the expansion of the UDB would diminish, at least to a small degree, the incentive to redevelop existing properties. This indicator, therefore, is triggered to a small degree by both amendments. Indicator 11 is failing to encourage or attract a functional mix of uses. Petitioners failed to demonstrate that this primary indicator is triggered. Indicator 12 is poor accessibility among linked or related uses. No evidence was presented to show that this indicator would be triggered. Indicator 13 is the loss of “significant” amounts of open space. These amendments do not result in the loss of significant amounts of open space, whether measured by acres, by the percentage of County open lands converted to other uses, or by any specific circumstances in the area of the amendment sites. Evaluating the Lowe’s Amendment using the primary indicators of urban sprawl and the criteria in Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5)(h) through (j), it is found by a preponderance of the evidence that the County’s adoption of the Lowe’s Amendment fails to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. Evaluating the Brown Amendment using the primary indicators of urban sprawl and the criteria in Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5)(h) through (j), it is found by a preponderance of the evidence that the County’s adoption of the Brown Amendment does not fail to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. Land Use Analysis The Department claims that the Lowe’s and Brown Amendments are inconsistent with Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(2)(c), which requires that the land use element of a comprehensive plan be based on an analysis of the amount of land needed to accommodate projected population. The Department believes the analyses of need presented by Lowe’s and Brown’s consultants were not professionally acceptable. Petitioners proved by a preponderance of the evidence that there was no need for the Lowe’s Amendment. Therefore, the Lowe’s Amendment is inconsistent with Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(2)(c). A preponderance of competent, substantial, and professionally acceptable evidence of need, in conformance with and including the methodology used by the County planning staff, demonstrated that the Brown Amendment is consistent with Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(2)(c).3 Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J-5 - Natural Resources Petitioners contend the Lowe’s Amendment is inconsistent with the provisions of Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J-5, which require that the land use element of every comprehensive plan contain a goal to protect natural resources, and that every conservation element contain goals, objectives, and policies for the protection of vegetative communities, wildlife habitat, endangered and threatened species, and wetlands. Petitioners failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the CDMP does not contain these required goals, objectives, and policies. Therefore, Petitioners failed to prove that the Lowe’s amendment is inconsistent with these provisions of Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J-5.4 The State Comprehensive Plan Petitioners contend that the Lowe’s and Brown amendments are inconsistent with several provisions of the State Comprehensive Plan. Goal (9)(a) of the State Comprehensive Plan and its associated policies address the protection of natural systems. Petitioners contend that only the Lowe’s Amendment is inconsistent with this goal and its policies. For the reasons stated previously, Petitioners showed by a preponderance of the evidence that the County’s adoption of the Lowe’s Amendment is inconsistent with this goal and its policies. Goal (15)(a) and its associated policies address land use, especially development in areas where public services and facilities are available. Policy (15)(b)2. is to encourage a separation of urban and rural uses. Because the Lowe’s Amendment is inconsistent with Policies LU-8F and LU-8G of the CDMP, the County’s adoption of the Lowe’s Amendment is inconsistent with this goal and policy. For the reasons stated above, Petitioners failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the County’s adoption of the Brown Amendment is inconsistent with this goal and its associated policies Goal (16)(a) and its associated policies address urban and downtown revitalization. Although the expansion of the UDB diminishes the incentive to infill or redevelop, Petitioners did not show this effect, when considered in the context of the CDMP as a whole and the State Comprehensive Plan as a whole, impairs the achievement of this goal and its associated policies to an extent that the proposed amendments are inconsistent with this goal of the State Comprehensive Plan and its associated policies. Goal (17)(a) and its associated policies address the planning and financing of and public facilities. For the reasons stated previously, Petitioners failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the County’s adoption of the proposed amendments is inconsistent with this goal and its associated policies. Goal (22)(a) addresses agriculture. Policy(b)1. is to ensure that state and regional plans are not interpreted to permanently restrict the conversion of agricultural lands to other uses. This policy recognizes that agricultural landowners have the same right to seek to change the use of their lands, and that engaging in agricultural activities is not a permanent servitude to the general public. The policies cited by Petitioners (regarding the encouragement of agricultural diversification, investment in education and research, funding of extension services, and maintaining property tax benefits) are not affected by the Brown Amendment. For the reasons stated above, Petitioners failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the County’s adoption of the Brown Amendment is inconsistent with this goal and its associated policies. Goal (25)(a) and its associated policies address plan implementation, intergovernmental coordination and citizen involvement, and ensuring that local plans reflect state goals and policies. Because the Lowe’s Amendment is inconsistent with Policies LU-8F and LU-8G of the CDMP, and was found to contribute to the proliferation of urban sprawl, Petitioners proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the County’s adoption of the Lowe’s Amendment is inconsistent with this goal and its associated policies. Petitioners proved by a preponderance of the evidence that when the State Comprehensive Plan is construed as a whole, the County’s adoption of the Lowe’s Amendment is inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan. Petitioners failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that when the State Comprehensive Plan is construed as a whole, the County’s adoption of the Brown Amendment is inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan.. Strategic Regional Policy Plan Petitioners claim that the Lowe’s Amendment is inconsistent with Goals 11, 12, and 20 of the Strategic Regional Policy Plan of the South Florida Regional Planning Council (SFRPC) and several policies associated with these goals. The SFRPC reviewed the proposed Brown Amendment and found it was generally consistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan. Goal 11 and its associated policies encourage the conservation of natural resources and agricultural lands, and the use of existing and planned infrastructure. For the reasons stated previously, Petitioners proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the County’s adoption of the Lowe’s Amendment is inconsistent with this goal and its associated policies. Goal 12 and its associated policies encourage the retention of rural lands and agricultural economy. The CDMP encourages the retention of rural lands and agricultural economy. Because it was found that the Lowe’s Amendment was inconsistent with Policies LU-8F and LU-8G, Petitioners proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the County’s adoption of the Lowe’s Amendment was inconsistent with this regional goal and its policies. Goal 20 and its associated policies are to achieve development patterns that protect natural resources and guide development to areas where there are public facilities. Because it was found that there is no need for the Lowe’s Amendment and that it constitutes urban sprawl, Petitioners proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the County’s adoption of the Lowe’s Amendment is inconsistent with these regional goal and policies.
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: Ordinance No. 08-44, the Lowe’s Amendment, is not in compliance, and Ordinance No. 08-45, the Brown Amendment, is in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of May, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of May, 2009.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether two City of Palm Bay Comprehensive Plan Amendments, one of which was "small scale development amendment" under Section 163.3187(1)(c), Florida Statutes, are "in compliance," as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Brevard County (County) is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. See Section 7.05, Florida Statutes. The County is bordered on the north by Volusia County, on the west by Volusia, Orange, and Osceola Counties, on the south by Indian River County, and on the east by the Atlantic Ocean. The City of Palm Bay (City) is a municipality in southeast Brevard County, just to the southwest of the City of Melbourne. In its extreme northeast, the City borders on the Intracoastal Waterway. From there, it fans out to the southeast, surrounded on all sides by the County. The Department of Community Affairs (DCA) is the state land planning agency and has the authority to administer and enforce the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. The Small-Scale Amendment: Review and Adoption On June 3, 1999, William Wilson submitted an application to amend the City's Future Land Use Map (FLUM) for a 1.1558-acre (small-scale) parcel of land in the unincorporated County at the southeast corner of the intersection of Valkaria Road (an east/west thoroughfare) and Babcock Street (a north/south thoroughfare), in anticipation of annexation by the City. In this vicinity, the unincorporated County lay to the east, across Babcock Street, between the City and the Intracoastal Waterway. The unincorporated County land to the north, east, and south of the parcel had a future land use designation of "Residential" on the County's FLUM; the City land to the west had a residential future land use designation on the City's FLUM. The requested amendment was from the existing County "Residential" designation to City "Commercial." A zoning change also was requested from County AU (Agricultural Residential) to City CC (Community Commercial). The parcel subject to the small-scale amendment request has a single-family home and free-standing residential garage located onsite. Projected impacts from commercial development on the parcel met all relevant City level of