The Issue Whether Palm Beach County Ordinance 2018-031 (“Ordinance”) is internally inconsistent with Palm Beach County’s 1989 Comprehensive Plan (“Comprehensive Plan”), and is, therefore, not “in compliance” with section 163.3177(2), Florida Statutes (2018); and whether the Ordinance fails to establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land or for the content of more detailed land development and use regulations as required by section 163.3177(1), Florida Statutes (2018).1/
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Standing Petitioner is a Florida limited liability corporation. Petitioner submitted written comments, recommendations, or objections to the County on October 30, 2018, during the period of time between the transmittal hearing and the adoption of the Plan Amendment. The County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida, with the duty and responsibility to adopt and maintain a comprehensive growth management plan pursuant to section 163.3167. The County exercises land use planning and zoning authority throughout unincorporated Palm Beach County. The Ordinance is a countywide, County-initiated Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment that would revise the FLUE to modify provisions for residential future land use designations. On July 13, 2018, the County Planning Commission conducted a properly noticed public hearing to review the proposed Plan Amendment and made recommendations to the Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners (the “Board”) pursuant to chapter 163, Part II. One member of the public spoke in support of the amendment. The staff report that contained staff analysis regarding consistency with the Comprehensive Plan was made available to the Planning Commission prior to its deliberation. On July 20, 2019, Petitioner served a letter regarding the proposed Plan Amendment on Melissa McKinlay, Mayor and member of the Board. July 20, 2019, was three days prior to the date of the transmittal hearing for the proposed Plan Amendment. There was no evidence that the comments were received by Respondent on or after the date of the transmittal hearing. The July 20, 2019, letter stated that Petitioner “represents property owners located within the Palm Beach Farms plat in communities known as the Pioneer Road Neighborhood, the Gun Club Road Neighborhood, Monmouth Estates, and the Ranchette Road Neighborhood . . . . [Petitioner] has been active since early 2011 seeking to preserve the rural character of these communities.” Despite the foregoing, there was no competent substantial evidence adduced at the hearing to substantiate that Petitioner represented owners of property in any neighborhood other than the Pioneer Road neighborhood. On July 23, 2018, the Board conducted a public hearing to review the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and authorized transmittal of the proposed Plan Amendment to the state land planning agency and review agencies pursuant to chapter 163, Part II. The Board further directed staff to work with residents in the rural enclaves and to return with stronger language at the adoption hearing. Ten members of the public spoke in support of the Plan Amendment. There was no evidence that Petitioner, or any other person, spoke or presented written comments at the transmittal hearing in opposition to the Plan Amendment. The staff report and analysis regarding consistency with the Comprehensive Plan was made available to the Board prior to its deliberation. The state land planning agency issued a letter dated August 31, 2018, stating that the Agency “identified no comment related to important state resources and facilities within the Department’s authorized scope of review that would be adversely impacted by the amendment if adopted.” There were no other state agency comments received regarding the Plan Amendment. Subsequent to the transmittal public hearing, County staff worked with representatives from the Pioneer Road neighborhood and revised the language of the Residential Future Land Use amendment. On October 29, 2018, Petitioner sent a letter regarding the proposed Plan Amendment to Mayor McKinlay, service of which was apparently accepted by Denise Neiman, County Attorney. The evidence suggests that service was made on October 30, 2018, prior to the adoption of the Plan Amendment. On October 31, 2018, the Board adopted the Ordinance. The staff report and analysis regarding consistency with the Comprehensive Plan was made available to the Board prior to its deliberation. Five members of the public spoke in support of the Plan Amendment. There was no evidence that Petitioner, or any other person, spoke or presented written comments in opposition to the Plan Amendment, other than the October 29, 2018, letter described above. Existing Conditions The Pioneer Road neighborhood is approximately 550 acres of mostly Rural Residential property, interspersed with properties used for non-intensive commercial uses, such as plant nurseries and landscaping services. The Pioneer Road neighborhood contains between 175 and 220 developed home sites, many of which engage in light-scale personal agricultural uses (e.g., fruit trees, gardens, chickens, etc.). The neighborhood is served by private potable water wells and septic tanks. The Pioneer Road Area includes the Pioneer Road neighborhood, the Gun Club Road neighborhood, and surrounding low density Rural Residential enclave neighborhoods, and is but one of several neighborhood areas potentially affected by the Plan Amendment. Other rural neighborhood areas affected by the Ordinance include the State Road 7/Lantana Road Area and the Hyopluxo Road Area, each of which include a number of rural enclaves. The Plan Amendment The Plan Amendment is intended to revise the FLUE to modify provisions for the Future Residential Land Use designations. The Amendment, as described in the staff Final Report, is designed to: Recognize that there are Rural Residential areas within the Urban Suburban Tier that provide a valuable contribution to the housing diversity and lifestyle choices in the County. Establish that Agricultural Residential zoning is consistent with the urban residential future land use designations in the County. Recognize and support agricultural operations within residential future land use designations, including supporting the cultivation of agriculture and keeping of livestock. Provide additional specificity on the non- residential use location requirements in residential land use designations to ensure protection of residential neighborhoods. Allow Residential Multifamily Zoning on parcels with Medium Residential, 5 units per acre, future land use for properties using the Transfer of Development Rights or Workforce Housing Programs. The Plan Amendment applies countywide, and not to any specific neighborhood or property. Current neighborhood plans are considered when there are site-specific amendments. As related to Rural Residential enclaves, the Plan Amendment “will establish policy statements to direct growth away from those areas, or towards their edges,” and “will establish that the AR Zoning district is consistent with the urban residential zoning districts.” The Plan Amendment is also designed to “[r]ecognize and support agricultural operations within residential future land use designations, . . . including in the Urban Suburban Tier,” and restrict commercial vehicle activity and more intensive non-residential uses in residentially zoned areas except along major thoroughfares. Petitioner’s Challenge In its Amended Petition, Petitioner stated that the following amendments to the Comprehensive Plan “appear to recognize the existence and offer protection for the continuation of these Rural Residential Enclaves”: REVISE Policy 2.2.1-p: Rural Enclaves in Urban Service Area Application of Rural Standards. The County recognizes that there are long established rural residential enclave communities and homesteads in locations within the Urban/Suburban Tier that have Low Residential future land use designation. The County supports the continuation of those rural areas in order to encourage a high quality of life and lifestyle choices for County residents. In addition, within these areas In the Urban/Suburban Tier, the County may apply the ULDC standards for rural residential development as follows: in low density areas in Urban Residential future land use categories; on parcels presently used for agricultural purposes; or on parcels with a Special Agricultural future land use category. NEW Policy 2.2.1-w: The County shall adopt specific overlays in the Comprehensive Plan and/or Unified Land Development Code to protect the character of rural enclaves identified though the neighborhood planning process.[2/] Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.2.1-j, which is unchanged by the Plan Amendment, provides that: Table 2.2.1-j.1 establishes the consistent residential zoning and planned development district for the Residential Future Land Use Designations. In addition, within the Urban/Suburban Tier of the Glades Tier, the Agricultural Residential and Agricultural Production zoning districts are consistent with all residential future land use designations. As amended, Table 2.2.1-j.1 provides as follows: Table 2.2.1-j.1 Residential Future Land Use - Zoning Consistency1 Future Land Use Designation Consistent Zoning Zoning District Planned Development Agricultural Reserve AGR AGR-PUD Rural Residential AR4, RE5 RR-PUD, MHPD, RVPD Western Communities Residential AR PUD Low Residential AR4, RE, RT, RTS, RS PUD, TND, MHPD Medium Residential AR4, RE, RT, RS, RTU, RM/RH2 PUD, TND, MHPD High Residential AR4, RE, RT, RS, RM, RH PUD, TND, MHPD Congregate Living Residential3 RM PUD, TND, TMD, MUPD, MXPD3 The disputes raised in the Amended Petition were in “[t]he footnotes and caveats” to Table 2.2.1-j.1, which “will permit significant increases in future density, intensity and designs in a manner that will permanently and negatively alter the historic rural and unique character of these neighborhoods.” As pled, “the following three provisions completely undermine any effort to preserve the Rural Residential Enclaves”: REVISE Table 2.2.1-j.1 Residential Future Land Use – Zoning Consistency: Note No. 2 (RM District): The RM district is consistent with the MR-5 designation only for those areas properties that were zoned RM or RH prior to the Plan’s August 31, 1989 adoption or are 3+ acres utilizing the Transfer of Development Rights and/or Workforce Housing Program. REVISE Table 2.2.1-j.1 Residential Future Land Use – Zoning Consistency: Note No. 4 (AR Zoning) A lot with AR that was legally subdivided shall be considered a conforming lot. Properties with AR zoning with a residential future land use designation in the Urban/Suburban Tier are not required to rezone when subdividing for a residential use provided that the newly subdivided density is a maximum of 1 unit per acre, or when developing a non-residential use that is allowed in AR. Policy 2.2.1-n Non-Residential Uses Criteria. NEW Subsection (5). More intense non-residential uses may be allowed in residential zoning districts along major thoroughfares and roadways that are not residential streets. In addition to the foregoing, Petitioner alleged that the following deletion renders the Ordinance inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and inconsistent with the Plan Amendment: 4. DELETE Language from FLUA Regulation Section Land Development Regulations in the Urban Service Area, Urban/Suburban Tier. The County may apply the ULDC standards for rural residential areas in the Urban/Suburban Tier in low density areas in the Residential future land use designations which are used for agricultural purposes, or on parcels with a Special Agricultural (SA) land use category. Areas within the Urban Service Area/Suburban Tier may be suitable for agricultural use throughout the implementation period of the Plan. It is not the intent of the Plan to encourage premature urbanization of these areas; however, agricultural uses are expected to convert to other uses consistent with the Plan when those agricultural uses are no longer economically viable. Agricultural uses permitted in the residential land use designation must be compatible with the protection of the residential lifestyle and quality of life. Table 2.2.1-j.1, footnote 2 In its Amended Petition, Petitioner alleged that revised Table 2.2.1-j.l, footnote 2, is inconsistent with new Policies 2.2.1-w and 2.2.1-p of the Plan Amendment. However, in his testimony, Mr. Crosby focused exclusively on the alleged inconsistency with Policy 2.2.1-w, not mentioning or otherwise offering evidence regarding inconsistency with Policy 2.2.1-p. As amended, revised Table 2.2.1-j.l, footnote 2, applies only to “RM/RH” zoning districts, and provides that “[t]he RM district is consistent with the MR-5 [Medium Residential/5 units per acre] designation only for those properties that were zoned RM [Residential Multifamily] or RH [Multifamily Residential High Density] prior to the Plan’s August 31, 1989 adoption, or when properties of 3 or more acres in size within an MR-5 designation qualify for a higher density through the Transfer of Development Rights and/or Workforce Housing Program density bonus programs.” The plain language of revised Table 2.2.1-j.l, footnote 2, establishes that it applies only to the MR-5 future land use designation, and only to properties that were either zoned as RM or RH before August 31, 1989, or that qualify for the listed density bonus programs. The three-acre threshold was established to prevent single lots in established MR-5 neighborhoods from increasing density out of character with the neighborhood. Prior to the amendment of footnote 2, if a property owner proposed new development on property with an MR-5 land-use designation and more than three acres of land and proposed to utilize Transfer of Development Rights or the Workforce Housing Program for a density increase, the property owner was limited to a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The amendment allows the application of the density bonus in an RM zoning district. Revised Table 2.2.1-j.l, footnote 2, is designed to foster infill development on MR-5 designated parcels that may be too small to be developed as a PUD. Furthermore, footnote 2 does not bypass the requirements of the Land Development Code Article 5 Density Bonus Programs, and applicants are still required to comply with those application review and approval processes. Finally, Petitioner’s expressed concern is the effect of the Plan Amendment on AR designated rural enclave communities such as the Pioneer Road neighborhood. Amended footnote 2 does not apply to AR zoning districts. Petitioner failed to prove, beyond fair debate, that revised Table 2.2.1-j.l, footnote 2, is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, including new Policy 2.2.l-w, or that it improperly increases density. Furthermore, Petitioner, having failed to offer any evidence as to revised Table 2.2.1-j.l, footnote 2’s, inconsistency with revised Table 2.2.1-p, failed to meet its burden with regard to that element of its Amended Petition. Table 2.2.1-j.1, footnote 4 In its Amended Petition, Petitioner alleged that revised Table 2.2.1-j.l, footnote 4, is inconsistent with new Policies 2.2.1-w and 2.2.1-p of the Plan Amendment. However, in his testimony, Mr. Crosby focused exclusively on the alleged inconsistency with Policy 2.2.1-w, not mentioning or otherwise offering evidence regarding inconsistency with Policy 2.2.1-p. Petitioner argues that the footnote allows property owners to immediately subdivide their property to one unit per acre without review, rezoning, or going through the typical process if they are in the AR zoning district. As to the alleged inconsistency with new Policy 2.2.1-w, neither footnote 4, nor any other provision of the Plan Amendment, creates a specific overlay that can be compared for consistency with the authority for, but not the implementation of, the creation of future overlays. Petitioner failed to demonstrate, through competent, substantial evidence, that revised Table 2.2.1-j.l, footnote 4, is inconsistent with new Policy 2.2.1-w of the Plan Amendment. As to the alleged inconsistency between revised Table 2.2.1-j.l, footnote 4, and new Policy 2.2.1-p, the evidence demonstrated that the County implemented the Managed Growth Tier System to protect viable existing neighborhoods and communities, and to direct the location and timing of future development within five geographically specific Tiers -- Urban/Suburban, Exurban, Rural, Agricultural Reserve, and the Glades. Table 2.2.1-g.l of the FLUE establishes maximum density for Residential Future Land Use Designations. The lowest density designation in the Urban/Suburban Tier is Low Residential, one unit per acre (LR-1) designation, which allows up to one unit per acre. According to existing Table 2.2.1-j.l, the AR zoning district is not currently consistent with Low Residential (LR), Medium Residential (MR), and High Residential (HR) Future Land Use Designations. As set forth in Table III.C, LR, MR, and HR Future Land Use Designations are allowed within the Urban/Suburban and Glades Tiers. Through a review of County records, it was determined that there were thousands of acres of land currently zoned AR in the Urban/Suburban Tier. Thus, under the existing tiered land use designations, those AR zoned parcels were inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Accordingly, the Plan Amendment revised Table 2.2.1-j.l to add AR zoning districts as being allowable in LR, MR, and HR Future Land Use Designations, thus making AR zoning districts consistent in the Urban/Suburban Tier. Revised Table 2.2.1-j.l, footnote 4, applies to AR zoning districts within the Rural Residential (existing), and the LR, MR, and HR Future Land Use Designations (added). The requirement for AR zoned properties to rezone with a maximum LR-1 density of one unit/acre is eliminated because such properties, with the proposed Plan Amendment, will be consistent with LR, MR, and HR Future Land Use Designations within the Urban/Suburban Tier and, thereby, maintain their agricultural residential uses. Proposed Policy 2.2.1-p recognizes that there are established rural residential enclaves within the Urban/Suburban Tier that have an LR Future Land Use Designation, and affirms the County’s support of the continuation of those rural areas. Allowing properties with LR Future Land Use Designations to subdivide up to one unit/acre does not increase density, as the LR Future Land Use Designation currently allows up to one unit/acre without the Plan Amendment. Policy 2.2.1-p is unchanged in establishing that the County may apply its Uniform Land Development Code (“ULDC”) standards for rural residential development in low density and agricultural future land use categories. Petitioner failed to prove, beyond fair debate, that revised Table 2.2.1-j.l, footnote 4, is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, including new Policy 2.2.l-w, that it improperly increases density, or that any existing County subdivision regulations would not apply. Furthermore, Petitioner, having failed to offer any evidence as to revised Table 2.2.1-j.l, footnote 4’s, inconsistency with revised Table 2.2.1-p, failed to meet its burden with regard to that element of its Amended Petition. Policy 2.2.1-n.5. Revised Policy 2.2.1-n.5. is designed to direct more intense non-residential uses allowed in residential areas to properties “along major thoroughfares and roadways” and away from residential streets. In its Amended Petition and Mr. Crosby’s testimony, Petitioner alleged that revised Policy 2.2.1-n.5. is inconsistent with new policy 2.2.1-w regarding the adoption of specific overlays to protect “the character of individual rural enclaves identified through the neighborhood planning process.” As indicated previously, the Plan Amendment did not create a specific overlay to compare for consistency with the authority for, but not the implementation of, the creation of future overlays. Revised Policy 2.2.1-n.5. is designed to direct allowable non-residential uses to the periphery of residential communities “along” the major thoroughfares, which is not the same as “in proximity” to major thoroughfares. Pursuant to proposed Policy 2.2.1-n.5., local residential streets are not to be subject to commercial vehicle activity (other than home businesses), and more intense non-residential uses in residentially-zoned areas will be limited to those with access to major thoroughfares. The more restrictive language is intended to protect residential neighborhoods in any Managed Growth Tier. Revised Policy 2.2.1-n.5. cannot be read in isolation from other provisions of Policy 2.2.1-n, including the existing requirements that non-residential uses, when being permitted, be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and that their density and intensity be comparable and compatible with the adjoining residential area, and revised Policy 2.2.1-n.6., which requires conditions of approval of the non-residential uses “to ensure compatibility with surrounding residences.” Petitioner failed to prove, beyond fair debate, that revised Policy 2.2.1-n.5. is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, including new Policy 2.2.l-w. Deleted Language Petitioner failed to offer any evidence as to the language deleted from the FLUA Regulation Section to demonstrate that it rendered the Plan Amendment inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Petitioner therefore failed to meet its burden with regard to that element of its Amended Petition. County’s Evidence The County introduced competent, substantial testimonial and documentary evidence that the Plan Amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan FLUE, Section I.C. “County Directions,” paragraphs 1, 2, 4, 5, and 15. The Plan Amendment promotes the protection of established neighborhoods, fosters agriculture uses, establishes that existing rural neighborhoods within the Urban/Suburban Tier cannot be replaced, and will manage growth in a manner to protect these areas. The County demonstrated that the Plan Amendment is designed and intended to direct growth towards activity nodes and centers and along major thoroughfares, and promote redevelopment and urban infill in appropriate areas of the County. The County introduced competent, substantial testimonial and documentary evidence that the proposed Plan Amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan FLUE, Section II., Objective 1.1 “Managed Growth Tier System” by maintaining a variety of housing and lifestyle choices, enhancing existing communities, protecting land for agriculture, and providing opportunities for agriculture. The County introduced competent, substantial testimonial and documentary evidence that the proposed Plan Amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan FLUE, Section II., Objective 1.2 “Urban/Suburban Tier - Urban Service Area,” Policy 1.2-a by protecting the character of rural enclaves through the promotion of agriculture and home-based commercial uses that are compatible with the neighborhoods, while directing increased density away from the center of rural neighborhoods.
Conclusions For Petitioner: Benjamin Crosby, Qualified Representative Palm Beach Farms Rural Preservation Committee, LLC 7425 Wilson Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33413 Troy W Klein, Esquire Law Office of Troy W. Klein, P.A. Suite 1B, Barristers Building 1615 Forum Place West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 For Respondent: Kim Phan, Esquire Jason Tracey, Esquire Palm Beach County Attorney's Office Suite 359 300 North Dixie Highway West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Economic Opportunity enter a final order determining that the Plan Amendment adopted by Palm Beach County as Ordinance 2018-031, on October 31, 2018, is “in compliance,” as that term is defined by section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes; and that Petitioner’s challenge was not brought for an improper purpose as defined in section 120.569(2)(e), Florida Statutes, or section 120.595(1), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of January, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY 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 8th day of January, 2020.
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 in this case is whether Ordinance 679-L of the City of St. Petersburg ("City"), which amended the Future Land Use Map (“FLUM”) of the City's Comprehensive Plan on certain property generally located at the northeast corner of 9th Avenue North and 66th Street North within the boundaries of the City (the "Subject Property") from Institutional to Residential Office Retail (R/O/R) land use on 2.98 acres, Residential Office General (R/OG) on 2.98 acres, and Residential Urban (RU) on 12.02 acres (the “Plan Amendment”), is "in compliance" as defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes,i notwithstanding Petitioners' contentions that the Plan Amendment is internally inconsistent and not based on data and analysis.
