The Issue The issue is whether to approve Petitioners' application for a beneficial use determination (BUD) on their property in Key Largo, Florida, and if approved, to determine the type of relief that is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners purchased their property in September 2006 for $60,000.00 (or at the peak of the Florida housing boom). The parcel is located at the corner of Meridian Avenue and Lycaloma Avenue, mile marker 94.5, on the Gulf of Mexico side of U.S. Highway 1 in Key Largo. It is also identified as Block 9, Lot 1, Section 3 of the Bay Haven Subdivision, an older, partially-developed subdivision comprised of four sections and several hundred lots. Since September 15, 1986, the subdivision, including Petitioners' lot, has been zoned Suburban Residential (SR), which allows only one residential unit per two acres. No challenge to that action was taken by any person, and no contention has been made that the County failed to follow the established procedure for adopting its LDRs. A challenge to the validity of the LDRs is now barred by the statute of limitations.1 See § 95.11(3)(p), Fla. Stat. The Bay Haven Subdivision is located in South Key Largo and was first platted after World War II. Building permits for all existing homes in the subdivision were applied for before the zoning change became effective in September 1986. Due to the SR restrictions, around 250 lots remain vacant at this time, including 99 in Section 3 where Petitioners' lot is located. Many of these vacant lots have been deeded by their owners to the County for conservation purposes in exchange for points that can be used with a Rate of Growth Ordinance (ROGO)2 allocation to develop other property in the County. Petitioners' corner lot lies at the intersection of two streets and has an irregular shape with a large radius at the intersection. It is bordered on two sides by single-family homes, measures 8,276 square feet, or around 0.19 acres, and is somewhat larger than the typical subdivision lot size of 5,000 square feet. Mr. Beauchamp, who resides in Wisconsin, testified that he purchased the property with the expectation of building a home when he retired as an air traffic controller. Before purchasing the property, he assumed that it was zoned Improved Subdivision (IS) because this was the zoning incorrectly shown on the multiple listing service sheet provided by his realtor. Neither Mr. Beauchamp nor his realtor was familiar with County zoning classifications or permissible uses for the parcel.3 Sometime in 2006 they visited a County office to secure further information. Mr. Beauchamp says they spoke with two unidentified "planners," who told them that a single-family home could be built on the property. However, nothing was confirmed in writing, and there is no record of the meeting. Other than this meeting, neither Mr. Beauchamp nor his realtor took any other steps to verify the zoning on the property and/or any development restrictions that might apply. Based solely on the oral advice given by these two unnamed County employees, the Beauchamps purchased the lot. According to Petitioners' expert, Robert Smith, before purchasing a vacant lot in the Keys, normal due diligence would require a prospective purchaser to arrange a pre-application conference with Planning Department staff and secure a written Letter of Understanding confirming the rights of the property owner. See § 110-3, M.C.C. However, Petitioners (and their realtor) did not complete appropriate due diligence; they simply checked with an unidentified County employee and without any other assurance purchased the property.4 In May 2012, Petitioners' agent, Randy Wall, a builder and former Planning Commissioner but not an attorney, met with a representative of the County Building Department to begin the process of securing approval to build a single-family residence on the property. Mr. Wall was advised that the zoning on the property was SR, which allows only one dwelling unit per two acres. This was confirmed in an email dated July 13, 2012, from the Assistant Director of Planning, which stated as follows: The parcel has a zoning designation of SR which requires Two (2) acres per residential unit. As noted by planning staff, this parcel does not have sufficient land area for the zoning and associated density. At the meeting, Mr. Wall also inquired about the possibility of changing the zoning on the property from SR to IS (which would allow construction of a single-family home), but decided not to pursue that option because he recognized the poor prospects of securing a zoning change for a single lot in a large subdivision, when scores of other lots were subject to the same restriction. He assumed, probably correctly, that this might invite a spot zoning challenge. Other than having a discussion with County representatives, Mr. Wall did nothing more. He did not file an application for a residential dwelling unit allocation under the County's ROGO process, or any other formal application for relief, such as a change in the zoning district or land use designation, a variance, or an exception. Believing that the County staff would "fix the problem" because the County had made "a mistake" in reclassifying the entire subdivision as SR, Mr. Wall prepared and filed a BUD application, which was eventually deemed to be complete on September 27, 2013. The BUD process is intended "to provide a means to resolve a landowner's claim that a [LDR] or comprehensive plan policy has had an unconstitutional effect on property in a nonjudicial forum." § 102-103(a), M.C.C. An applicant for a BUD must include a statement "describing the [LDR], comprehensive plan policy, or other final action of the county, which the applicant believes necessitates relief under this division." § 102-105(b)(5), M.C.C. The application at issue simply stated that "the adoption of the land use designation of SR for the subdivision of Bay Haven constituted a compensable taking." The application did not refer to any comprehensive plan policy or final action taken by the County. As relief, the application requested that the County take one of the two following actions: (a) change the Future Land Use Map and zoning designations to allow a residence to be built on the lot; or (b) notwithstanding the SR zoning, issue a permit for development. The BUD process requires applicants to state whether they are alleging a facial or as-applied regulatory taking as the basis for administrative relief. See § 102-104, M.C.C. Unless a landowner asserts that a LDR or comprehensive plan provision, on its face, has caused a taking of his property, relief is permitted only after "the landowner has received a final decision on development approval applications from the county, including building permit allocation system allocations, appeals, administrative relief pursuant to section 138-54, and other available relief, exceptions, or variances." Id. Mr. Wall did not formally apply for any type of development approval and received no final decision, as contemplated by the Code. However, Mr. Wall testified that he "understood" the County was waiving that requirement in this instance. He also stated in the application that "Joe Haberman contracted [sic] the Beauchamps and informed them that staff had deemed this phase unnecessary and to move directly to submitting a [BUD] application." Other than this assertion, there is no evidence to confirm this understanding, and the County's Principal Planner testified that a waiver had not been granted. She also confirmed that no development approval application had been filed, and no final decision had been made, both required by the Code in order to seek relief under an "as applied" theory. Therefore, rightly or wrongly, as plainly stated in the application, Petitioners' basis for relief is that the LDR on its face constitutes a taking of their property.5 Besides a single-family home, which is impermissible here due to size limitations of the lot, two other uses are permitted as of right in the SR district: community parks and beekeeping. See § 130-94, M.C.C. Also, a property owner may apply for a minor conditional use, subject to approval by the Planning Director. Permissible minor conditional uses include public or private community tennis courts and swimming pools; public buildings and uses; parks and community uses; institutional uses; and churches, synagogues, and houses of worship. Id. However, Mr. Beauchamp testified that he is not interested in any of these uses since he believes most, if not all, would be offensive to a residential neighborhood or simply impractical due to the size of his lot. The property can also be sold to the owners of adjacent Lot 11 to be used as a side yard, its use before being purchased by Petitioners. Finally, the Principal Planner testified that there are transferable development rights (TDRs) on the property, whose value at this time is unknown. See § 130-160, M.C.C. Therefore, the Beauchamps are not deprived of all economically beneficial use of their property. Cf. § 102-110(c), M.C.C. ("[t]he highest, common, or expected use, is not intended as an appropriate remedy, unless expressly required by applicable statute or case law"). There was no evidence from a property appraiser on the fair market value of the parcel, as encumbered by the regulation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of County Commissioners deny Petitioners' application for relief under the BUD Ordinance. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of July, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of July, 2014.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Hardee Power Station and its associated facilities, including the corridors for the directly associated transmission lines and the natural gas pipeline, should receive certification.
Findings Of Fact Ultimate Site Capacity for Hardee Power Station Project The site for the proposed Hardee Power Station electric generating equipment is a 1,300 acre site located at the Polk and Hardee County lines approximately 9 miles northwest of the City of Wauchula in Hardee County. The Hardee Power Station electrical generating structures will be located primarily in Hardee County; a major portion of the 570 acre cooling reservoir is located in Polk County. Co-applicants have proposed in their Site Certification Application an ultimate nominal capacity of 660 megawatts, and certification of the electric generating equipment, associated cooling reservoir, associated natural gas pipeline, and three associated transmission lines, described in paragraphs 2 through 7 above. In March of 1989, the Florida Public Service Commission issued an initial need order based on SECI's application for a need determination for construction of two 220 megawatt combined cycle facilities. The PSC order confirmed the following: 1) SECI's need for 450 megawatts of back-up generation capacity; 2) the three interconnection points for the three 230 kV transmission lines; and 3) that a combined cycle plant was SECI's least costly alternative to constructing this electric generation capacity. Thereafter, SECI contracted with Teco Power Services Corporation for, among other things, the construction of the combined cycling units. In December of 1989, the PSC issued a final need order. Hardee Power Station Project Co-applicants propose to construct and operate a combined cycle power plant and associated transmission lines and natural gas pipeline facilities. The Hardee Power Station project will consist of combined cycle electric generating facilities with an ultimate nominal capacity of 660 megawatts to be constructed in two phases. In phase 1-A, one 220 megawatt (nominal) combined cycle unit will be built along with one 75 megawatt (nominal) combustion turbine, resulting in a total of 295 megawatts (nominal), to begin commercial operation in January of 1993. In phase 1-B of the project, an additional 75 megawatt (nominal) combustion turbine and a 70 megawatt (nominal) heat recovery steam generator will be added to the facility resulting in an additional 145 (nominal) megawatt combined cycle facility, the capacity of which is scheduled to be on line in January of 2003. Phase 2 of the project is the addition of a third 220 megawatt (nominal) combined cycle facility at an unspecified future date. Associated with the Hardee Power Station electrical generating plant will be a cooling reservoir to cool the steam in the heat recovery steam generator so that water can be reused in the system. The cooling water will be returned to the reservoir which is designed to discharge water in excess of the 10-year, 24-hour storm event. The Hardee Power Station will also have associated oil storage and handling facilities, water treatment facilities, a control building and warehouse, and an administrative building. Power generated from the Hardee Power Plant will be distributed to the Pebbledale, Vandolah and Lee County substations via three 230 kV transmission lines. One line, owned by Tampa Electric Company, heads north from the plant site and terminates at the Pebbledale substation. A preferred corridor and an alternate corridor have been proposed for this line. The other two transmission lines, owned by SECI, will head south from the Hardee Power Station facility and follow their respective corridors, one terminating at the Vandolah substation and the other at the Lee County substation. The corridors running north from the plant site to the Pebbledale substation are approximately 16 miles in length with a corridor width of approximately 1/2 mile but varying in sections from 1/4 of a mile to 1 mile. The transmission line heading south from the plant site to the Vandoloah substation will be approximately 8 miles in length and generally 1/2 mile in width with variations from 1/2 mile to 3/4 of a mile. The transmission line running south from the plant site to the Lee County substation will be approximately 78 miles in length with a width generally of 1/2 mile with variations from 150 feet to approximately 1 mile. The transmission line structures will encompass only the rights-of-way within the corridors. The right-of-way for a typical H frame structure ranges from 100 to 150 feet while the right-of-way for a single pole structure ranges from 75 feet to 100 feet. The H-frame structures consist of two vertical poles having a typical out-of-ground height of approximately 65 feet with cross-arm assemblies holding porcelain insulators. The single pole structure consists of a single vertical structure with a typical out-of-ground height of 95 feet with insulator sets holding the conductors in place. Construction and maintenance activities with respect to these structures will require the construction of access roads. The proposed power plant facility will include a natural gas pipeline which will connect into the existing Florida Gas Transmission pipeline system north of Polk City. The pipeline will route south past Polk City, Auburndale, and Bartow to State Road 60. The pipeline will then continue past Pierce and Bradley Junction until it meets County Road 630 where the pipeline heads east until it reaches County Road 663 where it turns south to the plant site. The natural gas pipeline will be an 18-inch diameter pipe which will be buried three feet underground with a length of approximately 49 miles. The purpose of the pipeline is to transport natural gas, the primary fuel for the facility, to the plant site. The DER published notices of the March 6, 1990 land use hearing in the Herald-Advocate (Hardee County) on January 18, 1990 in the Tampa Tribune, the Mulberry Press (Polk County), and the Ledger (Polk County) on January 15, 1990; and in the DeSoto County Times on January 17, 1990. Notice of the March 6, 1990 hearing was also published in the Florida Administrative Weekly on January 19, 1990. Co-applicants published notice of the May 3, 1990 continuance of the March 6, 1990 land use hearing in the April 18, 1990 editions of the Lakeland Ledger, the Tampa Tribune, the DeSoto County Times, the Ft. Myers News-Press (Lee County), the Cape Coral Daily Breeze, the Bradenton Herald, and the Charlotte Sun/Herald-News. On April 18, 1990, the Hearing Officer reviewed Co- applicants' Notice of Resumption of Land Use and Zoning Hearing and found it sufficient to provide notice to all parties and the public of the continuation of the land use hearing. Polk County Aspects of the power plant and associated facilities, including preferred and alternative corridors, to be located in Polk County include: (a) a portion of the cooling reservoir; (b) a 230 kV transmission line extending from the plant to the Pebbledale substation; (c) a natural gas pipeline extending from the plant to Florida Gas Transmission Company's main gas line north of Polk City; and (d) miscellaneous appurtenances and accessories, including access roads. The land use plan that governs the Hardee Power Station and associated linear facilities located in Polk County is the Polk County Comprehensive Plan as adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on June 26, 1979. The applicable zoning regulation is the 1983 Polk County zoning ordinance. Polk County has not adopted a land-use plan map and thus there are no land use plan designations encompassed by the site or its associated facilities in Polk County. With respect to Polk County's Comprehensive Plan, the Polk County Chief of Current Planning, ron Borchers, on January 20, 1989, confirmed that the cooling reservoir, transmission line, and natural gas pipeline complied with Polk County's Comprehensive Plan. Expert testimony also demonstrated that the proposed project is consistent and in compliance with the zoning ordinance and land use plan of Polk County. The Polk County Zoning category for the Hardee Power Station generating facility site and the cooling reservoir site is RC (rural conservation). The transmission line corridor crosses four zoning categories in Polk County: RC (rural conservation district); GI (general industrial district); R3 (rural residential district); and R2 (rural residential district). The gas pipeline corridor crosses the following zoning categories within Polk County: R1, R2, and R3 (residence districts); RE1 and RE2 (rural estates districts); SF1 (single family district); SF1M (single family district); RC and RC2 (rural conservation districts); C2 (commercial district for a multi- neighborhood commercial); C3 (commercial district for regional commercial; C4 (commercial district for heavy commercial; GI (general industrial district; and PUD (planned unit development district. In Polk County gas pipelines are classified as Class I essential services and are permitted in all zoning districts. By letter dated January 24, 1989, Zoning Administrator Gerald Martin confirmed that the plant site and associated facilities are in compliance with the Polk County Zoning Ordinance, stating: Specifically, transmission lines and gas pipelines are Class I essential services; and the power plant's cooling reservoir is a Class II essential service. Class I essential services are permitted in all zoning districts. The site of the proposed cooling reservoir in Polk County is zoned Rural Conservation (RC) which permits Class II essential services. Therefore, these proposed facilities are in compliance with the Polk County Zoning Ordinance. Expert testimony also demonstrated that the power plant site and associated linear facilities are in compliance and consistent with Polk County's Zoning Ordinance. Co-applicants have entered into a stipulation with Polk County in which the County confirms that the site of the power plant and associated facilities, including preferred and alternative corridors, to be located in Polk County are consistent and in compliance with Polk County's existing Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Hardee County Aspects of the power plant and associated facilities, including preferred and alternative corridors, to be located in hardee County include: (a) the power plant facility; (b) a portion of the cooling reservoir; (c) a portion of the 230 kV transmission line extending from the plant to the Pebbledale substation in Polk County; (d) a 230 kV transmission line from the plant to the Vandolah substation in Hardee County; (e) a 230 kV transmissionline extending from the power plant to the Lee County substation; (f) a portion of the natural gas pipeline extending to Florida Gas Transmission Company's main gas line north of the power plant in Polk County; and (g) miscellaneous appurtenances and accessories including access roads. The land use plan that governs the Hardee Power Station in Hardee County for purposes of this hearing is the future land use plan element of the Hardee County Comprehensive Plan. The applicable zoning regulation is Hardee County Zoning Ordinance No. 82-2 as codified in the Hardee County Land Development Code T. The zoning category for the site of the Hardee Power Station generating facility located within Hardee County is I-1 (light industrial). The light industrial district, as described in the Hardee County zoning ordinance, includes "public and semi-public plants" in an enumeration of authorized "principle uses and structures", and authorizes the proposed power plant. The Hardee County Board of Commissioners rezoned the planned location of the plant site to I-1 on May 11, 1989 to authorize construction of the plant. The transmission line corridors cross the following zoning categories in Hardee County: I-1 (light industrial); A-1 (agricultural); C-2 (general commercial); FR (farm residential); and C-1 (neighborhood commercial). These linear facilities are authorized uses in all districts pursuant to 2.3G of the hardee County zoning ordinance, which states that "local public utility distributing and collecting structures such as pipes and transmission lines" are "permitted in all zoning districts." Hardee County has not adopted a land use plan map and thus there are no land-use plan designations affected by the site or