service (LOS) standards. (The County has not put environmental suitability at issue with respect to the parcel.) The City planning staff recommended approval of the requested plan amendment; staff recommended approval of the zoning change but to City NC (Neighborhood Commerical). These requests were heard by the City Planning and Zoning Board, sitting as the local planning agency (LPA), on October 20, 1999. The LPA voted to recommend to the City Council that the plan amendment be approved and that the zoning change to City NC also be approved. By Ordinance 2000-08, adopted on March 2, 2000, the City annexed the small-scale parcel, effective immediately upon enactment of the Ordinance. By Ordinance No. 2000-09, also adopted on March 2, 2000, the City Council granted the request to change the future land use designation of the parcel on the City's FLUM to City "Commercial." By Ordinance No. 2000-10, zoning on the parcel was changed to City NC. The Large-Scale Amendment: Review and Adoption On July 6, 1999, Brian West submitted an application to amend the City's FLUM for a 19.57-acre parcel on the northeast corner of the intersection of Valkaria Road and Babcock Street (immediately north of the small-scale parcel, across Valkaria), in anticipation of annexation by the City. The requested amendment was from the existing Brevard County "Residential" designation to City "Commercial" future land use. A zoning change from County AU (Agricultural Residential) to City CC (Community Commercial) also was requested. This 19.57-acre (large-scale) parcel is vacant. The County has not put environmental suitability at issue with respect to the large-scale parcel. The City's planning staff recommended approval of the requested plan amendment, which was heard by the City's Planning and Zoning Board, sitting as the LPA, on October 20, 1999, along with the small-scale request. The LPA voted to recommend to the City Council that the large-scale amendment be denied. On February 15, 2000, the City Council conducted a special meeting to consider the requested large-scale annexation, plan amendment, and zoning change and voted to approve the requests. However, at the time, the City also was in the process of developing plan amendments in response to its Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR); as a result, transmittal to DCA was deferred until transmittal of the EAR-based amendments. On January 18, 2001, the City Council met in regular session and voted to transmit the requested large-scale amendment to DCA, along with the other EAR-based amendments. On May 17, 2001, DCA issued its Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report regarding the transmitted comprehensive plan amendments. DCA raised several objections and made comments regarding the amendment. The ORC Report was received by the City on May 21, 2001. (The greater weight of the evidence was contrary to testimony of the City's Planning Manager that the ORC Report received on that date was incomplete.) On October 2, 2001, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2001-65, which adopted the requested amendment for the large-scale parcel from County Residential to City Commercial future land use. The EAR-based amendments also were adopted on the same date by Ordinance 2001-66. By Ordinance 2001-86 adopted on November 1, 2001, the City annexed the large-scale parcel, effective immediately. Re-Adoption of Plan Amendments at Issue At some unspecified time after October 2, 2001, the City became aware of concerns voiced by DCA regarding the sequence and timing of the large-scale annexation and FLUM amendment. To address these concerns, the City adopted Ordinance No. 2001-105 on December 20, 2001. This Ordinance repealed and re-adopted Ordinance No. 2000-65. At some unspecified time after March 2, 2000, the City became aware of concerns raised by DCA that adoption of the small- scale FLUM amendment took place before the City adopted plan amendments to comply with new school siting requirements, contrary to a statutory prohibition. In order to address these concerns, the City adopted Ordinance No. 2000-79 on January 4, 2001, to repeal and re-adopt Ordinance No. 2000-09, re-designating the small-scale parcel for "Commercial" future land use. DCA Notice of Intent and City's EAR-Based Amendments On January 21, 2002, DCA published a Notice of Intent to find the readopted large-scale amendment "in compliance." DCA subsequently caused to be published a Notice of Intent to find this readopted amendment "in compliance." The EAR-based amendments adopted on October 2, 2001, included certain text amendments, but these amendments had no direct bearing on the plan amendments at issue in this case. All plan text provisions relating to the plan amendments at issue in this case remained "substantially the same" after the EAR-based amendments. Need for Additional Commercial Future Land Use and Internal Consistency The County contends that analysis of the data in existence at the time of adoption of the plan amendments at issue in this case does not support a need to change the future land use on these parcels from County Agricultural Residential to City Commercial. But the following Findings are based on these data and analysis. City data and analysis dated January 2001 indicated in pertinent part: In 2011 the City will need 719 acres of commercial land and at buildout, will need approximately 1,725 acres. The Future Land Use Map currently allocated approximately 1,612 acres for commercial and office development. This is slightly below the needs identified over the long term time