Findings Of Fact Parties Each Petitioner submitted oral and/or written comments, recommendations and/or objections to the City regarding the disputed land use amendments that are the subject of this case between the day of the transmittal hearing (July 18, 2006) and the day of the adoption hearing (February 15, 2007). Each individual Petitioner owns and/or resides on property within the boundaries of the City. The Eagle Crest Civic Association, Inc., f/k/a Eagle Crest Neighborhood Association, Inc., is a Florida not-for- profit corporation conducting business within the boundaries of the City. The Eagle Crest Civic Association, Inc., collects dues from membership, conducts monthly business and informational meetings at the St. Petersburg College Gibbs Campus Library in the City, and advocates interests on behalf of its membership before the St. Petersburg Council of Neighborhood Associations and various City and County governmental boards, commissions and councils. The Department is the state land planning agency that is statutorily charged with the duty of reviewing comprehensive plans and their amendments, and determining whether a plan or amendment is “in compliance,” as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. The City is a municipality and political subdivision of the State of Florida and has adopted a comprehensive plan that it amends from time to time pursuant to Section 163.3167(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Sembler is a Florida corporation headquartered and conducting business in the City; by virtue of a contract for the purchase of the property that is the subject of this dispute, Sembler is an equitable owner of the property that is affected by the challenged FLUM Amendment in this case. Background The Subject Property has been owned by the Catholic Diocese of St. Petersburg since 1952. Notre Dame High School, a Catholic girls-only high school, was constructed on the Subject Property in the early 1960’s. In 1977, Notre Dame High School merged with Bishop Barry High School (a Catholic boys-only high school to the east of the Subject Property) and the improvements on the Subject Property were used for various Catholic diocesan offices and other administrative purposes. Notre Dame High School was eventually demolished, and the only improvements remaining on the Subject Property are a former field house used for storage purposes and a former convent used for a multi-purpose building. The Subject Property is otherwise currently completely vacant. Since 1977 the Subject Property has had a FLUM designation of Institutional. In January of 2006, Sembler applied to the City for a change in the FLUM designation on the Subject Property from Institutional to Commercial General for an approximately 13.25 acre portion of the Subject Property fronting predominately along the west side 66th Street North between 9th Avenue North and 13th Avenue North. On March 7, 2006, Sembler requested a deferral of its pending application to consider a modification of the development plan to less intensive commercial uses. The deferral was granted by the City Planning Commission. On March 29, 2006, Sembler submitted a new application, abandoning the prior request to change the FLUM designation for the approximately 13.25-acre portion from Institutional to Commercial General. The new application (March 29, 2006) by Sembler requested a change to the Future Land Use designation for an approximate 6.19-acre portion of the Subject Property from its existing Institutional designation to Residential Office Retail ("R/O/R"). This new application was assigned City File Number PC-700 (“PC-700”). The intention of the PC-700 application was to develop multifamily residential units on approximately 11.8 acres of the Subject Property and to develop neighborhood commercial uses on the approximate 6.19-acre portion of the Subject Property. The PC-700 application included a Development Agreement proposed by Sembler which, among other things, limited the actual commercial development of the 6.19 acre portion to 26,000 square feet of space, and required that a quarter, or 25 percent, of that space be developed under the zoning regulations for Residential Office General ("R/OG"), instead of R/O/R. On May 2, 2006, the City’s Planning Commission (the “LPA”) conducted a public hearing to consider the PC-700 Application, and voted 6-2 to recommend approval of the PC-700 application to the St. Petersburg City Council (the “City Council”). On July 18, 2006, the City Council conducted a public hearing for the First Reading of the PC-700 application, and unanimously adopted a resolution approving the transmittal of a proposed ordinance adopting PC-700 to the Department, among others, for review and comment pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. On September 29, 2006, the Department published its Objections, Recommendations and Comments (“ORC”) Report on the Plan Amendment contained in PC-700. The Department raised no objections to the proposed Plan Amendment. Sometime between September 29, 2006, and December 14, 2006, Sembler modified its application PC-700. The modified application was intended to address some of the concerns raised by neighborhood associations representing citizens who owned property and resided in areas adjacent to the Subject Property. The modified PC-700 application requested a FLUM amendment for 2.98 acres of the Subject Property to be changed from Institutional to R/O/R, for 2.98 acres of the Subject Property to be changed from Institutional to R/OG, and for 12.02 acres of the Subject Property to be changed from Institutional to RU (“PC-700 Modified”). The PC- 700 Modified application also included a proposed Development Agreement which, among other things, limited the actual development of the R/O/R acreage to a maximum of 13,000 square feet, and limited the total combined development of the R/O/R and ROG acreage to 26,000 square feet. On December 14, 2006, the City Council conducted its First Reading of the PC-700 Modified application, approving the application and setting the Second Hearing for the application for February 15, 2006. On February 6, 2006, the Pinellas County Commission, meeting as the County Planning Authority (the “CPA”), held a public hearing to consider the PC-700 Modified application. The CPA approved the PC-700 Modified application. On February 15, 2007, the City Council conducted its Second Reading public hearing of the PC-700 Modified application and voted to adopt Ordinance 679-L, amending the FLUM designation of the Subject Property from Institutional to R/O/R on 2.98 acres, R/OG on 2.98 acres, and RU on 12.02 acres (the “Plan Amendment”). Petitioners do not challenge the FLUM amendment for the RU portion of the Subject Property. On February 23, 2007, the City transmitted the adopted Ordinance 679-L, together with staff reports from the December 14, 2006, and February 15, 2007, public hearings and certain other pertinent information, to the Department for its review pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. On April 16, 2007, the Department published in the St. Petersburg Times newspaper its NOI to find the City’s Plan Amendment “in compliance.” Petitioners' Challenge The Petitioners assert that the FLUM amendment adopted by the City in Ordinance 679-L is not “in compliance” pursuant to Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, because: (1) the FLUM amendment is not based on adequate data and analysis as required by Section 163.3177(8), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a) iii; and (2) the FLUM amendment is not internally consistent with specific objectives and policies of the City’s Plan as required by Section 163.3177(2), Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5.005(5)(a) and (b). The Petitioners’ challenge is centered on three specific objectives and policies contained in the Future Land Use Element ("FLUE") of the City’s Plan: Policy LU3.17, Objective LU4(2), and Objective LU18.iv The Petitioners assert that the challenged Plan Amendment is inconsistent with those objectives and policies and is not based on data and analysis. The Department and the Intervenors assert that those objectives and policies are not applicable, that the Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with those objectives and policies, and that the Plan Amendment is based on data and analysis. The Intervenors also assert that, even if the Plan Amendment were inconsistent with those objectives and policies, consistency with other goals, objectives, and policies in the plan should be "balanced" against the inconsistency and that the consistencies outweigh the inconsistencies, so that the Plan Amendment still would be "in compliance." The Petitioners and the Department do not subscribe to such a balancing of consistencies and inconsistencies, citing Dept. of Community Affairs v. Lee County and Leeward Yacht Club, LLC, AC-06-006, DOAH Case No. 06-0049GM, 2006 Fla. ENV LEXIS 158 (Admin. Comm'n Nov. 15, 2006). Pertinent City Comprehensive Plan Provisions The City's FLUE Policy LU3.17 states: The City has an adequate supply of commercial land use to meet existing and future needs. Future expansion of commercial uses shall be restricted to infilling into existing commercial areas and activity centers, except where a need can be clearly identified. The City's FLUE Objective LU4 states in pertinent part: The Future Land Use Plan and Map shall provide for the future land use needs identified in this Element: * * * Commercial – additional commercial acreage is not required to serve the future needs of St. Petersburg. An oversupply exists based upon the standard of 1 acre of commercial land for every 150 persons in the community. * * * 4. Mixed Use – developments are encouraged in appropriate locations to foster a land use pattern that results in fewer and shorter automobile trips and vibrant walkable communities. The City's FLUE Objective LU18 states: Commercial development along the City’s major corridors shall be limited to infilling and redevelopment of existing commercially designated frontages. Section 1.2.2 of the General Introduction to the City’s Plan describes the format of the elements of the Plan and includes the following pertinent sub-headings and language: 1.2.2.3 Goals, Objectives, and Policies The Goals, Objectives, and Policies have been developed in response to and in accordance with the needs and directions of growth and determined levels of service requirements as identified within the Inventory and Analysis which can be found in the accompanying 1989 Technical Support Documents [TSDs] and the 1996 Evaluation and Appraisal Report [EAR]. All objectives are designed to identify the measurable achievements necessary to support the related goal. In those cases, where the Objective is not specific and/or measurable, but rather, the actual specificity and measurability is found in the supporting policy(ies), the policy(ies) shall be used for the purposes of monitoring and evaluation. The policies are intended to act as implementation mechanisms identifying programs and procedures to be used to accomplish the related objective. This Comprehensive Plan is intended to be utilized as a document in its entirety. It shall hereby be established that no single goal, objective or policy or minor group of goals, objectives or policies, be interpreted in isolation of the entire plan. 1.2.2.5 Status and Use of the TSD and the EAR . . . . The 1989 TSD and the 1996 EAR are hereby referenced and established as the supporting data and analysis for this Comprehensive Plan. The TSD and the EAR may be used to assist in the interpretation of this comprehensive plan and to aid in the review of proposed changes to this plan. It should be updated as necessary to maintain the usability of the data and analysis as an interpretive and advisory aid. * * * 1.3.1.2 Competing Policies Where two or more policies are competing when applied to a particular set of factual circumstances, such conflict shall be resolved first by administrative interpretation of the Comprehensive plan policies. The objective of any such interpretation shall be to obtain a result which maximizes the degree of consistency between the proposed development or public sector activity and this Comprehensive Plan considered as a whole. The City’s Plan also includes the following pertinent definitions in Section 1.7: Commercial Uses - Activities within land areas which are predominately connected with the sale, rental, and distribution of products, or performance of services. * * * Mixed Use - A site that has a combination of different land uses, such as residential, office and retail. In addition, Policy LU3.1(B) of the City’s FLUE defines "Commercial and Mixed Use Categories" to include: Residential/Office General (R/OG) - allowing mixed use office, office park and medium density residential up to a floor area ratio of 0.5 and a net residential density of 15 dwelling units per acre. . . . Commercial General (CG) - allowing the full range of commercial uses including retail, office, and service uses up to a floor area ratio of 0.55. . . . Retail/Office/Residential (R/O/R) - allowing mixed use retail, office, service, and medium density residential uses generally up to a floor are ratio of 0.4 and a net residential density of 15 dwelling units per acre. . . . Finally, FLUE Policy LU3.1(D) defines "Public/Semi- Public Categories" to include: 2. Institutional (I) - Limited to designation of federal, state and local public buildings and grounds, cemeteries, hospitals, churches, and religious institutions and educational uses. Residential uses having a density not to exceed 12.5 dwelling units per acre, are also allowed. Residential equivalency uses are not to exceed 3 beds per dwelling unit. Non-residential uses permitted in the land development regulations are not to exceed a floor area ratio of 0.55. Consistency with Commercial Use Restrictions The Petitioners proved beyond fair debate that the Plan Amendment at issue increases "the supply of commercial land use to meet existing and future needs." FLUE Policy LU3.17. This is clear not only from the potential for commercial use in the mixed use R/O/R and R/OG future land use categories, but also from the City's inclusion of nine-tenths of the former's and one-tenth of the latter's acreage in the inventory of commercial land use for purposes of determining the "supply of commercial land use to meet existing and future needs" in FLUE Policy LU3.17 and the ratio described in FLUE Objective LU4.2. The question is whether the restrictions on commercial future land uses reflected in those Plan provisions apply to the mixed use categories of R/O/R and R/OG. Prior to adoption, the City's staff reports stated that the commercial restrictions do apply, and that the Plan Amendment at issue was inconsistent with those restrictions, but that the Plan Amendment was consistent with several other Plan provisions and "on balance, consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan." However, in this de novo proceeding, the staff reports are not controlling on the applicability of the commercial restrictions and the consistency of the FLUM amendments at issue with those restrictions. In the first place, in light of the contrary testimony of staff during the final hearing, the intent of staff in using the language in the reports is fairly debatable. Second, after the staff reports were prepared, significant testimony on need and demand for commercial land use at the particular location of the FLUM amendments at issue was presented during the final public hearing on the PC-700 Modified application on February 15, 2007, which could have changed staff's mind on at least some of the issues. Finally, the extent to which the City Council may have relied on the staff reports in determining that the Plan Amendment was "in compliance" is not clear from the evidence and is fairly debatable. The City now takes the position, along with the Department, that the restrictions on commercial future land use in FLUE Policy LU3.17 and Objective LU4.2 do not apply to R/O/R and R/OG because they are mixed use future land use categories, not commercial future land use categories. In support of this position, they point out that Objective LU4 treats "Mixed Use" and "Commercial" "future land use needs" differently and applies the restriction only to "Commercial" "future land use needs," while encouraging mixed use developments in appropriate locations. Several of the specific Plan provisions cited in the staff reports as being consistent with the Plan Amendment addressed the appropriateness of a mixed use development at the proposed location, including: FLUE Policy LU3.18, which states that "retail and office activities shall be located, designed and regulated so as to benefit from the access afforded by major streets without impairing the efficiency of operation of these streets or lowering the LOS [level of service] below adopted standards, and with proper facilities for pedestrian convenience and safety"; FLUE Policy LU3.4, which states that "[t]he Land Use Plan shall provide for compatible land use transition through an orderly land use arrangement, proper buffering, and the use of physical and natural separators"; FLUE Policy LU3.6, which states that "[l]and use planning decisions shall weigh heavily the established character of predominately developed areas where changes of use or intensity of development are contemplated"; FLUE Policy LU3.8, which seeks to "protect existing and future residential uses from incompatible uses, noise, traffic and other intrusions that detract from the long term desirability of an area through appropriate land development regulations"; and FLUE Policy LU3.5, which states that "[t]he tax base will be maintained and improved by encouraging the appropriate use of properties based on their locational characteristics and the goals, objectives and policies within this Comprehensive Plan." There also was considerable testimony at the hearing concerning the appropriateness of a mixed use development at the proposed location.v Petitioners also contend that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with FLUE Objective LU18 concerning commercial development along major corridors. In favor of Petitioners' position, 66th Street North, where the Subject Property is located, is a major north-south corridor in the City. However, the Department and the Intervenors argue that the objective does not apply because the policies under it only specify 4th Street and Central Avenue and do not mention 66th Street. Taking all of the evidence and the City's Plan into consideration, including Sections 1.2.2.3, 1.2.2.5, and 1.3.1.2 of the General Introduction, it is found that Petitioners did not prove beyond fair debate that FLUE Policy LU3.17, Objective LU4.2, or Objective LU18 apply to the FLUM amendments at issue; even if those Plan provisions applied, Petitioners did not prove beyond fair debate that the FLUM amendments at issue do not constitute "infilling into existing commercial areas" or "infilling . . . of existing commercially designated frontages," or that "a need can[not] be clearly identified."vi All but one witness testified that, if those Plan provisions applied, the FLUM amendments would constitute commercial infill under the pertinent Plan provisions; the lone dissenter was using what he called a "narrow definition" of infill and agreed that the FLUM amendments would constitute commercial infill using the broader definition held by the majority view. There also was ample evidence that there was a clearly identified need for the FLUM amendments at issue, especially when considered along with the unchallenged RU FLUM amendment. Based on the foregoing findings on internal consistency, which is the context of Petitioners' data and analysis argument, Petitioners also did not prove beyond fair debate that the Plan Amendment was not based on data and analysis.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the City's Ordinance 679- L is "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of October, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of October, 2007.
The Issue Ultimately at issue in this case is whether certain comprehensive plan amendments, adopted by Lee County Ordinance No. 94-30, are "in compliance" with Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. As reflected in the Preliminary Statement, many of the subordinate issues raised by parties seeking to have the plan amendments found to be "not in compliance" have been withdrawn, and others have been stricken as not timely raised or for other reasons. The remaining issues are addressed in this Recommended Order.
Findings Of Fact The FLUM and the Overlay. Lee County adopted its first Comprehensive Plan with a land use map in 1984. On January 31, 1989, the County adopted an amended version of the 1984 Plan intended to plan for growth up to the year 2010 and to comply with the 1985 Growth Management Act requirements. Essentially, the 1989 Plan was very similar to that drafted in 1984. Some major differences were provision of development timing and concurrency, creation of the privately-funded infrastructure overlay, elimination of the fringe land use category, and a variety of other new goals, objectives, and policies (GOP's). Most of the land use categories in the 1984 Plan were carried forward to the 1989 Plan. Almost all of the land use categories are mixed land use categories that allow residential, commercial and in some cases also light industrial uses without any percentage distributions or other objective measurements of distribution among uses. The DCA took the position that the 1989 Lee Plan was not in compliance with the Growth Management Act and filed a petition under Section 163.3184(10). The Department's objection to the 1989 Plan flowed in large part from the alleged overallocation of land for development by the year 2010 that resulted from the categories in the future land use map series (FLUM). Using the County's data and analysis, the DCA concluded that the 1989 map provided for 70 years of growth, to the year 2060, instead of 20 years, to the year 2010. To resolve the 1989 Plan dispute, the County agreed to adopt a 2010 Overlay and create a Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource future land use (FLUE) category (DRGR). The 1989 Plan Compliance Agreement included the following provisions: Amend the Future Land Use Map series by designating the proposed distribution, extent, and location of the generalized land uses required by Rule 9J-5.006(4)(a)1.-9. for the year 2010. These designations will include acreage totals and percentage distributions (illustrated by a bar graph) for about 125 discrete sub-districts encompassing all of Lee County, which, once designated, shall be changed only by a formal amendment to the Lee Plan. The data for these designations shall be consistent with the Lee Plan's population pro- jections for the year 2010. This amendment shall be accomplished by the adoption of over- lay or sub-district maps for the entire County using the concepts developed therefor by Thomas H. Roberts of Thomas H. Roberts Associates and presented publicly to the Board of County Commissioners of Lee County on September 12, 1989, and to the Department of Community Affairs on September 22, 1989. Adopt a policy which will provide that no development approvals for any land use category will be issued in any of the sub- districts described above that would cause the acreage total set for that land use category in 2010 to be exceeded. In accordance with the 1989 Plan Compliance Agreement, the County created a 2010 Overlay. The County first projected future growth in Lee County to the year 2010, using a basic assumption that historic patterns of growth in Lee County, including historic densities, would continue. The County's 2010 population estimate was 757,370 for the entire unincorporated County. The County then assigned acreage allocations for different land uses allowed in each planning subdistrict. In accordance with the 1989 Plan Compliance Agreement, the County adopted the resulting 2010 Overlay, as well as a DRGR FLUE category with a density range of one unit per ten acres, as part of the 1990 remedial plan amendments. The Overlay consisted of Maps 16 and 17, which were added to the FLUM, along with implementing policies in the Future Land Use Element. The 2010 Overlay is, in the words of the 1994 Codification of the Plan, "an integral part of the Future Land Use Map series." Map 16 is a map which divides Lee County into 115 subdistricts. "Map" 17 is not a true map; it is a series of bar tables and pie charts that correspond to acreage allocations for land uses within the subdistricts. Each subdistrict is allocated a specific number of acres for each of the following land uses: residential, commercial, industrial, parks and public, active agriculture, conservation, passive agriculture and vacant. The land use acreage allocations for each Overlay subdistrict are the maximum amount of land which can be developed in that subdistrict. The intent of the 2010 Overlay was to match the amount of development that could be accommodated by the 2010 FLUM with the projected County-wide population for the year 2010. The 2010 Overlay accomplished this in part by assigning percentage distributions, in the form of acreage allocations, to the various uses in the many mixed use categories in the FLUM. Under the Overlay, once the acreage allocation for a particular land use is exhausted, no more acreage can be developed for that land use in that subdistrict unless the Lee Plan is amended. Policy 1.7.6 was adopted to establish an ongoing mandatory review procedure for evaluation and amendment of the 2010 Overlay. On September 6 and 12, 1990, Lee County adopted the 1990 Remedial Plan Amendments and officially revised the original data and analysis supporting the Plan. As the support documents for the 1990 remedial amendments stated: The future land use map series currently contained in the Future Land Use element of the Lee Plan depicts 18 land use categories and has an estimated 70-year population holding capacity. A future land use map series is re- quired by state law and is also a useful and necessary part of the plan in guiding land use and related decisions. The Year 2010 Overlay makes this map series even more useful as a decision-making guide by providing a 20-year horizon in addition to its present longer- term horizon. * * * In addition to this "pure planning" function of the 2010 Overlay, a regulatory function will be added. No final development orders or building permits for any land use category will be issued in any subdistrict that would cause the acreage total for that category in 2010 to be exceeded. The Dwelling Unit Counts and Projections charts in the support documents for the 1990 amendments demonstrate that the 2010 Overlay was designed to greatly limit the number of dwelling units that could be constructed by 2010 compared to the number allowed by the 2010 FLUM without the Overlay. On or about October 29, 1990, DCA published a Notice of Intent to find the 1990 Remedial Plan Amendments in compliance. However, a citizen challenge to the County's 1990 Remedial Plan Amendments resulted in an Administration Commission Final Order that the amendments were not in compliance and that the County had to take certain remedial actions to bring the Plan amendments into compliance. Final Order, Sheridan v. Lee Co. and DCA, 16 FALR 654 (Fla. Admin. Com. 1994)(the "Sheridan Final Order"). The Sheridan Final Order required the County to apply the 2010 Overlay at the development order stage, rather than at the building permit stage. As a result, no development order could be issued which caused the acreage allocations for any given individual subdistrict to be exceeded. The Sheridan Final Order also held that the County had not properly calculated the amount of development allowed by the 2010 Overlay and adopted the following analysis from the hearing officer's Recommended Order: The calculation of a density allocation ratio is part of the determination whether data and analysis support the residential densities in a plan. The analysis misses the point of the process if the maximum densities authorized by a plan are reduced to reflect historic densities. The question is whether the densities authorized by a plan are supported by data and analysis, not whether data and analysis support densities some- where between the maximum authorized densities and historic densities. Especially where historic densities reflect an inefficient use of land, as is clearly the case in Lee County, analysis of a plan based in part on historic densities invites the repetition of past planning failures. * * * The purpose of the density allocation calculation, as part of the process of determining if the plan is supported by data and analysis, is not to predict the actual density that will occupy the planning jurisdiction at buildout. The purpose of the density allocation calculation is to compare the maximum density allowed by the plan with the projected population, and consider the extent of the overallocation in the light of other factors in the planning jurisdiction, including plan provisions and relevant data and analysis. The ratio is not required to be 1:1 to satisfy the criterion of supporting data and analysis. But the ratio must be ascertainable in order to determine if the density allocations in a plan, in view of other plan provisions, are supported by data and analysis. Sheridan Final Order, 16 FALR at 689. As a result, one of the remedial amendments required by the Administration Commission was: To address the density calculation issue the County shall revise the data and analysis to include the maximum allowable densities in determining the amount of development allowed by the 2010 overlay and to show that the amount of development allowed is based on the expected growth. Sheridan Final Order, 16 FALR at 661. The County adopted 2010 Overlay remedial amendments in October, 1994. In December, 1994, the DCA determined that the remedial amendments were in compliance. (The revised data and analysis were not made a part of the record in this case.) On July 1, 1994, the County adopted an Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) for its Plan and subsequently submitted to the DCA the EAR, along with the proposed EAR-based amendments for the year 2020. Among other things, the proposed EAR-based amendments eliminated the 2010 Overlay. Among other things, the DCA's Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report objected to the elimination of the 2010 Overlay, taking the position that, without the Overlay, the EAR-based plan had the same allocation-related problems that had been in the 1989 plan. On November 1, 1994, the County adopted a modified version of the EAR- based amendments--still without any Overlay--and submitted these to the DCA, together with its staff response to the DCA's ORC Report. On December 28, 1994, the DCA issued a Statement of Intent to find the EAR-based amendments not in compliance. FLUM Population Accommodation Data and Analysis. The evidence in this case includes data and several different analyses comparing the population accommodated by the plan amendments at issue--i.e., the FLUM without any Overlay--with the population projected for the year 2020. Figure 14. Lee County's proposed population accommodation data and analysis is included in the EAR in Figure 14. Based on Figure 14, the County concluded that the 2020 FLUM accommodates 802,655 persons, or 128 percent of the projected 2020 population (an accommodation ratio of 1.28). Although the FLUM's many mixed use categories do not establish percentage distributions or other objective measurements of distribution among uses, Figure 14 assumes that certain percentages of the many mixed use categories will develop in residential use, based on historic growth patterns. Also based on historic growth patterns, Figure 14 assumes that residential density will be less than the maximum of the standard residential density range allowed in each category although the GOP's allow residential development at much higher densities. Since Figure 14 is based on historic patterns of growth that are expected to continue into the future, Figure 14 appears to predict future growth as accurately as is possible at this time. It probably is the best possible estimate of how Lee County will build out under the proposed amendments. However, the ability to make truely accurate predictions over such a long period of time--25 years--is questionable. Figure 14 assumes that only a fraction of the new Vested Community land use district (Lehigh Acres) will be developed by the end of the planning timeframe. Most of the Vested Community district consists of subdivisions which were approved and platted several years before the adoption of the earliest Lee Plan, and which are vested from the restrictions of the Lee Plan. The Vested Community district contains over 130,000 vested lots which can accommodate at least 271,700 residents. In addition, the Vested Community district contains some land which is not actually vested from the Lee Plan but is allowed to develop at four density units per acre (du/ac). Figure 14 assumes that 45,888 residential units accommodating 95,906 persons will be developed in Lehigh Acres by 2020. There is no goal, objective or policy in the Lee Plan which would prevent the development of more lots vested or allocated in the Vested Community district. Lee County's Figure 14 analysis assumed that the Rural and Outer Islands categories will develop at their maximum residential density of one du/ac. In fact, the Lee Plan includes a Planned Development District Option ("PDDO") which allows: landowners outside the Future Urban Areas to increase allowable densities for development that will be totally independent of county- subsidized facilities and services. (Objective 1.8) The PDDO increases the maximum theoretical residential density of the Rural and Outer Islands districts from 1 du/ac to 6 du/ac. However, due the requirements for use of the PDDO, realistically it cannot be anticipated that much Rural or Outer Islands land will utilize it. Lee County's Figure 14 analysis did not include any residential allocation for the General Interchange category. The General Interchange category allows residential development of 100 residential units at 8 du/ac for every 100,000 square feet of commercial development. If the residential option applied to all 1,436 acres of the General Interchange category, the Lee Plan would accommodate another 13,209 persons in that category. However, for the residential option, the category requires 160 acres under common ownership. Currently, there is only one case in which the requirement is met, and it is a development of regional impact (DRI) that does not allow residential at this time. Figure 14A. Figure 14A is part of the County's response to the DCA's ORC report. It was supposed to adjust Figure 14 by assuming the maximum residential density allowed by each land use category in accordance with the Sheridan Final Order. The Figure 14A accommodated population rises to 1,325,568, and the so-called allocation ratio rises to 2.11. Actually, Figure 14A does not take into account the actual maximum residential density in Intensive Development (22 du/ac), Central Urban (15 du/ac), and Urban Community (10 du/ac). Instead, it uses the top of the "standard density range" in those categories. Figure 14 B. Figure 14B also is part of the County's response to the DCA's ORC report. It adjusts the Figure 14A analysis by estimating the total residential development allowed by the Vested Community category at 170,732 dwelling units, which will accommodate 356,829 persons. Adding those Vested Community numbers to the Figure 14A numbers, Figure 14B estimates the population accommodated by the 2020 FLUM as 1,586,491 persons, or an accommodation ratio of 2.53. Maximum Theoretical Residential Potential. The DCA proposes an analysis of the data using maximum theoretical residential potential for each land use category. Under the DCA analysis, there is enough land available for residential development accommodate a population of approximately 2.5 million people--401 percent of the expected County population in 2020 or, expressed as a ratio, 4.01. In contrast to Figure 14B, the DCA's preferred analysis takes into account all of the residential development capacity in Lehigh Acres. In addition, it assumes residential development in the Vested Intensive Development part of the Lehigh Vested Community at the maximum density of 14 du/ac and in the Vested Central Urban part at the maximum density of 10 du/ac. These assumptions add to the FLUM population accommodation analysis the capacity to accommodate approximately 246,000 more people, over and above the Figure 14B capacity. The DCA's preferred analysis also assumes that all Rural and Outer Islands land will utilize PDDO and develop residentially at 6 du/ac. Use of this assumption more than doubles the population accommodation in those categories, adding approximately 500,000 people to the analysis. While theoretically possible, as previously stated, this assumption is unrealistic. The DCA's preferred analysis also assumes that 13,209 people are accommodated in residential development in the General Interchange category. This assumption, too, is theoretically possible but not realistic. Finally, the DCA's preferred analysis assumes that, although most of Lee County's future land use categories allow a mix of uses, the land will develop at the maximum potential residential densities over the entire land area--i.e., that no other type of permitted use, such as commercial, parks, schools or even roads would occur in any of the land use categories. Finally, it disregards the actual existence of non-residential uses and residential uses at lower densities; instead, it assumes redevelopment at the maximum potential residential densities over the entire land area. County's 2010 Overlay Analysis. It seems obvious that deletion of the 2010 Overlay must increase population accommodation, at least up to the year 2010. Up to the time of the final hearing, the DCA had not requested, and no party did, an allocation ratio analysis of the 2010 Overlay similar to the one the DCA prefers