associated facilities. The Hardee County Building and Zoning Department staff report on the April 17, 1989 rezoning application confirms that the proposed power plant is in compliance with Hardee County's Comprehensive Plan. Expert testimony was presented demonstrating that the proposed Hardee Power Station is consistent and in compliance with Hardee County's land use plan and zoning ordinance. On November 2, 1989, co-applicants and Hardee County entered into a stipulation in which the County confirmed that the proposed site of the power plant and associated facilities, including preferred and alternate corridors, are consistent and in compliance with Hardee County's existing land use plan and zoning ordinance. This stipulation was authorized by the Hardee County Board of County Commissioners on September 21, 1989. DeSoto County The associated linear facility located in DeSoto County is an approximately 23 mile portion of a 230 kV transmission line, including miscellaneous appurtenances and accessories, extending from the plant to an existing substation in Lee County. The land use plan that governs the proposed linear facility is the DeSoto County Ordinance No. 81-3 adopted on June 25, 1981. The applicable zoning regulations are contained in the DeSoto County Zoning Ordinance No. 81- 10. DeSoto County has not adopted a land-use plan map and thus there are no land use categories crossed by the transmission line corridor in DeSoto County. Expert testimony demonstrated that the proposed transmission line corridor associated with the Hardee Power Station does not contravene the policies or objectives of the DeSoto County Comprehensive Plan. The transmission line corridor crosses the following zoning categories in DeSoto County: A-5 (rural agriculture); A-10 (agriculture district); E (estate district); IL (industrial light district); CG (commercial general district); RSF-3 (residential signle family district); COS (conservation open space district); TTRVC (travel trailer recreational vehicle and campground district); MHC (mobile home conventional district); and RMF-6 (residential multifamily district). Section 8-8 of the DeSoto County zoning ordinance provides that "electric cables" are "permitted uses" and "allowed as a matter of right" in all zoning districts; thus, the proposed transmission line corridor does not contravene the DeSoto County Ordinance. On November 2, 1989, a stipulation was entered into between DeSoto County and the Co-applicants confirming that the zoning officials of DeSoto County have reviewed the Co-applicants' site certification application, are familiar with the proposed site of the associated linear facility, and that the proposed facility is consistent and in compliance with DeSoto County's existing land use plan and zoning ordinance. This stipulation was authorized by the DeSoto County Board of Commissioners on September 12, 1989. Charlotte County The associated linear facility located in Charlotte County includes approximately 22 miles of a 230 kV transmission line, including miscellaneous appurtenances and accessories, extending from the plant to an existing substation in Lee County. The land use plan that governs the associated linear facility to be located in Charlotte County is the future land use element of the December 16, 1988 Charlotte County/City of Punta Gorda Comprehensive Plan. The applicable zoning regulations are contained in the Charlotte County zoning regulations adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on December 8, 1981, including the June 30, 1989 amendments to the Charlotte County zoning regulations enacted pursuant to Ordinance No. 89-34. In Charlotte County, the transmission line corridor crosses the following land use plan categories: agriculture 1 and 2; agriculture conservation; preservation; public; semi-public; commercial; residential estates; mobile home; and low density residential. The transmission line corridor also crosses two overlay districts which include surface water protection districts for Alligator Creek, Prairie Creek, and Shell Creek. The Charlotte County land use plan does not specifically address placement of electric transmission lines. The Charlotte County Comprehensive Plan includes objectives that contemplate ensuring the availability of suitable land for utilities facilities necessary to support development; that the County, in conjunction with private utility franchises, coordinate efforts in identifying appropriately located environmentally suitable land to meet those needs; and that land suitable for utility facilities necessary to support future development be acquired by either the County or the private utility. The land use plan provides that development is permissible in preservation areas "as may be provided within the land development regulations'. Thus, to the extent that such development is permitted within preservation areas under the zoning ordinance, it similarly is authorized under the land use plan. In Charlotte County, the transmission line corridor crosses the following zoning categories: AE (agriculture estate); AG (agriculture general); CG (commercial general); CI (commercial intensive); ES (environmentally sensitive); MHC (mobile home conventional); MHP (mobile home park); PD (planned evelopment); RE-5 (residential estate); RMF-10 (residential multi-family); RSF- 3.5 (residential single family); and RE-1 (residential estate). The Charlotte County zoning ordinance traditionally has been applied as authorizing transmission lines without the requirement of obtaining a special exception permit. Unrebutted expert testimony confirmed that this interpretation comports with the language of the zoning ordinance. Charlotte County has entered into a stipulation in this proceeding confirming that the proposed site of the associated linear facility is consistent and in compliance with Charlotte County's existing land use plan and zoning ordinance. This stipulation was authorized by the Charlotte County Board of Commissioners on September 26, 1989. Lee County The associated linear facility located in un-incorporated Lee County is a five mile length of a 230 kV transmission line, including miscellaneous appurtenances and accessories, extending from the plant to an existing substation in Lee County. The land use plan that governs the linear facility to be located in Lee County is section A of the Lee County Comprehensive Plan (entitled "the Lee Plan") adopted by the lee County Board of County Commissioners on January 31, 1989. The applicable zoning regulations are Lee County's official Zoning Ordinance (Ordinance 86-17) and amendments thereto. In Lee County, the transmission line corridor crosses four land-use plan categories which include open lands, resource protection transition zones, rural, and central urban. Expert testimony demonstrated that the associated linear facility does not contravene any of the policies or objectives contained in the Lee County Land Use Plan. The transmission line corridor corsses the following zoning categories in Lee County: AG-2 (agricultural district); C-2 (commercial district); MH-1 (residential uses); and MH-2 (residential uses). The associated linear facility is an "essential service facility" under Sections 1001.13 and 202.12 of the Lee County zoning ordinance and is permitted in all zoning districts within Lee County. Lee County has entered into a stipulation in this proceeding confirming that the proposed site of the associated linear facility is consistent and in compliance with Lee County's land use plan and zoning ordinance. This stipulation was authorized by the Lee County Board of Commissioners on February 7, 1990. City of Cape Coral The associated linear facility located in the City of Cape Coral is approximately a 3.2 mile portion of a 230 kV transmission line, including miscellaneous appurtenances and accessories, extending from the plant to an existing substation in Lee County, located east of the City of Cape Coral. The land use plan that governs the proposed linear facilities in Cape Coral is the February 13, 1989 City of Cape Coral Comprehensive Plan. The applicable zoning regulations are the City of Cape Coral Land Development Regulations, as amended February 1990 by Ordinance No. 7-90. The transmission line corridor crosses three land-use plan categories: mixed use; parks and recreation; and single family. There are no references to transmission line corridors in the Cape Coral land use plan; however, expert testimony was presented that the proposed transmission line corridor does not contravene the City of Cape Coral's land use plan. The transmission line corridor primarily crosses the agricultural (AG) zoning category in the City of Cape Coral; moreover, the outer fringes of the corridor briefly intersect with a portion of land zoned R1 (single family residential district) where it enters the City of Cape Coral. On February 12, 1990, the City of Cape Coral amended its zoning ordinance to provide, among other things, that the transmission was a permitted use in areas zoned "Agricultural". To the extent a transmission line structure intersects with the R-1 district, it would be authorized under section 2.7.1 of the zoning ordinance. Expert testimony demonstrated that the proposed transmission line is an authorized use under the City of Cape Coral's zoning ordinance. On February 16, 1990, Co-applicants and the City of Cape Coral entered into a stipulation in which the County confirmed that the Co-applicants' proposed transmission line corridor traverses through an area of the City of Cape Coral that is zoned Agricultural and that, therefore, the transmission line is an authorized use under the City of Cape Coral zoning ordinance. Furthermore, the County stipulated that the proposed site of the transmission line is consistent and in compliance with the City of Cape Coral's land use plan. City of Auburndale The associated linear facility to be located in the City of Auburndale is a portion of a natural gas pipeline that extends from approximately one mile north of Polk City where it interconnects with the existing Florida Gas Transmission 18 inch St. Petersburg lateral and continues south to the Hardee Power Station. The land use plan that governs the proposed corridor of the natural gas pipeline through the City of Auburndale is the June 1977 City of Auburndale Comprehensive Plan. The applicable zoning regulation is the City of Auburndale's zoning ordinance codified in Chapter 25 of the City of Auburndale Code. In Auburndale, there are two future land use maps for the City of Auburndale contained in its comprehensive plan. One of these land use plan maps covers an area where the pipeline corridor crosses three land use plan categories: agricultural; medium-density residential; and low-density residential. The City of Auburndale Comprehensive Plan does not mention gas pipelines. Expert testimony demonstrated that the proposed pepeline corridor does not contravene the land use plan of the City of Auburndale. Within the City of Auburndale, the proposed gas pipeline corridor crosses the zoning category CH (commercial highway). The City of Auburndale's zoning ordinance defines essential services to include gas facilities and indicates they can be located in any zoning district after review and approval by the City Commission. That review and approval occurred on April 2, 1990 as reflected in the City Commission resolution. On May 3, 1990, the City of Auburndale entered into a stipulation with Co-applicants wherein the County confirmed that the proposed natural gas pipeline corridor is consistent and in compliance with the City of Auburndale's existing land use plan and zoning ordinance. City of Bartow The associated linear facility located in the City of Bartow is a portion of a natural gas pipeline that extends from approximately one mile north of Polk City where it interconnects with the existing Florida Gas Transmission 18 inch St. Petersburg lateral and continues south to the Hardee Power Station. The land use plan that governs the proposed natural gas pipeline associated with the Hardee Power Station is the 1979 City of Bartow Comprehensive Plan. The applicable zoning regulations are the City of Bartow's zoning ordinance, Ordinance No. 981-A. The City of Bartow has not adopted a land use plan map so there are no land use plan categories crossed by the pipeline corridor in the City of Bartow. The City of Bartow's comprehensive plan does not mention gas pipelines. Expert testimony demonstrated that the proposed natural gas pipeline will be consistent and in compliance with the City of Bartow's land use plan. In the City of Bartow, the proposed pipeline crosses the following zoning categories: R1 and R1A (residential districts); C3 (highway commercial); P1 (professional office); and I-1 and I-2 (industrial districts). The City of Bartow's zoning ordinance defines gas pipelines as public service structures which are permitted in all zoning districts after review by the Zoning Commission. That review occurred on March 22, 1990 where the Zoning Commission recommended approval of the proposed gas pipeline. The recommendation was subsequently adopted by the City Commission. On May 3, 1990, the City of Bartow and the Co-applicants entered into a stipulation in which the City confirmed that the proposed natural gas pipeline corridor is consistent and in compliance with the City of Bartow's existing land use plan and zoning ordinance (Ordinance No. 981-A, as amended). City of Polk City The associated linear facility to be located in Polk City is a portion of a natural gas pipeline that extends from approximately one mile north of Polk City where it interconnects with the existing Florida Gas Transmission 18 inch St. Petersburg lateral and continues south to the Hardee Power Station. The land use plan that governs the proposed natural gas pipeline associated with the hardee Power Station is the Town of Polk City Comprehensive Plan adopted by the City Commission on September 4, 1980. The applicable zoning regulations are contained in Polk City Ordinance 89-11. In Polk City, the pipeline crosses two land-use categories, commercial and agricultural. The Polk City Comprehensive Plan does not mention natural gas pipelines. Expert testimony demonstrated that the natural gas pipeline corridor will be consistent and in compliance with the City of Polk City's land use plan. Within Polk City, the proposed natural gas pipeline corridor crosses one zoning category, C1 (commercial restricted). The Polk City zoning ordinance is silent on the matter of gas pipelines. However, the City Commission in Polk City, pursuant to a request by the Co-applicants, approved the proposed natural gas pipeline as an allowable use under the City's zoning ordinance. On May 3, 1990, Co-applicants and Polk City entered into a stipulation wherein the City confirmed that the proposed natural gas pipeline corridor is consistent and in compliance with Polk City's existing land use plan and zoning ordinance (Ordinance No. 89-11, as amended).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Governor and cabinet, sitting as the Siting Board, enter a Final Order finding that the site of the Hardee Power Station electric generating facilities and cooling reservoir, the site of the associated natural gas pipeline; and the site of the corridors for the directly associated transmissionlines, as proposed in the Site Certification Application, are consistent and in compliance with existing land use plans and zoning ordinances. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of June, 1990 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of June, 1990. Copies Furnished to all persons shown in Appendix A APPENDIX A APPEARANCES Hamilton S. Oven, Jr., P.E. Administrator, Siting Coordination Section Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Richard Donelan, Esquire Gary C. Smallridge, Esquire Dept. of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 G. Stephen Pfeiffer, Esquire Steve Hall, Esquire Dept. of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Edward B. Helvenston, Esquire Catherine D'Andrea, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, FL 34609-6899 Sarah Nall, Esquire South Florida Water Management District P. O. Box 24680 West Palm Beach, FL 33416-4680 Susan P. Clark, Esquire Suzanne S. Brownless, Esquire Florida Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Fletcher Building, Suite 212 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0863 Lawrence N. Curtin, Esquire Samuel J. Morley, Esquire P. O. Drawer 810 Tallahassee, FL 32302 William H. Green, Esquire James S. Alves, Esquire P. O. Box 6526 Tallahassee, FL 32314 Eugene E. McClellan, Jr., Esquire Dept. of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000 William Powell, Esquire City of Cape Coral Attorney P. O. Box 150027 Cape Coral, FL 33915-0027 Gary Vorbeck, Esquire DeSoto and Hardee County Attorney 207 East Magnolia Street Arcadia, FL 33821 Sandra Augustine, Esquire Beth A. Sullivan Esquire Charlotte County Attorney 18500 Murdock Circle Port Charlotte, FL 33948-1094 Mark F. Carpanini, Esquire Polk County Attorney P. O. Box 60 Bartow, FL 33830 H. Hamilton Rice, Jr., Esquire Jeffrey N. Steinsnyder, Esquire Manatee County Attorney 1112 Manatee Avenue West, Suite 969 P. O. Box 1000 Bradenton, FL 34205 James V. Antista, Esquire Kenneth McLaughlin, Esquire Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1600 Rivers H. Buford, Jr., Esquire Dept. of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, M.S.-58 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Alton Roane, Director Lee County Division of Planning P. O. Box 398 Ft. Myers, FL 33902-0398 David Emerson Bruner, Esquire Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council 1114-B North Collier Boulevard Marco Island, FL 33937 David C. Holoman, Esquire City of Arcadia Attorney P. O. Drawer 592 Arcadia, FL 33821 James Q. Duane, Executive Director Ralph Artigliere, Esquire Central Florida Regional Planning Council P. O. Box 3 Lakeland, FL 33802-0003 Thomas W. Reese, Esquire Manasota-88 123 Eighth Street, North St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Michael P. Haymans, Esquire P. O. Box 2159 Port Charlotte, FL 33952 APPENDIX B RULINGS ON PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT (DOAH Case No. 89-3560) The proposed findings of fact contained in the Joint Proposed Recommended Order filed on behalf of the Co-Applicants and the Department have been substantially adopted in Findings 1-93. The following rulings are made on proposed findings of fact contained in the Proposed Recommended Order filed on behalf of the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission: 1-2. Adopted in Finding 70. Adopted in Finding 71. Adopted in Findings 72, 73. Adopted in Finding 76. Adopted in Finding 77. Adopted in Finding 78. Adopted in Finding 79. Adopted in Finding 80. Adopted in Finding 81. Adopted in Finding 82. Adopted in Finding 83. The following rulings are made on proposed findings of fact contained in the Proposed Recommended Order filed on behalf of Intervenors Slack and Katzen: 1-2. Adopted in Finding 1. 3-6. Rejected as unnecessary since this is not in dispute. 7. Adopted in Finding 46. 8-10. Adopted in Finding 12, but otherwise Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted and Rejected in Findings 71-73. Adopted in Finding 90. 13-14. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence 15-16. Adopted in Finding 45. Adopted in Finding 48. Adopted in Findings 64, 65. Adopted in Findings 46, 71. Adopted and Rejected in Findings 46, 75. 21-26. Rejected in Findings 75-83, and as not based on competent substantial evidence. 27. Rejected in Findings 76, 80, 83, and as not based on competent substantial evidence. 28-30. Adopted in Finding 12, but otherwise Rejected as immaterial and unnecessary. Rejected in Finding 84, and otherwise as not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Finding 84. Adopted in Finding 85. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence and immaterial. Adopted in Finding 46. 36-37. Rejected in Findings 71-73. Adopted in Findings 53, 54. Rejected in Finding 53, and otherwise as not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Finding 53. 41-42. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. 43-44. Adopted in Finding 70. Adopted in Findings 75-83. Rejected as a conclusion of law and not a proposed finding of fact. 47-48. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 49. Adopted and Rejected in Finding 79. 50-53. Rejected as unnecessary, immaterial and irrelevant. 54-55. Rejected in Finding 84 and otherwise as not based on competent substantial evidence. 56-57. Adopted in Finding 70. 58. Rejected as speculative, irrelevant, and as not based on competent substantial evidence. 59-60. Adopted in Finding 70. Rejected in Finding 84 and otherwise as not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted and Rejected in Finding 78. 63-64. Adopted and Rejected in Findings 76-80. 65. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence 66-71. Adopted in Findings 74, 76 and 79, but otherwise Rejected in Finding 80 and as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence Rejected in Findings 73, 75. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected in Finding 77. 77-78. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. APPENDIX C * CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION * NOTE: THE REMAINING APPENDIX CONTAIN MAPS AND OTHER UNSCANABLE MATERIAL WHICH ARE AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE DIVISION'S CLERK'S OFFICE.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 05S-01 (the Plan Amendment) adopted by Polk County (County) through the enactment of Ordinance No. 05-004 is “in compliance,” as that term is defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes,1 and whether Petitioner, Citizens for Proper Planning, Inc. (CPPI), has standing as an “affected person” as defined by Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes, in this proceeding.