periods. The expansion of existing Activity Centers and the development of new Activity Centers should easily accommodate this minor increase. Between now and the next required Plan update in 2007, the City should analyze the available commercial land to determine if existing designated lands are appropriately located or whether new areas should be established and existing designations converted to other land use types. Of particular interest in that regard would be the large amount of neighborhood commercial presently designated but which is primarily vacant. It was not clear from the evidence how the acreage figures in the data and analysis were calculated. It does not appear from the evidence that the figure for commercial acreage "needed" included any "cushion" or "margin of error." If the City has more land allocated for commercial future land use than is expected to be "needed" within the planning horizon of its Comprehensive Plan (the year 2011), it may be the result of pre-platting of the City by General Development Corporation. If so, the City also has an even greater excess of acreage allocated for residential future land use since approximately 90 percent of the City was pre-platted for small, quarter-acre residential lots. As a result of pre-platting, it now appears that, at build-out (expected in about 20-30 years), the City will have an excess of allocated for residential land use and a shortage of acreage allocated for commercial land use (among other non-residential uses.) As a result, there is a current need to begin to reduce the amount of acreage allocated for residential future land use and add commercial acreage (as well as other non-residential uses.) A disproportion of City land allocated to commercial future land use is in the northern part of the City, between Malabar Road and Palm Bay Road, a considerable distance from the intersection of Babcock Street and Valkaria Road. Before the plan amendments at issue in this case, there was hardly any commercial future land use in the City in the vicinity of the Babcock/Valkaria intersection. Almost all of what little commercial future land use could be found in the vicinity was in small parcels--the single exception being a 15-acre parcel at the intersection of Eldron and Grant approximately two miles to the south. There also was very little land allocated to commercial future land uses in the unincorporated County anywhere near the Babcock/Valkaria intersection. Almost all of the unincorporated County in the vicinity had Rural Residential future land use. There was some County Neighborhood Commercial across Babcock from the 15- acre parcel of City Commercial two miles to the south of the intersection. There also was some County Neighborhood Commercial and a small amount of County Community Commercial future land use east of Babcock about a mile to the north of the intersection. A 40-acre parcel approximately 650 feet to the east of the intersection was changed from County rural residential to general commercial zoning in 1988. But at around the time the City began to process the plan amendments at issue in this case, the County purchased the land and re-designated it for Public future land use and GML (Government-Managed Land) zoning. Most of the City's population growth in the last 20 years has been in the southern and western part of the City, to the west of the Babcock/Valkaria intersection. Between 1986 and 1999, residential development within 2-3 miles of the amendment sites increased approximately 160 percent. As a result, whereas 17 years ago most of the City's population was east of Interstate 95, now approximately half the population resides west of Interstate 95 (although 60 percent still resides north of Malabar Road.) Due to the sparse commercial use in the vicinity, either in the City or the unincorporated County, there is a need for more land designated for commercial future land uses in the southern part of the City to serve the rapidly growing population in that area. The applicant for the large-scale amendment submitted a letter projecting a need for 1.5 million square feet of retail space in the City based on a comparison of "current space" with average retail space per capita in Florida. The County criticized the professional acceptability of this submission as data and analysis to demonstrate need for additional commercial acreage in the City. Standing alone, the submission may be fairly subject to the County's criticism; but considered along with the other data and analysis, the submission adds to the demonstration of need for the plan amendments. It was estimated that commercial uses at the intersection of Babcock and Valkaria will generate an additional 12,000 vehicle trips on Babcock in the vicinity of its intersection with Valkaria. This estimate further demonstrates a need for additional commercial future land use in the vicinity. At least some of the vehicle trips expected to be generated in the vicinity of the Babcock/Valkaria intersection as a result of adding commercial future land use there would correspond to a reduction in vehicular traffic from the southern part of the City to and from commercial areas in the northern part of the City. For that reason, by helping balance the amount of commercial land use available in the northern and southern parts of the City, adding commercial future land use in the southern part of the City could be reasonably expected to reduce traffic overall. Commercial land uses generally generate higher tax revenue and demand fewer government services than residential land uses. Meanwhile, the City