for the 2020 FLUM without any Overlay for purposes of making a comparison between the two. The County's chief planner testified that he performed such an analysis during the course of the final hearing using the maximum residential and maximum density assumptions. Neither the details nor the results of the analysis were clear. However, it appears to indicate that the 2010 Overlay accommodated a 2010 population of 1.06 million, apparently including 282,000 assumed to be accommodated in Lehigh Acres, an allocation ratio of 2.11. Assuming that the County's 2010 Overlay analysis included Lehigh, it can be roughly compared to the Figure 14B analysis and the DCA's preferred "maximum theoretical residential potential" analysis by removing the Lehigh component from each. Subtracting the Lehigh component from the County's 2010 Overlay population accommodation analysis results in a 2010 population accommodation of 778,000. Removing the Lehigh component from Figure 14B results in 2020 population accommodation of 1,229,662. Removing the Lehigh component from the DCA's analysis results in 2020 population accommodation of 2,008,927. Meanwhile, the County's projection of future increased by only about 70,000 between 2010 and 2020 for the entire unincorporated county. RGMC Alternative 2010 Overlay Accommodation Analysis and Comparision. RGMC proposes its own alternative analysis for comparing the population accommodated under the 2010 Overlay to the population accommodated without it. Using the County's population projection for 2020 of 626,860 in the unincorporated county and the accepted 2.09 people per unit, it can be estimated that approximately 300,000 units will be needed in the year 2020. Subtracting the 127,000 units existing in 1990, approximately 173,000 additional units will be needed over the 30 years from 1990 to 2020 to accommodate the expected population, or approximately 5,800 additional units per year. At that average rate, 116,000 units would be added by the year 2010 (5,800 units per year times 20 years). Adding the new units to the 127,000 units existing in 1990 results in a total of approximately 244,000 units in 2010. Since it is agreed that the Overlay was designed to accommodate, and accommodated, approximately the population expected in the year 2010, it can be estimated that the Overlay accommodated approximately 244,000 units. In the sense that all units accommodated under the 2020 FLUM without the Overlay are available for development before 2010, a rough comparison can be made between the population accommodated under the 2010 Overlay and the population accommodated according to the other analysis methodologies: according to Figure 14, the amended 2020 plan accommodates 384,045 units for the year 2020; according to Figure 14A, the amended 2020 plan accommodates 634,243 units for the year 2020; according to Figure 14B, the amended 2020 plan accommodates 759,086 units for the year 2020; and according to the DCA's preferred "maximum theoretical residential potential" methodology, the amended 2020 plan accommodates 1,201,973 units for the year 2020. Calculation and Use of the "Allocation Ratio". The technique of determining a residential density allocation ratio was described in an article entitled "Expanding the Overallocation of Land Use Categories," which appears in a June, 1995, publication of the Department of Community Affairs called "Community Planning." "Community Planning" is published by the Department of Community Affairs "to provide technical assistance to Florida's counties and cities and implement any requirements of Florida's growth management laws." The article announces how the Department reviews the question of "overallocation" in determining whether a plan is in compliance with statutory and rule requirements regarding urban sprawl. According to the article, the Department suggests that a comprehensive plan should allocate up to 125 percent of the amount of land needed to accommodate the projected future population. The article does not explain how the "allocation ratio" should be calculated. The Sheridan Final Order seems to say that maximum densities should be assumed. See Finding 11, above. But neither the "Community Planning" article nor the Sheridan Final Order indicate what other assumptions should be made. The "Community Planning" article and the Sheridan Final Order also do not specify whether, in calculating the allocation ratio, population accommodation capacity should be compared to the total expected population or to the incremental growth expected in the population. The DCA has accepted a 1.25 allocation ratio applied to the total expected population as being reasonable. A major treatise in this area known as Urban Land Use Planning, Fourth Edition, by Kaiser, Godchalk, and Chapin, suggests that an allocation ratio of up to 2.05 can be considered reasonable; however, when doing so, the authors were evaluating plans with a closer planning horizon (one to five years), and they were comparing the population accommodation capacity to the incremental growth expected in the population. When calculating an allocation ratio for a 20-year planning horizon, they suggest that a 1.20 allocation ratio that compares population accommodation capacity to the incremental growth expected in the population would be reasonable. By accepting a 1.25 allocation ratio that compares the population accommodation capacity to the total population expected on a 25-year planning horizon, the DCA seems to have been misapplying the allocation ratio analysis. Clearly, an accommodation ratio comparing the population accommodation capacity to the incremental growth expected in the population would be much than one comparing to to the total population expected. There was no data and analysis as to exactly how much higher, and it is difficult to say based on the record in this case. However, an example of the difference between the too methodologies is suggested by one of RGMC's alternative analyses. It is known that approximately 300,000 units of residential development will be needed for the population expected in the year 2020. See Finding 36, above. The evidence was that there were approximately 143,000 units existing in 1995, so approximately 157,000 additional units will be needed by the year 2020 to accommodate the expected population. Meanwhile, using the County's Figure 14 assumptions, the FLUM without the Overlay makes 384,045 units available for development by the year 2020, or an accommodation of an additional 241,045 units over what was in existence in 1995. Comparing incremental accommodation for growth to the incremental population growth expected by the year 2020 would result in an "accommodation ratio" of approximately 1.54, versus the ratio of 1.28 calculated in Figure 14 comparing to total population expected. By way of further examples, using the same method of comparison: Figure 14A's 2.11 "accommodation ratio" would become a ratio of 3.13, comparing incremental accommodation for growth to the incremental population growth expected by the year 2020; Figure 14B's 2.53 "accommodation ratio" would become a ratio of 3.92; and the DCA's "accommodation ratio" of 4.01 would become a ratio of 6.75. It should be noted that the Urban Land Use Planning treatise also speaks of the use of the allocation ratio as a safety factor to provide a choice of location for housing type and to avoid artificially increasing land and housing prices. Rather than being a device merely to avoid the overallocation of land, the safety factor also is said to be necessary to ensure that enough land is allocated and that the limitations of forecasting approaches do not exacerbate the need for affordable housing. It also should be noted that neither the "Community Planning" article nor the Sheridan Final Order specify that allocation and urban sprawl issues should be determined from the simple calculation of a residential density allocation. To the contrary, the Sheridan Final Order would indicate that, once the allocation ratio is obtained, full consideration should be given to all pertinent factors "in order to determine if the density allocations in a plan, in view of other plan provisions, are supported by data and analysis." Analyses Not Conducted. The plan amendments do not only eliminate the 2010 Overlay. They also decline to retain the Overlay concept and extend it another ten years to the year 2020. There is no data or analysis in this case comparing the population accommodated by the FLUM without any Overlay to the population that would be accommodated in the year 2020 if the Overlay were extended another ten years to 2020. Such data and analysis would most clearly illuminate the impact of eliminating the 2010 Overlay, and abandoning the Overlay concept, on the residential allocation of the plan for the year 2020. There may be tens of thousands of, up to perhaps almost a hundred thousand, residential units in DRI's that have been approved but not yet built. There was inadequate data and analysis of how many of the residential units that will be needed by the year 2020 can be supplied in these DRI's. Lehigh Acres. Clearly, Lehigh Acres presents a special problem for Lee County and the DCA. Lehigh Acres was platted in the 1950s and 1960s. It covers approximately 97 square miles, which is slightly more than 62,000 acres. Since its inception, Lehigh has had all the attributes of urban sprawl. It is a large, sprawling, almost entirely residential community that was created in an area remote from urban services. It is characterized by grid patterns of development, a poorly-designed transportation network with large numbers of small local roads and no four-lane roads, huge amounts of land allocated to residential development and a relatively small amount of land allocated to commercial development. The roads in Lehigh are built. Virtually all of Lehigh has been subdivided into relatively small single family residential homesites, and almost all of these homesites have been sold to buyers all over the world. By virtue of the platting and sale of the land into homesites, Lehigh is a vested community. Over the years, the County has considered a number of potential solutions to the Lehigh Acres dilemma. Ultimately, the County decided to take a multi-pronged approach: (1) creating restrictions on additional subdivision and attempting to reduce densities to no more than four units per acre; (2) continuing the privately-funded infrastructure overlay as the means of providing infrastructure in Lehigh; and (3) utilizing sector planning to work toward a better transportation system and larger areas of commercial allocation to create a more balanced community. Based on the new treatment of Lehigh Acres, the County engaged in different assumptions about how Lehigh will build out. In 1989, Lehigh was shown as "central urban" and "urban community," together with the rest of the Lee Plan future land use categories. Under the 2010 Overlay, the County purported to reduce acreage allocations in Lehigh, but in fact there was little impact on residential potential due to vesting. In the EAR-based amendments, Lehigh is shown under "Vested Community," a separate land use category. Through the vested community category, the County attempted to restrict additional subdividing of lots and, with a few limited exceptions, set a maximum density of four units per acre. Based on the different treatment of Lehigh in the Plan, the County projected a population for Lehigh based on the amount of growth actually expected to occur by Year 2020. To do this, the County utilized eight different methodologies and averaged the projections to come up with a 2010 population for Lehigh of 95,906. These assumptions are reflected in the County's Figures 14 and 14A. Neither the Department's rules nor the "Community Planning" article provide specific guidance as to how vested areas are to be treated in making a calculation of a plan's "allocation ratio." The vast area of Lehigh has the capacity to absorb virtually all the anticipated future population growth in unincorporated Lee County through the year 2020. In fact, it may be appropriate for Lee County to increase overall density in Lehigh if necessary to support the infrastructure and transportation needed to convert Lehigh Acres into a more balanced, multi-use development. Lee County's approach to Lehigh essentially was to attempt to satisfy the Department's desire for an acceptable "allocation ratio" by estimating how many residents will actually live in Lehigh by 2020, assuming the Plan's treatment of Lehigh, and treating those estimates as Lehigh's population accommodation. By studying historic rates of growth, the Lee Planning Division believes that number will be approximately 96,000 people. No evidence was presented by the Department or any intervenor in contradiction of this estimate. The results of the County's approach to Lehigh are reflected in the County's Figures 14 and 14A. Another approach would be to attempt to reduce residential development in other parts of the County. It would be poor planning to reduce densities "across the board" throughout the County just to achieve a lower allocation ratio. Such an approach could direct population concentration away from urban areas into poorly-served rural areas, thereby discouraging the efficient use of land and encouraging sprawling uses. Depending on the densities, it could direct growth to remote areas of the county. Additionally, if Lee County attemped to limit residential growth based on incorrect assumptions regarding future densities, it could seriously underallocate land uses. Underallocation can greatly inflate land costs to the detriment of the general public. On the other hand, a better approach might be to couple sector planning in Lehigh with a reduction in densities in certain other parts of the County. If successful, such an approach could both create more balanced development in Lehigh Acres and direct future growth to Lehigh and away from coastal high hazard areas (CHHA), DRGR and other environmentally sensitive areas, and Open Lands and Rural land (especially rural lands not situated so as to be potential future urban infill or expansion), including important wildlife habitat. Commercial Allocations. The 2020 Lee Plan, without the 2010 Overlay, has some guidance for the location of commercial development, especially retail commercial. But it does not have percentage distributions or other objective measurement of the distribution of commercial and other uses allowed in its many mixed land use districts. Policy 6.1.2 of the 2020 Lee Plan consists of site location criteria which apply to retail commercial development, such as shopping centers, restaurants, gas stations, and other commercial development generating large volumes of traffic. Non-retail commercial development, such as office, hotel and motel or wholesale commercial development, may be developed at the identified intersections or anywhere else in the land use categories which allow commercial development. Even retail commercial can be developed at locations which do not meet the location criteria under discretion granted to the Board of County Commissioners. According to Lee County's EAR, the Commercial Site Locations Standards Map (Map 16) identifies 52 full intersections and 15 half-moon intersections which comply with the site location standards for Community Commercial and Neighborhood Commercial. They represent 9,520 acres of land designated for retail commercial development. Using the standard planning conversion rate of 10,000 square feet per acre, average, there is room for approximately 95,000,000 square feet of commercial development in the commercial sites depicted on Map There also may be other intersections which meet the criteria for Community Commercial or Neighborhood Commercial but are not shown on Map 16. In addition, there are numerous intersections which meet the criteria for Minor Commercial which are not shown on Map 16. Map 16 also does not include Regional Commercial development. The report by Thomas H. Roberts & Associates on Commercial Land Use Needs In Lee County (Jan. 10, 1987), indicates that the retail space ratio in Lee County is 26 square feet per capita. Just counting the 95,000,000 square feet of retail commercial development allowed in the land shown on Map 16, the 2020 Lee Plan has enough retail commercial capacity to accommodate 3.7 million people. Without even considering the non-retail commercial uses that can be developed at any location in the several land use districts which allow commercial uses, or the unknown amount of retail commercial that can be developed at the numerous intersections which meet the Minor Commercial location criteria, the 2020 Lee Plan without the 2010 Overlay allows commercial development far in excess of the amount needed to accommodate the projected 2020 population. Industrial Allocation Policy 7.1.4 in the 2020 Lee Plan provides: The [FLUM] shall designate a sufficient quantity of land to accommodate industrial development that will employ 3 percent of the county's population in manufacturing activities by the year 2010. The 2020 FLUM, without the 2010 Overlay, designates 6,062 acres in the Industrial Development category. Three percent of the 2020 County population represents approximately 19,000 people. The 1984 Roberts industrial land analysis for Lee County suggested a ratio of seven industrial workers per acre for industrial related activities. Most industrial land uses employ more workers per acre, and the national average is about 17 employees per acre. But even using the ratio suggested by the Roberts analysis, Lee County would need only approximately 3,000 acres of industrial land to accommodate three percent of the 2020 County population in industrial employment. Analysis in the EAR indicates that enough additional industrial land is needed to serve the needs of municipal populations that probably cannot or will not be supplied within the cities themselves and that this additional land accounts for the apparent excess in industrial lands allocated in the county. However, it is not clear from the data and analysis how this determination was made. In addition, light industrial development is permitted in several other mixed land use categories. For example, the existing approximately 2,800 acres of Airport Commerce (AC) located to the northwest of the airport is intended to include light industrial activities. There was no data or analysis as to how much additional industrial use will be made of land in those categories. There are no percentage distributions or other objective measurements of the distribution of land uses in the mixed land use districts that allow light industrial use. The Mixed Land Use Districts. As has been seen, the Lee Plan without any Overlay makes extensive use of mixed land use districts without percentage distributions or other objective measurements of distribution among uses. Much of the dispute between the parties as to residential accommodation and allocations of land for commercial and industrial uses results from the lack of percentage distributions or other objective measurements of distribution among uses in the plan's mixed land use categories. Although the County predicts development of only a percentage of these districts as residential, it remains possible for much larger percentages to be developed residential. On the other hand, it is possible for practically all of mixed land use districts to develop commercially or even industrially. The 2010 Overlay attempted to address the lack of percentage distributions or other objective measurements of distribution among uses in the plan's mixed land use districts by limiting the acreage that could be developed in particular uses by the year 2010. Without the Overlay concept, no percentage distributions or other objective measurements of distribution among uses remain in the plan. Because of the plan's extensive use of mixed use districts, the County's ability to control development through the plan is seriously undermined. Other Urban Sprawl Considerations. Unincorporated Lee County contains approximately 685 square miles. Lehigh Acres and the DRGR areas, combined, are approximately 199 more square miles, 29 percent of the total area of unincorporated Lee County. Except for the growth that will occur in the Vested Community of Lehigh, much of the future growth in Lee County will occur in the I-75, U.S. 41 corridor, which is oriented in a generally North-South direction and contains most of the urbanized areas of the County, including the City of Fort Myers. Because this area is already largely urbanized, most of the growth in it will result in either the expansion of existing urbanized areas or in-fill between existing urban areas. Certificated water and sewer franchise areas also generally coincide with the north/south urban core in which growth is expected to continue. The presence of water and sewer franchise areas in the north/south urban core and in Lehigh Acres encourages utilization of these areas through the ability to provide urban services. The absence of water and sewer franchise areas in other portions of the County will act as a hindrance to development in areas which are undeveloped and either in conservation or agricultural use. A review of County DRI approvals, together with approved development orders, also appears to indicate a trend toward development in the north/south core. The absence of development orders in most of the outlying areas, indicated as either agricultural, vacant, or conservation use, indicate that probably relatively little growth will occur in those areas. Platted subdivisions also appear to show a trend toward development in the north/south urban core. In general, there also appears to be a correlation between existing land uses and those factors which can reasonably be expected to establish future growth trends in the north/south urban core. Growth in the north/south I-75, U.S. 41 corridor across the county line to the south in Collier County tends to encourage similar growth at the southern end of Lee County. Meanwhile, there are hindrances to development across the county line to the east and southeast by virtue of the presence of agricultural lands and regional wetland systems such as the Corkscrew Swamp and the Everglades. The County has also made use of sector planning. The County's sector plans represent extensive and detailed planning studies which in many cases are reflected in both the FLUM and the policies in the Plan. However, currently there is no sector plan for Lehigh Acres. Policy 1.5.5, creating the Vested Community category for Lehigh, states a sector plan for Lehigh will be developed beginning in 1996. In terms of land uses, the Plan seems to be fairly well functionally related, both in terms of what is shown on the FLUM and the relation between the FLUM and the Plan policies themselves. A good example of this is the commercial site location standards, which establish a strong functional relationship between transportation and regional commercial facilities. There is also a good functional relationship between existing land uses. The Plan mixed use categories appear to recognize and attempt to encourage sound functional relationships between home, work, and shopping. The Plan also has compatibility standards that help maintain functional relationships. However, without the Overlay, the many mixed use categories in the Plan do not contain a percentage distribution or other objective measurement of distribution among mixed uses within the mixed use districts. In terms of land use suitability, the County generally appears to be designating for development those areas which are most suitable for development. However, because it allows development of all kinds throughout the County in excess of what is needed by 2020, the Plan allows development in less suitable areas. A variety of methodologies and assumptions leads to the conclusion that the Lee Plan generally is an urban development plan, not a rural development plan. For instance, under the Figure 14 methodology, 80 percent of the population is directed toward urban land uses, and 12 percent into rural. Under Figure 14B, which unrealistically assumes that all of Lehigh Acres will be built out within the planning time frame, 90 percent of the population is directed to urban areas, and only 10 percent to rural. Even assuming that 100 percent of the land will be used for residential purposes, and that all of Lehigh will build out within the planning time frame, 92 percent is directed to urban areas, and only 8 percent to rural. Finally, even assuming 100 percent of the land to residential at maximum densities, and also that all rural land uses will use the PDDO option at six units per acre, only 4 percent of the population will be directed to rural areas in the FLUM. Notwithstanding the overall patterns of growth in Lee County, it clearly is indicated in the Sheridan Final Order that land in Lee County historically has been used inefficiently and that, without the Overlay, the plan allows inefficiency to continue unabated. This is due in large part to the extensive use of mixed land use categories that do not contain a percentage distribution or other objective measurement of distribution among mixed uses within the mixed use districts, together with the overallocation of land that also results in part from their use. By comparing the FLUM's since 1984 with the current Existing Land Use Map (ELUM) (Lee 56), it is apparent that rural designations have not preserved agriculture. Significant parts of county that have been designated rural since 1984 actually have been developed residential or non-agricultural use. In Range (R) 25 East (E), Township (T) 45 South(S), Sections 31 and 32 are residential, while 33 is a golf course. Similarly, R 25 E, T 47 S, Sections 14, 15 and 23 have developed significantly residential and part of Section 14 is now designated Outlying Suburban. In addition, significant residential development has occurred in areas of Pine Island that have been designated rural since 1984. On the other side of the coin, much of the "New Community" still is in rural use (R 35 E, T 45 S, Sections 1, 2, 3, parts of 10, 11, and 12; R 26 E, Sectons 5-8, 17 and 18.) Some "Industrial Development" land is actually still in rural use or vacant--R 25 E, T 46 S, Section 3 west of I-75, and Sections 4- There is significant land that actually is rural or vacant adjacent to wetlands and Estero Bay in R 24 E, T 45 S (Sections 28, 29, and 31-35), together with Sections 3-5, 8-10, and 15 in R 24 E, T 46 S, that are designated for Suburban or Outlying Suburban uses. Land designated rural, open land or fringe in 1984 has been redesignated for urban uses over the years. A large block straddling Daniels Parkway east of the 6 Mile Cypress Strand has been designated Outlying Suburban. Approximately between Buckingham Road, Orange River Boulevard and I-75, rural land has been redesignated as Rural Community Preserve. Large blocks of land, one at the extreme north end of the county between U.S. 41 and I-75, and the other east of I-75 near the river, have gone from rural to Outlying Suburban. A large amount of what was rural and fringe between Bonita Springs and San Carlos Park, west of U.S. 41, has become Suburban and Outlying Suburban. CHHA and Hurricane Evacuation and Shelter. Objective 75.1 of the amended Lee Plan defines and delineates Coastal High Hazard Areas (CHHA) for the first time. Previously, the plan referred to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) "A Zone," which encompasses somewhat more land than the new CHHA. Policy 75.1.4 of the amended Lee Plan, which formerly applied to the "A Zone," states: Through the Lee Plan amendment process, land use designations of undeveloped areas within [CHHA] shall be considered for reduced density categories (or assignment of minimum allowable densities where density ranges are permitted) in order to limit the future population exposed to coastal flooding. In this round of amendments, the County did not consider either reducing density categories, or assigning the minimum allowable densities in categories with a range of densities, in undeveloped land in the CHHA. In prior rounds of amendments, the County reduced densities in areas that would be inundated by Category 1, 2 and 3 hurricanes (which would include CHHA). Assuming maximum allowable densities together with the other Figure 14A assumptions, the density reductions reduced population accommodation by 13,000 units in those areas. Elimination of the 2010 Overlay opened additional land to immediate development in the CHHA. There was no data and analysis on the amount of new land opened to immediate development or the additional population accommodated in the CHHA that would result. Goal 79 in the Lee Plan, as amended, is to "provide evacuation and shelter capabilities adequate to safeguard the public against the effects of hurricanes and tropical storms." Objective 79.1 of the Lee Plan, as amended, is to restore evacuation times to 1987 levels by 2000, and to reduce the clearance time portion of evacuation time to 18 hours or less by 2010. Previously, the plan's objective was to achieve 1987 evacuation times by the year 1995. Lee County has among the best hurricane planning efforts in southwest Florida. Nonetheless, as of the time of the final hearing, evacuation times still exceeded 1987 levels, and clearance times exceeded 18 hours. Little progress had been made toward the previous objective to achieve 1987 evacuation times by the year 1995. That is why the objective was extended five more years until the year 2000. It may be that the 2010 Overlay was not designed with hurricane evacuation times in mind. It also is true that the County's evacuation plans are updated every three years based on actual development data. But it also is true that additional development in the CHHA due to elimination of the 2010 Overlay may make it more difficult to achieve Objective 79.1, even as amended. Objective 79.2 of the Lee Plan is to make adequate shelter space available by the year 2010 "for the population in the Hurricane Vulnerability Zone at risk under a Category 3 storm." There was no data and analysis of the impact of eliminating the 2010 Overlay on the County's ability to achieve either Objective 79.1 or Objective 79.2. There also was no data and analysis of the impact of amending Objective 75.1 and 75.1.4 to reduce the size of the coastal area subject to consideration for land use density reductions on the County's ability to achieve either Objective 79.1 or Objective 79.2. Change of Alico Property from DRGR to AC. Another significant FLUM amendment in the EAR-based amendments was to change the designation of 1400 acres of property owned by Alico, Inc., from DRGR to Airport Commerce (AC). Uses allowed in the AC district include light manufacturing and assembly, warehousing, distribution facilities, ground transportation and airport related terminals or transfer facilities, and hospitality services. Suitability. Policy 1.4.5 of the plan, as amended, defines DRGR as "upland areas that provide substantial recharge to aquifers most suitable for future wellfield development" and as "the most favorable locations for physical withdrawal of water from those aquifers." Although previously designated DRGR, more recent data and analysis calls this designation into question. The amendment property does provide some recharge to both the water table (surficial) aquifer and the underlying Sandstone aquifer, but it does not provide above-average groundwater recharge for either aquifer (or any recharge to any of the deeper aquifers). In addition, it is not a good site for the development of a wellfield in either the water table or the Sandstone aquifer. The water table aquifer is not especially thick, and there are too many wetlands on the site for production from the water table aquifer. (Pumping from the water table aquifer next to the airport also could be problematic in that the stability of the soil under the airport could be affected. (Cf. Finding 100, below.) In the Sandstone aquifer, groundwater flows away from the site, making it unsuitable for production. Despite the questions raised by the new data and analysis, the amendment property may still be suitable for designation as DRGR. But that does not necessarily make it unsuitable for AC use. In terms of location, the amendment property is perfectly suited to AC use. I-75 and other AC-designated property is to the immediate west of the amendment property. The Southwest Florida International Airport is to the immediate north of the amendment property. A second runway and a new cargo handling facility are planned for construction to the south of the existing airport runway. When built, the new facilities will practically be touching the northern boundary of the amendment property, and the proposed new south airport access will cross the amendment property and intersect Alico Road, which is the southern boundary of the amendment property. Commercial and industrial use on the property would not pose an unreasonable threat to contaminate either existing or future potable water wells. Theoretically, stormwater from the amendment property could contain contaminants which could eventually migrate to a drinking water well. But the threat of such contamination is small. Permitting criteria adopted and imposed by the South Florida Water Management District will require all construction on this site to conform to surface water quality standards through Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and permitting rules of the Water Management District within Chapter 40, Florida Administrative Code. These rules will require on-site detention and retention of stormwater which will greatly reduce the threat of surface contaminants leaving the property. Additionally, all surface water runoff from the property, and most groundwater, will be intercepted by the Alico Road Canal, which drains in a westerly direction away from any existing drinking water wells. If any contaminants from the amendment property were to enter the groundwater, avoid the Alico Road Canal and leave the property, they would have to migrate a considerable distance to reach a potable water wellhead. The only wellfield pumping, or planned to pump, from the water table aquifer which contaminants possibly could reach would be the existing Gulf Utilities wellfield approximately one mile and a half southeast of the amendment property. Contaminants within the groundwater move at a slower speed than the water itself. Most contaminants move at a much slower speed than the water. Thus, the chances are very slight that contaminants from the amendment property would threaten the Gulf Utilities wellfield. Any metals in the groundwater would attach to soil particles and migrate extremely slowly. Other potential contaminants would eventually break down within the soil as they slowly migrated away from the site. It was estimated that the travel time from the closest portion of the amendment property to the Gulf Utilities well field would be in the neighborhood of 50 to 100 years. If any such contaminants did reach the wellfield they would be in such dilute concentrations that they would pose no health hazard. The only other wellfield that is reasonably close to the proposed site is the Florida Cities well field to the northeast. This wellfield taps the Sandstone aquifer. The Sandstone aquifer is separated from the water table aquifer by an approximately 40 foot thick semi-confining layer. This layer is composed of silt and clay which provides hydraulic separation between the aquifers. There are no known breaches of the semi-confining layer in this area. The direction of flow and the nature of the semi-confining layer also make it extremely unlikely that contaminants from activities on the amendment property and discharged from the site by stormwater could migrate to the Florida Cities water wellfield. The groundwater in the water table aquifer flows generally southwest, and the confining layer has low leakance values. Additionally, safety measures required for the development of the amendment property include the installation of monitoring wells and the requirement to use the best environmental management practices. The data and analysis includes panther sitings in the vicinity of the amendment property. There also is evidence that the amendment property is part of land that has been labeled as "Panther Priority 2." The significance of this label was not clear from the evidence. In any event, while part of the "Panther Priority 2" land, the amendment property clearly also is surrounded by uses not particularly suited for panthers. Currently, rock mining is occurring on property to the east and to the south of the amendment property. Rock mining on the amendment property itself also is allowed under its previous DRGR designation. The airport is immediately to the north, and both other AC property and I-75 are immediately to the west. In light of those developments, the "Panther Priority 2" designation does not make the amendment property unsuitable for AC designation. Need. The County has a legitimate need to diversify its economy so that it is not so dependent on tourism. It is the County's perogative to attempt to develop its regional airport into an international trade center. In view of the suitability of the amendment property for AC, and its projected role in furthering the County's plans to develop its regional airport into an international trade center, the amendment property should be viewed as a valuable economic resource in need of protection. It is appropriate, when trying to protect a resource, to plan for the needs of generations to come. If the amendment is not approved, there is a good chance that the land eventually will be used for a rock mine. Residential use in that location is incompatible with airport noise. A public gun range is a permissible use of DRGR property, but there are no plans for a public gun range on the amendment property, and such a use also would not be compatible so close to the airport and would be unlikely. Although agricultural use as pasture is possible, ultimate use of the property for pasture seems less likely than rock mining. As previously mentioned, the land immediately to the east of the subject parcel and to the south of the