Findings Of Fact The ECRA is a local special district governmental agency established pursuant to Chapter 163, Part III, Florida Statutes, and is composed of a seven-member board of directors. The boundaries of the Eloise Community Redevelopment Area include an area consisting of approximately 665 acres within the unincorporated Eloise area of Polk County (the Redevelopment Area). The Subject Property is located within the Redevelopment Area. See JE 8A. The ECRA meets once a month, except July, when they do not normally meet. Its purpose is to discuss and implement the ECRA Redevelopment Plan’s six objectives within the Redevelopment Area. The ECRA opposed the Plan Amendment by and through its attorney and submitted oral and written comments, recommendations, and objections to the County regarding the Plan Amendment during the Plan Amendment adoption proceedings. As a part of its presentation to the County regarding the Plan Amendment, the ECRA delivered to the County, ECRA Resolution No. R-05-01, objecting to the Plan Amendment. The parties agree that the ECRA has standing in this proceeding. Petitioner, Bruce Bachman (Mr. Bachman), resides in Winter Haven, Polk County, Florida. His residence is located outside of the Redevelopment Area and is approximately three (3) miles from the Subject Property. He is employed as the operator (since 1980) and general manager of Phoenix Industries, LLP, (Phoenix), located at 621 Snively Avenue, County Road (CR) 655 in Eloise, which is adjacent to and across the street from the Subject Property. Mr. Bachman has served as the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the ECRA since 1998. Phoenix operates a warehousing and distribution complex for dry, refrigerated, and frozen food products east of Snively Avenue and across the street from the Subject Property. The Phoenix property stretches north and south within an elongated area within the Redevelopment Area, and is open 24-hours a day, seven days a week.2 See JE 8A at "30". (The railroad, designated with a red line, runs north and south through the Phoenix property. JE 8A.) Phoenix has spent approximately $115,000 changing the angles of its buildings and moving docks so that trucks could maneuver on the property, and not have to enter Snively Avenue to do so. Mr. Bachman is involved with the Eloise residential area and the Redevelopment Area generally and his contributions to the Eloise area are well-noted in the record. His work with the community includes working with the students at Snively Elementary School. Individually, and on behalf of the ECRA, Mr. Bachman submitted oral and written comments, recommendations, and objections to the County during the Plan Amendment adoption proceedings. The parties agree that Mr. Bachman has standing in this proceeding. Petitioner, Johnny Brooks (Mr. Brooks), resides at 143 8th Street, Eloise, Polk County, Florida, approximately three (3) blocks southwest from the Subject Property. His home is located within the main residential component of the Redevelopment Area. He was born in Eloise (on 5th Street) and has lived, with his wife, at the 8th Street address for 41 years. Mr. Brooks also serves as Vice-Chairman of the Board of Directors of the ECRA. Although disabled, Mr. Brooks is an active member of the Eloise Community. For example, he and his wife conduct a “homework club” at the Eloise Community Resource Center (opened in 2002) located between 7th and 8th Streets and Snively Avenue, which is east and down the block from his residence. JE 8A at "2". They also use the computer lab at the resource center for adult education. They use the neighborhood Snively/Brooks Park, JE 8A at "4", approximately one block south of the Brooks' residence and west of the Snively Elementary School, JE 8A at "3", for, among other activities, Easter egg hunts and Christmas parties. Mr. Brooks is also involved in the Eloise Neighborhood Association, which offers adult computer classes, GED classes, and classes in English as a Second Language. He and his family use other resources within the Redevelopment Area, such as the Snively Elementary School, and a post office, JE 8A at "1", which is located approximately one block north of the Subject Property between 4th and 5th Streets, near Snively Avenue. Mr. Brooks attends the Eloise United Methodist Church (built in 1966-1967), which is located on land designated as Industrial (IND) on the FLUM. 3 JE 8A at "10". This church is located on the southwest side of Snively Avenue, and approximately five or six blocks south of the Subject Property and approximately two blocks south of the Snively Elementary School and the Snively-Brooks Park.4 Mr. Brooks submitted oral comments, recommendations, and objections to the County during the Plan Amendment adoption proceedings. The parties agree that Mr. Brooks has standing in this proceeding. CPPI is an organization comprised of approximately two hundred members, located throughout Polk County, Florida. CPPI has been an existing corporation since 2002. No application, request to join or payment of dues is currently required for membership. According to its executive chairperson, Jean Reed, its purpose is to "better plan for our growth in Polk County." Ms. Reed lives approximately one mile east of Eloise and four of five of the CPPI Board of Directors live within a mile of Eloise. All CPPI members live in the County. CPPI had been involved in County hearings and an administrative hearing involving a small scale comprehensive plan amendment. The organization currently encourages donations and plans to charge dues next year. CPPI submitted oral comments, recommendations and objections to the County during the Plan Amendment adoption proceedings. No evidence was presented to show that CPPI owns real property within the County. The County and the Intervenor dispute CPPI’s standing in this proceeding. The County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida, empowered to adopt, implement, and amend its Comprehensive Plan in accordance with the laws of Florida. Intervenor, Don C. Smith (Smith or Intervenor), owns the Subject Property. He purchased the Subject Property of 9.9 acres, which is part of a contiguous 20-acre site, in May of 2003. Mr. Smith learned that the Subject Property had an RL-4 land use designation just prior to his purchase of the Subject Property. The parties agree that Mr. Smith has standing in this proceeding. The Eloise Community Redevelopment Area The Redevelopment Area consists of approximately 665 acres. EE 2, Plan at 30. It is generally bounded by the CSX railroad to the north of US 17; by Lake Lulu and Shell Road on the east; by Snively Avenue (CR 655) on the south; and by Wahneta Canal and a portion of Wahneta farms on the west. JE 8A.5 (Snively Avenue is a four-lane undivided, major collector highway, but is not a buffer.) Both historically and presently, the Redevelopment Area has been composed of mixed uses in an urban area. Under the FLUM, there are eight separate land uses within the Redevelopment Area: Industrial (IND), Business Park Center (BPC- 2), High Impact Commercial (HIC), Institutional (INST-1), Community Activity Center (CAC), Residential Suburban (RS), Residential Low-1 (RL-1), and Residential Low-4 (RL-4). JE 8A. Beginning at the northern portion of the Redevelopment Area and moving from west to east, south of the CSX railroad and approximately one block south of US 17, the land uses designated on the FLUM are HIC, CAC, and HIC. Moving southward and east of Snively Avenue, the land use designation for a triangular portion of land is BPC-2. The land use designation adjacent to and immediately south of the BPC-2 designation and east of Snively Avenue is designated as IND. The IND designation covers the land in a southerly direction until Snively Avenue intersects with Croton Road. The land to the east and adjacent to the BPC-2 and IND designations is designated as RL-1. There is a small portion of land near Shell and Croton Roads at the southern boundary of the Redevelopment Area designated as Residential Suburban (RS). (The RS designation continues to the east outside of the Redevelopment Area. Lake Lulu is to the east of the eastern RL-1 and RS designations.) There is also land designated as RL-1 west of Snively Avenue, bisected by Unnamed Street, extending west of Wahneta Canal and south-southwest of the Snively Elementary School/Snively-Brooks Park area, to the southwestern boundary of the Redevelopment Area.6 The Snively Elementary School and the Snively-Brooks Park are located in the INST-1 land use designation.7 JE 8A. Approximately 150 children walk to and from this elementary school (with another 60 to middle and high schools outside the Redevelopment Area), utilizing the sidewalk bordering the western portion of Snively Avenue. The majority of the children attending the elementary school reside in the RL-4 designated area (mainly between 1st and 9th Streets). Mr. Smith agreed that the elementary school was in close proximity to the Subject Property. Mr. Smith testified that after meetings with the ECRA, he moved the fence in front of the Subject Property and business back ten feet so that the children could have more room to walk down the street. He also instructed his drivers of big trucks and heavy equipment not to enter the Subject Property during times when the children are going to and from school. There are several school crossings, crossing Snively Avenue. There is a bus stop at 5th Street and Snively Avenue for children attending middle and high school. JE 8A at "6". There are also bus stops on 7th Street and in front of the elementary school. JE 8A at "5" and "7". Except for the residential portions of the CAC and BPC-2 areas, the primary residential area of the Redevelopment Area is generally bounded by US 17 and 1st Street on the north, the Wahneta Canal on the west, and to just north of Snively Elementary School and 9th Street on the south. JE 8A; EE 2, Plan at 6 and Figure 2. The Eloise Community Redevelopment Area Uses 1. In General The Redevelopment Area, for at least the last 40 years, has supported a wide variety of industrial, commercial, institutional, and residential uses. Mr. Brooks and Mr. Smith testified that the Redevelopment Area has supported these mixed uses and has historically been defined by the interrelationship of these various uses with the predominant industrial activities within its boundaries. In the past, the established residential area (RL-4) was once a successful working-class neighborhood which primarily provided homes to those workers who were employed in the citrus plants located within the industrial classified areas. That residential area is now blighted and provides housing for low and moderate income families. Though well established, the RL-4 residential area contains a substantial number of vacant lots within that residential designated area. 2. Redevelopment Area Problems and Redevelopment During the early 1980’s, Eloise was a troubled community, suffering, for example, from theft and vandalism. The community had difficulty finding minority contractors willing to work at Phoenix because of the problems associated with the community. By the early 1990s, the residential area of the Redevelopment Area had deteriorated to such an extent that the Housing and Neighborhood Development Division (HND), an agency of the County, became actively involved in the redevelopment of the community. In 1992, the Eloise Neighborhood Association was formed. In 1996, a Neighborhood Revitalization/Redevelopment Plan was commissioned by HND. This plan was prepared by County staff. Also in 1996, the HND and the Eloise Neighborhood Association prepared the Eloise Neighborhood Revitalization/Redevelopment Plan, which “focused on the 138 acres generally bounded by the CSX Railroad on the east, the railroad and US 17 on the north, the Wahneta Canal on the west, to just south of the Snively Elementary School. Its recommendations included improved social services, land use changes, housing programs and infrastructure improvements.” In 1998, a Declaration of Slum and Blight was adopted by the Board through Resolutions Nos. 98-08 and 98-66, which, respectively, made a finding of blighting conditions in Eloise and adopted a redevelopment plan for Eloise. As a result, the ERCA was created pursuant to Section 163.356, Florida Statutes, to rehabilitate, conserve, and/or redevelop the Redevelopment Area. In 2000, the Board, pursuant to Section 163.360, Florida Statutes, adopted Ordinance No. 00-33, approving of the Eloise Redevelopment Plan as the Community Development Plan for the Redevelopment Area. It was the purpose and intent of the Board that the Eloise Redevelopment Plan be implemented in the Redevelopment Area. The Board made numerous findings in Ordinance No. 00- 33 including a determination that “[t]he Plan conforms to the general plan of the county as a whole” and that “[t]he Plan conforms to the Polk County Comprehensive Plan.” The Board also determined that “[t]he need for housing accommodations has increased in the area.” The Eloise Redevelopment Plan has not been adopted as part of the County's Comprehensive Plan. Thus, the Plan Amendment need not be consistent with the Eloise Redevelopment Plan to be “in compliance.” The May 2000, Eloise Redevelopment Plan describes the then existing ownership patterns such that “[t]he existing Eloise residential neighborhood between 1st and 9th Streets is subdivided into platted, fifty-foot wide lots. Most are 100-125 feet in depth. Lots along 9th Street abutting the school are platted as 70-foot wide lots. The ownership pattern in this area typically follows the lot lines. Most are individually owned lots. (See Figure 6).” EE 2, Plan at 16. Particularly relevant here, it is also stated: “Lots 33 and 34 [part of the Subject Property] are each approximately 9 acres and are owned by Alterman Transport Corporation (ATC). The site is currently used for storage and, in the past, was zoned GI [General Industrial] and R-3. In the current Comprehensive Plan, however, this site is planned for Residential Suburban (RS) to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The trucks are a legal-nonconforming use and may continue but any future development shall comply with the RS land use district.” EE 2, Plan at 16. The Eloise Redevelopment Plan also recommended that the Alterman Trucking Annex, also known as the Alterman Transportation Corporation, be developed for up to 75 single- family homes by the end of 2004. EE 2, Plan at 32; JE 3 at 3 of (The Subject Property was also formerly known as the Alterman Motor Freight Terminal. JE 2, 8/10/2004 site map.) In 2001, the County also changed the classification of the Subject Property from RS to RL-4 pursuant to Ordinance No. 01-45. See Finding of Fact 54. In addition to the creation of the ECRA, the County, through the HND, has attempted to revitalize the Redevelopment Area. Since 1993, HND has spent approximately $4.4 million dollars in these efforts. These funds have been spent on community policing ($424,790), slum and blight clearing ($47,428), housing rehabilitation ($186,807), parks and recreation ($149,982), water/sewer/drainage ($1,094,677), construction of the Eloise Community Center ($2,147,037), replacement of five homes ($314,138), and rehabilitation and repair of five homes ($46,819). As part of the Eloise Redevelopment Plan, many additional infrastructure improvements have been proposed, such as fire hydrants, turnaround areas for emergency vehicles and fire trucks, storm water installation, and sewer for the Residential Area of Eloise between 1st and 9th Streets and between Snively Avenue and the canal. The proposed projects for water, sewer, and storm water include 350 parcels to be served in this Residential Area. The construction of the Eloise Community Center has been the most costly expense in these efforts. After the County obtained this parcel from Phoenix Industries, it was discovered that the land was contaminated and more than $400,000 was spent on environmental clean-up costs for this property. The ECRA and the County have made progress in the area of code enforcement. Furthermore, crime has been cut in half and a drinking ordinance was passed by the County upon request of the ECRA and the Eloise Neighborhood Association. Eloise, with the County's cooperation, also initiated a Community- Oriented Policing program. There has been an increase in construction in the area, both on the residential and commercial/industrial side of Snively Avenue. The ECRA has also been working on a beautification strategy. For example, Phoenix spent $35,000 for landscaping, removing barbed wire, installing an irrigation system, and installing an attractive entrance to its facilities. Further beautification is planned for other areas along Snively Avenue, the main gateway to the area from US 17, and improvements to Snively Elementary School, for which the ECRA allocated up to $10,000. Currently, the socio-economic status of the families living within the residential portion of the Redevelopment Area is low and moderate income. But, as noted above, the area is being revitalized, including the addition of several Habitat for Humanity-built homes. Mr. Bachman confirmed that "[t]hings have changed now," including the employment of minorities and an increase in diversity at the elementary school. The Subject Property The Subject Property is located within the Redevelopment Area on the southwest side of Snively Avenue between 5th and 6th Streets. JE 8A. The Subject Property consists of approximately 9.9 acres, which is part of a 20-acre parcel owned by Mr. Smith. Tr. 261. (There is a vacant parcel not subject to the Plan Amendment, also acquired by Mr. Smith at the same time, adjacent to and west of the Subject Property, which appears to be within a flood zone area. JE 8A at “46”. The canal serves as the western border for this parcel.) Currently, there are ten to eleven residences along 5th Street, north of the Subject Property, and ten residences between the Subject Property and 6th Street, south of the Subject Property. See EE 7. There does not appear to be any appreciable distance between these residences and the Subject Property. Aside from the residential homes north and south of the Subject Property, there are also retail, auto repair, and other commercial uses which border on Snively Avenue. See, e.g., IE 1, aerial with 15 photographs; JE 3 at 5 of 27; Tr. 295-297; JE 8A. According to Mr. Smith, he requested the land use designation change to cure the non-conforming status of the Subject Property. All operations on the Subject Property had ceased for less than one year when he purchased the Subject Property. The Subject Property has historically and, except as noted above, continuously been utilized since the late 1960’s for industrial-type purposes, including motor freight activities which include loading and unloading citrus trucks, racking, truck repair, and truck weighing. These activities would not necessarily be restricted to an Industrial land use designation;8 the current use of the Subject Property as a motor freight terminal is also permitted within a BPC-2 land use designation. There has been no substantial change in the use of the Subject Property since 1980.9 Mr. Brooks testified that while he was growing up in Eloise, the Subject Property "was primarily truck parking for the citrus plant." He "worked for the scale house back in the late 60's before the plant went down and all [they] did was like park the trucks there for unloading and which would be in the citrus plant itself." However, he never knew the Subject Property "to be an industrial park itself," during the late 1960's. Historically, Mr. Snively, who died in 1957, owned several different businesses across the street from the Subject Property, including a fresh fruit packing house, JE 8A at "20", juice plant, JE 8A at "21", concentrate plant, JE 8A at “22”. The plant closed in 1969 or 1970. In and around 1972, during the summer, Mr. Smith worked for the Snively operation when they parked their citrus trucks on the Subject Property and then for the Alterman operation on-site when he loaded and unloaded trucks. Under the County's zoning ordinance adopted in November 1970, the Subject Property, along with the Phoenix Industries Property, its adjoining property, and the property southeast and adjacent to Snively Elementary School, were zoned as General Industrial (GI). Like the Subject Property, this industrial area is located east and immediately adjacent to property classified as residential (RS) (although the property is presently undeveloped). By an amendment to the FLUM adopted by Ordinance No. 91-06 on April 19, 1991, the Subject Property was classified as RS, rather than IND.10 At the same time, the Phoenix Industries Property, its adjoining property, and the property immediately adjacent to Snively Elementary all maintained their Industrial classification. The May 2000 Eloise Redevelopment Plan recommended, in part, consideration of "a plan amendment from RS to RL-4 for the properties north of Snively [Elementary] School and west of Snively Avenue" which included the Subject Property. EE 2, Plan at 38. On July 11, 2001, the County adopted Ordinance No. 01- 45, which changed the land use designation on the FLUM from RS to RL-4, for all of the property (including the Subject Property) between 1st Street and just south of 9th Street and between Snively Avenue on the east and the canal on the west. EE 1 at map page 2. The land use designation for the Snively- Brooks Park was also changed to INST-1 from IND. Other land use designations were changed pursuant to Ordinance No. 01-45. EE 1. See also Tr. 130-136, 139-140. The FLUM changes implemented strategies set forth in the Eloise Redevelopment Plan and adopted recommended changes to the FLUM. See Tr. 163. The RL-4 designated property is located immediately adjacent to and on the north, west, and south sides of the Subject Property. JE 8A. Across Snively Avenue from the RL-4 property is the industrial area which was previously used in the citrus industry and which is currently used by Phoenix warehousing and trucking activities. JE 8A. "The purpose of the [RL-4] District is to provide areas for low density