provides most of the government services in the Babcock/Valkaria vicinity and has a backlog of infrastructure projects. For that reason, an economic benefit reasonably is expected to accrue to the City from adding commercial in the southern part of the City.2 Future Land Use Element FLU Objective 3.1 in the City's Comprehensive Plan is to: "Provide additional commercial areas by type, size and distribution, based upon area need. . . ." FLU Policy 3.1A states: "The acreage of commercial land permitted by the Future Land Use Map shall not exceed projected needs." The County did not prove that the proposed FLUM amendments are inconsistent with either this Objective or this Policy. The plan amendments at issue are based upon area need and do not exceed projected needs, as reflected in the data and analysis. Compatibility and Internal Consistency The County contended that City Commercial future land use for the amendment parcels is incompatible with surrounding land uses and internally inconsistent with provisions the City's FLU Objective 2.3, to: "Prevent incompatible land uses from locating in residential areas in order to promote neighborhood stability and prevent deterioration." In the unincorporated County to the east of Babcock Street, there are primarily large-lot, rural residential land uses with some agricultural uses such as horses and tree-farming. But, as indicated, there are platted residential lots in the City to the west of Babcock Street that are urban (or suburban) in character. During the course of these proceedings, the County abandoned its contentions as to incompatibility of the small-scale amendment except for the existence of a residential structure on the property. In arguing that the existence of the residential structure on the property makes commercial future land use incompatible, the County relied on the City's zoning LDRs. But zoning and consistency of zoning with the requirements of zoning LDRs are not at issue in this comprehensive plan amendment case. See Conclusion 52, infra. Even if zoning and consistency with zoning LDRs were at issue, the applicant's residential structure would not defeat the applicant's proposed future land use change; rather, granting the application would mean that use of the residential structure would have to be discontinued after the future land use change. As to the large-scale amendment, the County also relies in part on alleged inconsistency with an LDR--in this instance, the City's LDR for Community Commercial zoning that these areas are "to be primarily located in or near the intersection of arterial roadways." But, again, zoning and consistency of zoning with the requirements of zoning LDRs are not issues for determination in this comprehensive plan amendment case. Id. Even if zoning and consistency of zoning with the requirements of zoning LDRs were at issue, consistency and compatibility still would be fairly debatable. The evidence was that Valkaria was designated as a collector road at the time of adoption of the proposed large-scale amendment and that Babcock was designated as an arterial roadway to the north of Valkaria and as a collector to the south of Valkaria. The City characterized Babcock as a minor arterial. By its terms, the LDR in question does not prohibit Community Commercial zoning except in or near the intersection of arterial roadways; it only provides that these areas are to be located primarily in or near these intersections. Even if City Community Commercial zoning were clearly inconsistent with the City's LDR for Community Commercial zoning, City Neighborhood Commercial zoning has no similar provision for location vis-a-vis arterial roads. Since the City only has one commercial future land use category, City Commercial would be the appropriate City future land use designation for City Neighborhood Commercial zoning. The County's contentions as to the large-scale amendment also are seriously undermined by the existence of both County Community Commercial and County Neighborhood Commercial future land use east of Babcock. In addition, a County-sponsored Small Area Study (SAS) of approximately 11,500 acres of land east of the intersection along Valkaria Road recommended County Neighborhood Commercial future land use for the northeast and southeast corners of the intersection of Babcock and Valkaria (as well as County Restricted Neighborhood Commercial zoning). As indicated, the City's Comprehensive Plan does not distinguish between the two categories of commercial future land use and, if any commercial future land use is compatible with surrounding land uses, City Commercial future land use is appropriate. Contrary to the County's argument, it makes no difference to the appropriateness of City Commercial future land use that County Neighborhood Commercial future land is more limited than City Commercial future land use (or that County Restricted Neighborhood Commercial zoning is more limited than City Community Commercial zoning). The County argued that the large-scale future land use amendment was inconsistent with City FLUE Policy 2.3A, which states that LDRs must "continue to contain provisions to ensure that land uses surrounded by and/or abutting residential areas are not in conflict with the scale, intensity, density and character of the residential area." There is nothing about the proposed FLUM changes that is inconsistent with this Policy. Consistency of LDRs with this Policy is not at issue in this proceeding. See Conclusion 53, infra. The County also questioned the adequacy of buffer between commercial uses on the large-scale parcel and