subject parcel is being utilized as rock pits. If the amendment property eventually is used for rock mining, the land would be excavated into what becomes deep lakes. In all likelihood, such a use would permanently preempt the land in question from being a commercial resource that could be utilized in conjunction with the airport. Of the 1400 acres of amendment property, approximately 800 acres are jurisdictional wetlands; only about 600 acres of uplands actually can be used for AC purposes. Meanwhile, approximately 173 acres of industrial land has been rezoned to other uses within Lee County between 1990 and the date of the hearing. Another 300 acres of AC are to be incorporated into the new airport expansion. But there was no data or analysis as to how much of those 473 acres consist of wetlands. Utilizing the 1984 Roberts methodology, the County has analyzed the need for industrial land in the County and has concluded that the addition of the amendment property is necessary to meet those requirements. However, as previously mentioned, it is not clear how the County's analysis was conducted or what the actual needs for industrial land in the County are. In addition, several mixed land use categories permit light industrial use but do not establish percentage distributions or other objective measurements of the distribution among the mixed uses within those categories. Taken as a whole the data and analysis does not establish that the AC amendment is necessary to meet the need for industrial land in the County. Adequate data and analysis to establish those needs is necessary to determine whether other land where industrial use is permitted should be redesignated if the AC amendment is to be adopted. As previously discussed, Lee County has much more land designated for commercial development than will be needed to accommodate the projected 2020 population. See Findings 58-68, above. In support of their position that the AC map amendment is needed in order to meet the demand for airport-related industrial and commercial development that will be generated by the expanding Southwest Florida International Airport, Lee County and Alico point out that international airports serve a larger area than a single County, and that a larger AC district near the Airport will serve the Southwest Florida region. With its new runway and larger terminal with new cargo handling facility, the Airport Authority intends, and the County would like to encourage, a large increase in airfreight handled by the Airport by 2020. Alico prepared a Response to DCA's ORC, which attempted to compare the acreage of approved, large-scale commercial and industrial development near the Orlando International Airport to the amount of acres proposed for Airport Commerce near the Southwest Florida International Airport. However, the Alico Response failed to take into account the amount of approved development near the Orlando Airport which is vacant. According to the Alico Response, the Orlando International Airport handled 233,587 tons of airfreight in 1994. Also according to the Alico Response, 7,152 acres of industrial and commercial development, including ten DRI's, are located near the Orlando Airport. The ten DRI's located near the Orlando Airport include 55,464,770 square feet of approved industrial and commercial development. But as of June of 1995, only 3,386,744 square feet of industrial and commercial development, or 6.11 percent of the approved industrial and commercial square footage, had been constructed. Applying the percentage of approved industrial and commercial in DRI's actually developed by 1995 (6.11 percent) to the acreage approved for industrial and commercial (7,152 acres), it can be determined that 440 acres of existing industrial and commercial development were supporting the 233,587 tons of airfreight handled by the Orlando Airport in 1994. Based upon the Orlando Airport experience, it would appear that each acre of industrial and commercial development near an airport supports 534.54 tons of airfreight each year. The Southwest International Airport projects that 196,110 tons of airfreight will be handled by the Airport by 2020. Dividing the projected 2020 tonnage by the 534.54 tons of airfreight per acre from the Orlando Airport experience, it would appear that the air freight activities projected for the Southwest Florida International Airport by the year 2020 will support only about 367 acres of AC. The Lee Plan FLUM already includes approximately 2800 acres of AC located to the northwest of the Airport. (It is not clear whether the 300 acres consumed by the runway expansion should be deducted from the 2850 acres of AC said to currently exist.) The existing AC district is essentially undeveloped. The AC which already exists to the northwest of the Airport is more than sufficient to support the airfreight which the Airport expects to handle by 2020. Zemel FLUM Amendment. Background. The Zemels own approximately 8600 acres of land in northwest Lee County. The 1990 Comprehensive Plan amendments which resulted from the settlement between Lee County and DCA, designated Zemel property as DRGR with a residential density of one unit per ten acres. The DRGR designation for the Zemel property was determined to be in compliance with the Growth Management Act. Zemel v. Lee County & DCA, 15 FALR 2735 (Fla. Dept. Comm. Aff. 1993), aff'd, 642 So. 2d 1367 (Fla.1st DCA 1994). Based in part on data and analysis which were not available at the time of adoption of the DRGR category, a circuit court determined that the Zemel property did not meet the criteria for inclusion in the DRGR category. The circuit court ordered that: The property is hereby restored to the Rural land use classification on the Future Land Use Map of the Lee Plan, including restoration of the subject property's density to 1 du/acre and use of the Planned Development District Option for the property. This action shall not preclude the County from amending its plan, including the 2010 Overlay, as it pertains to the Zemel property, pursuant to Chapter 163, Fla. Stat., subject to constitutional limita- tions and other requirements of law. Placement of Zemel Property in Open Lands Classification The 1994 EAR-based amendments changed the land use designation of the Zemel property to Open Lands. Open Lands is a new category created by the EAR- based amendments in Policy 1.4.4. The residential density allowed in the Open Lands category is one unit per ten acres, except a density of one unit per five acres is permitted if the planned development process is used to prevent adverse impacts on environmentally sensitive lands (as defined in Policy 77.1.1.4). (Commercial and industrial uses are permitted in the Open Lands category in accordance with the standards in the Rural category.) Of the 8,600 acres owned by Zemel, approximately 1,900 acres are wetlands and 6,700 acres are uplands. Lee County chose the Open Lands category for the Zemel property because it was the least intensive land use category available after the circuit court determined that the DRGR category was not appropriate, and because the County did not wish to exacerbate the overallocation of the FLUM. According to new Policy 1.4.4: Open Lands are upland areas that are located north of Rural and/or sparsely developed areas in Township 43 South. These areas are extremely remote from public services and are characterized by agricultural and low-density residential uses. It was not proven that the Zemel property does not meet the Policy 1.4.4 definition of Open Lands. The Zemel property clearly is in Township 43 South. It is north of areas that can be said to be "sparsely developed." The Zemel property clearly is characterized by agricultural use. Finally, although some of the Zemel property is not "extremely remote" from some public services, all of the Zemel property can be said to be "extremely remote" from at least some public services, and some of the Zemel property can be said to be "extremely remote" from all public services. Placement of the Zemel property in the Opens Lands category was based on adequate data and analysis. To the extent that data and analysis in the EAR may have been lacking, the evidence at final hearing included adequate data and analysis. Using the Figure 14 methodology, the County calculated that Open Lands category would accommodate 2,073 people, as compared to 8,293 people at the Rural density. However, assuming development of all of the Zemel property at the one du/ac standard density allowed by the Lee Plan for Rural, 14,003 people (1 du/ac x 6700 upland acres x 2.09 persons/unit) would be accommodated. In the case of the Zemel property, such an assumption would be less unrealistic than in many other parts of the County since it is a large, vacant tract. The evidence also was that the Zemel property is one of the few parcels of land in the County in which use of the PDDO is a realistic possibility. Assuming maximum densities under the PDDO, the Zemel property under the Rural designation could accommodate 84,018 people (6 du/ac x 6700 upland acres x 2.09 persons/unit). Under the Open Lands category, even at the maximum density allowed for planned developments, the Zemel property could accommodate only 2,801 people (1 du/5 ac x 6700 upland acres x 2.09 persons/unit). Dependence of Open Lands on Deletion of Overlay Section 10 of the Lee County Ordinance 94-30, which adopted the plan amendments in issue in this case, purported to defer, until after the conclusion of these proceedings, the decision as to which adopted plan amendments would become effective. Although all of the parties now agree that the attempted deferral of this decision was "ultra vires," the evidence was that one purpose of Section 10 of the ordinance was to insure that intended packages of amendments would remain together and either become effective together or not at all. Specifically, there was evidence that the amendments to the FLUM and to FLUE Policy 1.4.4, changing the land use designation of certain property to "Open Lands," was intended to remain together with the amendments which delete the FLUM 2010 Overlay, and to either become effective together or not at all. Otherwise, there would be no development authorized in property redesignated "Open Lands" because there was no land use category called "Open Lands" at the time of adoption of the 2010 overlay, and no express authorization for development of any kind in "Open Lands." Planning Timeframe. Clearly, the EAR-based Lee Plan amendments are intended to plan through the year 2020. The year 2020 was chosen for the amendments to enable the County to make use of the best available demographic projections being generated by the Metropolitan Planning Organization for that time frame. The Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element of the plan, as amended, retains Map 11. Map 11 depicts "Future Recreational Uses within Generalized Service Boundaries." It is the map that was generated in 1989 and used in the 1989 and subsequent plans for the year 2010. However, it was not proven that the map does not accurately depict "Future Recreational Uses within Generalized Service Boundaries" for the year 2020. The County concedes that the Community Facilities and Services Element of the plan, as amended, projects waste generation and recycling rates only from 1991 to 2015. The County contends that these projections are easily extrapolated to the year 2020, and no party disputes this. The County's response to the DCA's ORC report indicates that the Hurricane Shelter/Deficit analysis for the Conservation and Coastal Management Element is for shelter needs to the year 2000. However, the County cannot accurately project shelter needs much further in the future. The evidence is that the better practice is to plan for shorter periods of time and continually update the projections. This is what the County does. It was not proven that the County is planning for the wrong timeframe or that its plan is defective for that reason. Other alleged uses of the wrong planning timeframe actually arise from questions as to the allocation of land to meet the needs of the County through the year 2020. There is no question whether the County's intent is to plan for the year 2020. The dispute is whether land has been overallocated. Other Alleged Internal Inconsistency. Amended Objective 100.1 in the Housing Element uses data for the County, including municipalities, in projecting the number of housing units needed for the 2020 timeframe. It is true that EAR Figures 14, 14A and 14B, which analyze the FLUM, identify the number of units which may be accommodated for the unincorporated area. But EAR Figures 12 and 13, which also analyze the FLUM, are directed to the entire county, including municipalities. Besides, it is clear that the County understands its obligation is only to implement affordable housing with respect to the unincorporated county. Water Supply. The Regional Water Supply Master Plan (RWSMP) serves as supporting data for several amended policies in the Potable Water sub-element of the Community Facilities and Services Element. The purpose of the RWSMP was to ensure an adequate, reliable and cost-efficient supply of potable water to meet the current and future needs of Lee County to the Year 2030 and beyond, considering both economic and environmental factors. The County's reliance on implementation of the RWSMP for this purpose is justified. Preparation of the plan was a very complex undertaking. In preparing the population projections on which the Regional Water Supply Master Plan relies, the County's consultant attended the technical staff meetings of the individuals with the Metropolitan Planning Association (MPO) charged with preparing the MPO population projections. The MPO Countywide population projections utilized in the RWSMP were prepared by estimating the number of permanent residents and taking into account a number of other economic characteristics and social characteristics such as the number of children per household, historic and expected natural and State trends, and the degree to which these trends will affect the future of Lee County. The Lee Plan, as well as the Comprehensive Plans of the other governmental jurisdictions in Lee County, were utilized in preparing the RWSMP. It was a plainly spelled out requirement for preparation of the Master Plan that it had to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plans of the County and cities in Lee County. The MPO population projections are reasonably accurate, and they are the best available data for purposes of planning water supply. The MPO projections are preferable to the "maximum theoretical" population accommodation used in the DCA's residential allocation analysis. Regardless of the appropriate analysis for purposes of determining whether a plan overallocates land, it would not be appropriate to plan water supply based on unrealistic population projections. The RWSMP uses MPO 2020 population projections that are somewhat different from, but reasonably close, to the 2020 population projections reflected in Figure 14 and used to support the FLUE of the Lee Plan. The special purposes of the RWSMP projections justify the differences. Besides, the differences are not large enough to prove beyond fair debate that the plan is not internally consistent. Wetlands Protection. Prior to the County's adoption of the EAR-based amendments, Goal 84 in the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Lee Plan and its objectives and policies included guides for local land development regulations in the protection of wetlands by establishing allowable land uses and their densities, and by establishing design and performance standards for development in wetlands. The County modified Policy 84.1.2 (renumbered 84.1.1) in part by deleting a prohibition against the construction of ditches, canals, dikes, or additional drainage features in wetlands. Ditches, canals and dikes could be constructed in wetlands to have beneficial effects. For example, a ditch could be built to increase the hydroperiod of a wetland and result in a benefit. A dike could enhance a mitigation area, which would also result in environmental benefits. Thus, the repeal of this prohibition could benefit wetlands. The 1984 data and analysis contained in the EAR recommended that the prohibition be deleted and instead suggested the use of performance standards for the construction of ditches, canals, dikes, or other drainage features in wetlands. The EAR-based amendments to the Lee Plan do not include performance standards for the construction of ditches, canals, dikes, or other drainage features in wetlands. Instead, the County has modified Policy 84.1.1 (renumbered 84.1.2) in part by deleting the following language: Wetland regulations shall be designed to protect, conserve, restore, or preserve water resource systems and attendant biological functions, including: Preventing degradation of water quality and biological productivity. Preventing degradation of freshwater storage capabilities. Preventing damage to property and loss of life due to flooding. Preventing degradation of the viability and diversity of native plants and animals and their habitats. Assuring the conservation of irretrievable or irreversible resources. In place of those performance standards, the EAR-based Policy 84.1.2 provides: The county's wetlands protection regulations will be amended by 1995 to be consistent with the following: In accordance with F.S. 163.3184(6)(c), the county will not undertake an independent review of the impacts to wetlands resulting from development in wetlands that is specifically authorized by a DEP or SWFWMD dredge and fill permit or exemption. No development in wetlands regulated by the State of Florida will be permitted by Lee County without the appropriate state agency permit or authorization. Lee County shall incorporate the terms and conditions of state permits into county permits and shall prosecute violations of state regulations and permit conditions through its code enforcement procedures. Every reasonable effort shall be required to avoid or minimize adverse impacts on wet- lands through the clustering of development and other site planning techniques. On- or off-site mitigation shall only be permitted in accordance with applicable state standards. Mitigation banks and the issuance and use of mitigation bank credits shall be permitted to the extent authorized by applicable state agencies. As a part of the EAR-based amendments, the County also modified Policy 84.1.4 by deleting language that addressed permitted uses in wetlands and their densities, but that issue is now covered under renumbered Policy 84.1.1. The amendments added to Policy 84.1.4 the following provision: Land uses in uplands will be regulated through the implementation of the Land Development Code to avoid degrading the values and functions of adjoining and nearby wetlands. New Policies 84.1.2 and 84.1.4 in effect defer performance standards covering development in wetlands to the state and water management district permitting processes. The Lee amendments in part are an attempt to avoid duplicating what state agencies accomplish through their permitting programs. The evidence is that the state and water management district permitting processes include newly adopted Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) rules. These rules consider the type, value, function, size, condition and location of wetlands in determining how to protect them. The ERP rules also require proposed development to avoid or eliminate wetland impacts or, if not possible, to minimize and mitigate for them. The ERP rules also require consideration of the cumulative and long-term adverse impacts of development on wetlands in a comprehensive manner within the same water basin. The DEP and the Southwest Florida Water Management District also have adopted supplemental ERP rules covering only the jurisdiction of that water management district, which includes Lee County. By including a requirement that every state environmental permit shall be incorporated into county permits and that violations of a state permit also are violations of the county permit, the Lee Plan commits the County to assist the State in enforcing environmental permits in Lee County. Through this new emphasis on compliance and enforcement, Lee County will be providing valuable assistance to state environmental protection. Lee County's efforts will assist those agencies by devoting staff to compliance and enforcement efforts. Prior to the EAR-based amendments, the County had two wetland land use categories under the Lee Plan. These were described as the Resource Protection Areas (RPA) and Transition Zones (TZ). Guidelines and standards for permitted uses and development in the RPA and TZ were found in the policies under Objective 84.1 and 84.2, respectively. As a part of the EAR-based amendments, the County replaced the RPA and TZ categories with a single Wetlands category. This new Wetlands category includes all lands that are identified as wetlands under the statewide definition using the state delineation methodology. The County's definition of "wetlands" in the plan amendments covers more area than the areas previously known as "resource protection" and "transition zones." To that extent, the present amendments to the Lee Plan give greater protection to wetlands than the previous version of the Lee Plan. The Lee Plan, as amended, also contains other GOP's. Taken together, the GOP's ensure the protection of wetlands and their natural functions. Reservation of Future Road Right-of-Way. As a part of the EAR-based amendments, the County has deleted or amended certain policies in the Traffic Circulation Element of the Lee Plan regarding the acquisition and preservation of rights-of-way. Deleted Policy 25.1.3 provided that the County would attempt to reserve adequate rights-of-way for state and county roads consistent with state and county plans. The County also deleted Policy 21.1.7, which addressed the possibility of acquiring future rights-of-way through required dedications of land. Policy 21.1.7 provided: The previous policy encouraging the voluntary dedication of land for future right of way needs shall not be construed so as to prohibit the adoption of regulations requiring such dedication. However, any such regulations must provide for a rational nexus between the amount of land for which dedication is required and the impact of the development in question, and must also provide that such dedication, when combined with other means which may be used to offset the impact of development (such as, for example, the imposition of impact fees), does not exceed the total impact of the develop- ment in question upon the county's transportation network. The "previous policy encouraging the voluntary dedication of land for future right of way needs," referenced in Policy 21.1.7, above, was Policy 21.1.6, which has been renumbered 21.1.5. As modified, that policy provides: In order to acquire rights-of-way and complete the construction of all roads designated on the Traffic Circulation Plan Map, voluntary dedications of land and construction of road segments and inter- sections by developers shall be encouraged through relevant provisions in the development regulations and other ordinances as described below: Voluntary dedication of rights-of-way necessary for improvements shown on the Traffic Circulation Plan Map shall be encouraged at the time local development orders are granted. In cases where there are missing segments in the traffic circulation system, developers shall be encouraged to also construct that portion of the thoroughfare that lies within or abuts the development, with appropriate credits granted towards impact fees for roads. However, site-related improvements (see glossary) are not eligible for credits towards impact fees. Policy 21.1.7 provided policy guidance for LDRs in establishing required dedication of future rights-of-way as a means of acquisition, if the County chose to use that measure. Policy 21.1.6 (renumbered 21.1.5) provides policy guidance for LDRs in establishing voluntary dedication of future rights- of-way as another means of acquisition. By deleting Policy 21.1.7, the Lee Plan, as amended, is left with a policy that establishes only the voluntary dedication measure as a means towards acquiring future rights-of-way to facilitate the construction of roads designated on the Traffic Circulation Plan Map of the Lee Plan. The County has made these changes because legally it appears that reservation of future right-of-way may no longer be a viable option after the decision in Joint Ventures, Inc., v. Dept. of Transportation, 563 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 1990). The County's plan does more than just encourage voluntary dedication of rights-of-way. There are numerous policies in the Lee Plan that, taken together, adequately address the acquisition and preservation of rights-of-way. The following policies relate and achieve right-of-way protection: Policy 1.3, 1.6, 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 6.1.5, 16.3.5, 21.1.5, Objective 21.2, Policies 21.2.1, 21.2.3, 21.2.5, 21.2.6, 21.2.7, Policy 23.1.2, 23.1.4, 23.2.3, Policy 25.1.1, and 25.1.3. Under these policies, all new projects receive a review for voluntary dedication as against the Lee County official trafficways map and the facility need identified for the planning horizon of the future traffic circulation element and map. In addition, all new developments are required to mitigate off-site impacts through a payment of impact fees. They are also required to address and mitigate site-related impacts through the provision of site-related improvements at the developer's expense. Payment of impact fees and additional revenues generated through mitigation of site-related impacts, both generate revenues for the capital improvements programming process for purchase of rights-of-way. Accomplishing necessary site-related improvements pursuant to the Lee County program also frequently results in County acquisition of rights-of-way at the developer's expense. Mitigation of site-related impacts, as well as payment of proportional share and impact fees, are generally accomplished through Policy 1.8.3, Subsection 1, Policy 2.3.2, Objective 3.1, Policy 3.1.3, Policy 7.1.2, Policy 14.3.2, Objective 22.1, 23.1, and the policies thereunder, Policy 23.1.1, 23.1.3-.7, 23.2.6, Objective 24.2, Policy 25.1.2, Objective 28.2, and Policy 70.1.1, Subsection A-7. The County's primary method of acquisition of rights-of-way is through the Capital Improvements Element. The Capital Improvements Element does include projected costs to purchase needed rights-of-way. The Lee County Capital Improvements Program is accomplished through Goal 70 of the Lee Plan, which expressly includes acquisition of rights-of-way. Objective 77.3 - Wildlife. Before the EAR-based changes, Objective 77.3 of the Lee Plan was to: "Maintain and enhance the current complement of fish and wildlife diversity and distribution within Lee County for the benefit of a balanced ecological system . . .." In pertinent part, the EAR-based amendment deleted the phrase "current complement of." The change does not alter the meaning of the objective. The concept of a baseline expressed by the deleted phrase also is inherent in the words "[m]aintain and enhance" and remains in the amended objective. Policy 77.11.5 - Endangered and Threatened Species. The EAR-based amendments deleted Policy 77.11.5, which stated: Important black bear and Florida panther use areas shall be identified. Corridors for public acquisition purposes shall be identified within these use areas. The corridor boundaries shall include wetlands, upland buffers, and nearby vegetative communities which are particularly beneficial to the Florida panther and black bear (such as high palmetto and oak hammocks). Data and analysis supports the deletion of the first two sentences. The use areas and public acquisition corridors have been identified. To reflect the new data and analysis, Policies 77.11.1 and 77.11.2 also were amended to provide for updating of data on sitings and habitat for these species and to encourage state land acquisition programs. The last sentence of former Policy 77.11.5 has been transferred and added verbatim to Policy 77.11.2. Related Policy 77.11.4 was also amended to reflect new data and analysis and to provide that, instead of just encouraging the acquisition of the Flint Pen Strand, the County shall continue an acquisition that is in progress. The Adoption Ordinance. As mentioned in connection with the Zemel amendment, Section 10 of the Lee County Ordinance 94-30, which adopted the plan amendments in issue in this case, purported to defer, until after the conclusion of these proceedings, the decision as to which adopted plan amendments would become effective. All of the parties now agree that the attempted deferral of this decision was "ultra vires." All of the parties except for the Zemels agree that, under Section 8 of the ordinance, the "ultra vires" part of the adopting ordinance is severable from the rest of the ordinance, which remains valid. The Zemels take the positions (1) that the state circuit courts have exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether the remainder of the ordinance is valid and (2) that the remainder of the ordinance is invalid. Section 8 of Ordinance 94-30 provided: [I]t is the intention of the Board of County Commissioners . . . to confer the whole or any part of the powers herein provided. If any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be held unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, the decision of such court shall not affect or impair any remaining provision of this ordinance. It is hereby declared to be the legislative intent of the Board of County Commissioners that this ordinance would have been adopted had such unconstitutional provisions not been included therein. The evidence was that, notwithstanding Section 8 of Ordinance 94-30, one purpose of Section 10 of the ordinance was to insure that intended packages of amendments would remain together and either become effective together or not at all. As discussed in connection with the Zemel amendment, the evidence was that one such package consisted of the amendments to the FLUM and to FLUE Policy 1.4.4, changing the land use designation of certain property to "Open Lands," and the amendments which delete the FLUM 2010 Overlay. There also was some less compelling evidence that amendments creating the Commercial Site Location Standards Map, FLUM 16, were intended to remain together with the amendments which delete the FLUM 2010 Overlay. No other examples of similar "packages" of plan amendments was shown by the evidence or argued by any party. RGMC's Standing. The Responsible Growth Management Coalition, Inc. (RGMC), was formed in 1988 to insure compliance with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and F.A.C. Rule Chapter 9J-5 and to conserve resources. RGMC has offices in Lee County and conducts educational programs in Lee. In addition, at the time of the hearing, RGMC had 157 members residing throughout Lee County, most or all of whom own property in Lee County. RGMC participated in the process leading to the adoption of the Lee plan amendments in issue in this case and submitted oral or written comments, recommendations or suggestions between the transmittal hearing and adoption of the plan amendments.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Administration Commission enter a final order finding that the Lee Plan amendments are not in compliance and requiring as remedial action: That the FLUE's mixed land use categories be amended to include percentage distribution or other objective measurements of the distribution among allowed uses, whether by use of an appropriate 2020 Overlay or by other appropriate means. That a sector plan be adopted for Lehigh Acres, including appropriate plans for provision of infrastructure, to create more balanced development in Lehigh and, to the extent possible, to direct future population growth to Lehigh and away from CHHA, DRGR and other environmentally sensitive areas, and Open Lands and Rural land (especially rural lands not situated so as to be potential future urban infill or expansion), including important wildlife habitat. Such a sector plan could include minimum densities and target densities to support mass transit along transit corridors in Lehigh. That consideration be given to increasing densities in central urban areas and along transit corridors while at the same time reducing densities or adopting other plan provisions, such as the prohibition of certain kinds of development, to afford more protection to CHHA, DRGR and other environmentally sensitive areas, and Open Lands and Rural land (especially rural lands not situated so as to be potential future urban infill or expansion), including important wildlife habitat. One example would be the prohibition, or staging, of non-farm development in some or all rural areas. That, in accordance with Policy 75.1.4, undeveloped areas within CHHA be considered for reduced density categories (or assignment of minimum allowable densities where density ranges are permitted) in order to limit the future population exposed to coastal flooding. That the data and analysis supporting the remedial amendments account for units approved but not built and include both a population accommodation analysis based on maximum densities and an explanation of how the GOP's in the remedial amendments justify the resulting allocation ratio. That the remedial amendments include data and analysis of the impact of the resulting plan, as amended, on hurricane evacuation and clearance times and shelter planning, especially if, as part of remedial amendments, the 2010 Overlay is removed (or replaced). That the remedial amendments be based on data and analysis as to the need for commercial and industrial land, including the Alico amendment property. That the data and analysis extrapolate solid waste projections to 2020. That the sub-elements of the Community Facilities and Services Element (and other parts of the plan, as appropriate) be consistent with and based on data and analysis of future population predictions in light of any remedial amendments to the FLUE and FLUM. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of January, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-0098GM To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1995), as construed by the decision in Harbor Island Beach Club, Ltd., v. Dept. of Natural Resources, 476 So. 2d 1350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: DCA's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1-17. Accepted. 18. There is a legal issue whether Ordinance 94-30 was adopted validly; otherwise, accepted. 19.-28. Accepted. Conclusion of law. Rejected in part: plan includes "guides" (but no "objective measurements"); and Commercial Site Location Standards Map 16 implies that other uses are required elsewhere in the districts where these sites are located. Otherwise, accepted. Last sentence, rejected. (Assumptions are in part "based on" the GOP's, but they also assume less development than permitted by the GOP's.) Otherwise, accepted. Accepted. Characterization "conservative" rejected as argument; otherwise, accepted. 34.-35. Accepted. 36. Accepted as being theoretically possible, but not likely to happen. 37.-38. Accepted. 39. Accepted as approximation of maximum theoretical residential capacity. 40.-46. Accepted. (However, as to 45 and 46, these numbers do not take into account industrial land needed to serve municipal populations that probably cannot or will not be supplied within the cities themselves.) First sentence, conclusion of law. Second sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. (The plan is "based on" the population projections, but allocates more land than needed to accommodate the population.) First sentence, conclusion of law; second sentence, accepted. 49.-50. Conclusions of law. 51.-52. First sentence, conclusion of law; rest, accepted. 53. First sentence, conclusion of law; second and third sentences, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence; last sentence, accepted. 54.-55. First sentence, conclusion of law; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. 56. First sentence, conclusion of law; rest, accepted. 57.-58. First sentence, conclusion of law; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. First sentence, conclusion of law; second, accepted; third, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. First sentence, conclusion of law; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. First sentence, conclusion of law; second, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence; third, accepted (but does not prove non- compliance with the state plan.) First sentence, conclusion of law; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. 63.-64. Accepted. As to b.1. not timely raised; accepted as to b.2. (but easily extrapolated five more years to 2020); otherwise, rejected as not proven beyond fair debate. First two sentences of a. and b., accepted; otherwise, rejected as not proven beyond fair debate. (As to b., the discrepancies are not significant enough to create "internal inconsistency.") First sentence, rejected as not proven beyond fair debate; rest, accepted. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that deletion of the Overlay "accelerated development." (Rather, it allows--and, under certain conditions, would result it--development of more acreage sooner.) First sentence, accepted; rest, conclusion of law. First sentence, accepted; second, rejected as not proven beyond fair debate. First and third sentences, accepted; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (The population projections are easonably accurate and certainly more realistic than the "maximum theoretical" populations used in the DCA's residential allocation analysis.) Last sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (The RWSMP population projections are reasonably close to the Figure 14 projections. See also 66., above.) First sentence, accepted; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. See also 71., above. 74.-77. Accepted. 78. 