residential needs of residents in urban areas who desire areas with smaller lots, a minimum of 6,000 square feet." § 204A7., Land Development Code (LDC). The County and Mr. Smith contend that the Subject Property was mistakenly or erroneously classified as RS in 1991 and RL-4 in 2001. However, the preponderance of the evidence indicates that no mistake or error was made in 1991 or 2001 based, in part, on the chronology of events regarding the land use changes mentioned above. Merle H. Bishop, A.I.C.P., the current Director of Growth Management for the County, has been an employee of Polk County for 30 years, and was involved in the adoption of the original Comprehensive Plan in 1991. In preparing land use designations for the initial FLUM, he used aerial photographs primarily and the existing zoning at the time. Since that time, he and staff have discovered errors in mapping the land uses of property, including industrial. Typically, the errors have been corrected when presented to the Board for comprehensive plan changes to the FLUM. Mr. Bishop testified that pursuant to a policy in the Comprehensive Plan, the County desired to “recognize industrial uses.” Tr. 444-445. According to Mr. Bishop, an active industrial use would only be eliminated with good reason, i.e., such as it was a remote and isolated industrial use. Tr. 455. According to Mr. Bishop, the Subject Property, the southern parcel by the elementary school, and the Phoenix Industries property made up a major industrial use area. Tr. 456. Although Mr. Bishop stated the Subject Property "would have been" designated as Industrial in 1991 given its use, Tr. 511-512, Mr. Bishop could not "say whether or not [they] missed this on the map when [they] mapped it. I mean it appears -- I mean, when you look at the map, it's very general; or whether there was an intention to not map it." Tr. 483-484. Mr. Bishop did not testify persuasively that the Board, in 1991 or in 2001, erroneously designated the Subject Property as RS and then RL-4. The February 2, 2005, staff report, mentions the applicant’s contention that a mapping error occurred, but implicitly rejects this argument. JE 3 at 11 and 12 of 27. Staff stated: The site has recently changed ownership and the current property owner wants the non-conforming uses to become conforming uses. Recognizing the existing use will enable to [sic] owner to continue utilizing the site as it has historically been used and allow the redevelopment of the property as needed. In addition, the use has remained the same since the early 1970’s according to the applicant. The applicant also states that Policy 2.113-A2 of the Comprehensive Plan states that the [FLUM] Series shall include all major existing industrial areas; since the property has historically been used for industrial uses, the recognition of the site will correct the County’s mapping error. On the other hand, staff and the ECRA has [sic] indicated, for this and the prior requested land use change (CPA 04A-05), that the impacts to the residential neighborhood is [sic] more significant than the redevelopment of the site for commercial or industrial uses. The County worked with the residents, business owners, and land owners in the area to develop a redevelopment plan, in which, the site was intentionally made non-conforming by the community and the County in order to create separation between the industrial uses across the street from the residential uses on the west side of CR 655 (Rifle Range Road [sic]). Therefore, the applicant’s primary argument for recognizing the historical use is not relevant. JE 3 at 12 of 27. Mr. Bishop was not directly involved with the staff review although he participated at the pubic hearing before the Board. If the Subject Property were vacant, Mr. Bishop would not recommend an Industrial land use designation. He supports the land use change because of the existing (at the time) use of the Subject Property and to have the property be a conforming use. Tr. 506-507. The history of industrial-type use on both the Subject Property and other sites in the Redevelopment Area has been a subject of significant concern. Although no tests have been conducted to determine whether the Subject Property is contaminated, Dr. Cherry testified that as a result of its long industrial use, it is likely that contamination will be present, which would render its use for residential purposes not realistic. Tr. 221-223. Since the subject property is located near the property upon which the community center was constructed and both parcels were part of a larger industrial area and utilized for similar uses, Dr. Cherry suspects that the Subject Property will likewise be contaminated. Tr. 222. If the Subject Property is contaminated, it is Dr. Cherry's opinion that there will be insufficient funds to clean the area. Tr. 219. Consequently, Dr. Cherry opined that if the Subject Property could not be used for industrial purposes, it would likely be unable to be developed as residential and most likely would be abandoned, thereby becoming a “brownfield.” This would significantly burden the redevelopment efforts in the Redevelopment Area. However, the Subject Property has not been declared a “brownfield” and no finding can be made regarding the environmental condition of the Subject Property based upon the record of this case. The Small Scale Plan Amendment Application and Adoption On or about August 10, 2004, Mr. Smith filed an application requesting the County to re-designate the land use of the Subject Property from RL-4 to IND. JE 2. According to the “Narrative Summary,” “[t]his change will provide for the continuation of historical motor freight uses and provide for optional industrial uses.” Id. On January 4, 2005, the County published Notice in a newspaper of local circulation providing that the Board would consider the adoption of the Plan Amendment at its meeting of January 19, 2005. At the January 19, 2005, meeting, the County tabled consideration of the Plan Amendment to its meeting of February 2, 2005. The Polk County Planning Division Staff report is dated February 2, 2005. This report contains a detailed analysis of the application. The Planning Division recommended denial of the Plan Amendment. (The report indicates that the Planning Commission recommended approval (3 to 1 vote) of the Plan Amendment.) The Planning Division found, in part, that "the proposed development request IS NOT compatible with surrounding land uses and general character of the area of the residential uses on the southern side of Snively Avenue (CR 655) and IS NOT consistent with the Polk County Comprehensive Plan for a land use change to Industrial (IND) because it would likely intrude into the existing residential neighborhood, allow for more intensive uses to be developed next to existing homes, and not be consistent with the approved Eloise Redevelopment Plan." (Emphasis is original). On February 2, 2005, the Board voted to adopt the Plan Amendment by the adoption of Ordinance No. 05-004.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a final order concluding that the Plan Amendment adopted by Polk County Ordinance No. 05-004 is not "in compliance" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of July, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES A. STAMPELOS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of July, 2005.
The Issue Whether an amendment to the Broward County Comprehensive Plan, PC-92-20, which was adopted by ordinance number 92-50 rendered the Broward County Comprehensive Plan not "in compliance", within the meaning of Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact The Parties. The Petitioner, the Florida Department of Community Affairs (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is a state agency. The Department is charged pursuant to the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Part II of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), with responsibility for, among other things, the review of comprehensive growth management plans and amendments thereto. The Respondent, Broward County (hereinafter referred to as the "County"), is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. The County is the local government charged with the responsibility pursuant to the Act for developing a comprehensive plan for future development in the unincorporated areas of the County and the approval of amendments to the County's comprehensive plan. The Intervenor, Susan Edn, is a resident of, and owns real property located in, Broward County, Florida. Ms. Edn submitted written and oral comments to the County concerning the plan amendment at issue in this proceeding. General Description of the County. The County is a generally rectangular-shaped area located on the southeastern coast of Florida. The County is bounded on the north by Palm Beach County, on the south by Dade County, on the east by the Atlantic Ocean and on the west by Collier and Hendry Counties. The County's Comprehensive Plan. The County adopted a comprehensive plan as required by the Act on March 1, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the "County Plan"). Volume 1 of the County Plan includes the Broward County Land Use Plan, which applies to, and governs, future land use throughout the County, including the unincorporated areas of the County. The Future Land Use Element. The County Plan includes a Future Unincorporated Area Land Use Element dealing with future land use in the unincorporated areas of the County. See Volume 2 of the County Plan, Edn exhibit 15. The Future Land Use Element of the County Plan required by the Act consists of the Broward County Land Use Plan and the Future Unincorporated Area Land Use Element. The Future Land Use Element identifies a number of land-use categories, including a "residential" category. Densities of development on land designated "residential" are also established. There are eight designated residential future land uses identified and defined in the Future Land Use Element of the County Plan. Those designations and densities are as follows: Estate (1) Residential: up to 1 dwelling unit per gross acre. Low (2) Residential: up to 2 dwelling units per gross acre. Low (3) Residential: up to 3 dwelling units per gross acre. Low (5) Residential: up to 5 dwelling units per gross acre. Low-Medium (10) Residential: up to 10 dwelling units per gross acre. Medium (16) Residential: up to 16 dwelling units per gross acre. Medium-High (25) Residential: up to 25 dwelling units per gross acre. High (50) Residential: up to 50 dwelling units per gross acre. The density of development for the Rural Estate category is up to 1 dwelling unit per gross acre. The density for the Rural Ranch category is up to 1 dwelling unit per 2.5 gross acres or up to 1 dwelling unit per 2 net acres. The County Plan includes Goal 08.00.00, titled Public Facilities and Phased Growth, and Objective 08.01.00, which provide: GOAL 08.00.00 PHASE GROWTH CONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISION OF ADEQUATE REGIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICES AND FACILITIES. OBJECTIVE 08.01.00 COORDINATE FUTURE LAND USES WITH AVAILABLE REGIONAL AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES Coordinate future land uses with the availability of regional and community facilities and services sufficient to meet the current and future needs of Broward County's population and economy without endangering its environmental resources. The following policies related to Goal 08.00.00 and Objective 08.01.00 are included in the County Plan: POLICY 08.01.04 In order to protect the health, safety, and welfare of Broward County's residents, development should not be permitted in those portions of Broward County with inadequate potable water and wastewater treatment facilities. . . . . POLICY 08.01.09 Private septic tanks and wells in Broward County should be phased out and replaced with centralized water and wastewater systems, where necessary, to protect the health, safety, and welfare of Broward County's residents. POLICY 08.01.10 Local government entities shall require existing development on septic tanks and private wells to hook up to centralized sewer and water facilities as they become available. The evidence failed to prove that the amendment which is the subject of this proceeding is inconsistent with the policies quoted in finding of fact 14 or any other goal, objective or policy of the County Plan. The Subject Amendment: PC-92-20. The Board of County Commissioners of the County adopted Ordinance 92- 50 on December 9, 1992. Ordinance 92-50 included nineteen amendments to the County Plan, including amendment PC-92-20. PC-92-20 (hereinafter referred to as the "Challenged Amendment"), is the amendment to the County Plan challenged in this proceeding by Ms. Edn. The Challenged Amendment amends the land use designation of approximately 2,453 acres of land. Of the 2,453 total acres, the designation of 2,272 acres is changed from Estate (1) Residential to Rural Ranch and the designation of the remaining 180.7 acres of land is changed to Rural Estate. Pursuant to the Challenged Amendment the change in designation also results in a change in density from one dwelling unit per acre to a density of one dwelling unit per two and one-half acres for the Rural Ranch and a density of one dwelling unit per two net acres for the Rural Estate. The Subject Property. The 2,453 acres of land which are the subject of the Challenged Amendment are located in the unincorporated area of the County, east of Southwest 148th Avenue, south of Griffin Road, west of Flamingo Road and north of Sheridan Street. Dwellings currently exist on approximately 85 percent to 90 percent of the subject property. Existing dwellings are served by septic tanks and wells. Pursuant to the County Plan, without the Challenged Amendment, the 10 percent to 15 percent of the subject property not yet developed may be developed at a higher density using septic tanks and individual wells. The subject property is not currently serviced by a sewer service provider or a water service provider. The County Plan recognizes and accepts the foregoing existing conditions. See Map 12-1 of the County Plan Map Series titled "Existing and Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service Area", and Map 14-1 of the County Plan Map Series, titled "Existing and Proposed Potable Water Service Area." The Challenged Amendment does not modify the existing conditions of the subject property except to decrease the density of development allowed on the property. The subject property is not located within a public wellfield zone of influence. See County Plan Land Use Plan Natural Resource Map Series, titled "Existing and Planned Waterwells & Zones of Influence." The Department's Review of the Challenged Amendment. The Department reviewed the Challenged Amendment as originated by the Act. After review of the Challenged Amendment, the Department raised no objections. As part of the Department's initial review of the Challenged Amendment pursuant to Section 163.3184(6), Florida Statutes (1992 Supp.), the Department considered comments of various entities, including the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the South Florida Regional Planning Council, the South Florida Water Management District and others concerning the Challenged Amendment. Some of those comments were critical. The critical comments concerning the Challenged Amendment pertain to the use of wells for potable water and the use of septic tanks in the effected area. Those concerns were considered by the Department and ultimately determined to be insufficient to find the Challenged Amendment not "in compliance." The Department's conclusion was based, in part, upon the fact that the Challenged Amendment will reduce the demand on sewer by 477,400 gallons per day and the demand on water by 380,800 gallons per day. The Department's conclusion was also based upon the fact that the majority of the area effected has already been built-out. Ms. Edn offered the critical comments of various governmental entities who provided comments to the Department pursuant to Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes (1992 Supp.), into evidence. Evidently, Ms. Edn believes that those comments were not adequately considered by the Department or that they prove that the Challenged Amendment is not "in compliance." The evidence failed to prove either suggestion. The evidence failed to prove that the Department's consideration of critical comments about the Challenged Amendment was not adequate or that the Department's conclusions concerning those comments were not reasonable and proper. On the contrary, the evidence proved that the Department did consider all comments and decided that the Challenged Amendment was "in compliance" despite the critical comments. The evidence also proved that the Department's rationale for still finding the Challenged Amendment in compliance was reasonable. Additionally, Ms. Edn failed to present evidence to support a finding that the entities that made critical comments concerning the Challenged Amendment during the initial review of the Challenged Amendment still believe those comments are valid. Therefore, the evidence failed to prove that the critical comments concerning the Challenged Amendment were still valid as of the date of the final hearing of this matter. Data and Analysis-Sewer and Potable Water Services. The evidence failed to prove that the County did not provide data and analysis concerning the impact of the Challenged Amendment on sewer and potable water services. Facility and service capacity data and analyses concerning the impact of the Challenged Amendment on the availability of, and the demand for, sewer and potable water services was provided to the Department by the County. Based upon the data and analysis provided, the Challenged Amendment will tend to reduce the demand on sewer and potable water services. The evidence failed to prove that the data and analysis provided was inadequate. Data and Analysis-Soil Suitability. The evidence failed to prove that the County did not provide data and analysis concerning soil suitability. The County submitted data and analysis concerning the impact of the Challenged Amendment on soil and natural resources, including waterwells and zones of influence, to the Department. The County concluded that the Challenged Amendment would preserve the natural function of soils in the area and Ms. Edn failed to prove the inaccuracy of the County's conclusion. See the County Land Use Plan Natural Resource Map Services titled "Soils." Data and Analysis-Wellfield Protection. The evidence failed to prove that the County did not provide data and analysis concerning the impact of the Challenged Amendment on wellfield protection. The County relied upon the County Land Use Plan natural Resource Map Series titled "Existing and Planned Waterwells and Zones of Influence" and concluded that the area impacted by the Challenged Amendment is not located within a public wellfield zone of influence. The evidence failed to prove the inaccuracy of the County's conclusion. Data and Analysis-Biscayne Aquifer. The evidence failed to prove that the County did not provide data and analysis concerning the impact of the Challenged Amendment on the Biscayne Aquifer. The South Florida Water Management District has not designated the area of the County impacted by the Challenged Amendment to be a "prime groundwater recharge area" for the Biscayne Aquifer. Proliferation of Urban Sprawl. Pursuant to Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, (1992 Supp.) and Rule 9J-5.006(3)(b)7, Florida Administrative Code, comprehensive plans are required to discourage the proliferation of "urban sprawl". The Department has provided a definition of "urban sprawl" in a November 1989 Technical Memorandum: . . . scattered, untimely, poorly planned urban development that occurs in urban fringe and rural areas and frequently invades lands important for environmental and natural resource protection. Urban sprawl typically manifests itself in one or more of the following patterns: (1) leapfrog development; (2) ribbon or strip development; and (3) large expanses of low-density single- dimensional development. The evidence failed to prove that the foregoing definition or any other pronouncement in the Technical Memorandum constitutes policy of the Department. The evidence also failed to prove that the reduced densities allowed by the Challenged Amendment constitute "urban sprawl." The State Comprehensive Plan. The State Comprehensive Plan is contained in Chapter 187, Florida Statutes. Goals and Policies of the State Comprehensive Plan are contained in Section 187.201, Florida Statutes. The evidence failed to prove that the Challenged Amendment is inconsistent with any provision of the State Comprehensive Plan. The Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan. The South Florida Planning Council has adopted the Regional Plan for South Florida (hereinafter referred to as the "Regional Plan"). The Regional Plan was adopted pursuant to Chapter 186, Florida Statutes, to provide regional planning objectives for the County, Dade County and Monroe County. In the petition filed in this case, Ms. Edn alleged that the Challenged Amendment is inconsistent with Goal 13.4.10 of the Regional Plan. Goal 13.4.10 of the Regional Plan provides the following: Within the study area of the Southwest Broward/Northwest Dade Subregional Study, any existing or new user of on-site disposal systems in Broward County and within the Dade County urban development boundary should be required to hook up to a centralized wastewater collection when available. The evidence failed to prove that centralized wastewater collection is "available" to require existing or new users of on-site disposal systems in the area of the Challenged Amendment to hook up to. The evidence failed to prove that the Challenged Amendment is inconsistent with the Regional Plan.
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether the amendment of the Town of Eatonville Comprehensive Plan adopted through Ordinance 2014-2 (“Plan Amendment”) is “in compliance” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2014).