nearby residential uses. Precise questions as to the adequacy of buffer are decided under the LDRs, during site development review and permitting. However, it is noted that there is a 50-foot wide "paper street" (i.e., a platted right-of-way that never was developed as a street) to the west of the large-scale parcel. In addition, zoning as City Community Commercial was conditioned upon additional buffer to the east (25 feet wide) and to the north (50 feet wide). Consideration also is being given to a Habitat Conservation Plan of an undetermined size in the northern portion of the site for use as a "fly-over" for scrub jays. In addition, actual use of the residential land in the unincorporated County to the north of the large-scale parcel includes a car repair business with garage and approximately 15 cars in various states of disrepair.3 For all of the foregoing reasons, the evidence did not establish either internal inconsistency or incompatibility of commercial uses on the large-scale parcel with existing residential uses. Infrastructure and Internal Consistency At the time of adoption of the plan amendments at issue, central water and sewer services had not yet been extended to the two parcels. However, it was clear from the evidence that adequate central water and sewer capacity existed to accommodate commercial development on these parcels and that central water and sewer was being extended to the parcels. The Capital Improvements Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan listed $1.7 million being budgeted for water and sewer improvements in fiscal year 2001/2002, and in excess of $15.3 million budgeted in fiscal year 2002/2003. FLU Objective 3.1 in the City's Comprehensive Plan is to: "Provide additional commercial areas by type, size and distribution, based upon . . . the availability of supporting infrastructure." The County did not prove that the proposed plan amendments are inconsistent with this Objective. Urban Sprawl and Internal Consistency The County maintains that the proposed plan amendments exacerbate urban sprawl. But the County provided no detailed analysis of the indicators of urban sprawl in Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, to support its contention. In arguing urban sprawl, the County relied on its contentions that there was no demonstrated need to convert County rural residential land use to City commercial land use. This argument has been rejected. See Findings 20-31, supra. The County's urban sprawl argument also focused on uses in the unincorporated County east of Babcock and characterizes the plan amendments as placing commercial land use in a rural area. This focus and characterization ignores the existence of urban residential uses in the City west of Babcock. Seen in proper perspective, the proposed plan amendments allow commercial land use that would tend to mitigate and discourage the kind of urban sprawl promoted by the pre-platting of the City. Instead of having to travel to access commercial uses in distant parts of the City, City residents in the vicinity would have a much closer option under the proposed amendments (as would County residents in the vicinity). FLU Objective 1.4 in the City's Comprehensive Plan is to: "Establish a Growth Management Area to control urban sprawl." FLU Policy 1.4B states: "City funds shall not be utilized to expand public facilities and services for future growth outside of the established Growth Management Area." The small-scale parcel was outside the established Growth Management Area (GMA) at the time of adoption of the small-scale amendment. But it does not follow that the small-scale amendment constitutes urban sprawl. Nor does it follow that the small-scale amendment is inconsistent with either the Objective or the Policy. The small-scale amendment can be made a GMA before any City funds are used to expand public facilities and services for future commercial use of the small-scale parcel.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order finding both the small-scale amendment and the large- scale amendment of the City of Palm Bay (adopted by Ordinance 2000- 79 and by Ordinance 2001-105, respectively) "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of December, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of December, 2002.
The Issue The issue presented for decision in this proceeding is whether a future land use map (“FLUM”) amendment, adopted by Hillsborough County on October 27, 1994, as part of its Comprehensive Plan update for the planning time frame through 2015 (variously referred to as the “Comprehensive Plan” or "CPU-2015"), that changed the future land use category on a 253 acre parcel1 in Northwest Hillsborough County ("the Geraci Parcel") from Regional Commercial ("RC") to Community Mixed Use-12 ("CMU-12") complies with the requirements of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: PARTIES Petitioners Nick and Peter Geraci are the fee simple owners of a parcel of land comprising approximately 450 acres located on the northeast corner of the intersection of North Dale Mabry Highway and Van Dyke Road, two hundred fifty-three (253) acres of which are at issue in this proceeding. Advance Leasing is a Florida corporation that was a contract vendee for a portion of the Geracis’ property intended for development as a “super regional” or “regional scale” mall, and was the applicant in the amended applications for DRI approval of that mall. Hillsborough County’s motion to dismiss Advance Leasing as a party for failure to establish standing as an affected person under Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes, was granted at the final hearing. Advance Leasing failed to establish that it was an entity that either owned or operated a business within Hillsborough County or owned property in Hillsborough County as of October 27, 1994. Respondent DCA is the state land planning agency, with responsibility to review plan amendments under Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, pursuant to Sections 163.3184, 163.3187 and 163.3189, Florida Statutes, and to determine compliance with the relevant provisions. Respondent Hillsborough County is a local government with responsibility to prepare and adopt a Comprehensive Plan and any required amendments thereto pursuant to Sections 163.3167, 163.3171 and 163.3174, Florida Statutes. The Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners makes the final, legislative decision on all Comprehensive Plan amendments in Hillsborough County. Hillsborough County Charter Section 9.09 specifies that a single local planning agency, created by special law, "shall have responsibility for Comprehensive Planning and related activities[.]" The Hillsborough County Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act, as amended by Chapter 97-351, Laws of Florida, designates the Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission ("Planning Commission”) as Hillsborough County's local planning agency. The Planning Commission is charged with preparing Comprehensive Plans and making recommendations to the public bodies for Hillsborough County and the incorporated municipalities within Hillsborough County. The role of the Planning Commission is advisory and its recommendations are not binding upon Hillsborough County. Intervenors Sierra Club and Dr. Richard and Bonnie Hoffman have established their standing to participate in this proceeding as "affected persons" pursuant to Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Sierra Club represents numerous members who reside in Hillsborough County, and also operates a business within the boundaries of Hillsborough County by way of its local affiliate. The Hoffmans own property within Hillsborough County. Both Sierra Club and the Hoffmans participated in the local government proceedings in accordance with Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Administration Commission enter a final order finding the portion of CPU-2015 challenged by the Petition to be in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of October, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of October, 1998.
The Issue By the filing of an application with the Department of Environmental Protection ("DEP" or the "Department"), Florida Power and Light Company ("FP&L") initiated a proceeding for the certification of the siting of its proposed West County Energy Center Power Plant (the "WCEC Project" or the "Project" or the "WCEC") in Palm Beach County. This order follows the "land use hearing1" mandated by Chapter 403, Part II, Florida Statutes, as a step in the consideration of the application. Pursuant to Section 403.508(2), Florida Statutes,2 the sole issue for determination in this order is whether the site proposed for the WCEC Project "is consistent and in compliance with the existing land use plans and zoning ordinances."
Findings Of Fact The Applicant Florida Power & Light Company has provided electric service in Florida since 1926. It presently operates power plants at 14 sites in the state in a service area that covers the eastern coastline and the southern portion of the Florida Peninsula. With 4.3 million customer accounts, FP&L provides electric power to more than 8 million people in the State of Florida. FP&L proposes to construct and operate the WCEC on a site in western Palm Beach County. The Site A 220-acre site (the "Site") located on State Road 80 (also known as Southern Boulevard), "close to a feature known as the 20-mile bend" (tr. 19) on State Road 80, the Site is northwest of the Village of Wellington in the unincorporated area of Palm Beach County, Florida. See FP&L Exs. JG-3 and JG- 4, a map and aerial photograph of the Site. Until recently, the Site has been in agricultural use. Currently comprised of lands that were partially reclaimed and restored following mining of lime rock on the northern portion of the Site, there are no onsite activities or facilities on the Site. The land uses to the west of the Site are agriculture and electrical transmission facilities, to the east, predominately mining, and to the north, mining and transmission facilities. Lands to the east and north have been extensively mined for lime rock. Lands to the east are slated for use by the South Florida Water Management District as water storage ponds. The nearest occupied residence is three-quarters of a mile away from on-site infrastructure. The WCEC Project is compatible with those existing adjacent land uses and sufficiently buffered from the nearby residential area. The WCEC The WCEC will provide an initial 2,200 megawatts ("MW") of electrical generating capacity with an ultimate capacity of 3,300 MW. Initially the WCEC will consist of two 1,100 MW, natural gas-fired, combined-cycle generating units. The units will utilize new combustion turbines (similar to a large jet engine, they produce electricity by direct connection to an electric generator), new heat recovery steam generators ("HRSGs"), and new steam turbine generators. The exhaust heat from the combustion turbines will be routed through the HRSGs to produce steam for the new steam turbine which is attached to another electric generator. Natural gas will