2850 rejected as somewhat high (does not take into account some acreage removed from AC); otherwise, accepted. 79.-81. Accepted. 82.-83. Accepted. However, last sentences assume: (1) accurate inventory of developed acres in Orlando comparable to the land uses in AC under the Lee Plan; (2) 2850 acres of AC; and (3) developability of all AC acreage--including wetlands--for AC use. Those assumptions are not, or may not be, reasonable. 84. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. See 82.-83. 85.-87. Accepted. However, as to 87., it is noted that the words "area," "surrounded by," and "nearby" are imprecise. Accepted; however, the degree of the sandstone aquifer's "susceptibility" to impacts depends on many factors. Last sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that existing sources cannot produce any more; however, proven that new sources will be required, and otherwise accepted. Accepted. Last sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that groundwater moves "to" the existing and planned wellfields. Otherwise, accepted. First sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence; rest, accepted. Fourth sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence; rest, accepted. First sentence, accepted; second, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Accepted. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that the circuit court judgment was based entirely on new data and analysis; otherwise, accepted. 97.-98. Accepted. Characterization of methodology as "flawed" rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (It depends on the use being made of the results of the methodology.) Otherwise, accepted. Accepted. Last sentence, legal conclusion. (Legally, it appears that reservation of future right-of-way may no longer be a viable option, and the County's amendments presume that it is not.) Rest, accepted. 102.-105. Accepted. 106. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that voluntary dedication is not "effective" as one of several policies. Otherwise, accepted. 107.-108. Accepted. First sentence, accepted; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Accepted. First sentence, accepted; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Accepted. Second and third sentences, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that the state regulations are supposed to serve as "guidelines" or "guidance" for LDR's; rather, they are to serve in the place of duplicative County LDR's on the subject. Otherwise, accepted. Accepted. (However, appropriate comprehensive planning for wetlands occurs in other parts of the plan; the state regulations take the place of performance standards that would be duplicated in plan provisions and LDR's.) Last sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence and as conclusion of law. Rest, accepted. (However, state regulations apply to some uplands that adjoin or are near to wetlands.) First sentence, accepted. (They don't guide the establishment of design and performance standard kinds of LDR's for any development in any wetlands; the state regulations take the place of design and performance standards that would be duplicated in plan provisions and LDR's.) Second sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence (that they are the "core wetland policies in the plan.") Third sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence and as conclusion of law. RGMC's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-8. Accepted. 9. Conclusion of law. 10.-15. Subordinate; conclusion of law; argument. 16. Accepted but subordinate. 17.-18. Rejected as not supported by record evidence. 19.-35. Accepted. 35(a). Conclusion of law. 36.-40. Accepted. 40(a). Conclusion of law. 41. Accepted. 41(a). Conclusion of law. 42.-44. Accepted. Accepted; however, the option to consider assignment of the minimum of a range of densities is in parentheses after the primary option to consider reducing densities. Largely argument. The objective and policy is "triggered" by any plan amendment, before and after the change from "A Zone" to "CHHA." See 47. Accepted. 47(a). Rejected as not proven beyond fair debate. (It is a question of internal consistency.) Accepted. 48(a). Argument and recommended remediation. Accepted. 50.-59. County motion to strike granted. (Issue not raised timely.) 60.-62. Accepted. See rulings on DCA proposed findings. County motion to strike granted. (Issue not raised timely.) 65.-66. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (The population projections are reasonably accurate and certainly more realistic than the "maximum theoretical" populations used in the DCA's residential allocation analysis.) 67.-73(a) County motion to strike granted. (Issue not raised timely.) See rulings on DCA proposed findings. Accepted. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. 77.-78. 2800 rejected as somewhat high (does not take into account some acreage removed from AC); 1000 rejected as 400 low; otherwise, accepted. 79.-81(a). Accepted. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. 82(a). Accepted. Conclusion of law. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Accepted. Accepted but "between" is imprecise. Accepted, but not likely. Accepted that two are mutually exclusive; otherwise, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Rejected as not proven beyond fair debate. Accepted. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that the lands are "adjacent"; otherwise, accepted. 93.-94. Accepted. Rejected as not proven beyond fair debate. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Accepted. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. See rulings on DCA proposed findings. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that it is "the reasonable professionally acceptable methodology." Rejected as unclear and as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (Whether it is appropriate to apply a safety margin factor just to projected new growth can depend on the safety margin factor used and how far out the projection.) Rejected as unclear and as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Rejected as being hypothetical argument. (Also, the ratios do not convert to percentages, i.e., 25:1 does not convert to a safety margin factor of 25 percent.) 104.-111(a). Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that "overallocations" occur in the earlier years of the planning timeframe; the relevant inquiry relates to the planning horizon. Also, as to 111., the reference should be to the year 2020. (Also, again the ratios do not convert to percentages.) Otherwise, accepted. 112.-118. Accepted as being paraphrased from part of the Sheridan Final Order. 119.-128. Accepted as being the adjustments to Figure 14B to yield unrealistic "maximum theoretical" capacity. 129.-130. Conclusions of law. 131. Accepted. 132.-133. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (The plan does not "propose development"; its projections on which the County bases its facilities and services are more realistic that the "maximum theoretical" capacity projections.) Also, these specific issues were not timely raised, and County motion to strike granted. 134. Accepted. 135.-140. Descriptions of what the various FLUM's show and what development has occurred over the years, accepted as reasonably accurate. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that there were either official or unofficial "urban expansion lines." (It was not clear from the evidence whether the so-called "Proposed EAR Urban Boundary" shown on Lee Exhibit 53 was either an official or an unofficial "urban expansion line," and there was no other evidence of any "urban expansion lines.") Also, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that there was a "failure to maintain" them, or that the Southwest International Airport or the Westinghouse Gateway DRI "breached" the alleged "1988 urban expansion line." (The Westinghouse Gateway DRI was vested prior to 1984, and the regional airport development appears on FLUM's prior to 1988.) Also, development that occurred in earlier years is not particularly probative on the issues in this case (in particular, the amendment eliminating the Overlay). 141.-142. Accepted. 142(a). Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Also, the specific issue of failure to establish an "urban expansion line" is not raised by amendments at issue in this case (in particular, the elimination of the Overlay), and was not timely raised by any party. 143.-146. Densities in land use categories, accepted as reasonably accurate. The rest is rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. The plan provisions (or lack of them) in question have been determined to be in compliance. Primarily, with deletion of the Overlay, the amendments at issue open up for development in accordance with these plan provisions more acreage of non-urban land uses prior to 2010. They also do not extend the Overlay to 2020. 147.-150. Accepted. For the most part, the plan provisions (or lack of them) in question have been determined to be in compliance; however, failure of the plan to include objective measures for distribution of uses in mixed land use districts contributes to the overallocation without the Overlay. 150(a). Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence; also, conclusion of law. Conclusion of law. In part, accepted; in part conclusion of law. For the most part, the plan provisions (or lack of them) in question have been determined to be in compliance; however, failure of the plan to include objective measures for distribution of uses in mixed land use districts contributes to the overallocation without the Overlay. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence; also, conclusion of law. 154.-160. Accepted. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (It remains to be seen how effective they will be in the long term.) Accepted. For the most part, the plan provisions (or lack of them) in question have been determined to be in compliance; however, with deletion of the Overlay, the amendments at issue open up for development in accordance with these plan provisions more acreage in potential wildlife habitat and corridor areas prior to 2010. (They also do not extend the Overlay to 2020.) See rulings on DCA proposed findings. 164.-168. Rejected because issues not raised timely. 169. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence and as conclusion of law. 170.-174. County motion to strike granted. 175.-179. Accepted. 180.-182. Conclusions of law. 183.-184. Rejected as not proven beyond fair debate. 185. Accepted. 186.-188. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. 189. First clause, rejected (see 186.-188.); second clause, accepted. 190.-191. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. 192.-193. Rejected as not proven beyond fair debate. 194. Conclusion of law. 195.-196. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. 197.-198. Except for typographical errors, accepted. (However, the last sentence of former Policy 77.11.5 was transferred verbatim to amended Policy 77.11.2.) Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence to be the entire justification. (Also justified by updated data and analysis--namely, that the habitats have been identified and mapped--and by amended Policies 77.11.1 and 77.11.2, which respond to the new data and analysis.) Argument. 201.-204. Cumulative. (See 154.-157.) 205.-206. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. 207.-208. Accepted. Accepted (although not demonstrated by Lee Exhibit 49). Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted. Rejected as not clear from the evidence that the Zemel property is connected to and part of the Cecil Webb Wildlife Management Area. Otherwise, accepted. 213.-216. Accepted. 217.-218. Not an issue; but, if an issue, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence (which is not to say that it was proven that the land should be designated for higher densities, or that 1 unit per 5 acres or lower densities are not suitable.) 219.-222. Not an issue; but, if an issue, rejected as not proven beyond fair debate (which, again, is not to say that it was proven that the land should be designated for higher densities, or that 1 unit per 5 acres or lower densities are not suitable.) 223. Not an issue; but, if an issue, rejected. See 217.-222. Zemels' Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Accepted; however, relatively little of the Zemel property abuts either U.S. 41 or Burnt Store Road. 2-10. Accepted. Last clause rejected as not proven beyond fair debate; another option would be to amend the definition. Otherwise, accepted. Last clause, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that they are not "sparsely developed." Otherwise, accepted. 13.-15. Accepted. First sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence; otherwise, accepted. First sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence as to the south; otherwise, accepted but irrelevant to the application of the definition. Accepted; however, not proven by a preponderance of evidence that the Zemel property is not north of "sparsely developed areas." (Emphasis added.) Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Accepted. First sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Rest, accepted in large part and rejected in part as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Clearly, at least a good portion of the Zemel property is "extremely remote" from all existing public services. Some portions of the Zemel property are not "extremely remote" from some public services, but not proven by a preponderance of evidence that at least some public services are not "extremely remote" from all portions of the Zemel property. Also, in addition to existing public services, c) and e) also refer to future public services. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that no agricultural activities have been profitable (only that row crop farming has not); otherwise, accepted. Last sentence, not proven by a preponderance of evidence; otherwise, accepted. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence (as to second and third sentences, because of the existence of the Open Lands category.) Accepted (although there also are other data and analysis in the record). First sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (Not all of the statements are "conclusory".) Second, accepted. Third, rejected; see 21., above. 28.-29. Accepted. (However, as to 29., it refers to existing access.) First sentence, accepted. A. - rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that the analysis "fails to recognize" the roads in northern Cape Coral (although it clearly does not mention them); otherwise, accepted. B. - rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that the analysis "appears to ignore" the water line along U.S. 41 (although it clearly does not mention it); otherwise, accepted. C. - accepted; however, the "proximity" is to a point on the periphery of the property. Last sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Accepted. Second sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence except using the County's methodology. Otherwise, accepted. 33.-34. Accepted. Second sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (The County in effect "borrowed" the DCA's data and analysis.) Rest, accepted. Accepted, assuming the County's methodology; however, there also are other concerns. Accepted. First sentence, accepted; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. As to the second, there is rural land to the northwest; as to the third, there also is resource protection land in Charlotte County to the north, and the "enclave" is large; as to the fourth, no I-75 boundary would appear to apply to Township 43 even if it might appear to apply to the south. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (The analysis compares the costs and difficulty in Yucca Pen to Lehigh and Cape Coral; in terms of such a comparison, the differences are significant.) 40.-45. Accepted. County's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-2. Accepted. First sentence, accepted; second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; third, accepted (assuming "actual bona fide business" means a for-profit commercial enterprise.) Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the DCA "agreed with and relied on" the County's analysis. (The DCA utilized the analysis for purposes of its objection.) Otherwise, accepted. Accepted. First sentence, accepted. Second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the determination was "on a largely subjective basis" (although some determinations necessarily were at least partly subjective); otherwise, accepted. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the Overlay was designed "without policy considerations" or that historic growth trends were "simply extrapolated." (The policy considerations already in the plan were utilized, and an effort was made to predict growth in light of those policy considerations. It is true, however, that the Overlay was not designed to further direct growth patterns within the planning districts and subdistricts.) Accepted (but not particularly probative). 11.-14. Accepted. Rejected in part as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence to the extent that it implies that the impact of the plan was not taken into consideration in predicting future population. See 9., above. Otherwise, accepted. Firsts sentence, accepted. As to second and third, not clear from the evidence what if anything was submitted in the way of data and analysis for the remedial amendments. They were not introduced in evidence or referred to by any party. As to the last sentence, it is not clear from the evidence exactly how the 2.11 factor was derived or whether it took into account the 2010 population accommodation for Lehigh (282,000 people in this analysis). (T. 1267-1269.) If the 507,000 units of accommodation did not include Lehigh, the total accommodation of 1.06 million also could not have included Lehigh. Accepted. First three sentences, argument. Rest, accepted. 19.-20. Accepted. 21. Rejected as unclear what "that allocation" refers to. (Accepted if it means "up to 125 percent"; rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence if it means "200 percent.") 22.-23. Accepted. First sentence, accepted; second, conclusion of law. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; second, accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Subordinate. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (In addition, a more meaningful comparison would be between the adopted EAR 2020 plan without a 2010 Overlay and a 2020 plan with an overlay extending the 2010 Overlay out another ten years.) Last sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rest, accepted (as accurate recitation of testimony) but subordinate to facts contrary to those found. 30.-32. Accepted. Conclusion of law. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (As to first sentence, see Sheridan Final Order.) Accepted. First and last sentences, accepted. Rest, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Such an approach would direct population to Lehigh, which might be the best thing to do. (At this point in time, development of Lehigh under a good Sector Plan might be able to change what was classic urban sprawl under past conditions into well-planned growth under present and future conditions.) It might also direct population to other, non- urban areas if densities were not low enough in them. Finally, Nelson suggested other ways of bring the plan into compliance without the Overlay. 38.-42. Accepted. First sentence, accepted; second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The County did not seek to "match the available land to meet that growth"; rather, it checked to see if what was on the FLUM would "accommodate" (i.e., hold) the population projected for 2020. Last sentence, rejected in that RGMC challenged the opinion in its response to this proposed finding; otherwise, accepted. Rejected that the County "cannot alter the future development" of Lehigh or that Lehigh is "beyond the reach of" the comprehensive plan; otherwise, accepted. The 199 acres is part of the 685 acre total. Otherwise, generally accepted. However, significant additional growth can be expected in coastal areas, and there is rural land both within and outside the so-called "I-75, U.S. 41 corridor"; presumably, the existence of this land is the reason the finding is couched in the terms: "the remaining area . . . is largely . . . along the I-75, U.S. 41 corridor"; and "all future growth . . . will predominantly occur." First and third sentences, conclusion of law; second, accepted. Conclusion of law. First sentence, accepted but subordinate; also, the rule citation is incorrect; in addition, they testified to the effect of removing the Overlay. Second sentence, conclusion of law. Accepted. (The effect of the Overlay is in the extent of the indicators that exist.) Accepted. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; second, accepted; third, conclusion of law; fourth, accepted. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; second, accepted. First sentence, accepted; second, conclusion of law. First sentence, accepted. Second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that it is "clear"; also, conclusion of law. 58.-60. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (The same conditions exist without the Overlay.) Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted. First sentence, rejected; second, accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the Overlay did not have any "true policy bias or consideration built into it"; otherwise, accepted. Accepted. (However, the same conditions exist without the Overlay.) 68.-71. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that "removing Cape Coral . . . reduces the FLUM capacity"; rather, it represents a change in the methodology of evaluating the FLUM capacity. Otherwise, accepted. Accepted. 74.-78. Accepted. However, it appears that the County's treatment of Lehigh essentially was a device to enable it to have the projected population in the year 2020 treated as if it were the capacity of Lehigh in the year 2020. 79.-81. First sentence of 79, unclear; rest, accepted. However, only certain retail commercial are restricted to the locations on Map 16; others can go either there or elsewhere. 82.-85. Conclusion of law. First sentence, conclusion of law; rest, accepted. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the ELUM "represents the growth trends" (rather, it shows what is there now) or that, except for Lehigh, growth only "is occurring in the north/south core." Otherwise, accepted. Accepted. First and last sentences, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. ("Barrier" is too strong; "obstacle" or "hindrance" would be accepted.) Otherwise, accepted. 91.-95. Generally, accepted. Conclusion of law. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and as conclusion of law that they are "objective measures" and "responsive to . . . 5(c)"; otherwise, accepted. Accepted. First sentence, accepted; second, accepted (although some higher, urban densities are in coastal areas, and there remains some rural land in the so-called "north/south core"); third, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that a "large impact" is "clear"; fourth, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the "segmentation" is absolute but otherwise accepted. Except for Lehigh, generally accepted. (What is missing are "objective measures.") Generally, accepted. First sentence, conclusion of law; second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that it is "nearly identical." Third sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that it necessarily is not excessive. The evidence was that it is not necessarily excessive, but it could be depending on many factors, including whether it was calculated based on total capacity on the planning horizon or incremental growth during the planning timeframe, and the length of the planning horizon. Otherwise, accepted. First two sentences, accepted; last two, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 107.-108. Accepted. 109. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; second, accepted. 110.-117. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The effect of removing the Overlay is to allow more development sooner throughout the County. The effect of the increased development would depend on how it occurs. As to 116 and 117, one purpose of the Overlay was to require a mix of uses in mixed land use districts. First sentence, rejected. See 110-117, above. Rest, accepted. Cumulative. Last sentence, subordinate argument; except for apparent typographical error in third sentence, rest accepted. Last sentence, rejected as unclear from the evidence why there has been no agricultural use; otherwise, accepted. Accepted. Last sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. ("Significance" depends on other factors as well, including the amount of acreage in other mixed land use categories that allow light industrial.) Assuming that the "127 additional acres" refers to uplands, the rest is accepted. 124.-125. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and, in part, conclusion of law. There was no evidence of any serious risk of a taking. If these were legitimate reasons to redesignate the Alico property AC, it would be questionable if any DRGR would survive. First sentence, accepted (assuming the County's efforts are otherwise "in compliance"; second, subordinate argument; third, cumulative. Accepted. (However, the County's analysis does not include acreage in other mixed land use categories that allow light industrial.) First four sentences, accepted but irrelevant; penultimate, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that it is "safe to assume"; last sentence, accepted. First two sentences, accepted; third, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that mining would "permanently preempt" commercial use, but accepted that subsequent commercial use would be much less likely; fourth sentence, accepted (except for typos); last sentence, accepted. Second sentence, rejected as not clear that it "won't be available," but accepted that it may not, depending on when it is "needed." Rest, accepted. First sentence, subordinate argument; second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that it is "clear" but accepted that it probably "will not pose a significant threat"; third and fourth, accepted; fifth, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that there is no recharge, but accepted that recharge is not better than average; rest, accepted. Accepted (with the understanding that the last sentence refers to surface water runoff). First sentence, accepted; second and third, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the Gulf Utilities-San Carlos wellfield is the only wellfield in the water table aquifer (otherwise, the third sentence is accepted). 134.-136. Accepted. Accepted. Last sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (There also were other internal consistency issues concerning the date.) Otherwise, accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 140.-141. Accepted. 142. Irrelevant; issue not timely raised. 143.-144. Accepted. First sentence, accepted (in that DCA and RGMC did not prove internal inconsistency beyond fair debate); second, third and fourth sentences, accepted (but do not rule out the possibility of impacts from removal of the Overlay); rest, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted (but do not rule out the possibility of impacts from removal of the Overlay). 147.-149. Accepted. First two sentences, argument; third, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; last, accepted. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that a reduction in densities is not necessarily positive; rest, accepted. 152.-155. Accepted. First sentence, accepted (assuming it refers to the deleted first sentence of former Policy 84.1.2, now 84.1.1); second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence since its context requires the opposite interpretation. Accepted. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the report "specifically recommends the amendment . . . in the fashion that Lee County has done." Otherwise, accepted. 159.-160. Accepted (159, based on the plan language and Joyce testimony, as well as the Deadman testimony.) First sentence, accepted; second, conclusion of law. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; conclusion of law; subordinate. Accepted; subordinate. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the circuit court judgment was based entirely on new data and analysis; otherwise, accepted. 166.-169. Accepted. Conclusion of law. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (Use of the "allocation ratio" is being determined in this case.) Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence to the extent that the Sheridan Final Order can be said to be a DCA "publication." Otherwise, accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that Joint Exhibit 17 gives some indication of how to apply an "allocation ratio"; accepted that Joint Exhibit 17 does not fully explain how to apply the "allocation ratio." Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence to the extent that the Sheridan Final Order constitutes such evidence. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Atlantic Gulf's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-3. Accepted. 4. Accepted (but do not rule out the possibility of impacts from removal of the Overlay). 5.-7. Accepted. 8.-10. In part conclusions of law; otherwise, accepted. (The incorporation of the DEP and SWFWMD permitting requirements only replaces former County permitting requirements; other parts of the amended plan's provisions relating to wetlands protection remain in effect.) Alico's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-13. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that the phrase "substantial recharge to aquifers most suitable for future wellfield development" may distinguish DRGR-suitable land from other land by the nature of the aquifer it recharges, not by the relative amounts of recharge. However, the suitability of the AC amendment property for DRGR is questionable, and redesignation to AC is not prohibited. First sentence, accepted; second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that it is in the "area" of "most favorable locations for physical withdrawal of water from those aquifers." However, the suitability of the AC amendment property for DRGR is questionable, and redesignation to AC is not prohibited. 16.-19. Accepted. Accepted (assuming it refers to the DCA submitting); subordinate. Accepted. 22.-24. Subordinate argument and conclusion of law. 25.-34. Accepted. 35.-36. Accepted; subordinate. Last sentence, accepted; rest, subordinate argument and conclusion of law. Accepted (except, in s. and u., it should read "Six Mile Cypress Basin.") Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the list is not exhaustive ; otherwise, accepted. 40.-41. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that Policy 7.1.1 just says applications are to be "reviewed and evaluated as to" these items; it does not say that "negative impacts" must be "avoided." Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that Goal 12 and Standard 12.4 under it are renumbered under the current amendments as Goal 11 and Standard 11.4; otherwise, accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that former Standard 14.1 has been transferred to Policy 7.1.1. under the current amendments. See 40 and 42, above. Accepted. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that former designation as DRGR is the only reason why water quality and quantity issues arise; second, cumulative. Cumulative. First two sentences, cumulative; rest, accepted. First two sentences, accepted; rest, cumulative. First sentence, unclear which fact is "in dispute"; rest, accepted. (The AC amendment property probably would not be developed as a producing wellfield.) First sentence, accepted; second, cumulative. First two clauses of first sentence, accepted; rest, conclusion of law. First sentence, cumulative; rest, accepted. First sentence, accepted; second, conclusion of law. 55.-56. Cumulative. 57.-59. Accepted. First two sentences, accepted; rest, cumulative. Accepted. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; second, third and fourth sentences, accepted; rest, cumulative. First sentence, argument; rest, accepted. Accepted. 65.-66. In part, cumulative; otherwise, accepted. 67.-70. Accepted. First sentence, argument; middle sentences, accepted; penultimate sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that he made no blanket concession, instead conditioning interception on water table levels; last sentence, accepted. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence (that there's no "realistic way" "you" can do it); rest, accepted. 73.-74. Cumulative. Accepted. Cumulative. Accepted; subordinate and unnecessary. Cumulative. Beginning, cumulative; last sentence, subordinate argument. First sentence, accepted; second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that the influence of additional pumping has not been analyzed; last, accepted. Accepted. First two sentences, conclusion of law; last, accepted. Subordinate argument. First sentence, conclusion of law; second, accepted; third, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that the "performance standards" say to maintain current protection and expand protection "to encompass the entire area." Accepted. (However, it is far from clear that the BMP's referred to in Policy 1.2.2 are the same ones referred to in this proposed finding.) Accepted. 87.-88. Subordinate argument. Cumulative or subordinate argument. Unclear what is meant by "several generations of numbers." Otherwise, cumulative. Cumulative. Accepted but subordinate. Accepted. (However, he also raised the question that the County's analysis did not include acreage in other mixed land use categories that allow light industrial.) 94.-95. Accepted. First sentence, subordinate argument; second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that they conceded need is not based exclusively on resident and seasonal population, not that it is not based at all on it; third, accepted. First sentence, accepted; rest, subordinate argument. Accepted. Accepted. (Nor was there testimony that there is a need based on population.) Accepted. First sentence, accepted; second, conclusion of law, cumulative, and rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that there was evidence of other motivations for providing the information as well. Accepted. (However, the analysis was limited to Orlando, and Nelson's method resulted in no need found.) Subordinate argument; cumulative. Subordinate argument. Accepted. (As to third sentence, neither did any other witness.) 106.-107. Accepted. Last sentence, subordinate argument; penultimate, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence (or, at least, unclear); rest accepted. Cumulative. 110.-113. Accepted. Cumulative. First sentence, conclusion of law; second, accepted as an excerpt from the dictionary, but argument and conclusion of law that it is the "plain meaning" of the word "need," as used in 9J-5. (Also, citation to Joint Exhibit 11, p. 9, is not understood.) Argument and cumulative. 117.-118. Accepted. 119.-120. Conclusion of law, argument and cumulative. 121. Last sentence, accepted. (It is not clear from the evidence that the designation of the property as "Panther Priority 2" on Lee Exhibit 42, introduced by RGMC, means that the County has identified it as being "in need of conservation.") Rest, conclusion of law, argument and cumulative. 122.-126. Conclusion of law and cumulative. To the extent that accepted proposed findings are not essentially incorporated into the Findings of Fact of this Recommended Order, they were considered to be either subordinate or otherwise unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: David Jordan, Esquire Deputy General Counsel Bridgette Ffolkes, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Timothy Jones, Esquire Thomas L. Wright, Esquire Assistant County Attorney Post Office Box 398 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-0398 Thomas W. Reese, Esquire 2951 61st Avenue So. St. Petersburg, Florida 33712 Elizabeth C. Bowman, Esquire Connie C. Durrence, Esquire Hopping Boyd Green & Sams 123 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Russell P. Schropp, Esquire Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt Post Office Box 280 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Charles J. Basinait, Esquire Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt Post Office Box 280 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Kenneth G. Oertel, Esquire Scott Shirley, Esquire Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez & Cole, P.A. Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Neale Montgomery, Esquire Pavese, Garner, Haverfield, Dalton, Harrison & Jensen Post Office Drawer 1507 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Steven C. Hartsell, Esquire Pavese, Garner, Haverfield, Dalton, Harrison & Jensen Post Office Drawer 1507 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Thomas B. Hart, Esquire Humphrey & Knott, P.A. 1625 Hendry Street, Suite 301 Post Office Box 2449 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-2449 Michael J. Ciccarone, Esquire Goldberg, Goldstein, & Buckley, P.A. Post Office Box 2366 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Greg Smith, Esquire Governor's Legal Office The Capitol - Room 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Barbara Leighty, Clerk Growth Management and Strategic Planning Administration Commission The Capitol - Room 2105 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the small-scale comprehensive plan amendment adopted by the Town of Pomona Park (Town) through enactment of Ordinance No. 01-7 (the Plan Amendment) is "in compliance," as defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2001).