Findings Of Fact The Parties Respondent Town of Eatonville is a municipality in Orange County with a comprehensive plan which it amends from time to time pursuant to chapter 163, Florida Statutes. Intervenor Lake Weston, LLC, is a Florida limited liability company whose sole member is Clayton Investments, Ltd. It owns approximately 49 acres of land along Lake Weston on West Kennedy Boulevard in Eatonville (“the Property”), which is the subject of the Plan Amendment. Petitioners Sharon Leichering, Lori Erlacher, George Perantoni, Valerie Perantoni, and Doreen Maroth own or reside in unincorporated Orange County near Lake Weston. The record does not establish whether Dale Dunn lives or owns property in the area. Petitioner Kingswood Manor Association, Inc., is a non- profit corporation whose members are residents of Kingswood Manor, a residential subdivision near the Property. Petitioner Friends of Lake Weston and Adjacent Canals, Inc., is a non-profit corporation whose objective is to protect these waters. Standing Petitioners Sharon Leichering and George Perantoni submitted comments to the Eatonville Town Council on their own behalves and on behalf of the Kingswood Manor Association and Friends of Lake Weston, respectively, regarding the Plan Amendment. Petitioner Valerie Perantoni is the wife of Petitioner George Perantoni. She did not submit comments regarding the Plan Amendment to the Town Council. Petitioner Dale Dunn did not appear at the final hearing. There is no evidence Mr. Dunn submitted oral or written comments to the Town Council regarding the Plan Amendment. Petitioner Doreen Maroth did not appear at the final hearing for medical reasons. Ms. Maroth submitted oral comments to the Town Council regarding the Plan Amendment. Respondent and Intervenor contend there is no evidence that Lori Erlacher appeared and gave comments to the Town Council, but the Town Clerk testified that Petitioner Leichering was granted an extension of time “to speak for others” and Petitioner Leichering testified that the “others” were Lori Erlacher and Carla McMullen. The Plan Amendment The Property is zoned “Industrial” in the Town’s Land Development Code, but is designated “Commercial” on the Future Land Use Map in the Comprehensive Plan. The Town adopted the Plan Amendment to make the zoning and future land use designations consistent with each other. The Plan Amendment attempts to resolve the inconsistency by designating the Property as the “Lake Weston Subarea” within the Commercial land use category. The designation would appear on the Future Land Use Map and a new policy is made applicable to the Subarea, allowing both industrial and commercial uses: 1.6.10. Lake Weston Subarea Policy. Notwithstanding the provisions of Policy 1.6.9, within the Lake Weston Subarea Policy boundaries as shown on the Future Land Use Map, light industrial uses may be allowed in addition to commercial uses. The specific permitted uses and development standards shall be established by the Lake Weston Overlay District, which shall be adopted as a zoning overlay district in the Land Development Code; however, the wetlands adjacent to Lake Weston within the Lake Weston Subarea Policy boundaries are hereby designated as a Class I Conservation Area pursuant to Section 13-5.3 of the Town of Eatonville Land Development Code and shall be subject to the applicable provisions of Section 13-5 of the Land Development Code. The intent of this subarea policy and related Lake Weston Overlay District is to allow a range of commercial and industrial uses on the subject property with appropriate development standards, protect environmental resources, mitigate negative impacts and promote compatibility with surrounding properties. Subject to requirements of this subarea policy and of the Lake Weston Overlay district, the current industrial zoning of the property is hereby deemed consistent with the Commercial Future Land Use designation of the area within the boundaries of this subarea policy. Data and Analysis Petitioners contend the Plan Amendment is not supported by relevant and appropriate data and analysis. Relatively little data and analysis were needed to address the inconsistency between the Land Development Code and the Comprehensive Plan or to address the protection of Lake Weston and adjacent land uses. The need to protect environmental resources, to mitigate negative impacts of development, and to promote compatibility with surrounding land uses was based on general principles of land planning, the report of a planning consultant, as well as public comment from Petitioners and others. A wetland map, survey, and delineation were submitted to the Town. The effect of the Class I Conservation Area designation is described in the Land Development Code. The availability of public infrastructure and services was not questioned by Petitioners. The preponderance of the evidence shows the Plan Amendment is based on relevant and appropriate data and analysis. Meaningful Standards Petitioners contend the Plan Amendment does not establish meaningful and predictable standards for the future use of the Property. It is common for comprehensive plans to assign a general land use category to a parcel, such as Residential, Commercial, or Industrial, and then to list the types of uses allowed in that category. The Plan amendment does not alter the Comprehensive Plan’s current listing of Commercial and Industrial uses. The Plan Amendment designates the wetlands adjacent to Lake Weston as a Class I Conservation Area subject to the provisions of the Eatonville Wetlands Ordinance in the Land Development Code. This designation means the littoral zone of the lake and associated wetlands would be placed under a conservation easement. This is meaningful guidance related to the future use of the Property. The Plan Amendment directs the Land Development Code to be amended to create a Lake Weston Overlay District with the expressed intent to “protect environmental resources, mitigate negative impacts and promote compatibility with surrounding properties.” This direction in the Plan Amendment is guidance for the content of more detailed land development and use regulations. Contemporaneous with the adoption of the Plan Amendment, the Eatonville Land Development Code was amended to establish the Lake Weston Overlay District, which has the same boundaries as the Property. The Land Development Code describes in greater detail the allowed uses and development standards applicable to the Property. The preponderance of the evidence shows the Plan Amendment establishes meaningful and predictable standards. Internal Consistency Petitioners contend the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the relatively recent Wekiva Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, but Petitioners failed to show how the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with any provision of the Wekiva Amendments. Petitioners contend the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan that require development to be compatible with adjacent residential uses. Compatibility is largely a matter of the distribution of land uses within a parcel and measures used to create natural and artificial buffers. These are matters usually addressed when a landowner applies for site development approval. Protection is provided in the Plan Amendment for Lake Weston and its wetlands. Petitioners did not show there are other factors that make it impossible to make light industrial uses on the Property compatible with adjacent residential uses. The preponderance of the evidence shows the Plan Amendment is consistent with other provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Urban Sprawl Petitioners contend the Plan Amendment promotes urban sprawl based on the potential for more impervious surfaces and less open space. However, this potential does not automatically mean the Plan Amendment promotes urban sprawl. Section 163.3177(6)(a)9. sets forth thirteen factors to be considered in determining whether a plan amendment discourages the proliferation of urban sprawl, such as failing to maximize the use of existing public facilities. The Plan Amendment does not “trigger” any of the listed factors. The preponderance of the evidence shows the Plan does not promote the proliferation of urban sprawl.
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 Eatonville Ordinance No. 2014-02 is in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of June, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of June, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: George Anthony Perantoni Friends of Lake Weston and Adjacent Canals, Inc. 5800 Shasta Drive Orlando, Florida (eServed) 32810 Dale Dunn 5726 Shasta Drive Orlando, Florida 32810 Lori A. Erlacher 1620 Mosher Drive Orlando, Florida 32810 (eServed) Sharon R. Leichering Kingswood Manor Association, Inc. 5623 Stull Avenue Orlando, Florida 32810 (eServed) Doreen Lynne Maroth 5736 Satel Drive Orlando, Florida 32810 (eServed) Valerie Lolita Perantoni 5800 Shasta Drive Orlando, Florida 32810 (eServed) Debbie Franklin, City Clerk Town of Eatonville, Florida 307 East Kennedy Boulevard Eatonville, Florida 32751 Joseph Morrell, Esquire Town of Eatonville 1310 West Colonial Drive, Suite 28 Orlando, Florida 32804 (eServed) William Clay Henderson, Esquire Holland and Knight, LLP 200 South Orange Avenue, Suite 2600 Orlando, Florida 32801 (eServed) Robert N. Sechen, General Counsel Department of Economic Opportunity Mail Stop Code 110, Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed) Jesse Panuccio, Executive Director Department of Economic Opportunity Mail Stop Code 110, Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed) Katie Zimmer, Agency Clerk Department of Economic Opportunity Mail Stop Code 110, Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed)
The Issue Whether the Miami-Dade County Comprehensive Plan Amendment adopted by Ordinance 2018-109 on September 27, 2018 (the “Plan Amendment”), is “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2018).1
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Standing Respondent, Miami-Dade County (“the County”), is a political subdivision of the State of Florida with the duty and authority to adopt and amend a local government comprehensive plan, pursuant to section 163.3167, Florida Statutes. The Limonar Petitioners are limited liability companies under the laws of the State of Florida whose principal places of business are in Florida. The Limonar Petitioners own property within the area affected by the Plan Amendment. Petitioner, Michelle Garcia, resides and owns property in the County near the area affected by the Plan Amendment. Petitioner, Tropical Audubon Society (“Tropical”), is an environmental organization in South Florida dedicated to conserving and restoring South Florida ecosystems, focusing on birds and other wildlife, as well as their habitats. Tropical owns property in the County. Each of the Petitioners submitted oral or written comments, recommendations, or objections concerning the Plan Amendment to the County during the time period beginning with the Plan Amendment adoption hearing and ending with the Plan Amendment transmittal hearing. The parties stipulated that Ms. Garcia’s substantial interests will be adversely affected by the Plan Amendment given that her property is located in the County near the area affected by the Plan Amendment. The Plan Amendment The Plan Amendment amends the Plan to allow an extension of State Road 835 (also known as the Dolphin Expressway) from its current terminus at Northwest (NW) 137th Avenue and NW 12th Street to the West Kendall suburban area of the County. The approximate 13-mile extension is planned as a six-lane expressway from its current terminus to Southwest (SW) 8th Street and SW 167th Avenue, then continuing as a four-lane expressway to connect with SW 136th Street in Kendall. The proposed extension is referred to herein as the “new corridor.” The Plan Amendment incorporates the new corridor on the County’s Future Land Use Map (“FLUM”), as well as the Transportation Element map series, including both the traffic circulation and Mass Transit subelements. Additionally, the Plan Amendment changes some existing, and adds several new, policies in the Land Use, Transportation (including Traffic Circulation and Mass Transit subelements), Open Space, and Intergovernmental Coordination Elements. The new corridor was first envisioned in 2012, when the Miami-Dade Metropolitan Planning Organization (“MPO”), since renamed the Transportation Planning Organization (“TPO”), added the southwest extension of SR-836/Dolphin Expressway to its Long-Range Transportation Plan (“LRTP”) as a “partially funded project.” “Partially funded” means that the TPO authorized the project to move forward for study—in the case of the new corridor, to undertake a Project Development and Environment (“PD&E”) Study—but that the project is not yet approved for construction funding. The LRTP describes the purpose and need for the new corridor as follows: The new extension will address existing highway congestion and enhance mobility in the fastest growing area of the county. The purpose of the SR- 836 (Dolphin) SW Extension is to: Improve system connectivity, Improve access to and from the area to major employment centers such as the MIA, the MIC, the Port of Miami, Downtown Miami, Doral, as well as educational and commercial centers within the study area, Provide north south expressway access to serve existing and future travel demand, Improve hurricane/emergency evacuation routes and travel times, Evaluate multimodal transportation opportunities to improve connectivity to the fast growing southwest area of Miami-Dade County, Evaluate the best alternative for the SR-836 (Dolphin) SW Extension that is technically sound, environmentally sensitive and publicly acceptable. The new corridor is to be funded by the Miami-Dade Expressway Authority (“MDX”).3 UDB and UEA The entirety of the new corridor will be located outside of the County’s urban development boundary (“UDB”). Some portions of the new corridor lie within the area known as the urban expansion area (“UEA”), but the majority of the new corridor lies outside the UEA. The UDB is a defining feature of the Plan, which distinguishes the area where urban development may occur through the year 2020 from areas where it should not occur. The County’s plan accommodates urban development within the UDB by increasing development densities and intensities inside the UDB. The UDB was originally established in 1975 and comprised 233,000 acres. The UDB boundary was significantly amended in 1988, following enactment of Florida’s Growth Management Act, by the addition of 16,000 acres. Between 1990 and 2012, only about 2,400 acres have been added to the UDB, most of which was added by a 2006 amendment to the Plan. At least in part, the UDB operates to limit development pressure on the County’s agricultural lands located to the west of the UDB between the urbanized area and the Everglades National Park. A 2012 Environmental 3 MDX was dissolved by chapter 2019-169, Laws of Florida. The legislation has been challenged and a current appeal is pending before the First District Court of Appeal. See Fla. Dep’t of Transp. v. MDX, Case No. 19-3625 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019). Protection Agency study noted, “the dwindling supply of agricultural land is an especially urgent issue.” The study characterized the County as “dangerously close” to losing its “critical mass” of land in active agriculture usage. The Plan provides for expansion of the UDB to provide additional countywide development capacity “when the need for such change is determined to be necessary through the Plan review and amendment process.” The UEA was established in 1993 and is the area currently projected to be needed to accommodate development in the area between the 2020 UDB boundary and 2030 UEA boundary. Until this area is brought into the UDB through an amendment to the Plan, development within the UEA is limited to uses consistent with “Agriculture” and “Open Land” areas, as defined in the Plan. Residential development outside the UDB is limited to one dwelling unit per five acres (1du/5acres). New Corridor Path The new corridor is planned to pass through lands that are protected by a variety of regulations and development limitations. Figure 1 depicts the location of the new corridor on the Plan Land Use Map, identified as the solid black line beginning at the western end of NW 12th Street and following a winding path west and southwest to its termination at SW 136th Street. [Remainder of page intentionally blank] Figure 1 From its connection with the existing SR 836 corridor, the new corridor will first traverse an area designated “Open Land,” which, according to the Plan is “set aside for uses other than urban development.” It is more than “simply surplus undeveloped land,” and is intended to serve resource- based functions like agriculture or development of potable water supply. According to the Plan, “Open Land areas primarily consist of wetlands.” The only use definitively allowed in this subarea is rural residential. The Plan provides that all other proposed uses will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. More particularly, the new corridor will traverse the County’s Open Land Subarea 3, which contains the Tamiami-Bird Canal Basins and the eastern portion of the North Trail and Bird Drive Everglades Basins. The basins are recharge areas for the Biscayne Aquifer, the primary source of the County’s drinking water. The Plan provides that the following land uses may be considered for approval in this subarea: [R]ural residences at one dwelling unit per 5 acres (“1 du/5”), compatible institutional uses, public facilities, utility and communications facilities, seasonal agricultural use, recreational use, or limestone quarrying and ancillary uses. Uses that could compromise groundwater quality shall not occur in this area. Any land alteration and development in the Bird Drive or North Trail basins shall conform to the wetland basin plans adopted for those basins pursuant to policies of [the Plan]. The new corridor will traverse a portion of the Bird Drive Basin outside the UDB. Existing development in that area is limited to agriculture and the C-4 detention basin. The detention basin is utilized by the South Florida Water Management District (“District”) to hold water drained from the C-4 canal prior to storm events in order to prevent flooding of the Sweetwater residential community lying to the north. A majority of the new corridor will be located within the County’s West Wellfield protection area, and a portion will run through the 30-day and 100- day travel-time contours. The contours represent the time it takes for a substance released at the contour line to travel to a production well.4 A short segment of the new corridor, approximately three-quarters of a mile, will traverse the Pennsuco wetlands, characteristically high-quality swamps and wet prairies not suited for agriculture or urban development. It is a restored wetland area that has been used as a mitigation project for developers and rock miners over the last 20 to 30 years (i.e., a “mitigation bank”). The mitigation project is under the jurisdiction of the District and other environmental agencies, and is almost complete. The Pennsuco wetlands are also designated as critical habitat for endangered species, including the wood stork, the Florida bonneted bat, the Everglades snail kite, and the Florida Panther. The Pennsuco wetlands are designated on the FLUM as Environmental Protection (“EP”). According to the Plan, the EP designation applies to those areas in the County “most environmentally significant, most susceptible to environmental degradation, and where such degradation would adversely affect the supply of potable fresh water or environmental systems of County, regional, State, or national importance.” The final stretch of the new corridor will traverse Agriculturally- designated lands, mostly within the UEA. Land with this designation “contains the best agricultural land remaining in [the County].” The Plan provides that protection of viable agriculture is a priority of the County. Principle uses allowed in this category “should be” agriculture and uses ancillary to,5 and directly supportive of, agriculture and farm residences. Notably, the Plan provides that, in order to protect the 4 The times are calculated based on a non-reactive substance, i.e., water. Chemicals and other contaminants may have different actual travel times. 