be the primary fuel for the new units, with ultra low-sulfur distillate as an alternate fuel. FP&L is considering two different designs for the WCEC Project, based upon the particular combustion turbine to be selected in the fall of 2005. FP&L is also considering two different classes of advanced combustion turbines. A layout using one class of turbines, rated at around 180 MW each, would result in four combustion turbines and HRSG and one steam turbine per unit, or a “four-on-one” configuration. A second layout for the other class of turbines, rated at around 230 MW each, would include only three combustion turbines and heat recovery steam generators per unit and a single steam turbine, for a “three-on-one” configuration. Either configuration would be consistent with the local land use approvals for the Site. Facilities for construction and operation of the new units will be located within the Site. The first two units will be located at the northern end. The third future unit will be located to the south of the first two units. Other onsite facilities will include cooling towers, fuel oil storage tanks, stormwater ponds, administration and maintenance facilities and parking areas. Natural gas will be supplied to the Project by an interstate natural gas pipeline, whose owner will be responsible for licensing and constructing the supply pipeline to the Site. Connection to the Transmission Network The Project will interconnect with FP&L’s existing electrical transmission network at the existing FP&L Corbett system substation, which is located adjacent to the north edge of the project Site. No new offsite transmission lines are required for the proposed 2,200 MW Project. The County's Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinances and Zoning Approvals Palm Beach County has adopted a Comprehensive Plan to meet the requirements of the Local Governmental Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act. Palm Beach County has also adopted local zoning ordinances and zoning approvals that apply to the project Site. The Palm Beach County Commission has issued site- specific zoning approvals for the project Site. They approved the Site’s use for electrical generating capacity, and determined that the Site is consistent with the Palm Beach County Comprehensive Plan and the Palm Beach County Unified Land Development Code, which contains the County’s zoning ordinances and regulations. Board of County Commissioner's Action, Resolution 2004-0401 On March 29, 2004, the Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners adopted its Resolution 2004-0401, approving an amendment to an existing County-issued development order. The amendment approved the use of the project Site for an electrical generating plant using 12 combustion turbines and the use of low sulfur distillate as a backup fuel. The 2004 Resolution determined that the development order amendment approving the Project was consistent with the Palm Beach County Comprehensive Plan. Under that Plan, the Site was designated RR10 on the County’s Future Land Use Map, which remains the future land use designation for the Site. Electrical power plants were an allowed use in this land use category at the time the County Commission first adopted its resolution approving the use of the project Site for electrical power plants. The County Commission also determined the 2004 development order amendment for the Site was consistent with the County’s Unified Land Development Code, which contains the County’s zoning regulations. Under that Code, the Site was and remains zoned as Specialized Agriculture ("SA"). Electrical power plants were allowed as Class A conditional uses at the time the County Commission adopted its resolution approving the site for use by electrical generation facilities. The SA zoning district has been deleted by Palm Beach County but lands in the SA zoning district in this area of Palm Beach County are now deemed to be in the Agricultural Production ("AP") zoning district. Electrical power plants remain a conditional use in the AP zoning district. Palm Beach County Resolution 2004-0401 amended an existing Palm Beach County development order that constitutes a Class A conditional use approval of the Site for use by electrical generating facilities. The Palm Beach County Commission has also issued two other Class A conditional use approvals for electrical generating facilities on the Site. The WCEC Project as proposed by FP&L and the Site with an ultimate capacity of 3300 MW will comply with the Palm Beach County zoning ordinances and with the amended development order issued by the Palm Beach County Commission for the Site. Notice Notice of the land use and zoning hearing was published by FP&L in The Palm Beach Post on June 16, 2005. Notice of the land use hearing was also published by DEP on its Official Notices website on June 17, 2005, pursuant to Chapter 2003-145, Laws of Florida. (FP&L Ex. 1)
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Siting Board find that Florida Power and Light Company's West County Energy Center Project, as described by the evidence presented at the hearing, and its Site at an ultimate capacity of 3,300 MW are consistent and in compliance with existing land use plans and zoning ordinances and site-specific zoning approvals of Palm Beach County as they apply to the Site, pursuant to Section 403.508(2), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of September 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DAVID M. MALONEY 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 2nd day of September, 2005.