Findings Of Fact The Town's current Future Land Use Map (FLUM) (Exhibit H) depicts the subject parcel and Petitioner's adjoining parcel as fronting on the western shore of Lake Broward and being within a primarily residential land use area that encompasses most of the Town's land area lying west of Lake Broward and northeast of Highway 17. The parcels immediately to the north and south of the subject parcel and Petitioner's adjoining parcel are in Low Density Residential future land use, which allows densities up to two units per acre; the lake is to the east. The eastern five acres of the 13-acre subject parcel, including the lake frontage, were not included in the amendment; only the western eight acres were changed to Agricultural land use, which allows densities up to one unit per five acres (unless occupied only by the owner's family members, in which case densities up to one unit per acre are allowed). The property owner, Town Council member Barry Fouts, had previously requested to have the entire 13-acre parcel changed to Agricultural land use but withdrew that request. Fouts testified that, in requesting the same change for only eight acres of his parcel, he took into consideration that keeping the request under 10 acres would avoid review by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). Several parcels near the Fouts parcel, including some of the parcels across the street to the west, are designated for Agricultural future land use. However, those parcels across the street to the west of the subject parcel are actually being used for residential rather than agricultural purposes. The nearest parcel that might be considered to be in actual use for agricultural purposes is a horse farm located approximately one quarter mile to the north. However, the present Town Clerk testified in her capacity as Town zoning officer that a horse farm (or an exotic bird breeding operation) is not to be considered an agricultural use because the animals are not being raised for human consumption. Fouts has voluntarily provided some visual buffering along his property line, but there is no requirement in the Plan Amendment that it be maintained in the future, nor would visual screening be particularly effective in protecting nearby Residential properties against noises and odors produced by some common types of agricultural livestock. The Plan Amendment was not initiated by the Town; rather, it was requested by the subject parcel's owner, Barry Fouts, whose request for a change in land use stated that his purpose was to bring his "established agricultural activities, which include horse and bird breeding" into conformity with "Putnam County [sic] zoning recommendations." Fouts gave no other reasons for wanting the change. The former Town Clerk (and zoning officer) testified that there were no restrictions on keeping any type or number of animals in Residential future land use, that Fouts could engage in horse and bird breeding without changing the future land use or zoning, and that there was no need for the land use change. No survey, study, or analysis of the Plan Amendment is reflected anywhere in the Town's files relating to the Plan Amendment, and it is found that there were none. When the Plan Amendment was presented to the Town Council for consideration, all that the former Town Clerk and present Town Clerk presented to the Town Council was a one-page note prepared by the former Town Clerk relating Fouts' desire to continue with his agricultural activities, including horse and bird breeding. At final hearing (with the assistance of leading questions on cross-examination by the Town's attorney), the present Town Clerk and former Town Clerk testified that, notwithstanding the absence of any written survey, study, or analysis, they made a site visit and recalled reviewing the Plan Amendment in relation to the Town's Comprehensive Plan, including the FLUM, as well as analyzing and considering the need for more agricultural land use within the Town's municipal boundaries and the desirability of keeping residential development and septic tanks away from the lake, in arriving at a recommendation to approve the land use change. Regardless whether any such analyses actually occurred by the time of adoption of the Plan Amendment, they clearly were presented as part of the evidence at final hearing. The analysis presented at final hearing that the Town's Comprehensive Plan calls for more land area to be designated for Agricultural future land use was based on an erroneous reading of the Comprehensive Plan adopted by the Town in 1991. The analysis presumed that, under the plan, 1220.3 acres of agricultural land use was "desired" (compared to less that 600 acres in actual agricultural use in 2001). This presumption was based on parenthetical references to 1220.3 acres next to the word "Agricultural" in two places in the plan. But it is clear from a fair reading of the plan that, in designating Agricultural future land use, the plan transferred all 648.6 acres in the "Vacant or Undeveloped" existing land use category to the Agricultural future land use category "for lack of a better land use designation," in addition to the 571.7 acres of existing agricultural land use, for a total of 1220.3 acres. (Other future land use designations mirrored 1991 existing land use.) There was no intention to indicate a need for 1220 acres of agricultural land use in the Town. To the contrary, the plan projected a need for 170 additional housing units through 2001 and stated that "[m]ost of the Town's . . . agricultural and vacant/undeveloped land is suitable for development." Consistent with that, the evidence showed that in the vicinity of the subject parcel most if not all of the parcels designated for Agricultural land use are actually being used for residential purposes and not for agriculture. If anything, it would seem that in 1991 the Comprehensive Plan anticipated a need to designate more acreage for Residential future land use and less for Agricultural. Even if the Comprehensive Plan reflected a perceived need for 1220 acres of actual agricultural use, 1220 acres already is designated for Agricultural future land use, and no reason was given for designating additional acreage for the category. Finally, this part of the Town's analysis makes no sense in light of the undisputed testimony of the Town Clerk, as zoning officer, that "agricultural use" consists of the raising of plants or animals for human consumption. The evidence was clear that the horses, cows, and exotic birds on the Fouts property are not for human consumption. It was not clear from the evidence what the 15-20 chickens on the Fouts property are used for. The analysis that the Plan Amendment was to protect Lake Broward from septic tanks associated with residential land use also is shallow and faulty. While it is true that allowable development densities are lower in the Agricultural future land use category, the five acres of the Fouts parcel that were nearest the lake were not included in the amendment but remained in Residential future land use. Second, the present Town Clerk testified that there never have been any negative effects on the lake from septic tanks, which are regulated, whereas she had no way of knowing whether the unregulated effects of agricultural runoff might be worse than any effects from septic tanks. Objective A.1.1 provides that the Town "shall coordinate future land uses with . . . adjacent land uses, . . . through implementing the following policies . . ..". In this case, the immediately adjacent land uses are designated on the FLUM as Residential, and most if not all of the nearby parcels that are designated Agricultural are actually being used for residential purposes. But Petitioner did not allege that the Plan Amendment was inconsistent with any of the policies listed under Objective A.1.1, and the evidence did not prove any such inconsistencies. Policy A.1.3.2 requires that the Town's Subdivision and Zoning Code shall require buffering and separation between land uses of different densities or intensities of use sufficient to ensure compatibility between uses and also requires the elimination of non-conforming land uses. In this case, the Plan Amendment did not provide for separation or buffering between the newly designated Agricultural future land use and the directly adjoining Residential properties, but neither did it have any effect on the Policy requiring the Town's Subdivision and Zoning Code to require such buffering and separation. Policy A.1.9.3.C.1 provides in pertinent part: "Residential land use is intended to be used primarily for housing and shall be protected from intrusion by land uses that are incompatible with residential density." The Plan Amendment intrudes a small area of Agricultural future land use into an area that is primarily designated for Residential land use and that is in actuality almost exclusively used for residential purposes. The sounds and smells associated with at least some types of agricultural activity, such as the pasturing and raising of livestock and poultry, are capable of adversely affecting nearby residents and are incompatible with residential land use. Policy A.1.9.3.C.4 provides in pertinent part: "Agricultural land is intended to be used primarily for pasture, grove operations or silviculture with possibly some row crops." In this case, the evidence shows that the primary purpose of the Plan Amendment was to allow the landowner to breed horses and operate an exotic bird breeding facility. The Town Clerk, as zoning officer, has taken the position that those activities do not fit within the definition of agriculture. But the Plan Amendment itself is not inconsistent with this Policy.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a final order finding that the Town's small-scale amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 01-7 is not "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of June, 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 18th day of June, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: James L. Padgett, Esquire 3 North Summit Street Crescent City, Florida 32112-2505 Michael W. Woodward, Esquire Keyser & Woodward, P.A. Post Office Box 92 Interlachen, Florida 32148-0092 Barbara Leighty, Clerk Growth Management and Strategic Planning The Capitol, Room 1801 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Charles Canaday, General Counsel Office of the Governor The Capitol, Suite 209 Tallahassee, Florida 323999-0001 Cari L. Roth, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
The Issue The issue is whether a change on the Land Use Plan (LUP) map of Respondent, Miami-Dade County (County), adopted by Ordinance No. 09-28 on May 6, 2009, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: The Parties The County is a charter government that administers the Comprehensive Development Master Plan (Plan), a broad-based countywide policy-planning document to guide future growth and development. See County Exhibit 1. The LUP is a component of the Plan and contains the various land use designations. The County adopted the Ordinance which approved the change in the LUP that is being challenged here. The Department is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing plan amendments of local governments, such as the County. Blue Lake is a small, family-owned corporation that has owned the subject property since 1966. It submitted oral and written comments to the County during the adoption process. Flagler Retail Associates, Ltd., owns and operates a retail shopping center, Park Hill Plaza, located at 9501 West Flagler Street, around one-half mile from Blue Lake's property. It submitted comments and objections to the plan amendment during the adoption process. Flagler, S.C., LLC, owns and operates a retail shopping center, Flagler Park Plaza, at 8221 West Flagler Street, which is approximately 1.8 miles from the subject property. It also submitted comments and objections to the plan amendment during the adoption process. SC Mota Associates, Ltd., owns and operates a retail shopping center, the Mall of Americas, located at 7757 West Flagler Street, which is approximately 25 blocks from Blue Lake's property. It submitted comments and objections to the plan amendment during the adoption process. History of the Amendment A mobile home park with around 275 units occupied the property from 1957 until June 2007, when Blue Lake closed the park. At the time of the hearing, the mobile home park was around 80 percent demolished and cleared out. The property is currently listed for sale by its owners. The property is located within the County's Urban Development Boundary at the northeast corner of West Flagler Street, a six-lane divided arterial roadway running in an east- west direction and designated as a major roadway, and Northwest 102nd Avenue (also known as West Park Drive). The southwest corner of the property borders the City of Sweetwater and a small shopping center. Directly to the west of the property and across West Park Drive is a part of the Florida International University campus. To the east are the campuses of a public middle school and elementary school, while a large, single- family residential area lies to the south. Directly north of the property (and just south of State Road 836, also known as the Dolphin Expressway) is the western portion of a large multi- family residential complex (formerly a golf course) identified in the record as the Fountainbleau Park area, which stretches across Northwest 97th Avenue to the east. The County has two cycles per year for applicants to file amendments to the Plan, which may be text amendments having countywide application, or site-specific LUP map amendments having localized impact. In the April 2008 cycle, nineteen applications were filed with the County, including Blue Lake's Application No. 9. The application was filed by Gold River Corporation, which had a contract to purchase the property from Blue Lake contingent on a land use change. Gold River Corporation later assigned the contract to Blue Lake Partners, LLC, an entity unrelated to Blue Lake. The contract to purchase later "fell through" for unknown reasons. Blue Lake is now pursuing the land use change on its own behalf. Application No. 9 requested that the County amend the LUP map by changing the land use designation on a 41-acre parcel from Low-Medium Density Residential Communities to Business and Office. The former land use allows between six and thirteen dwelling units per gross acre and could be fully developed with as few as 244 residential units or as many as 533. The new land use allows both residential and commercial development, including a wide range of commercial uses such as retail, professional services, and offices. If developed to its maximum residential potential, the new category could accommodate more than 2,200 units. If developed to its maximum commercial potential, the new use would allow more than 679,000 square feet of commercial floor space. A Declaration of Restrictions is a tool permitted by the Plan to craft "a more refined amendment" that can take into consideration more than just a change in the land use of a parcel of property. See County Exhibit 1 at I-74.1. Restrictions are considered an adopted part of the Plan. Id. They can provide greater restrictions on a parcel, delineate the property's uses, and make the amendment more consistent with the Plan than it might otherwise be. In July 2008, Blue Lake offered a first Declaration of Restrictions that would prohibit residential development on the property on the premise that the change would satisfy a deficiency in land designated for commercial development. See County Exhibit 60. Land Use Element Policy LU-8E provides that applications requesting amendments to the LUP map shall be evaluated to consider consistency with the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of all Plan Elements, other timely issues, and in particular the extent to which the proposal, if approved, would: Satisfy a deficiency in the Plan map to accommodate projected population or economic growth of the County; [and] Enhance or impede provision of services at or above adopted LOS Standards; [and] Be compatible with abutting and nearby land uses and protect the character of established neighborhoods; and Enhance or degrade environmental or historical resources, features or systems of County significance; and If located in a planned Urban Center, or within 1/4 mile of an existing or planned transit station, exclusive busway stop, transit center, or standard or express bus stop served by peak period headways of 20 or fewer minutes, would be a use that promotes transit ridership and pedestrianism as indicated in the policies under Objective LU-7, herein. County Exhibit 1 at I-17-18. The various factors in the Policy are weighed and balanced when considering a map change. However, paragraph (i) is considered by the County to be the "primary," or at the very least an "important," factor when reviewing map changes since the County must ensure that there is enough land for different types of uses to accommodate the projected growth within the County. In fact, a County witness could recall no more than one or two instances over the last thirty years where the County had approved a LUP map change when the staff had determined that there was a lack of need under this provision. Under the County's plan amendment review process, an application for a change in the LUP map is first reviewed by the Department of Planning and Zoning staff, then the applicable community council, next by the Planning Advisory Board, and finally by the Board of County Commissioners. Community councils are elected bodies from thirteen different geographic areas of the County that act as a planning board for making recommendations on amendments that affect their jurisdiction. A needs analysis determines the availability of commercial land in a given area relative to the availability of residential land. Consistent with its past practice of performing a supply and demand analysis under paragraph (i) of Policy LU-8E, the Department of Planning and Zoning staff looked at need within two minor statistical areas (MSAs). An MSA is one of 32 geographical subareas into which the County has been subdivided for the purpose of collecting and inventorying data on the supply and demand for different land uses and for disaggregating the County's population into subareas. On very infrequent occasions, the staff has used a "tier," which is an aggregation or collection of several MSAs, rather than a single MSA. Another geographic area known as a census tract, which is much smaller than an MSA, is also allowed by the Plan. See Land Use Element Policy LU-8F ("the adequacy of land supplies . . . for business and office uses shall be determined on the basis of localized subarea geography such as Census Tracts, [MSAs] and combinations thereof"). As noted below, however, the County has never used a census tract and considers them to be "inappropriate" for a needs analysis in a case such as this. Because the Blue Lake property is located within MSA 3.2 and borders on MSA 5.4, the staff conducted a supply and demand analysis in those two MSAs. After completing its review, on August 25, 2008, the staff recommended that the application be denied, mainly on the ground the amendment was inconsistent with Policy LU-8E(i). See County Exhibit 60 and Blue Lake Exhibit 24. Specifically, based on its review of MSAs 3.2 and 5.4, the staff found that there was already an ample supply of vacant and available commercial land within the study area. In fact, out of 32 MSAs within the County, MSA 3.2 had the second highest ratio of commercial activity to population. Characterizing this supply of commercial land as "significant," the staff noted that there were more than 2,500 acres of commercial land in MSAs 3.2 and 5.4 either in use or vacant, and this category would not be depleted until after the year 2025. As to residential land, the supply of that category within the MSAs would be depleted by the year 2015, and staff noted that the property was currently designated residential and could serve to satisfy the future demand for residentially designated land within the MSAs. Despite a lack of need, the staff recommended that the amendment be transmitted for further local and state review on the belief that during the subsequent review process the application could possibly be modified into a more mixed-use project and thus be compatible with the Plan. In making this recommendation, the staff did not examine other needs or deficiencies, such as the need for elderly housing or for mixed-use properties. On September 23, 2008, the amendment was reviewed by the Westchester Community Council, which recommended that the amendment be approved but only with a change to allow residential development on the property to encourage a mixed-use project. Just before the amendment was considered by the Planning Advisory Board, Blue Lake offered a second Declaration of Restrictions, which reduced the amount of proposed commercial development from 620,000 to 400,000 square feet. See Blue Lake Exhibit 35. On October 6, 2008, the Planning Advisory Board recommended approval and transmittal of the amendment with a change to allow a potential mixed-use project. Although the County staff continued to recommend that the application be denied, on November 6, 2008, the Board of County Commissioners considered the matter and voted to transmit the amendment and second Declaration of Restrictions to the Department for its review. On March 13, 2009, the Department issued its Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report to the County. See Petitioners' Exhibit 10. In its ORC, the Department noted, among other things, that the County had not demonstrated a need for additional commercial uses on the property since the County's need analysis demonstrated that the commercial land in the area would not be depleted until after the year 2025. The ORC went on to recommend that the County either retain the current land use or provide data and analysis to support the need for the proposed amendment and its consistency with Policy LU-8E. On March 27, 2009, the County staff issued its response to the ORC in which it agreed that there was a lack of need for the amendment and that no new data and analysis had been submitted by the applicant. On April 6, 2009, the Planning Advisory Board again considered the application and recommended approval with the acceptance of the proposed Declaration of Restrictions. On April 13, 2009, Blue Lake's consultant submitted a revised commercial needs analysis to the County which concluded that there was in fact a need for more Business and Office designated land within his defined study area. See Blue Lake Exhibit 66. As a study area, the consultant used four census tracts (rather than MSAs) comprising around two square miles. The study area, in which Blue Lake's property was located, was bounded by major roadways on three sides and a man-made canal on the fourth. The consultant noted that the three roads and canal created an insular area that discouraged residents from leaving the area and thus justified in part further commercial development in the study area. Within his study area, the consultant found the ratio of commercial to population to be 3.3 acres per 1,000 people, which is significantly below the county-wide average of 6.0 acres per 1,000 people. He also found that the study area contained 1.4 vacant acres split up in five different locations, which because of the size and distribution made the study area essentially depleted. Although the County generally uses the same type of analysis as the consultant, it disagreed with the consultant's use of a smaller selected study area as well as many of his assumptions. Further, the County has never used a census tract in performing a needs analysis. It rejected Blue Lake's alternative needs analysis on the grounds it was not peer-reviewed and it appeared to be using an inappropriate primary trade area. The Department agreed with the County's assessment of the study. Given the deficiencies cited by the County, the report submitted by Blue Lake's consultant has not been credited. On May 1, 2009, Blue Lake offered a third Declaration of Restrictions which continued to include a restriction on commercial development of 400,000 square feet, but added certain requirements addressing compatibility of the proposed development of the property with existing residential development to the north and west by prohibiting construction of buildings on the northerly two acres of the property, requiring a landscape buffer, prohibiting certain types of commercial uses on the property, and including various other requirements not relevant here. See Blue Lake Exhibit 78. On May 5, 2009, the day before the Board of County Commissioners' adoption hearing, Blue Lake submitted a fourth Declaration of Restrictions which provided that commercial development would not exceed 375,000 square feet; "up to 150 dwelling units [would be] designated for elderly housing"; "ancillary and accessory uses" for the elderly could be constructed but would not exceed 15 percent of the floor area of the elderly housing facility (or just over 25,000 square feet); the northerly two acres would be reserved without buildings or used for elderly housing; a buffer would be installed; and certain commercial uses would be prohibited. See Blue Lake Exhibit 79. Notwithstanding these restrictions, the staff was still not satisfied that a need existed for further commercial development or that the owner had a commitment to build a specific minimum number of elderly housing units. On the evening of May 5, 2009, in response to a continued concern by the County staff, Blue Lake submitted a fifth (and final) Declaration of Restrictions, which provided in relevant part as follows: Notwithstanding the re-designation of the Property to "Business and Office" on the County's LUP map, the maximum development of the Property shall not exceed the following: (a) 375,000 square feet of retail, commercial, personal services and offices; and (b) no less than 150 dwelling units designated for elderly housing, as such term is defined under Section 202 of the Fair Housing Act of 1959 (12 USC 1701) and Chapter 11A of the Miami-Dade County Code (the "Code"), along with such ancillary and accessory uses as may be desirable, necessary or complementary to satisfy the service needs of the residents, such as, but not limited to, counseling, medical, nutritional, and physical therapy, provided that such ancillary and accessory uses shall not exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the floor area of the elderly housing facility. County Exhibit 18. The final version of the restrictions differed from the fourth version by changing the words "up to 150 dwelling units designated for elderly housing" to "no less than 150 dwelling units designated for elderly housing," a change suggested by the County staff. As finally revised, the last set of restrictions allows a mixed-use development and limits the owner to less than sixty percent of the non-residential uses that could have been available under the Business and Office land use designation. It also requires the allocation of two acres of land for the development of the elderly housing units as a precondition to any commercial development of the property. This means that the only permissible use on those two acres is the construction of no less than 150 dwelling units for "elderly housing," or more than sixty percent of the minimum residential units (233) that could have been previously constructed at full development under its current land use. If an elderly component is constructed, depending on the size of the structure, it allows the owner to provide "ancillary and accessory uses" for that component that could increase the total amount of commercial use to more than 400,000 square feet. As a prerequisite to approval of its application, Blue Lake executed and recorded the fifth Declaration of Restrictions. Although the staff still "[had] concerns regarding the demand for additional commercial land in this area," and agreed that the needs test in Policy LU-8E(i) had not been met, given the foregoing restrictions, the inclusion of a mixed-use component, and the need for elderly housing in the County, it recommended adoption of the amendment. Just prior to the vote by the Board of County Commissioners on May 6, 2009, a Blue Lake attorney sent the following email to a County staffer for the purpose of clarifying the commitment that Blue Lake was making in the Declaration of Restrictions: Yesterday's revision to the Declaration [which requires no less than 150 dwelling units for elderly housing] simply expands the universe of uses that would be permitted on the property. By reducing the overall square footage of commercial development, the owner would set up the conditions to allow the future development of 150 senior housing units. However, because the development of this type of project depends on so many factors, including zoning approvals, government incentives, etc., the owner's ability to build 375,000 square feet of commercial space is not in any way dependent on whether any senior housing units are actually built on the Property or the timing of such construction. (Emphasis added) Blue Lake Exhibit 86. There is no record of any response by the staff to the email or any indication that this "clarification" was conveyed to the Board of County Commissioners prior to its vote. A copy of the email was not provided to the Department. After learning of its contents at the final hearing, a Department planner stated that he considers the Declarations of Restrictions to be controlling, and not the email. On May 19, 2009, the County staff prepared a final response to the ORC stating that while it rejected the alternate needs analysis submitted by Blue Lake's consultant, and it "partially concur[red] with the Department's view that there was a lack of need, the applicant had adequately responded to its needs objection by "commit[ting] to building a mixed-use project and to reducing the commercial floor area." County Exhibit 10 at p. 2. On June 11, 2009, the County transmitted the amendment to the Department for its compliance review. On July 29, 2009, the Department found the amendment to be in compliance and noted in a staff report that "[t]he adopted amendment provides additional information for application #9 related to need (objection #1) and road capacity (objection #2)." Petitioners' Exhibit 54. It went on to say that "the County adequately responded to the Objection [regarding need] by reducing the commercial uses and introducing a mixed use component by adding residential units." Id. The Department's report added that Blue Lake had "committed to building a mixed use project which reduces commercial area from 679,535 square feet . . . to 375,000 square feet . . . [,] the mixed use development is supported by FLUE Policy LU-10A and Land Use Concept #8, [and] the mixed use development reduces the potential loss of housing units on the site, which is supported by Goal 1 of the Housing Element." Id. On August 3, 2009, the Department published in the Miami Herald its Notice of Intent to find the map change in compliance. On August 26, 2009, Petitioners filed their Amended Petition with the Department generally contending that the map change was not supported by adequate data and analysis for new commercial development in the area and that the change in land use would have an adverse impact on traffic. The latter objection was later withdrawn. As clarified in Petitioners' Proposed Recommended Order and the Stipulation, they contend that the plan amendment is inconsistent with Land Use Element Policies LU-8E(i), LU-8F, and LU-10A, Land Use Concept No. 8, and Housing Element Goal 1, as well as the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rules 9J-5.005(2) and 9J- 5.006(2)(c).2 Petitioners' Objections Petitioners first object to the amendment on the ground that the amendment is not consistent with Policy LU-8E(i) because there is no demonstrated need for more commercial land in the study area. That Plan provision requires that map amendments "shall" be evaluated against all goals, objectives, and policies of the Plan, "and in particular" whether the amendment satisfies "a deficiency in the Plan map to accommodate projected population or economic growth of the County." Similarly, while Petitioners agree that the data and analysis used to support the amendment are relevant and appropriate, and were applied in a professional manner, they contend the data support a continuation of the current residential land use. Despite efforts by the County at hearing to downplay the importance of Policy LU-8E(i) in its review process, it can be inferred that a needs analysis under that provision is one of the most important, if not primary, consideration when reviewing LUP map changes. This is borne out by the fact that except for one or two occasions, the County has never approved a map change over the last thirty years without a needs analysis supporting that change. The evidence supports a finding that the amendment is inconsistent with Policy LU-8E(i) because there is no need for 375,000 square feet of new commercial development within the study area (MSAs 3.2 and 5.4). More specifically, the relevant data and analysis used by the County reveal that the MSA in which the property is located (MSA 3.2) has the second highest ratio of commercial activity to population of the 32 MSAs in the County; that the supply of existing or available commercial land use will not be depleted for at least another fifteen years; and that there is no "deficiency" of commercial land in the study area to accommodate projected population or growth, as required by the Policy. Although the amendment will authorize at least 375,000 square feet of new commercial development, both the County and Department concede that a need for more commercial land does not exist. It is beyond fair debate that the amendment is inconsistent with Land Use Element Policy LU-8E(i). Likewise, because the data and analysis do not support the amendment, but rather support a contrary result, the County reacted to the data in an inappropriate manner. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.005(2). The County and Blue Lake argue, however, that even though no need for commercial land exists, the final version of the Declaration of Restrictions incorporates a provision requiring an elderly housing component, which when combined with the commercial component, changes the character of the land to a mixed use. By Blue Lake offering this restriction, they argue that the application, as amended, furthers other Plan provisions that encourage affordable housing for the elderly (e.g., Housing Element Goal 1, Objective HO-9, and Policy HO-9A) and furthers provisions that encourage the rejuvenation of decayed areas (in this case a 50-year-old mobile home park) with a mixture of land uses (e.g., Land Use Element Policy LU-10A and Land Use Concept 8). Thus, they contend that the "need" requirement in Policy LU-8E(i) is now met because Blue Lake is satisfying a deficiency in both the supply of elderly housing as well as mixed uses. To support the contention that a need for elderly housing exists, the County posited that there is a need, "in general," for elderly housing in the County. It also pointed out that between the years 2000 and 2008 there was a small percentage increase in the number of persons over 65 years of age residing in the County. See County Exhibit 64. But the County agrees that the needs test in Policy LU-8E(i) does not distinguish between different types of residential use, such as whether properties are available for elderly residents. Neither does the test assess the need for mixed uses. Therefore, regardless of whether or not there is a need for elderly housing or mixed-use projects, any such need does not address the needs test in Policy LU-8E(i). Even assuming arguendo that it does, the County made no study of the need for "elderly housing" or "mixed use projects" within MSAs 3.2 and 5.4. The County and Blue Lake also contend that the proposed mixed use furthers other laudable provisions within the Plan, which more than offset any lack of commercial need. While development of the property under the current or not yet effective new land use would certainly "rejuvenate" an area now occupied by a closed, 50-year-old mobile home park, and result in the redevelopment of what is now probably a substandard urban area, see Land Use Concept 8 and Land Use Policy LU-10A, furtherance of those provisions by creating a new commercial land use category does not trump the lack of need for more commercial land. Similarly, the Department found the amendment, as adopted, was in compliance because the final version of the Declarations of Restrictions introduced an elderly housing mixed-use component, which essentially negated the lack of need for commercial development. It is fair to infer from the evidence that, like the County, the Department made this determination in the belief that the elderly housing component was intended to address a need for affordable or subsidized housing for senior citizens. Petitioners contend, however, that the final version of the Declarations of Restrictions does not truly provide for an elderly housing/mixed use in this context. The fifth version of the Declaration of Restrictions references the term "elderly housing" as that term is defined in "Section 202 of the Fair Housing Act of 1959 (12 USC 1701)" and "Chapter 11A of the County Code." Because the federal law, related regulations, and the entire Chapter 11A were not made a part of the record by any party, it is appropriate to take official recognition of those matters. The federal regulation (section 1701) referred to in the amendment relates to "supportive housing for the elderly" and the federal assistance programs administered by the United States Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Its provisions are lengthy, cumbersome, and complicated, and they have been amended numerous times since their adoption. While the terms "elderly person" and "frail elderly" are defined in sections 1701q(k)(1) and (2) of the regulations, the undersigned was unable to find a specific definition of "elderly housing," and counsel have provided no citation. Chapter 11A of the County Code is a civil and human rights ordinance that is enforced by a County Commission on Human Rights. In its Proposed Recommended Order, the County has cited Section 11A-13(5) as the provision that defines the term. See County Exhibit 157. That provision enumerates "[e]xceptions to unlawful practices" and defines "housing for older persons" in the context of unlawful housing practices, but not in the context of a land use change. Therefore, it has little, if any, value in deciphering the meaning of the term "elderly housing" in the Declaration of Restrictions. When asked to define the term "elderly housing" as used in the Declaration of Restrictions, no witness could give a precise answer or refer to any provision in the federal law or County Code where a definition of that term is found. Therefore, if an elderly component is ever built on the property, it is fair to infer that the developer has wide discretion in choosing the type of units built and their price, and there is no guarantee or requirement that they be targeted for anyone except "elderly" persons, whatever age and associated income status that may encompass. Because of these ambiguities and uncertainties, the inclusion of an elderly housing component does not further the goals, objectives, and policies of the Plan encouraging affordable housing for all citizens, including the elderly, that the County relies upon to support the amendment. Finally, the fifth Declaration of Restrictions permits a developer to either construct elderly housing or merely reserve for an indefinite period of time the northerly two acres of the 41-acre tract free from construction of buildings. If construction ever occurs on those two acres, the only permissible use is "no less than 150 dwelling units for elderly housing." Petitioners contend that the commitment is illusory since there is no requirement that a residential component ever be built. The County and Blue Lake point out, however, that when a map amendment is approved, there are no timetables for when development must actually occur. Similarly, the Department does not look at the timing of development when an amendment is reviewed, and the fact that there is no time limitation in the amendment does not render it out of compliance. While it is reasonable in this case to question whether an elderly housing component will ever be built, the plan amendment simply approves a map change, and Petitioners have not cited any Plan requirement, Department rule, or statute that mandates development within a certain period of time in order for a map change to be in compliance. Petitioners' argument is rejected. In summary, it is beyond fair debate that (a) the plan amendment is internally inconsistent with Land Use Policy LU- 8E(i); (b) the change in land use is not supported by the most relevant and appropriate data and analysis; (c) by adopting the amendment, the County reacted to the data and analysis in an inappropriate manner; (d) the reference to "elderly housing" is ambiguous, vague, and uncertain and does not further Plan provisions that encourage affordable housing within the County; and (e) even if the plan amendment furthers other Plan provisions that encourage the rejuvenation of decayed urban areas with mixed uses, on balance this consideration does not outweigh the foregoing deficiencies. All other contentions by Petitioners not specifically discussed herein have been considered and rejected.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a final order determining that the plan amendment (Application No. 9) adopted by Ordinance No. 09-28 on May 6, 2009, be found not in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of July, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of July, 2010.