5 Uses ancillary to agriculture are those related to preserving, processing packaging, or selling agricultural products; farm supplies; and sale and service of farm machinery and implements. agricultural industry, “uses and facilities that support or encourage urban development are not allowed in this area.” The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (“CERP”) is an extensive environmental restoration project primarily aimed at restoring as much natural Everglades wetland habitat as possible and re-establishing healthy freshwater flows to parts of the Everglades which have suffered from historic alteration of its hydrology, a result of fragmentation of the ecosystem for urban development and agriculture. CERP is a multi-decade, inter-agency process implemented primarily by the District and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“the Corps”). CERP includes approximately 68 individual projects, approved by a formal process set out in federal law. The projects are compiled in a “yellow book,” originally produced in 1999 and delivered to Congress for approval. Some projects are set forth in great detail, while others are conceptual, but each project identifies a set of hydrologic or ecologic objectives that it is proposed to meet. Restoring surface water flows to the Everglades is a balancing act. While the Everglades is in need of more fresh water, allowing unregulated flows to the Everglades means flooding urban and agricultural properties which were once part of the Everglades system. On the other hand, the urban and agricultural areas depend on surface water flows for water supply, directly or indirectly through groundwater recharge (to prevent saltwater intrusion), for drinking water and agricultural production. CERP regulates the free flow of surface water to provide needed water for urban and agricultural uses, and avoid flooding those areas, while providing as much fresh water to the Everglades as possible. Large portions of the four-square mile Bird Drive Basin have been acquired by the District and the Department of the Interior (“DOI”) to implement a CERP project known as Component U. Component U has several major objectives, including goundwater recharge, reducing seepage from the Everglades National Park buffer areas, enhancing and maintaining wetland viability within the basin, flood attenuation, water treatment of outflows from west Dade wastewater treatment plant, and supplying water to meet demands of the downstream conveyance systems. The state conservation lands north and east of the basin, particularly conservation area 3A, are, at times, inundated with so much water that the wetland literally drowns. CERP projects, including the L31 canal (adjacent to Krome Avenue) and the small canal associated with the Dade/Broward levee, were designed to “shuttle” collected water from the conservation areas and store it for proportionate distribution to both urban areas and the Everglades National Park. Component U is envisioned as both a surface water storage and treatment area, to assist in regulation of water flowing to both the Everglades and the urban areas from the conservation areas to the north and north east. It is related to a larger project to reroute water flowing through the L31 canal, west of Krome Avenue, to the east side of the Bird Drive Basin and eventually into the Bird Drive Canal, utilizing the large, undeveloped basin for storage and treatment, as well as flood control. Additionally, Component U would provide an aquifer recharge function while storing excess water, which would benefit the West Wellfield lying due south. Because of its location relative to several other CERP projects, the Bird Drive Basin plays a critical strategic role in the overall plan for restoration of the southern Everglades. The water quality, conveyance, and storage objectives it is required to meet, along with its flood-attenuation objectives, are relied upon as part of the planning and operation of the other CERP projects in the region to restore the hydrology of the state-owned Water Conservation Areas, Everglades National Park and Florida Bay, and Biscayne Bay. The Bird Drive Basin project is a necessary flow way for restored water levels along the eastern edge of the Everglades, necessary to prevent the flow of too much water through the more central portions of the Everglades, which results in drowning out native plant and animal species. Among the goals of the project is to recharge groundwater and drinking water supplies, and to buffer developed areas in the County from flooding that would result from the higher restored water levels into Everglades National Park. The Bird Drive Recharge project is important to the County as a seepage management project to ensure that restoration of water levels does not affect County landowners and to provide the County with water supply to nearby wellfields. These wetlands are a hydrological buffer between the high water table of Everglades National Park and the much lower water table of the developed areas east of Krome Avenue. This buffer reduces the hydrological gradient of the area, thereby reducing groundwater seepage from the park. Challenges to the Plan Amendment Petitioners allege (as stipulated by the parties) that the Plan Amendment: (1) creates internal inconsistencies with numerous existing Plan goals, objectives and policies, in contravention of section 163.3177(2); (2) fails to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl, as required by section 163.3177(6)(a)9.; (3) violates the requirement in section 163.3177(6)(d)2.k., that the Plan maintain a conservation element that directs incompatible “future land uses” away from wetlands; (4) violates the requirements in section 163.3177(6)(b)2.a., e., and 3.a., that the Plan maintain a transportation element “to plan for a multimodal transportation system,” address “[a]ll alternative modes of travel,” “identif[y] . . . land use densities, building intensities, and transportation management programs to promote public transportation systems in designated public transportation corridors,” and address “provision of efficient public transit services” and the requirement in section 163.3177(6)(b)1. that the element reflect certain “data, analysis, and associated principles and strategies”; (5) fails to be “based upon relevant and appropriate data and analysis,” as required by section 163.3177(1)(f); (6) fails to “be based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the area, as applicable, including the character of undeveloped land,” as required by section 163.3177(6)(a)2., and to be based on an “analysis of the suitability of the plan amendment for its proposed use considering the character of the undeveloped land, soils, topography, natural resources, and historic resources on site,” as required by section 163.3177(6)(a)8.; and (7) violates the requirement of section 163.3177(1) that the Plan “maintain[] meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land and provide[] meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land developments and use regulations.” Petitioners’ umbrella contention is that the Plan Amendment is contrary to the Plan as a whole—which limits urban services and development to within the UDB, prioritizes implementation of CERP, seeks to preserve remaining agricultural areas and a viable agriculture industry, and is completely dependent on a sensitive aquifer for drinking water—by allowing a four- and six-lane expressway outside of the UDB, through an area identified for a CERP project, bisecting agricultural areas, through a wetland preservation area, and within the West Wellfield. Petitioners’ arguments can be categorized generally as concerns with land use, environment, CERP, agriculture, and transportation. UDB and Land Development Issues Petitioners contend that constructing the new corridor outside of the UDB is inconsistent with the purpose of the UDB, and with the overarching construct of the Plan to achieve the desired development form while protecting both sensitive natural resources and agriculture. The Plan provides that the UDB distinguishes “the area where urban development may occur through the year 2020 from areas where it should not occur.” Translating this concept to infrastructure investment, the Plan provides that “public expenditures for urban service and infrastructure improvements shall be focused on the area within the UDB, and urban infrastructure is discouraged outside the UDB.” (emphasis added). The Plan further provides, “Critical in achieving the desired pattern of development is adherence to the 2020 UDB and 2030 UEA boundary,” and that “since its inception [the Plan] has provided that the UDB serve as an envelope within which public expenditures for urban infrastructure will be confined.” Petitioners’ expert planning witness, Mr. Hawkins, explained that “this regulatory line is not one that just says we are going to have urban land uses on one side and not on the other. We are also going to limit the provision of urban services across the line.” The County offered little response to this allegation. In a series of leading questions on direct examination, Mr. Woerner was asked whether the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with policy language that begins, “Given the fundamental influences of infrastructure and service availability on land markets and development activities …” Mr. Woerner gave a conclusory “no” answer, to which Mr. Kerbel asked, “And is that for the reasons you’ve already addressed?” Mr. Woerner agreed. However, none of the prior questions addressed anything regarding public expenditures for urban infrastructure. The Plan Amendment proposes development of urban infrastructure outside the UDB, and thus, outside of the envelope within which the Plan dictates public expenditures for urban infrastructure “will be confined,” in contravention of the Plan’s direction that adherence with the UDB/UEA construct is “critical” to achieve the desired pattern of development for the County. The County contends that the new corridor is not “development,” a position which is untenable and is addressed in the Conclusions of Law. Petitioners proved the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the unnumbered policy statements in paragraph 46 appearing on pages I-60, I-61, and I-74 of the Plan.6 Petitioners further allege the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Plan policies that discourage urban sprawl, “emphasize[] concentration and intensification of development around centers of activity” and “high intensity, well-designed urban centers,” and “seek to prevent discontinuous, scattered development at the urban fringe,” such that “[u]rban services and facilities which support or encourage urban development in Agriculture and Open Land areas shall be avoided . . . [and] [a]reas designated Environmental Protection shall be particularly avoided.” Petitioners identify the following goals, objectives, and policies in support of these objections: Land Use Element Objective LU-1 and Policies LU-1B and LU-1O; Objective LU-2 and Policy LU-2B; Policy LU-8G; Policy LU-10A; Transportation Policy TC-6A; and Capital Improvement Element Objective CIE-5 and Policy CIE-5A. Petitioners’ arguments that the Plan Amendment fails to discourage urban sprawl are based on many of the same Plan policies. Petitioners contend that the mere existence of the new corridor will increase development pressure, and induce sprawl development, outside of the UDB contrary to Plan policies promoting compact, high-intensity developments in urban centers. This argument is not novel and can be summarized as, “If you build it, they will come.” Petitioners are not wrong, and the expert County planning staff raised the same concern during review of the Plan Amendment application, stating: While roadways facilitate long-distance and local travel and provide access to real property, they also 6 Provisions such as these, which are referred to as “interpretive text,” are contained in the Land Use Element section titled, “Interpretation of the Land Use Plan Map: Policy of the Land Use Element.” Although not among the element’s numbered goals, objectives, and policies, the interpretive text is expressly “adopted as County policy.” Furthermore, LU-5C requires “planning activities pertaining to development or redevelopment and the provision of public services and facilities in [the County] shall be consistent with … the locations and extent of future land uses as identified by the [FLUM] map and its interpretive text.” significantly affect the use and development of land in their immediate vicinity. In high growth areas such as [the County], any reduction in travel time between centers of population and commerce directly increases competition in the land market between urban uses, including residential and commercial uses. This could generate increased demand for development of land adjacent to the proposed expressway corridor. Because the proposed alignment is generally adjacent to but outside the UDB, the [new corridor] could have the unintended consequence of increasing development pressure on land outside the UDB, including current agricultural lands, if the proposed amendment only addressed the future construction of the roadway. In response to this concern, staff recommended adoption of, and the Plan Amendment was adopted with, the following new Policy: Traffic Circulation Subelement Policy TC-1M. [The County] approves the [new corridor] only to the extent necessary to relieve existing traffic congestion in the southwestern part of the County and to provide a reliable, robust, and faster connection to Downtown Miami and other major trip attractors across the County. To discourage urban sprawl within the Area of Impact of [the new corridor] … the County’s Concurrency Management System shall be amended to remove the additional LOS/capacity that the roadways in the Area of Impact would experience due to the diversion of trips resulting from the construction of [the new corridor] could not be used to demonstrate concurrency. The purpose of this policy is to assure that the additional capacity attributable to the [new corridor] cannot be used to support further development in the Area of Impact. In other words, “If you build it, they cannot come.” Petitioners raised many arguments to demonstrate that this language would not be effective to truly prevent urban sprawl outside the UDB. They introduced the testimony of Walter Kulash, who exclaimed that it would “be absurd” to create excess roadway capacity that could not be used by developers, and that, as a transportation engineer, “it is not at all clear to me how the chain of computation would work here.” However, as explained by Mr. Sandanasamy, the County’s expert transportation planner, the concurrency restriction will be implemented by comparing the roadway capacity figures prior to the opening of the roadway to any future traffic counts, to determine how much those traffic counts have been reduced. He gave the following example: Assume an arterial with a capacity of 35,000 trips, and before the new corridor opened, the actual amount of traffic counted is 30,000 trips. That means the arterial had a remaining capacity of 5,000 trips before the opening of the new corridor. Assume that when traffic is counted after the opening of the new corridor, the number of vehicles on that arterial drops to 28,000 trips—a reduction of 2,000 trips attributed to the new corridor—meaning that the remaining capacity of the arterial has increased from 5,000 trips to 7,000. Policy TC-1M would require the Concurrency Management System to log the capacity of the arterial as reduced by 2,000 trips, so that future applications would be measured against a roadway capacity of 33,000 trips. Mr. Sandanasamy concluded that the policy is intended to “prevent urban sprawl [and] allow development to go on as it was, like this roadway doesn’t exist.” The parties introduced the testimony of competing expert transportation planners on this subject; but, in the end, Petitioners’ expert, Juan Mullerat, conceded the issue, as follows: Q. [Mr. Kerbel] And in the event that there is a process in which someone seeks to amend their land uses, they would have to address the fact that the road can't be used to show concurrency, right? A. [Mr. Mullerat] Correct. * * * So at the end of the day that is why I am saying it is the same. Right now you don't have infrastructure, so you can't use it for concurrency. Once you put the infrastructure, this says that you won't be able to use that as -- in order to change the land use. Q. Okay. So it is a wash? A. It is a wash. It doesn't make—it is neither harder nor easier. New Policy LU-3Q was added to further ensure the Plan Amendment did not encourage development in the agriculturally-designated lands. The policy reads as follows: Any zoning action or amendment to [the Plan] that would approve any use other than direct agricultural production, the sale of agricultural produce, and permitted residential and Bed and Breakfast uses of property, in an area designated as Agriculture, whether as a primary use or as an accessory or subordinated use to an agricultural use, or action that would liberalize standards or allowances governing such other uses on land that is a) outside the [UDB] and b) within one mile of the right-of-way line of any portions of [the new corridor], shall require an affirmative vote of not less than five members of the affected Community Zoning Appeals Board and two-thirds of the total membership of the Board of County Commissioners then in office, where the applicable board issues a decision. Petitioners claimed this policy was not based on data and analysis to demonstrate its effectiveness. To the contrary, the language of new Policy LU-3Q was modeled on language utilized when the County adopted the Plan to allow widening of Krome Avenue, which lies outside the UDB, farther west than the new corridor. Even a cursory review of the FLUM reveals that the land uses adjacent to Krome Avenue remain agriculture. The County’s experience with development surrounding Krome Avenue is data that has been available to, and was relied upon by, the County in adopting the subject Plan Amendment. Petitioners did not prove that the Plan Amendment would induce additional urban development outside the UDB and in environmentally sensitive areas. Thus, Petitioners did not prove the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Objective LU-1, which requires “the location and configuration of [the County’s] urban growth through the year 2030 shall emphasize concentration and intensification of development around centers of activity”; Policy LU-1O, which requires the County to “seek to prevent discontinuous, scattered development at the urban fringe in the Agricultural Areas outside the UDB”; Objective LU-2, which provides that “[d]ecisions regarding … urban expansion … shall be based on the physical and financial feasibility of providing, by the year 2020, all urbanized areas with services at levels of service (LOS) which meet or exceed the minimum standards” in the CIE; Policies LU-2B, TC-4C, and CIE-5A, which provide that urban services and facilities, including roadways, which support or encourage “urban development in Agriculture and Open Land areas shall be avoided”; Policy LU-10A, which requires the County to “facilitate contiguous urban development, infill [and] redevelopment”; and TC-6A, which mandates that the County “shall avoid transportation improvements which encourage or subsidize increased development in … environmentally sensitive areas.” The remaining policies implicated by Petitioners are irrelevant to the Plan Amendment: Policy LU-1B, which provides that “major centers of activity” and “other concentrations of significant employment … shall be sited on the basis or metropolitan scale considerations at locations with good countywide, multi-modal accessibility”; Policy LU-1S, which requires the County Strategic Plan to be consistent with the Plan; Objective LU-5 and Policy LU-5B, which pertain to the consistency of development orders with the Plan; and LU-8G, governing considerations for adding land areas to the UDB. Environmental Considerations Wellfields Petitioners allege the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the following objectives and policies of the Conservation Element relating to protection of wellfields: CON-3, 3A, 3B; and CON-5F. CON-3, 3A, and 3B provide, in relevant part, as follows: Objective CON-3. Regulations governing approved wellfield protection areas shall be strictly enforced …. CON-3A. No new facilities that use, handle, generate, transport or dispose of hazardous wastes shall be permitted within wellfield protection areas[.] CON-3B. The water management systems that recharge regional wellfields shall be protected and enhanced. The Plan Amendment does not adversely affect the County’s ability to enforce its approved wellfield regulations. The new corridor is not a facility that uses, handles, generates, or disposes of hazardous wastes. Petitioners introduced testimony regarding the threat to the West Wellfield posed by trucks, carrying hazardous substances via the new corridor, potentially (and speculatively) spilling chemicals in an accident. Nevertheless, the greater weight of the evidence supports a finding that the new corridor is not a “facility” that transports hazardous wastes as contemplated by the policy. The meaning of “water management systems” used in Policy CON-3B, was disputed by the parties. Petitioners introduced the testimony of Dr. McVoy, who testified that he considered the wetlands of the Bird Drive Basin as the water management system that recharges the regional wellfield. Respondent introduced the testimony of Wilbur Mayorga, chief of the County’s environmental monitoring and restoration division, who is responsible for the wellfield protection areas and the boundaries thereof, and who was admitted as an expert in wellfield protection and contamination. Mr. Mayorga gave a broader, more general definition, which is ultimately not in conflict with Dr. McVoy’s definition. The Bird Drive Basin is one part of the larger system managing and conveying freshwater from Lake Okeechobee through various natural and man-made components that store, treat, and deliver water to the urban and agricultural uses, as well as the Everglades. Respondent’s hydrogeology expert, Dr. Virginia Walsh, confirmed that the Bird Drive Basin wetlands serve to recharge the County’s production wells. Dr. McVoy’s opinion was hedging—“I find it hard to see how [the system] would be enhanced and I find it hard to see how [the system] would be protected … I can’t see any way that I, as a scientist, can say that by putting a roadway on [the system] it is going to increase protection ….” Mr. Mayorga was asked directly, “In your professional opinion, would the plan amendment pose any threat to these water management systems?” Mr. Mayorga answered, “That I’m not familiar with.” His answer was puzzling and unhelpful. Significantly, both Dr. McVoy and Mr. Mayorga preferred to answer the question based on the degree of risk created. Dr. McVoy testified that building the tollway certainly increases risk of contamination to the system. Mr. Mayorga opined that removing all uses within the wellfield is the only way to achieve zero risk. He further opined that any roadway carries an inherent risk of contamination, which can be attenuated by the location of uses at the higher contour lines. As Mr. Mayorga explained, “The closer you are to the production wells, the [fewer] alternatives you have in how you manage stormwater.” In an effort to demonstrate compliance with the requirement to “protect the water management systems that recharge” the regional wellfield, Respondent points to new policy LU-1W, which requires that alignment of the new corridor remain “outside and to the east of the boundary of the 10- day travel time contour” of the West Wellfield area. In the end, Respondent’s expert witness confirmed that building the new corridor will neither protect nor enhance the water management systems that recharge the West Wellfield. Petitioners did not prove the Plan Amendment is contrary to Objective CON-3 or Policy CON-3A. However, they did prove the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Policy CON-3B. 7 Policy CON-3F requires the County to implement cut and fill criteria for land in the North Trail and Bird Drive basins, among others. The County has already implemented those criteria and the Plan Amendment does not implicate that policy in any way. The remainder of Petitioners “wellfield” allegations overlap with alleged wetland impacts and are addressed in the following section. Wetlands Petitioners next contend the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the following objectives and policies related to wetlands and wetland functions: CON-4 and 4A, and CON-7, 7A, and 7J, which read, in pertinent part, as follows: Objective CON-4. The aquifer recharge and water storage capacity of the presently undeveloped areas in the western and southern Miami-Dade County shall be maintained or increased. 7 In addition, to the extent Petitioners challenged the Plan Amendment as inconsistent with the interpretive text in the Land Use Element relating to Open Land Subarea 3 (North Trail and Bird Drive Basins), which reads, “Uses that could compromise groundwater quality shall not occur in this area,” that allegation was proven as well. Mr. Mayorga’s testimony that “any roadway carries an inherent risk of contamination” conceded the point that the Plan Amendment creates a risk of contamination to the wellfields. Policy CON-4A. The aquifer-recharge values of undeveloped land and the water storage values of wetland areas shall be maintained and, where feasible, enhanced or restored. Objective CON-7. [The County] shall protect and preserve the biological and hydrological functions of Future Wetlands identified in the Land Use Element. Future impacts to the biological functions of publicly and privately owned wetlands shall be mitigated.… Publicly acquired wetlands shall be restored and managed for their natural resource, habitat, and hydrologic values. Policy CON-7A. The degradation or destruction of wetlands shall be limited to activities that 1) are necessary to prevent or eliminate a threat to public health, safety or welfare; 2) are water dependent, clearly in the public interest and no other reasonable alternative exists; 3) are carried out in accordance with a basin management plan; or 4) are in areas that have been highly disturbed or degraded and where restoration of a wetland with an equal or greater value in accordance with federal, State, and local regulations if feasible. Habitats critical to endangered or threatened species shall not be degraded or destroyed. CON-7J. In evaluating applications that will result in alterations or adverse impacts to wetlands, [the County] shall consider the application’s consistency with [CERP] objectives. Wetlands play an important part in recharging the Biscayne Aquifer. They filter stormwater to remove pollutants and nutrients prior to the water’s eventual entry into the aquifer. As discussed above, wetlands can also perform the important function of storing stormwater to prevent flooding of adjacent properties, and for use in dryer seasons, if they have a confining clay (or other soil) layer above the aquifer. The new corridor is expected to destroy over 300 acres of wetlands in the Bird Drive and North Trail basins, although the exact number is unknown. Petitioners contend that violates Policy CON-7A because the project does not meet any of the four criteria. The County introduced evidence that the wetland impacts will be carried out in accordance with Bird Drive Basin management plan, thus meeting criteria three of Policy CON-7A. The final sentence of Policy CON-7A prohibits destruction of wetlands in habitats critical to threatened or endangered species. The Pennsuco wetlands are designated critical habitat to several endangered species, but the Plan Amendment implicates wetland impacts in that area. The County maintains that it has addressed this issue through an interlocal agreement with MDX, which requires that the entire span of the new corridor traversing the Pennsuco wetlands be elevated. However, the interlocal agreement is not incorporated into or adopted by reference in the Plan Amendment; thus, is not enforceable through the Plan. To the contrary, the interlocal agreement may be modified or amended upon mutual agreement of the parties.8 Petitioners proved the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Policy CON-7. Because the new corridor will traverse the Pennsuco wetlands, an area designated as critical habitat for threatened and endangered species, the Plan Amendment violates this policy. Petitioners did not prove the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with this part of CON-7J. As discussed in the Findings of Fact 104 and 107, the County did consider the impact of the new corridor on CERP. Petitioners’ allegations of inconsistency with Objective CON-4, Policy CON-4A, and Objective CON-7, all relate to the impact of the new corridor on aquifer recharge and storage capacity of wetlands in the path of the new corridor. 8 Even if the interlocal agreement were incorporated into the Plan Amendment, this inconsistency would not be completely resolved because the interlocal agreement allows pilings or other support structures for the elevated section to be located in the Pennsuco wetlands. Dr. McVoy opined that the aquifer recharge capacities of the Bird Drive Basin, the West Wellfield, and the Pennsuco Wetlands will not be increased as a result of the Plan Amendment, but he did not testify that the Plan Amendment would inherently decrease those capacities, nor did he testify that the Plan Amendment would prevent those capacities from being maintained. Again, County staff recognized the inherent conflict between wetland functions and development of the roadway corridor, and recommended the Plan Amendment include the following new policies, which read, in pertinent part, as follows: LU-1W. [P]rior to the construction of the roadway, or any phase thereof, MDX shall prepare a surface water sheet flow analysis to demonstrate that the wetlands hydrology in this area shall be adequately retained. LU-3T. The [new corridor] is planned to traverse and impact wetlands within the Bird Drive Basins and elsewhere along its alignment and will require environmental approval and wetland mitigation. To the maximum extent feasible, mitigation for the [new corridor] shall be accomplished through acquisition, preservation, and restoration of wetlands within the Bird Drive and North Trail Basins outside the [UDB]. At a minimum, preservation of wetlands within the Bird Drive Basin shall be included as a component of the wetlands mitigation for this project. The mitigation shall also include a plan to preserve the hydrological connection and surface water flow of the wetlands remaining in these basins through the use of culverts or bridges. (emphasis added). Petitioners have two objections to this language. First, Petitioners argue the only way to preserve the hydrologic connection of the wetlands severed by construction is by bridging, rather than use of culverts. Dr. McVoy expressed the opinion that, if a wetland has water storage capacity, the roadway will need to be elevated to prevent flooding of the roadway. If the County only uses culverts, the road will still be subject to flooding in the areas where it is not culverted. Moreover, the hydrologic function of the wetlands will not be maintained because the wetlands will be disconnected in those areas. The County’s wetland expert explained that while some wetland vegetation is removed for a culverting project, the culvert allows wetland hydrology to be maintained. He gave examples of other roadways, notably Krome Avenue, where culverts have been used to maintain the hydrologic connection of wetlands severed by the roadway. Both Dr. McVoy and Mr. Spinelli have expertise in wetlands and wetland hydrology and hold different opinions on the issue. Neither witness’s testimony was more compelling than the other. Second, Petitioners attack the use of the phrase, “to the maximum extent feasible” to modify the requirement that mitigation of wetland impacts be accomplished within the Bird Drive and North Trail basins. Petitioners contend that this phrase does not provide a meaningful and predictable standard. But this is a common phrase that has been used throughout comprehensive plans that have been found in compliance, including ones prepared by Petitioners’ planning expert, Mr. Iler, and as acknowledged by Mr. Hawkins. Moreover, Mr. Woerner noted that at least three other policies in the Plan use the phrase “to the maximum extent feasible,” and he emphasized that this language provides some flexibility as to how an otherwise mandatory directive can be accomplished. As Mr. Spinelli and Mr. Woerner explained, the phrase “to the maximum extent feasible” in new Policy LU-3T is appropriate because it provides some flexibility as to the location of wetland mitigation, because, as the County’s wetland mitigation estimates showed, there were limits on the amount of available land within the Bird Drive and North Trail Basins to address the entire amount of mitigation that would likely be required. Mr. Hawkins further opined that the standard “is so deferential to the opinions stated by whoever the applicant or the developer might be in the future as to not provide a real standard that we can use today to anticipate whether we can measure compliance of this policy in the future.” However, nothing in Policy LU-3T vests discretion in, or suggests deference to, a permit applicant with respect to the issue of feasibility. It is plain that, as with other policies in the CDMP, the County would ultimately determine feasibility. In summary, the Plan does not prohibit destruction of all wetlands in environmentally-sensitive areas. Rather, it limits damage to projects meeting certain criteria, at least one of which is met by this project. The Plan anticipates mitigation of wetland acreages lost due to development, and requires the water storage, recharge capacity, and hydrology of wetlands be maintained or increased. Finally, the Plan requires restoration of publicly- acquired wetlands “managed for their natural resource, habitat, and hydrologic values.” The Plan Amendment will disturb and destroy wetlands, which will be undertaken in accordance with the basin management plans for the Bird Drive and North Trail basins. The Plan Amendment requires MDX to demonstrate that the wetland hydrology can be maintained by submitting sheet flow analysis prior to construction. Mitigation of wetlands acquired can increase storage capacity by removal of melaleuca and restoration of the confining layer. Petitioners did not prove that the Plan Amendment violates any of the cited Conservation Element policies, with the exception of CON-7A, because it allows destruction of portions of the Pennsuco wetlands. CERP Protection of the Everglades is one of the highest priorities of the Plan. The Land Use Element provides that the County’s “growth policy includes … that the intensification of physical development and expansion of the urban area should be managed … in recognition of the County’s physical limitations to horizontal expansion due to the location of the Everglades National Parks[.]” Land Use Policy LU-3S states that “[The County] continues to support the [CERP] and related regional and local habitat restoration and preservation initiatives through its … long-range land planning initiatives.” Future Land Use Element Figure 14 clearly depicts the Bird Drive Basin as “Future Wetlands and CERP Water Management Areas.” The Conservation Element “builds upon past and present initiatives such as … planning for the Bird Drive-Everglades [and other] basins.” Petitioners contend the Plan Amendment is contrary to Policy CON-7J, which provides, as follows: In evaluating applications that will result in alterations or adverse impacts to wetlands[,] [the County] shall consider the applications’ [sic] consistency with [CERP] objectives. Applications that are found to be inconsistent with CERP objectives, projects or features shall be denied. (emphasis added). Petitioners maintain the Plan Amendment will adversely impact wetlands in the Bird Drive Basin, which is designated as CERP Component U, and should be denied as inconsistent with that CERP project and its related objectives. 9 All parties agreed that only the District has authority to determine whether the Plan Amendment is consistent with CERP. As part of the required review of the Plan Amendment, the District commented on the proposed Plan Amendment. In its comment letter, the District noted that “[a] portion of the lands within the proposed study area for the expressway extension have been identified as having potential use with regard to Everglades restoration projects.” The District advised that the 9 The County introduced evidence, all of which constituted hearsay, to prove that the District has determined Component U to be infeasible and has instead moved toward a conveyance concept for the Bird Drive Basin, which, ostensibly requires less property. The issue is a red herring. No matter the size or scale of the CERP project, the District remains the agency with authority to determine whether the Plan Amendment interferes with the project. County had not supplied enough information “that would help the District evaluate the proposed project’s compatibility with the CERP [project],” and directed that County staff “coordinate with appropriate District staff to provide sufficient information.”10 The County did not provide additional information to the District and did not receive any determination from the District regarding the Plan Amendment’s consistency with CERP. Petitioners did not prove that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with CERP, or that the County failed to consider consistency with CERP, thus, they did not prove the Plan Amendment is internally inconsistent with Policy CON-7J. However, Petitioners did prove the Plan Amendment is not supported by data and analysis on this point. Rather than providing the District with the additional information it requested to determine consistency with CERP, the County replied that it would continue to work with the District during the permitting process and “may be able to include features … that provide benefits that are both compatible and consistent with the intent of the CERP.” While only the District has the authority to determine consistency of the Plan Amendment with CERP, the County, not the District, has the duty and authority to determine consistency with its own Plan, including Policy CON-7J. 10 The District’s letter constitutes hearsay evidence for which there is no applicable exception in section 90.803, Florida Statutes. See Ehrhardt’s Florida Evidence § 803.8 (“A third kind of public record is admissible under [the Federal Evidence Code], but was intentionally omitted from section 90.803(8)”—“records and reports by a public official when the official is required to interpret and evaluate facts and information supplied by persons outside the agency.”). If the letter addressed the material disputed fact of whether the Plan Amendment was inconsistent with CERP, those statements would be inadmissible. However, the undersigned determined that statements regarding the need for more information on the issue are admissible, because they do not go to a material disputed fact. The County introduced the testimony of expert planning witness, Mark Woerner, in an attempt to prove that the County need not have a final determination of consistency with CERP prior to adopting a plan amendment. Mr. Woerner testified that the Plan merely requires the County to be aware of particular CERP projects when staff reviews plan amendments.11 Mr. Woerner’s testimony is contrary to the plain language of the policy, which requires the denial of a plan amendment that is found to be inconsistent with a CERP project or objective. Notwithstanding the previous finding that Petitioners did not prove that the Plan Amendment was inconsistent with CERP, because the Plan Amendment was adopted absent a determination of consistency with CERP, the Plan Amendment is not based upon adequate data or analysis. To be “based upon data” means “to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary[.]” § 163.3177(f), Fla. Stat. The County did not react appropriately to the data and analysis available—that the District needed more information in order to determine consistency—by adopting the Plan Amendment without such needed information. Agriculture Next, Petitioners contend that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with policies specifically addressing the preservation of agriculture. The Plan provides the following with respect to lands in the Agriculture category: The area designated as “Agriculture” contains the best agriculture land remaining in [the County]. As 11 Mr. Woerner’s testimony was hedging, at best: “I believe that you can still provide an analysis and address the issues that may be surrounding a particular CERP project or a CERP issue. But I don’t think you need to have to finally finalize that. You have to—the comp plan—the policies that we put in the comp plan regarding CERP were to ensure that in the planning process, the County’s aware of the importance of CERP in its projects and that we have to be aware of that as we review different plan amendments or other permitting issues that might arise for the County.” stated in the [County’s] strategic plan, approved by the Board of County Commissioners, protection of viable agriculture is a priority. The principle uses in this area should be agriculture, uses ancillary to and directly supportive of agriculture and farm residences.[12] The Plan continues, “In order to protect the agricultural industry, uses incompatible with agriculture, and uses and facilities that support or encourage urban development are not allowed within [the Agriculture land use category].” The mandate to protect agriculture is reiterated in the section on Concepts and Limitations of the Land Use Plan Map, which provides, “Among the long-standing concepts embodied in the [County’s Plan] are … encourage agriculture as a viable economic use of suitable lands.” In addition to the foregoing Plan provisions, Petitioners cite the following goals, objectives, and policies with which the Plan Amendment conflicts: the Land Use Goal, which calls for “preserv[ing] Miami-Dade County’s unique agricultural lands” and Land Use Policies LU-1R, LU-1S, LU-8C, and LU-8E. Policy LU-8C requires the County to “continue to protect and promote agriculture as a viable economic use of land[.]” The Plan Amendment will displace approximately 300 acres of Agriculturally-designated land which is in active agricultural use. The amount of land that is needed to maintain a viable agricultural industry is approximately 50,000 acres. According to the Environmental Protection Agency’s December 2012 report titled “Growing for a Sustainable Future: Miami-Dade County Urban Development Boundary Assessment,” approximately 67,000 acres outside the UDB are in active agricultural use. 12 Uses ancillary to agriculture are those related to preserving, processing packaging, or selling agricultural products; farm supplies; and sale and service of farm machinery and implements. The Plan Amendment will not reduce the amount of agriculture land to below the threshold required for a viable agriculture industry. Therefore, Petitioners did not prove the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with either the Concepts and Limitations interpretive text or LU-8C. Policy LU-8E provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Applications requesting amendments to [the Plan] Land Use map shall be evaluated for consistency with the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of all 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; Enhance or impeded provision of services at or above adopted LOS standards; Be compatible with abutting and nearby land uses and protect the character of established neighborhoods, and; Enhance of degrade environmental or historical resources, feature, or systems of County significance[.] There is ample evidence that the Plan Amendment was evaluated for consistency with every aspect of the Plan. As it pertains to Agriculture, County staff specifically recognized potential conflict with the Plan’s directives to protect agricultural land. To address that concern, staff recommended that “MDX be required to preserve agricultural lands that are currently being used for agricultural production, commensurate with the amount of such lands that would be impacted by the roadway extension.” Staff recommended addition of, and the Plan Amendment was adopted with, the following new future land use policies: Policy LU-1U. Notwithstanding the designation of the [new corridor] as an Expressway on the [Plan] Land Use Plan map … no construction associated with the [new corridor] shall occur that would restrict farm vehicle and equipment access to agricultural properties adjacent to the [new corridor]. Moreover, to minimize the impacts of the [new corridor], the design and construction shall be conducted in a manner that does not cause drainage or the spillage of lighting from the [new corridor] onto adjacent agricultural lands. Policy LU-1V. To mitigate the impacts of the [new corridor] on the agricultural area, [MDX] shall preserve agricultural lands outside the UDB commensurate to impacts to agricultural lands that would be taken out of production by the project. Said preservation may be through participation in the County’s Purchase Development Rights program or other mechanism acceptable to the [County] Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources (or successor Department). The Plan Amendment addresses both the direct and indirect impacts the new corridor may have on agriculture. Policy LU-1V mitigates the loss of directly impacted acreage by requiring preservation of land for agricultural land outside the UDB through a purchase of development rights program on an acre-for-acre basis. Under the Plan Amendment, all direct impacts to agricultural lands will require preservation of a commensurate amount of agricultural land outside the UDB. Approximately 188 acres of the impacted agricultural acres are located within the UEA, which are already projected to be removed from agricultural production in the future. Policy LU-1V will, arguably, increase the amount of land available for agriculture following the eventual development of the UEA for urban development. Policy LU-1U addresses the indirect impacts to agriculture, by requiring the expressway to be designed in a manner that protects farm vehicle and equipment access and that does not cause drainage or lighting spillage onto agricultural lands. With the addition of the cited policies, it is at least arguable that the Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with Plan directives to protect agricultural lands or Policy LU-8E. At first blush, Policy LU-1R appears to be relevant because it begins by mandating the County to “reserve the amount of land necessary to maintain an economically viable agricultural industry.” However, the remainder of the policy mandates the County to adopt a transfer of development rights (“TDR”) program and provides more detail on how TDR will be implemented. The policy must be construed as a whole. The Plan Amendment included no provisions regarding the development, adoption, or implementation of the TDR program. Thus, the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with this policy. LU-1S is inapplicable, again, because it addresses the consistency of the County’s Strategic Plan, rather than plan amendments, with the Plan. The Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with the interpretive text describing the Agriculture land use category because, as detailed in Findings of Fact 59 through 62, the Plan Amendment does not support or encourage urban development in the Agriculture land use category. Finally, Petitioners argue that the Plan Amendment is not supported by data and analysis, specifically regarding the amount of agricultural land impacted by the new corridor and the amount of land needed to maintain a viable agriculture industry. Mr. Hawkins opined that the County did not identify the impacts, which is not a professionally acceptable planning practice. However, the evidence adduced at the final hearing revealed that data was available to, and was considered