The Issue The issue is whether plan amendments 00-1, 97-4, and 01-7 adopted by Ordinance No. 598 on September 25, 2001, are in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background In this land use dispute, Petitioners, Sally O'Connell (O'Connell), Donna Melzer (Melzer), and Martin County Conservation Alliance, Inc. (MCCA), contend that three amendments (Amendments 00-01, 01-7, and 97-4) to the Martin County Comprehensive Plan (Plan) adopted by Respondent, Martin County (County), are not in compliance. Amendment 00-01 makes certain textual changes to the Economic Element and Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Plan. Amendments 01-7 (also known as the Blydenstein amendment) and 97-4 (also known as the Seven J amendment) amend the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) by changing the land use designation on property owned by Intervenor, Dick Blydenstein (Blydenstein), and Seven J's Investments, Inc., from Mobile Home Residential and Medium Density Residential, respectively, to General Commercial. The parties agree that the validity of Amendments 01-7 and 97-4 is contingent on whether Amendment 00-01 is in compliance. On September 25, 2001, the County approved Ordinance No. 598, which adopted the foregoing amendments and three other FLUM amendments not relevant to this dispute. On November 16, 2001, Respondent, Department of Community Affairs (Department), the state agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing comprehensive land use plans and amendments, issued its Notice of Intent to find the amendments in compliance. In addition, an external review of the amendments was conducted by the Department of Transportation (DOT), the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, the Department of State, and the Department of Environmental Protection. Except for minor objections by DOT, which were satisfactorily resolved, no objections were filed by any reviewing agency. On December 7, 2001, as later amended on December 20, 2001, Petitioners filed their Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing challenging the plan amendments. As reflected in their unilateral Pre-Hearing Statement, Petitioners contend that: The data and analysis for the amendments was not available to the public throughout the review and adoption process. The conclusions about supply and demand for commercial land uses that underlie the adoption of the amendments to the Economic and Future Land Use Elements, and the "Blydenstein" and "7J" [FLUM] Amendments are not supported by the best available and professionally acceptable data and analysis. Instead of a deficit of, and need for, land available for commercial uses, there is a surplus of land available for such uses. The "Blydenstein" and "7J" [FLUM] Amendments are not supported by data and analysis concerning the availability of infrastructure, the character of the land and the need for redevelopment. The approval of these FLUM amendments is inconsistent with several provisions of Ch. 163, Fla. Stat., Rule 9J-5, F.A.C., and the Martin County Comprehensive Plan. These allegations may be grouped into three broad categories: that the data and analysis was not available for public inspection throughout the adoption process; (2) that the plan amendments are not based on the best available, professionally acceptable data and analysis; and (3) that the Blydenstein and Seven J amendments are not supported by data and analysis as they relate to infrastructure, character of land, and need for redevelopment and thus are inconsistent with relevant statutes, Department rules, and Comprehensive Plan provisions. Although Petitioners have not addressed the first allegation in their Proposed Recommended Order, and have apparently abandoned that issue, in an abundance of caution, a brief discussion of that matter is presented below. The parties The Department is the state land planning agency responsible for reviewing and approving comprehensive plan amendments by local governments. The County is a political subdivision of the State and is the local government which enacted the three plan amendments under review. The overall size of the County is approximately 538 square miles, with agricultural uses on 72 percent of the land, residential uses on 16 percent of the land, public conservation uses on 6.5 percent of the land, and other uses (such as commercial, industrial, and institutional) on the remaining 5.5 percent of the land. The current population is around 125,300 residents. Blydenstein is the owner of the property that is the subject of Amendment 01-7. He submitted oral and written comments concerning Amendment 01-7 to the County during its adoption. Melzer is a former County Commissioner who resides and owns property within the County. She is also the chairperson and member of the board of directors for MCCA. Melzer presented comments in opposition to all three amendments during the time period beginning with the transmittal hearing for the plan amendments and ending with the adoption of those amendments. O'Connell has resided and owned property in the County since 1984. She presented comments to the County in opposition to Amendments 00-01 and 97-4 (but not to Amendment 01-07) during the time period beginning with the transmittal hearing for the plan amendments and ending with the adoption of those amendments. MCCA is a not-for-profit corporation first organized in 1965 and later incorporated in 1997 to advocate and promote the protection of the natural environment and quality of life in the County. The specific purpose of the corporation is to "conserve the natural resources of Martin County, to protect the native flora and fauna of Martin County, to maintain and improve the quality of life for all of the residents of Martin County, and to work to these ends." The corporation holds monthly meetings and annual forums to educate its members and others about issues related to the County's growth management. In prior years, it has actively participated in the development of the County's Comprehensive Plan and actively advocated for a public land acquisition program in the County. Presently, there are 104 individual members (of whom 99 reside in the County), 9 delegates at large, and 20 corporate and non-profit corporate members. The latter group includes such organizations as 1000 Friends of Florida, the Marine Resources Council, and the Citizens Stormwater Protection Group, who also have individual members residing within the County. The parties have stipulated that MCCA made comments to the County in opposition to the three amendments and that a substantial number of MCCA members own businesses within the County. The record also shows that MCCA's Board of Directors passed an appropriate resolution authorizing MCCA to file this action. Intervenor, the Economic Council of Martin County (ECMC), is a non-profit corporation whose mission is to dedicated to building a quality community which provides a healthy economy and protects the quality of life and to encourage the planned growth of the County. Like the MCCA, the ECMA has actively participated in the development of the Comprehensive Plan. Its members are individuals and businesses who reside, own property, and operate businesses within the County. The ECMC made comments to the County in support of the three amendments during the adoption of those amendments. The Amendments Amendment 00-01 represents a policy change by the County and amends the text of the Economic Element and FLUE to change the methodology for determining the need for commercial land within the County. Prior to the amendment, the County used a supply-demand equation based upon an "acreage per population" methodology to determine the amount of commercial land use necessary to serve the County. Under the old methodology, relevant portions of the FLUE, in conjunction with various provisions in the Economic Element, were used to establish a supply-demand equation that would determine whether the projected need for commercial lands by a future population of the County could be met by the current amount of designated lands. If the result of the equation was a surplus of commercial lands, that factor alone would require the denial of any request to redesignate land for commercial use, regardless of any other factor or circumstance. According to the repealed text of the Plan, this methodology produced a 1,131-acre surplus of commercial lands for the year 2010. The County proposes to use a more flexible policy and guideline type of review to make this need determination. Rather than projecting future demand for commercial land based solely on a numerical calculation, the County will make that determination based on a number of factors which must be weighed together, such as suitability, location, compatibility, community desire, and numerical need. It also proposes to change the manner in which numerical need is determined. Under the new methodology, the County will now use jobs and the amount of land needed to support those jobs. Put another way, commercial demand will be based on the projected number of jobs in the future. Using the new methodology, and after adding a 25 percent market factor, the County projects that in the year 2015 there will be a commercial land deficit of 112 acres. To accomplish this change in policy, the amendment alters the text of the Economic Element and FLUE by moving some language from the goals, objectives, or policies sections of the elements to preliminary sections that contained summaries of the data and analysis relied upon for each element. It also eliminates certain language from the goals, objectives, and policies of the elements, or from the preceding sections containing summaries of data and analysis, where such language was redundant and already appeared elsewhere in the Plan. In contrast to the former provision, the new amendment makes a finding that "the raw data appears to show that there is a significant deficit of commercial land necessary to accommodate economic needs if Martin County's ten year trend toward retail/service jobs continues." Amendment 01-07 pertains to a 27.8-acre triangular- shaped tract of land located less than a mile south of the center of the urban area of Indiantown, a small community in the southwestern part of the County. The property, which lies within the County's Primary Urban Service District, is bounded on the north by State Road 76, a major arterial roadway which connects Indiantown with Stuart, on the west by State Road 710, another major arterial roadway which connects Indiantown with Okeechobee and Palm Beach Counties, and on the east by Southwest Indiantown Avenue, which connects State Roads 76 and 710. The site is surrounded by vacant property, including Agriculture-designated land on three sides, and Estate Density Residential on the other. Immediately north of State Road 76 lies the C-44 Canal, a major waterway that connects Lake Okechobeee with the South Fork of the St. Lucie River and ultimately the Atlantic Ocean. A two-lane bridge (with no pedestrian walkway) provides automobile access from Indiantown to the Blydenstein property. The amendment changes the land use designation on the property from Mobile Home Residential (8 dwelling units per acre) to General Commercial. Even though the property is designated for use as a mobile home park, the property has been vacant and undeveloped for more than 20 years and is used principally for cattle grazing. The Seven J property consists of 2.99 acres located just west of Jensen Beach in the northern part of the County at the intersection of U.S. Highway 1 and Westmoreland Boulevard, both major arterial roadways. The property is adjacent to a partially built Development of Regional Impact (DRI) known as the West Jensen DRI and is virtually surrounded by other commercial uses. The amendment changes the land use designation on the property from Medium Density Residential (8 dwelling units per acre) to General Commercial. Presently, a nursery, older residential homes, rental property, and wetlands are found on the property; the nearby property is primarily made up of both developed and undeveloped commercial land. Availability of Data and Analysis Rule 9J-5.005(1), Florida Administrative Code, requires in part that "[a]ll background data, studies, surveys, analyses, and inventory maps not adopted as part of the comprehensive plan shall be available for public inspection while the comprehensive plan is being considered for adoption and while it is in effect." Relying upon this provision, Petitioners have contended in their Unilateral Prehearing Stipulation that the County failed to make such data and analysis "available to the public throughout the review and adoption process." At least one general source of data that was used by County experts was not physically present in the County offices for inspection by the public during the adoption process. That derivative data source was entitled "CEDDS 2000: the Complete Economic and Demographic Data Source" and was prepared by Woods and Poole Economics, a Washington, D.C. consulting firm. The data source was used by one of the County's experts (Dr. Nelson) "to generate [the] demand numbers" in his technical report. In order to inspect and review this data, Petitioners, like the County or any other interested person, would have had to purchase a copy from the authors. However, all of the data and analyses accumulated or generated by the County staff were available for public inspection during the time between the transmittal and adoption of the amendments under review. Further, Petitioners did not show how they were prejudiced by the failure of the County to maintain the Woods and Poole data in their offices. The Department does not construe the foregoing rule as narrowly as Petitioners, that is, that every piece of data relied upon by a local government must be physically present in the jurisdiction of the local government. Indeed, the Department has never found a plan amendment out of compliance solely on the basis that data was not physically located at a local government's offices. Rather, it construes the rule more broadly and considers the rule to have been satisfied so long as data and analyses are "available for public inspection," even if this means that derivative source data such as the Woods and Poole report must be purchased from out- of-state sources. Were the plan amendments based on the best available, professionally acceptable data and analysis? Petitioners contend that the plan amendments "are not supported by the best available and professionally acceptable data and analysis." As to this contention, Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, sets forth a general directive that all plan provisions "be based upon relevant and appropriate data and analyses applicable to each element." In addition, the same rule requires that the data must be "collected and applied in a professionally acceptable manner." Petitioners contend that the County's collection of data to support the amendments, and its analysis of that data, was not professionally acceptable, as required by the rule. More specifically, Petitioners contend that the County undercounted the commercial land inventory used in projecting future need by omitting between 80 and 100 acres of undeveloped commercial land from the West Jensen DRI, by failing to count commercial development allowed in industrial- designated lands, and by failing to include 30 acres of land at the Witham Field airport which remains available for commercial development. They also contend that the County inadvertently failed to include more than 60 acres that were placed in the Commercial category by amendments to the FLUM in 1995 and 1996 and which remain undeveloped and available for new commercial development. In support of the amendments, the County submitted to the Department more than 1,000 pages of supporting materials and maps, including 384 pages related to the FLUM amendments, 642 pages of revised supporting data for the text amendments, and 89 pages of public comments. In choosing the sources of data to support the plan, the County used generally accepted, nationally available data as the basis for its review and revision of the Plan. After reviewing the foregoing material, the Department found such data and analysis to be relevant and appropriate. The County also generated extensive data from locally available information that is unique to the County, such as an inventory of the lands within the County that are designated for Commercial uses on the FLUM, but do not yet have any developed commercial uses on them. As to one of Petitioners' contentions, the County agrees that its staff inadvertently omitted 60.4 acres of commercial property which was changed to that designation by certain 1995-96 FLUM amendments. However, the greater weight of evidence shows that this omission was not significant in terms of the overall collection of data, and it did not render the gathering of the other data as professionally unacceptable. Petitioners go on to contend that the analysis of the data (in determining the supply inventory) was flawed for a number of reasons. First, they argue that the undeveloped portions (around 70 acres or so) of the West Jensen DRI that are commercially-designated land should have been included in the commercial land inventory. The West Jensen DRI is an approximately 180-acre residential/commercial development with a large commercial component. Even though specific site plans have not been issued for some of the undeveloped property, the County excluded all of the undeveloped acreage because the property is dedicated under a master plan of development, and therefore it would be inappropriate to include it as vacant inventory. On this issue, the more persuasive evidence shows that the treatment of undeveloped land in a DRI (subject to a master plan of development) is a "close call" in the words of witness van Vonno, and that it is just as professionally acceptable to exclude this type of undeveloped land from vacant commercial inventory as it is to include it. Therefore, by excluding the West Jensen DRI land from its inventory count, the County's analysis of the data was not flawed, as alleged by Petitioners. The Plan itself does not allow commercial uses within the Industrial land category. However, the County's Land Development Regulations (LDRs) permit certain commercial uses on Industrial lands when done pursuant to specific overlay zoning. While the County (at the urging of the Department) intends to review (and perhaps repeal) these regulations in 2003, and possibly create a new mixed-use category, there are now instances where commercial uses are located on Industrial lands by virtue of the LDRs. Because of this anomaly, Petitioners contend that the County's analysis of the data was flawed because it failed to count vacant, surplus lands in the Industrial land use category that are available for commercial development. Except for arbitrarily allocating all undeveloped industrial land to the commercial category, as Petitioners have proposed here, the evidence does not establish any reasonable basis for making an industrial/commercial division of industrial-designated lands for inventory purposes. Indeed, no witness cited to a similar allocation being made in any other local government's comprehensive plan as precedent for doing so here. In those rare instances where the Plan itself permits multiple uses in a single land category, such as Commercial Office/Residential (an office and multi-family land use designation), the County used a supply figure that was derived from estimating how much land in this category was developed commercially as opposed to residential and allocating acreage from the category based on that percentage. No party has suggested that such a methodology be used here, particularly since the mixed use categories are distinguishable from single land use categories, such as Industrial and Commercial. Moreover, the County has demonstrated a conscious effort to separate these two types of land uses (industrial and commercial) into separate and distinct categories, they are depicted separately on the County's FLUM, and the Plan has separate locational criteria for the siting of these lands. Based on the foregoing, it is found that the County's analysis of the data was not flawed (or professionally unacceptable) because it failed to include undeveloped industrial lands in the commercial inventory. Petitioners next contend that the County erred in its commercial inventory count by failing to include around 30 acres of vacant land located at Witham Field, a local airport. Under the present zoning scheme at the airport, only aviation- related commercial uses are allowed, and thus the vacant land cannot be used for any other commercial purpose. Further, the airport is designated Institutional on the land use map, rather than Industrial, and it would be inappropriate to count vacant institutional lands in the commercial land inventory. Therefore, the exclusion of the Witham Field land from the commercial inventory did not render the County's analysis of the data professionally unacceptable. Finally, the remaining contentions by Petitioners that the County understated its supply inventory for both commercial and industrial property have been considered and rejected. In summary, it is found that the amendments are based on relevant and appropriate data and analyses, and that the data was collected and applied in a professionally acceptable manner. The Blydenstein FLUM Amendment Petitioners generally contend that there is no demonstrated need for the Blydenstein parcel to be redesignated as General Commercial, that the amendment is not based upon data and analysis, that the County failed to coordinate the land use with the availability of facilities and services, that the amendment is inconsistent with redevelopment and infill policies, and that the amendment encourages urban sprawl. The Blydenstein amendment reclassifies 28 acres to commercial use and will amount to 36 percent of the existing commercial development in downtown Indiantown. In terms of need, the County projects that only 17 acres of commercial development will be needed in Indiantown through the year 2015, and there presently exist around 186 acres of undeveloped commercial acreage in that community. At the same time, Amendment 00-01 reflects a deficit of 112 acres of commercial land in the County during the same time period. Although the local and countywide demand calculations are seemingly at odds, at least in the Indiantown area, there will be a surplus of unused commercial lands through the end of the current planning horizon, and thus there from that perspective there is no need for an additional 28 acres of commercial property in that locale. Notwithstanding a lack of numerical need, that consideration is not the sole factor in determining whether the amendment should be approved. As noted earlier, in addition to need, the County considers such factors as the suitability of the property for change, locational criteria, and community desires in making this determination. Here, the subject property is suitable for commercial development because of its location on two major arterial roadways and its ready access to a railroad and major waterway. Further, the property is located within the Primary Urban Services District, which is an area specifically designated for more intense, urban development. In addition, the current land use designation allows 8 residential units per acre, which is an "urban" type of designation. Finally, because there is vacant, undeveloped property surrounding the subject property, the redesignation of the property to General Commercial will not pose a compatibility problem with any residential areas. When these considerations are weighed with the need factor, it is found that the proposed land use change is appropriate. The existing land use designation of Mobile Home Residential is a carryover land use designation which recognized the mobile home use that occurred on the property when the future land use maps were originally created. At the present time, all mobile home use has ceased and the property is vacant. The nearest residential neighborhood is located to the north across State Road 76 beyond the Canal and is at least 600 feet away. Because of the property's configuration and immediate proximity to major arterial roads, railroad tracks, and a canal, the greater weight of evidence shows that it is not suitable for residential development. These considerations support the County's determination that the property has been inappropriately designated as residential for more than a decade. Although the County did not conduct formal studies to determine whether the public facilities and services will be capable of serving the proposed change in land use, a general analysis of the availability and adequacy of public facilities was performed by its staff. That analysis reflects that the property lies within the service area of a local water and sewer utility and has access to two major roadways. Based on its proximity to major roadways and local public utilities, the County does not anticipate that the change in land use will adversely impact public facilities and services. To ensure that this does not occur, the County will require a traffic impact analysis at the time the parcel is submitted for development review. Rule 9J-5.006(3)(b)8., Florida Administrative Code, requires that a plan "[d]iscourage the proliferation of urban sprawl." Leapfrog development is a form of urban sprawl and typically means leaping over a lower density development and placing higher density development just beyond the lower density development. Given the location of the Blydenstein property within the Primary Urban Services District, and the adjacent major arterial roads, railroad, and canal, the greater weight of evidence supports a finding that the proposed land use change will not constitute leapfrog development. The change in land use will not promote, allow, or designate urban development in radial, strip, isolated, or ribbon patterns; it will not result in the premature or poorly planned conversion of rural land; it will not discourage or inhibit infill or redevelopment of existing neighborhoods; it will not result in poor accessibility among linked or related land uses; and it will not result in a loss of significant amounts of functional open space. In the absence of these indicators, it is found that the amendment will not contribute to urban sprawl. The Seven J FLUM Amendment Like the Blydenstein amendment, Petitioners likewise contend that there is a lack of demonstrated need for the Seven J amendment; that the amendment lacks data and analysis; that the County failed to coordinate with the availability of services; that the amendment will promote urban sprawl; and that the amendment is internally inconsistent. The Seven J property is surrounded by the partially built-out West Jensen DRI, is located within the County's Primary Urban Services District, and is considered to be in a "regional hub" of activity, that is, within the core of major commercial development in the northern part of the County. Further, it is located on an eight-lane road at a major intersection (U.S. Highway 1 and Westmoreland Boulevard). Therefore, the change is compatible with surrounding existing and planned commercial uses, and the County's redesignation of the property from Medium Density Residential (8 units per acre) to General Commercial is appropriate. Further, the greater weight of evidence shows that because the property is located within the Primary Urban Services District, is near existing commercial and residential development, and urban services are already provided, the Amendment will not contribute to urban sprawl. Finally, the greater weight of evidence supports a finding that the amendment is internally consistent and based on adequate data and analysis, contrary to Petitioners' assertions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that Martin County Plan Amendments 00-01, 01-07, and 97-4 are in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of October, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of October, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven M. Siebert, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Cari L. Roth, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Richard J. Grosso, Esquire Environmental and Land Use Center, Inc. 3305 College Avenue Shepard Broad Law Center Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33314-7721 Joan P. Wilcox, Esquire 2336 Southeast Ocean Boulevard, PMP 110 Stuart, Florida 34986 Colin M. Roopnarine, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 David A. Acton, Esquire Office of County Attorney 2401 Southeast Monterey Road Stuart, Florida 34996-3322 Johnathan A. Ferguson, Esquire Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Shuster & Russell, P.A. 145 Northwest Central Park Plaza, Suite 200 Port St. Lucie, Florida 34986-2482 Linda R. McCann, Esquire Royal Palm Financial Center 789 South Federal Highway, Suite 310 Stuart, Florida 34994-2962
The Issue 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.
The Issue Whether Escambia County Ordinance No. 2017-65 (Ordinance) adopted on November 30, 2017, amending the Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial (HC/LI) zoning district in the Escambia County Land Development Code (LDC) is consistent with the 2030 Escambia County Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan). Whether Remedial Ordinance No. 2018-30 (Remedial Ordinance) adopted on August 2, 2018, alleviates any inconsistency in the Ordinance such that the HC/LI zoning district regulation is consistent with the Comp Plan.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner lives and owns property in Cantonment, Escambia County, Florida, in proximity to parcels of land impacted by the Ordinance and Remedial Ordinance. As such, the Petitioner would be subject to an increase in noise and traffic resulting from the Ordinance and Remedial Ordinance, as well as an adverse change in the character of her rural neighborhood. The County is a non-charter county and political subdivision of the State of Florida. The County is the affected local government and is subject to the requirements of chapter 163. DEO is the state land planning agency and has the duty to review and investigate petitions submitted under section 163.3213, challenging land development regulations adopted by local governments. The Ordinance was enacted to amend Part III of the County's LDC to address consistency of parcels zoned HC/LI with the MU-S FLU Category. The preamble to the Ordinance indicates a previous consolidation of zoning districts implemented on April 16, 2015, "did not eliminate all occurrences of zoning districts that appear to allow uses, density, or other intensities of use not authorized by the prevailing purposes and associated provisions of applicable future land use categories." The County's Board of County Commissioners (Board) found that "there are occurrences of HC/LI zoning within the MU-S future land use category," and "it is in the best interests of the health, safety, and welfare of the public to address any inconsistency created by HC/LI zoning within the MU-S future land use category." After the DEO's determination of partial inconsistency, the County adopted the Remedial Ordinance, which makes no reference to the April 15, 2015, consolidation of zoning districts in the preamble. In addition, the Remedial Ordinance amends the Ordinance to delete certain confusing references to parcels and their previous zoning as of April 15, 2015. Thus, the Remedial Ordinance is much clearer than the Ordinance in addressing the prior inconsistency created by HC/LI zoning within the MU-S FLU category. Mixed-Use Suburban Future Land Use Category The MU-S FLU is described in FLU Policy 1.3.1 of the Comp Plan as "[i]ntended for a mix of residential and non- residential uses while promoting compatible infill development and the separation of urban and suburban land uses." The MU-S FLU lists the range of allowable uses as "[r]esidential, retail sales & services, professional office, recreational facilities, public and civic, limited agriculture." The MU-S FLU prescribes standards, such as a residential maximum density of 25 dwelling units per acre (du/acre) and a non-residential maximum intensity floor area ration (FAR) of one. The MU-S FLU also describes the mix of land uses that the County intends to achieve for new development in relation to location, i.e., the distance from arterial roadways or transit corridors. Within one-quarter mile of arterial roadways or transit corridors: residential percentages of 8 to 25 percent; public, recreational and institutional percentages of 5 to 20 percent; non-residential uses such as retail service at 30 to 50 percent; and office at 25 to 50 percent. Beyond one-quarter mile of arterial roadways or transit corridors: residential percentages of 70 to 85 percent; public, recreational and institutional percentages of 10 to 25 percent; and non- residential percentages of 5 to 10 percent. The mix of land uses described by the Comp Plan MU-S FLU category can be implemented by multiple zoning districts in the LDC. Certain zoning districts within MU-S further the residential intentions of the FLU category and other zoning districts further the non-residential intentions of the MU-S FLU category. However, all zoning districts within MU-S contain some element of residential use. The Ordinance and Remedial Ordinance The Remedial Ordinance amended the purpose subsection (a) of section 3-2.11 of the County LDC by adding language that directly limited the "variety and intensity of non- residential uses within the HC/LI [zoning] district" by "the applicable FLU." This means that although various non- residential uses are permitted in the HC/LI zoning district, the FLU category in the Comp Plan determines the "variety and intensity" of those non-residential uses. The Ordinance had amended subsection (h) of section 3-1.3 of the County LDC to clarify that "[o]ne or more districts may implement the range of allowed uses of each FLU, but only at densities and intensities of use consistent with the established purposes and standards of the category." This clarification is consistent with FLU Policy 1.1.4 in the Comp Plan, which states that "[w]ithin a given future land use category, there will be one or more implementing zoning districts." The Remedial Ordinance amended the permitted uses in subsection (b) of section 3-2.11 of the County LDC by deleting the confusing reference to parcel sizes and their previous zoning as of April 15, 2015. In paragraph (6) of subsection 3-2.11(b), the Remedial Ordinance made clear that the listed "industrial and related uses" are not permitted "within MU-S." In general, the other permitted uses mirror the range of allowable uses in the MU-S FLU category. The Remedial Ordinance amended the conditional uses in subsection (c) of section 3-2.11 to make clear that the listed industrial and related conditional uses are not permitted within MU-S. The Ordinance added MU-S to the site and building requirements in subsection (d) of section 3-2.11 to require a maximum FAR of 1.0. The Remedial Ordinance also imposed a maximum structure height for "any parcel previously zoned GBD [Gateway Business District] and within the MU-S" of 50 feet, which is lower than the maximum of 150 feet for HC/LI zoning not within MU-S. The Remedial Ordinance amended the location criteria in subsection (e) of section 3-2.11 to limit "[a]ll new non- residential uses proposed within the HC/LI district" to parcels previously zoned GBD and within the MU-S FLU category that are located along and directly in front of "U.S. Highway 29 or State Road 95A." In addition, another location criterion limits new non-residential uses along arterial streets to within one-quarter mile of their intersection with an arterial street. The provisions of the Ordinance and Remedial Ordinance are consistent with the County Comp Plan. Petitioner's Objections The Petitioner contended that the HC/LI zoning regulation allows intensities and scales of commercial uses that are inconsistent with the character of a predominantly residential FLU like MU-S. The Petitioner based her contention on the Comp Plan definition of "suburban area" and argued that the Ordinance and Remedial Ordinance permitted uses, densities, and intensities that were not "suburban in nature." "Suburban area" is defined in the Comp Plan as "[a] predominantly low-density residential area located immediately outside of an urban area or a city and associated with it physically and socioeconomically." By contrast, "mixed-use" is defined in the Comp Plan as "any use that includes both residential and non-residential uses." See ch. 3, § 3.04, Escambia Cnty. Comp Plan. Contrary to the Petitioner's contention, the MU-S FLU category's primary focus is on a mix of uses in a suburban area. See Findings of Fact Nos. 6-8, above. Indeed, the FLU element of the Comp Plan expresses a purpose and intent to encourage mixed- use development. Also, the Petitioner's focus on the differences between the MU-S and Mixed-Use Urban (MU-U) FLU categories in the Comp Plan was misplaced. The premise that the HC/LI zoning district implements the MU-U FLU category better than it implements the MU-S FLU category was not the issue to be determined in this proceeding. Rather, it was whether the Ordinance, as amended by the Remedial Ordinance, amending the HC/LI zoning district in the LDC is consistent with the Comp Plan. All other contentions not specifically discussed have been considered and rejected.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Marion County's small- scale comprehensive plan amendment 01-S27 is "in compliance," as defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2001). Specifically, Petitioners contend that the amendment is: (1) inconsistent with goals, objectives, and policies of the County's Comprehensive Plan--specifically, Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Objectives 1 and 2, and Policies 2.7 and 2.8; and (2) inconsistent with Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J- 5.006(5), which requires that proliferation of urban sprawl be discouraged. (Other contentions are inapplicable. See Conclusions of Law, infra.)
Findings Of Fact Petitioners all reside in the Sherman Oaks subdivision in Marion County, Florida. Sherman Oaks is adjacent to and northwest of the parcel which is the subject of the County's small-scale comprehensive plan amendment 01- S27 (Plan Amendment). This "Amendment Parcel" consists of 2.375 acres located at the northwest corner of the intersection of State Road 40 (oriented east-west at that location) and NW 80th Avenue (oriented north-south at that location) (the Intersection) near Ocala, Florida. The Plan Amendment changes the land use designation for the Amendment Parcel from Urban Reserve to Commercial. Pertinent History of the County's Comprehensive Plan. The County originally adopted its Comprehensive Plan in January 1992. Because of an objection by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) that the original Comprehensive Plan allocated too much land area to the Urban area, the County adopted remedial amendments on April 7, 1994, which added a new land use classification, Urban Reserve. The Comprehensive Plan defines the Urban Reserve land use classification as follows: This classification provides for the expansion of an urban service area or an urban expansion area in a timely manner. The underlying land uses in this classification shall be those of the rural lands until, through the Plan Amendment process, these areas are designated as Urban Expansion Area or Urban Service Area on the Future Land Map series. Commercial land use designation falls within the generalized Urban Area category in the County's Comprehensive Plan. From the date of the adoption of remedial amendments in 1994 through this date the Amendment Parcel has had a land use designation of Urban Reserve. The Amendment Parcel is part of a larger parcel of land designated Urban Reserve which extends for approximately a mile to the west of the Amendment Parcel, half a mile to the south of the Amendment Parcel, and greater than two miles to the north of the Amendment Parcel. (There also is some Medium Density Residential, which falls with the generalized Urban Area land use category, approximately two miles north of the Amendment Parcel; this is a major residential development called Golden Ocala). All of the property on the east side of the Intersection for approximately half a mile on either side of State Road 40 has had a land use designation of Urban Expansion, which allows urban and commercial uses, since 1992. Marion County has extensive areas in the western half of the County designated as Rural Land. Approximately a mile west of the Amendment Parcel, the property along the north and south sides of State Road 40 changes land use designation from Urban Reserve to Rural Land. Prior to adoption of the County’s Comprehensive Plan in 1992, the Amendment Parcel had a general retail zoning classification of B-2 (Community Business), which has remained in place since the date of the Comprehensive Plan adoption. The Plan Amendment would allow the Intervenor to make immediate use of the Amendment Parcel under its existing zoning classification of Community Business. The County’s Comprehensive Plan also contains a land use classification of Rural Activity Center (RAC) for existing commercial nodes in the Rural Land area. According to the definition in the Comprehensive Plan, this classification: provides for the utilization of mixed-use areas and the infilling of those areas under appropriate circumstances. Rural Activity Centers provide for a nodal-type development pattern. When the Comprehensive Plan was originally adopted in 1992, the County identified a number of RACs and included them on the Future Land Use Map in the Comprehensive Plan. The Intersection was not made a RAC in 1992 because it was surrounded by Urban Expansion lands that were changed to Urban Reserve in 1994. Otherwise, it probably would have been designated a RAC because there already was commercial development on the east side of the Intersection in 1992. Designation as a RAC would have allowed Intervenor to make use of its B-2 (Community Business) zoning classification from 1992 forward. The evidence was not clear why Castro's Corner at the intersection of U.S. Highway 27 and County Road 225A was designated a RAC. It is not now surrounded by Rural Lands; however, from the evidence presented, it is possible that Castro's Corner was surrounded by Rural Lands at the time it was designated a RAC. Pertinent History of the Amendment Parcel In light of the see-saw history of decision-making on applications for comprehensive plan amendments affecting the Amendment Parcel since 1998, it is not surprising that Petitioners are perplexed by this Plan Amendment. In 1998 application was made to change the land use designation from Urban Reserve to Commercial on a parcel that included the Amendment Parcel and approximately seven additional acres lying immediately to the west of the Amendment Parcel, for a total of 9.9 acres, with the entire application parcel having frontage on State Road 40. The County's Planning Department recommended approval of the land use amendment. Staff's report stated that the proposed Commercial land use designation would "continue the formation of a commercial node at the intersection . . . consistent with FLUE Policy 2.7"; would "coordinate development with sufficient roadway capacity and access management procedures, and available water and sanitary sewer facilities as required by FLUE Policy 2.8"; was "compatible with the existing commercial uses on the east side of the intersection"; and was "generally compatible with the areas's [sic] topography, soils and environmental features." Staff's report concluded that the recommendation for approval was based on findings that the request would "not adversely affect the public interest"; was "consistent with the identified objectives and policies in the Marion County Comprehensive Plan"; and was "compatible with the surrounding land uses." The County's Planning Commission agreed with planning staff's recommendation and voted 7-0 for approval, but the County Commission denied the application. In 2000 the Amendment Parcel was included in another application for a land use designation change from Urban Reserve to Commercial on 13.88 acres in the northwest quadrant of the Intersection. This time, the Planning Department recommended denial. As to compatibility with the goals, objectives, and policies of the County's Comprehensive Plan, staff's recommendation was based on findings that the proposed amendment was "not compact and contiguous to the Urban Area (FLUE Policy 2.18)"; did "not preserves [sic] the county's rural areas while allowing the provision of basic services by directing growth to existing urban areas and commercial nodes (FLUE Objective 3.0)"; "does not coordinate development with availability of public facilities such as centralized potable water and sanitary sewage facilities (FLUE Policy 2.18)"; "does not promote the efficient use of resources and discourage scattered development and sprawl because it is not located in an area of increasing urban residential development and commercial development (FLUE Policy 2.7)"; and "does not encourage development that is functional and compatible with the existing land uses adjacent and in the surrounding area (FLUE Policy 1.21)." As to consistency with Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5 urban sprawl indicators, staff found that the proposed amendment "promote[d] the development of low-intensity, low-density, or single use development"; "promote[d] urban development in radial, strip, isolated or ribbon patterns generally emanating from existing urban development"; did "not protect adjacent agricultural areas and activities"; allowed "for land use patterns or timing which disproportionately increases the cost in time, money and energy, of providing and maintaining facilities and services, including roads, potable water, sanitary sewer, stormwater management, law enforcement, education health care, fire and emergency response, and general government"; did "not encourage development which would, by it's [sic] location, provide a clear separation between rural and urban uses"; did "not encourage an attractive and functional mix of uses"; and "encourage[d] development which would result in the loss of significant amounts of open space." The report concluded that it was based on findings that "[g]ranting the amendment will adversely affect the public interest"; the "proposed amendment is not compatible with land uses in the surrounding area"; and "[g]ranting the amendment is not consistent with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, Rule 9J-5, F.A.C., and the Marion County Comprehensive Plan." The Planning Commission voted 6-1 to recommend denial. The application was withdrawn prior to the transmittal hearing before the County Commission. In August 2001, Intervenor submitted an application to change the land use on the property it owns at the Intersection (containing 2.85 acres) from Urban Reserve Area to Commercial. The southern boundary of the original application parcel consisted of 275 feet of frontage on the north side of State Road 40. The eastern boundary of the original application parcel fronted on NW 80th Avenue, with 459 feet of frontage. The County's Planning Department recommended that Intervenor's application be denied. The stated basis for the recommendation was that the proposed plan amendment represented "an extension of urban type land use into the rural area" and that "[d]evelopment of the property as commercial was not compatible with adjacent land uses." Planning staff took the position that the proposed Commercial land use designation did "not encourage compact, contiguous development (FLUE Objective 2)"; did "not preserve the County's rural character (FLUE Policy 2.7)"; did "not coordinate development with sufficient roadway capacity (FLUE Policy 2.8)"; and was "not compatible with the existing adjacent uses (FLUE Objective 1)." Staff also took the position that the proposed Commercial land use designation application would "promote urban sprawl as specified in the Urban Sprawl Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g)" because it was "not compatible with surrounding land use designations"; "discourage[d] a functional mix of uses"; and "discourage[d] [sic?] a land use pattern that disproportionately increases local government's fiscal burden of providing necessary public services." In conclusion, staff based its recommendation on findings that the application would "adversely affect the public interest"; was "not consistent with the identified objectives and policies in the Marion County Comprehensive Plan"; and was "not compatible with the surrounding land uses." The Planning Commission heard Intervenor's presentation and comments from objecting property owners, including Petitioners, and voted 4-3 to deny the application. At a public hearing conducted on December 11, 2001, the County Commission heard Intervenor's presentation and comments from objecting property owners, including Petitioners. During the hearing, at the suggestion of the Commission, Intervenor agreed to amend the application to reduce the total amount of property for which the land use change was requested from the original entire parcel of 2.85 acres to a smaller 2.375 acre parcel (now the Amendment Parcel). The purpose of the reduction in the size of the Amendment Parcel was to exclude a heavily treed area on the north boundary of the original application parcel to create a buffer for residential property owners residing to the north and northwest of the Amendment Parcel. Intervenor also agreed to allow parallel access across the back (north) of the Amendment Parcel to the property fronting State Road 40 to the west, in the event of future development of those properties. After amendment of the application, the County Commission voted 5-0 to approve. Amendment Parcel Characteristics and Surroundings. Both State Road 40 and 80th Avenue in the area of the Intersection are heavily traveled and frequently congested. The Intersection is signalized, and traffic backs up for long distances during busy times when the light is red. The Amendment Parcel and the land to the west between State Road 40 and Sherman Oaks to the north is vacant. The property in the northeast quadrant of the Intersection has a land use designation of Urban Expansion, which allows commercial usage. The property in this quadrant of the Intersection is already commercially developed. There is a combination convenience store/restaurant building at the immediate Intersection. To the north of that parcel along 80th Avenue is Golden Hills Mobile Home Park and the sewage treatment facility serving the mobile home park. The southeast quadrant of the Intersection also has an Urban Expansion land use designation and is also already commercially developed. A prior convenience/general store at the immediate southeast corner of the Intersection has been torn down, and a temporary fruit stand currently occupies the immediate corner. This quadrant of the Intersection also includes a two-story building with retail businesses on the first floor. The property in the southwest quadrant of the Intersection, lying immediately to the south of the Amendment Parcel, has an Urban Reserve land use designation but is currently used as part of an operating horse farm. While it may not completely explain the swings in the decision-making of the County's planning staff, the County Planning Commission, and the County Commission with respect to northwest quadrant of the Intersection, the evidence was that traffic on both State Road 40 and 80th Avenue increased substantially in the five years preceding the County Commission's decision to approve Intervenor's amended application. During this time period, 80th Avenue to the south of the Intersection was extended farther southward to State Road 200, which was widened to six lanes during the same time period. In addition, the Marion County school system constructed a combination high school/middle school on SW 80th Avenue approximately two to three miles south of the Intersection, generating additional traffic. As a result of these changes (together with general growth in the County), 80th Avenue has become a major north/south corridor road in western Marion County, both to the north and to the south of State Road 40. In addition, there was discussion at the County Commission hearing on the Plan Amendment about the initiation by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) of a four- laning road improvement project on State Road 40, including at the Intersection and to the east and west of this Intersection. It was represented that, while the project was not within FDOT's three-year work program, FDOT was in the process of acquiring large parcels for needed drainage retention areas for the project, including a parcel to the west of the Amendment Parcel and a parcel encompassing most of the southeast corner of the Intersection. At final hearing in this case, written communications from FDOT regarding the project confirmed that FDOT had initiated the process of design and right-of-way acquisition for the project but did not have a finalized project time line. A preliminary project time line prepared by FDOT showed construction more than two years away, but the time line also established that the FDOT four-laning project on State Road 40 is underway. The prospect of four-laning State Road 40 played a part in the County Commission's thinking that the timing was right to change the land use designation of the Amendment Parcel to Commercial. Intervenor's Alleged Inaccurate Representations The County's application form cautions applicants that false statements on the application could result in denial. However, it was not proven that denial is mandatory in the case of any inaccuracy. Rather, the evidence was that information in the application can be corrected and supplemented during the review process. Intervenor's application contained inaccurate representations as to the proximity of some public facilities in relation to the Amendment Parcel. Petitioners made no attempt to prove the significance of those inaccuracies, except as to centralized water and sewer water facilities. Intervenor's application stated that the nearest centralized water and sewer facilities were those at the Golden Hills Mobile Home Park on the east side of NW 80th Avenue. The application also stated, as part of its justification, that private central water and sewer was available. The evidence proved that the Golden Hills sewage treatment facilities are presently inadequate for use by the mobile home park itself and are being upgraded to meet current needs of the park. The facilities probably would not be available for Intervenor's use at the Amendment Parcel. While the Golden Hills sewage treatment facilities likely will not be available for Intervenor's use at the Amendment Parcel, the evidence was that the County is working with a large development called Golden Ocala, located approximately five miles north of the Amendment Parcel, for construction of a regional wastewater treatment plant to serve that development. If built, the regional facility might have capacity available for Intervenor's use at the Amendment Parcel. Intervenor's application and presentation to the County Commission on December 11, 2001, stated that the Amendment Parcel is undeveloped and that there is no existing agricultural use on the parcel. While these statements were not proven to be untrue, Petitioners presented evidence that hay was grown on the Amendment Parcel from the late 1980's through spring 2001. Three crops of hay were harvested each year. Each harvest consisted of approximately 18-20 bales; each bale brought approximately $45. Petitioners questioned the accuracy of representations as to the natural buffer strip between the Amendment Parcel and Sherman Oaks. Petitioners did not dispute the existence of relatively dense trees in the buffer strip. However, they are concerned that the line of trees does not extend to the west all the way to the entrance to Sherman Oaks off State Road 40; if additional commercial development occurs to the west on State Road 40, there will not be a similar natural buffer. Petitioners also point out that the trees in the natural buffer strip are not thick enough to form an impregnable barrier to access, light, and sound. They concede, however, that the natural buffer is helpful and that there is no similar natural buffer between them and commercial development to the east across NW 80th Avenue. Petitioners concede that the 75-foot buffer strip is wide enough to contain the entire natural buffer. However, they thought the buffer strip would have to be 90 feet wide to contain the drip lines of all the trees so as to protect their root systems. They conceded that the building setback line probably would prohibit construction of buildings within the drip line of the trees but were uncertain as to whether the setback line would apply to parking lots and driveways. Petitioners' evidence was insufficient to prove that the 75- foot buffer was not enough to protect the natural buffer. Petitioners' evidence was sufficient to prove that, during the presentation before the County Commission, Intervenor's representative may have misspoken or exaggerated on some points (e.g., the timing of FDOT's widening of State Road 40, the distance between the Amendment Parcel and the entrance to Sherman Oaks, and the extent of past and existing commercial development at the Intersection). But the evidence was that the County Commission questioned the information presented by Intervenor, and information also was presented by Petitioners and the County's planning staff; considering all the information presented, it was not proven that the County Commission based its decision on misinformation. At the final hearing, Petitioners raised the issue of stormwater runoff. Petitioners questioned whether stormwater can be managed on the Amendment Parcel without adversely impacting Sherman Oaks. Evidence presented by Petitioners proved that topography would make onsite stormwater management difficult. Natural runoff appears to flow in a northeasterly direction towards an already-stressed stormwater facility within Sherman Oaks. Intervenor suggested that the site could be "tilted" by grading to reverse natural runoff flow so as to contain runoff in the southwestern or western part of the site. Petitioners suggested that "tilting" may not be permissible due to the relatively shallow depth to limerock under the Amendment Parcel site, but Petitioners' evidence was not sufficient to prove that drainage could not be addressed onsite through "tilting." Petitioners also questioned the accuracy of traffic counts presented in the Planning Department's staff report on Intervenor's application. Staff used 2000 traffic counts that did not take into account all of the increased traffic as a result of the opening of the new school south of the Amendment Parcel. But the County's Planning Director explained that the traffic analysis required for a land use designation change does not have to be as rigorous and accurate as the analysis required at the time of concurrency determination. At that time, Intervenor probably will be required to conduct a detailed and up-to-date traffic analysis that would take into account actual traffic counts related to the new school. Other Pertinent Comprehensive Plan Provisions. Objective 1 of the County's FLUE states: Upon Plan adoption, growth and development will be coordinated by ensuring the appropriate compatibility with adjacent uses, topography, soil conditions, and the availability of services and facilities through the preparation, adoption, implementation and enforcement of innovative land development regulations, including mixed use techniques. Objective 2 of the County's FLUE states: In order to promote the efficient use of resources and to discourage scattered development and sprawl, Marion County shall establish and encourage development within Urban Areas. This will discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl, encourage infill and facilitate the provision of urban services through: Land Development Regulations that specify standards which allow higher intensities of land use in areas where adequate services are available and where specific design criteria are met, and future land uses are coordinated with appropriate topography conditions and soil types. A generalized Future Land Use Map which designates an appropriate amount of acreage in each land use category that reflects projected needs, existing development patterns, environmental suitability, availability of infrastructure, and community values. Policy 2.7 of the County's FLUE states: The County shall discourage scattered and highway strip commercial development by requiring the development of such uses at existing commercial intersections, other commercial nodes and town centers of mixed uses. Policy 2.8 of the County's FLUE states: The following performance criteria shall be followed when providing for the location of commercial and industrial land uses within the designated Urban Area: Protection of the development from natural hazards by locating development away from areas that have natural hazards or that may contain sensitive natural resources; Require concurrency be met to ensure adequate services from available public utilities and other urban services; Minimize environmental impacts by ensuring all appropriate permits are obtained and adhered to; Prevent over allocation of commercial land by requiring the adherence to needed acreage based on population projections; and Provide buffering from other land uses to minimize conflicts. Objective 4 of the Stormwater Management Sub-element of the County's Infrastructure Element states: Marion County's land development regulations shall implement procedures to ensure that, at the time a development permit is issued, adequate stormwater management facility capacity is available or the developer will be required to construct storm water facilities within his development according to County standards. Policy 4.1 of the Stormwater Management Sub-element of the County's Infrastructure Element provides some detail as to required content of the procedures, including a requirement: In addition, developers will comply where applicable with the Water Management districts flood control criteria for stormwater quantity and quality. (Citations omitted.) Policy 4.3 of the Sanitary Sewer Sub-element of the County's Infrastructure Element provides in pertinent part: The County's land development regulations shall provide for issuance of development permits within the identified wastewater service areas consistent with the following guidelines: * * * c. Where public wastewater treatment facilities are required, they shall be available concurrent with the impacts of development. Facilities which meet county specifications and the level of service standards for the service areas will be provided by the developer in the interim and will be connected to central facilities when they become available . . .. Internal Consistency. Petitioners presented no evidence that the Plan Amendment did not adhere to "needed acreage based on population projections." Consistent with the pertinent provisions of the County's Comprehensive Plan itself, the County's Planning Department Director testified that the County's Comprehensive Plan encourages the planning concept of nodal commercial development (allowing commercial development on all four corners of an intersection). This planning technique allows clustered commercial development in commercial nodes, locating in outlying areas, to provide localized commercial services for residents. Notwithstanding testimony that Petitioners probably would not patronize retail stores at the Intersection, the expert testimony was that commercial node development is intended to assist in reducing trips and average trip lengths by providing limited commercial services to area residents without necessitating their travel to a centralized commercial area. In the County’s Comprehensive Plan, the concept of commercial node development in non-urban areas is the basis for the RAC land use designation. See Finding of Fact 7, supra. Both of the County's witnesses testified that commercial development of all four quadrants of the Intersection is consistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan policy of encouraging commercial node development because it has long-existing partial commercial development, is signalized, and provides access in all directions. The evidence did not prove that the County's Comprehensive Plan requires traffic, sanitary sewer, or drainage (or any other) concurrency at the time of the adoption of a plan amendment. The County has adopted in its Land Development Code a concurrency management system requiring that concurrency be established prior to the issuance of a development order (such as a building permit). The evidence was that determining capacity and concurrency at the development order stage in the development process is standard and customary, and is used in a number of jurisdictions in the state. Regardless of the land use classification and zoning classification of the Amendment Parcel, when the Intervenor initiates application for approval of an actual development order, the Intervenor will be required under the County's Land Development Code to establish concurrency, including traffic, sanitary sewer, and drainage concurrency. There was some evidence to support the contentions of some Petitioners that commercial development of the Amendment Parcel would not be compatible with residential and rural land uses in the area and that that NW 80th Avenue is a "line of demarcation" between urban uses and rural uses. But Petitioners failed to prove those contentions by the greater weight of the evidence, including the 1998 recommendations of the County Planning Department staff and Planning Commission to approve a land use change to Commercial west of NW 80th Avenue. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan's designation of land west of NW and SW 80th initially as Urban Expansion in 1992 and as Urban Reserve in 1994 anticipated ultimate urban development of this Intersection, as well as properties approximately a mile to the west of the Intersection. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan designated two RACs to the west of the Amendment Parcel on State Road 40 (between the Amendment Parcel and the City of Dunnellon). The first RAC is three miles to the west of the Amendment Parcel, and the second RAC is seven miles to the west of the Amendment Parcel. The evidence was that the Intersection would have been a RAC had it not been designated Urban Expansion and then Urban Reserve. Finally, at least one Petitioner conceded the point and contested only the timing of commercial development of the Amendment Parcel. Alleged Urban Sprawl. Petitioners presented no analysis of urban sprawl indicators. They also presented no evidence that the Plan Amendment allocated commercial land in excess of demonstrated need in the County. As found, the Amendment Parcel is across NW 80th Avenue from existing commercial and other urban development; in addition, provision of nodal commercial development is intended to counter at least some symptoms of urban sprawl.
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 that Marion County's small-scale amendment 01-S27 is "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of June, 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 7th day of June, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Mary M. Bartlett 8080 Northwest 2nd Street Ocala, Florida 34482 Robert S. Inglis 8078 Northwest 2nd Street Ocala, Florida 34482 Helen Thomas 8130 Northwest 2nd Street Ocala, Florida 34482 Paul and Joan Lussier 8071 Northwest 2nd Street Ocala, Florida 34482 Wanda Negron 8076 Northwest 2nd Street Ocala, Florida 34482 Thomas D. MacNamara, Esquire Marion County's Attorney's Office 601 Southeast 25th Avenue Ocala, Florida 34471 Steven Gray, Esquire Hart & Gray 125 Northeast First Avenue, Suite 1 Ocala, Florida 34470 Steven M. Seibert, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Cari L. Roth, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