by, the County, and which supports the Plan Amendment. Petitioners did not prove this aspect of the Plan Amendment was not supported by appropriate data and analysis. Transportation The PD&E Study In 2013, following TPO approval, MDX commenced the PD&E process for the new corridor. MDX engaged consultants, overseen by the project manager, Albert Sosa, on behalf of general engineering consulting firm HNTB, to undertake the PD&E process for what was referred to as “MDX Project 836-18.” The PD&E process is the State of Florida’s process by which infrastructure projects demonstrate compliance with federal and state environmental and other regulatory standards. A PD&E study involves roadway engineering, structural work, stormwater drainage work, traffic engineering, transportation engineering, and analysis of the project’s impacts on both the natural and the built environment and on the people in the affected community. Mr. Sosa personally supervised the development of, and reviewed and approved, all methodologies for collection and analysis of data, reviewed the results of the collection and analysis for conformance with the approved methodologies, and reviewed and approved all reports produced as part of the overall PD&E Study for MDX Project 836-18. The first step in the PD&E Study was to develop an evaluation methodology, which, in this case, was the Alternative Corridor Evaluation (“ACE”), whereby several alternative corridors were analyzed and compared based on their relative impacts and benefits to the natural and built environment and to the transportation needs of the affected community, among other criteria. The ACE for MDX Project 836-18 ultimately considered 10 corridor alignments. The analysis began by measuring existing traffic conditions in 2014 to identify existing operational deficiencies along critical roadway facilities. From there, the analysis projected traffic impacts out to the year 2050. The 2050 projections used as a baseline a “no-build” model that incorporated highway, transit, roadway, and other transportation improvements programmed in the LRTP “Cost Feasible Plan” to be constructed by 2050, as well as updated population and other socio-economic projections. The alternative corridor alignments for the proposed expressway were compared against the “no-build” model in the year 2050, to determine whether the existing traffic conditions observed in 2014 remained or worsened even after accounting for future planned transportation improvements; and if so, whether the proposed expressway improved the projected conditions. The ACE analyzed traffic impacts over a broader study area than it used for impacts to the natural and built environment. The traffic study area is based on a model that incorporates the different corridors, and turns those corridors on and off to see where significant impacts to traffic stop appearing. That model is known as the Southeast Regional Planning Model (“SERPM”), which is owned by the TPO and includes: planned transportation projects, existing and future land use designations, existing and future population projections, and existing and future employment projections for different areas of the County. It is, therefore, used to analyze every transportation project in the County for impacts to both the existing and future planned environment. The traffic study area for the SR-836 southwest extension project was established as a 75-square-mile area bounded on the north by NW 12th Street, on the east by SW 97th Avenue, on the south by SW 152 Street/Coral Reef Drive, and on the west by SW 177 Avenue/Krome Avenue (see Figure 2). [Remainder of page intentionally blank] Figure 2 Of the original 10 ACE corridors, the closest to the final adopted alignment was Corridor 6. Between NW 12th Street and SW 88th Street, Corridor 6 matches the alignment presented in the Plan Amendment. The main difference is that the southern portion of ACE Corridor 6 lies further west of the UDB and further away from the residential development in West Kendall south of SW 104th Street than the Application alignment did. Petitioners challenged the PD&E study, and the ACE Report specifically, as insufficient data to support the Plan Amendment because the final adopted alignment of the new corridor differed from any of the 10 the alignments studied. The undersigned finds the PD&E study, including the ACE Report, provides significant data compiled by a professionally-accepted methodology and taken from professionally accepted sources.13 Thus, while none of the 10 ACE corridors exactly matched the final adopted alignment, the PD&E Study ultimately analyzed all of the variations that the County considered, and as of the Plan Amendment’s adoption, the PD&E Study had obtained data for the final adopted alignment. Mobility Approximately 600,000 people live in the West Kendall area (including areas between the UDB and SW 177th Avenue/Krome Avenue), and each weekday, 150,000 of those people commute to work in other areas of the County. The need for increased mobility in West Kendall is well documented by the PD&E Study. In general, the peak travel direction through the study area is eastbound/northbound in the morning peak period, or rush hour (6:00 am to 9:00 am), and southbound/westbound during the evening rush hour (4:00 pm to 7:00 pm). Travel speeds within the study area were found to be lower in the morning rush hour compared to the evening rush hour. Travel speeds lower than 18 mile per hour (“mph”) were documented on Bird Road, Kendall Drive, Coral Reef Drive, SW 137th Avenue, and SW 107th Avenue, during the evening rush hour. The capacity of a roadway is identified by the level of service (“LOS”) standards. The County has adopted LOS D for roadways within the UDB, 13 The ACE Report was originally published in February 2017, but the data and analysis was updated beginning in the summer of 2017 and throughout the Plan Amendment process. and LOS C for roadways outside of the UDB. The roadways listed above are operating at LOS E and F, indicating the level of congestion in the area. In addition to measuring average travel speeds, which incorporate delays at intersections, another planning-level measurement of surface streets is their volume over capacity (V/C) ratio, where volume (V) is the number of vehicles and capacity (C) is the maximum number of vehicles that can pass a point on a roadway in a given amount of time under normal conditions. A roadway is considered to be failing if it has a V/C ratio of 1.0 or more, and it is near failure if it has a V/C ratio between 0.9 and 1.0. During the morning rush hour, 20 roadway segments within the study area had V/C ratios over 1.0, and 15 segments were approaching failure. During the afternoon rush hour, 13 segments had a V/C ratio greater than 1.0, and another 16 were approaching failure. In sum, during the morning rush hour today, roughly 50 percent of the roadway segments operate at substandard speeds, and 33 percent are either already over capacity or near capacity. Additional transportation capacity is needed to accommodate the current residential development in West Kendall, as the existing roadway network cannot effectively serve the area’s current transportation demands, and that population is only expected to increase based on current land use and zoning designations. Petitioners’ overarching challenge relating to transportation is that the Plan Amendment is not supported by the data and analysis from the PD&E study, which demonstrates construction of the new corridor will result in minimal mobility increases in the study area and actually reduce the LOS on some roadway segments. The purpose of the Plan Amendment is two-fold: to improve mobility in West Kendall; and to decrease the commute times to downtown and other employment centers. 14 While the study does reveal significant reduced congestion on certain roadway segments in the West Kendall area during morning and evening rush hours, overall the study supports a finding of minimally increased mobility in the study area. For example, analysis of the alignment most closely approximating the new corridor, scenario 2.1D, results in a reduction of 6,988 vehicles on SW 8th Street, and reduction of 6,264 vehicles on SW 88th Street. But, the impact on daily traffic volumes is minor. The total reduction in vehicle hours traveled (“VHT”) for morning rush hour is four percent, and for evening rush hour is five percent. The average annual daily reduction in VHT is just over three percent (a reduction from 226,033 to 218,803), and an average daily increase in travel speed from 27.72 mph to 29.34 mph. The data also shows the greatest reduction in vehicle miles travelled (“VMT”) is six percent. Notably, the new corridor would result in an improvement of the LOS for less than half of the roadways within the study area. 8th Street, east of 157th Avenue, would improve from LOS D to C; Bird Road would improve from LOS E to D; 120th Street would improve from LOS D to C; and 157th Avenue, north of 136th Street, would improve from LOS F to C. The remaining seven segments studied would remain at their existing LOS, 14 The LRTP identifies “[i]mprove[ment] [of] access to and from the area to major employment centers such as the MIA, the MIC, the Port of Miami, Downtown Miami, Doral, as well as educational and commercial centers within the study area,” as one of the primary purposes of the project, in addition to improving mobility in the Kendall area. The Plan Amendment includes new Policy TC-1M, which provides that the County approves the new corridor “only to the extent necessary to relieve existing traffic congestion in the [West Kendall] area of the County and to provide a reliable, robust, and faster connection to Downtown Miami and other major trip attractors across the County.” including 137th Avenue, south of the new corridor, which would continue to operate at LOS F. Not only does the data reveal that the improvements in West Kendall congestion would be, as Petitioner’s expert described, “meager,” but also they provide no support for a finding that the Plan Amendment will accomplish its second objective—improving the commute time to downtown and other employment centers. The County relies upon the PD&E study, the goal of which is to identify an appropriate corridor for the southwest extension of the Dolphin Expressway, which does not include downtown, the airport, or other employment centers, within either the study area or the impact area. Mr. Mullerat, Petitioner’s expert transportation planner, described the problem as follows: [I]f the intent of this project is to solve in part the commuter issues for commuters, the whole path of the commuter should have been looked at … [the study] doesn’t look at some of the destinations—not just downtown and to the east, but also to the north. … And both origin and destination should have been looked at. Mr. Mullerat testified, credibly, that it was not an acceptable planning practice to have ignored origin and destination trips. The majority of the commuters who utilize the new corridor will be traveling beyond this three-mile stretch on to downtown, the hospitals, the airport, and other major trip attractors, yet the study contains no information about impact on commute times to those destinations. The data is silent on whether the time to those destinations will increase, decrease, or stay the same. Furthermore, the existing segment of the Dolphin Expressway operates at a LOS C, at least for the first three miles traveling east from its current termination point. The data shows that, after the new corridor is built, the LOS drops to D in that three-mile stretch. So, commuters will drive 13 miles, outside of the UDB, through active agricultural lands, through environmentally-sensitive lands, and through the West Wellfield, only to connect with the existing expressway operating at an LOS lower than it operates at today.15 Relating to transportation issues, Petitioners allege the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the following goals, objectives, and policies in the Plan: TC-1A; TC-4A and F; and TC-6 and 6B. TC-1A requires the County to update and readopt the LRTP to achieve the objective of TC-1, which requires the County to operate its roadways at the adopted LOS, and strive to achieve a better LOS, in a manner consistent with the other objectives of the Plan. It requires the County to prepare proposals to enhance the Traffic Circulation and Mass Transit subelements following each LRTP update. The Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with this policy. The Plan Amendment will assist in achievement of the adopted LOS D on at least some roadway segments within the study area, and achieve a better LOS on others. While it will not improve the LOS on all segments, including at least one that is operating at LOS F, it is at least fairly debatable that the Plan Amendment is consistent with this policy. Policy TC-6A requires the County to “avoid transportation improvements which encourage or subsidize increased development in … environmentally sensitive areas[.]” For the reasons discussed in Findings of Fact 59 through 62, the Plan Amendment does not “encourage increased development” and is not inconsistent with this policy. TC-6B requires that land access interchanges “shall not be placed or constructed in a manner that would provide access to environmental 15 A project to widen the existing segment of the Dolphin Espressway from four to six lanes is expected to re-establish the higher functioning LOS C. However, no evidence was introduced at final hearing to establish the timeframe for that project. protection areas or other areas to be conserved” in order to prevent undue pressure for development in those areas. There is no evidence that the interchanges proposed for the new corridor to connect with existing roads in West Kendall would provide “land access.” Further, the Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with the policy for the same reasons it is not inconsistent with TC-6A. TC-4C provides, “Areas designated Environmental Protection shall be particularly avoided” when the County prioritizes construction of roadways, and allocation of financial resources for said construction.16 At first, it appears the Plan Amendment may be inconsistent with this policy because it allows construction of the new corridor in the Pennsuco wetlands. However, the Plan must be construed as a whole. This policy must be read in conjunction with Policy TC-6C, which provides that “[i]f no feasible alternative exists,” roadways may traverse environmental protection or conservation areas, “however such access should be limited and design techniques should be used to minimize the negative impact upon the natural systems.” Petitioners argue that alternatives to the new corridor exist which would accomplish the objective of relieving congestion in West Kendall. Mr. Kulash opined that congestion could be relieved by lane widening, extending turn lanes, and other roadway improvements; alternately, he expressed an opinion that congestion could be relieved by mass transit improvements. The County experts demonstrated that the alternatives proposed by Petitioners were not feasible, due to costs of land acquisition in the urban area, and the limitations of transit service. 16 The same language is expressed in CIE-6A. For the reasons stated herein, the Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with that policy. Petitioners did not carry their burden of proof with regard to Policy TC-4C. Petitioners must have done more than suggest alternatives exist, they must have proven the feasibility of those alternatives. Petitioners also raised concerns with the energy inefficiency of a new expressway and increased emissions and greenhouse gases. They identified Intergovernmental Coordination Element (”ICE”) policies ICE-5F and 5G as policies with which the Plan Amendment conflicts. ICE-5F requires the County to participate in the Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact and to coordinate with other agencies in developing initiatives to address climate change mitigation and adaption. Policy ICE-5G requires County departmental master plans to “include and prioritize climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies.” The Plan Amendment has no impact on the County’s ability to implement either of those policies. Mass Transit The County has adopted the Strategic Miami Area Rapid Transit (SMART) Plan (see Figure 3). [Remainder of page intentionally blank] Figure 3 The SMART plan includes two east/west corridors, including the Kendall Corridor, which will connect residents in West Kendall from 167th Avenue east to existing lines serving downtown, and two planned north and northeast corridors. Transportation Element Policy TE-3C states, “It is the policy of [the County] to develop all the transportation facilities identified in the MPO’s [LRTP] … as soon as feasible, in accordance with the LRTP phasing program.” The Goal of the Mass Transit Subelement is to “[m]aintain, operate, and develop a mass transit system in [the County] that provides efficient, convenient, accessible, and affordable service to all residents and visitors,” and it adopts the corridors identified by the SMART plan as Figure 2 in the element’s map series. Policy TE-1A provides that “the County shall promote mass transit alternatives to personal automobile.” The overarching Goal of the Traffic Circulation Element includes developing and operating a traffic circulation that “supports the usage of transit,” among other broad goals. Petitioners challenge the Plan Amendment as inconsistent with several existing Plan provisions regarding mass transit service and prioritizing alternatives to private vehicle travel. Primary among them are Transportation Element TC-1A and Traffic Circulation Subelement TC-4F. Based on the same arguments, Petitioners also contend that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with section 163.3177(6)(b), which requires a transportation element “to plan for a multimodal transportation system that places emphasis on public transportation systems, where feasible” and to “provide for a safe, convenient multimodal transportation system, coordinated with the future land use map . . . and designed to support all elements of the comprehensive plan,” as well as section 163.3177(6)(b)2.a, which requires that a transportation element address “[a]ll alternative modes of travel, such as public transportation, pedestrian, and bicycle travel.” Policy TC-4F provides, as follows: The County shall consistently improve strategies to facilitate a Countywide shift in travel modes from personal automobile use to pedestrian, bicycle and transit modes. The priority for transportation infrastructure expenditures shall be to insure that pedestrian, bicycle, and transit features are incorporated into roadway design. (emphasis added). Policy TE-1A provides, as follows: As provided in this section and the Mass Transit Subelement, the County shall promote mass transit alternatives to the personal automobile, such as rapid transit, (i.e. heavy rail, light rail, and bus rapid transit, premium transit (enhanced and/or express bus)), local route bus and paratransit services. (emphasis added). Petitioners’ experts testified that the new corridor will accomplish the opposite of what is required by the Plan—it will incentivize the use of personal vehicles by residents of West Kendall, who will take the expressway to escape the congestion of the roadways within the UDB. Respondent countered that the Plan Amendment is consistent with the Plan’s emphasis on alternative mass transit because it requires the new corridor to be built as a multi-modal facility, and will provide connections between the planned new east/west corridors. The Plan Amendment includes the following new policies in the Mass Transit Subelement of the Transportation Element: Mass Transit Subelement Policy MT-4D. Pursuant to Traffic Circulation Subelement Policy TC-4F, [MDX] (or successor agency) shall provide for mass transit service in the [new corridor], to be funded by MDX. The mass transit service shall incorporate lanes having technologies that facilitate the safe travel of automated vehicles, including mass transit vehicles, at high rates of speed for a connection with the transit service being implemented as part of the current SR 836 reconstruction generally east of the Turnpike. MDX shall coordinate the mass transit service with [the County] through the Department of Transportation and Public Works (or successor department). Said coordination shall occur prior to the earlier of the issuance of the first permit for construction of the expressway extension or prior to the commencement of any construction of the expressway extension. Mass Transit Subelement Policy MT-4E. In coordination with [the County] Parks, Recreation and Open Space Department and [the County TPO], [MDX] shall design a multi-use recreational trail within the corridor of the [new corridor]. Additionally, to the maximum extent feasible, the multi-use recreational trail shall be designed to provide for seamless connections to the County’s existing and planned trails and greenways network proximate to the corridor. Said coordination shall occur prior to the earlier of the issuance of the first permit for construction of the expressway extension or prior to the commencement of any construction of the expressway extension. These policies satisfy the requirements in Policies TC-3D to “design new roadways in a way that … incorporates planned rapid transit corridors,” and TC-4F to “insure that … transit features are incorporated into roadway design.” The question is whether the Plan Amendment satisfies the Plan requirement to “promote mass transit use.” Petitioner’s expert planners maintained it will not. Mr. Hawkins explained: The expressway is located outside of the Urban Development Boundary to the west of the urbanized area. For folks to use a transit corridor or a transit route that runs along the expressway corridor, they would have to travel by automobile outside the UDB to the west, to access a park-and-ride facility, and then get on a transit facility—a transit vehicle that operates in that corridor. It would not be back in an urbanized area until it is in the area of Northwest 12th Street and back in the UDB. If you were going to plan a corridor for a transit facility, you would have a much more direct line. You would run a transit facility through the developed area. Why? One is so that people can get to it more quickly. And two, so that all of the stops along its way are functional. When you are running through an agricultural area, you can't have any functional stops until you are all the way back in the UDB. It is just—the suggestion that this is a functional transit corridor or that this was designed with transit in mind is—I will use the word farcical. Respondent’s own planning expert, Mr. Woerner, agreed that the Plan Amendment “does not shift the travel mode from single occupancy vehicle to mass transit,” and “does not reduce dependence on the use of personal vehicles.” The County introduced no data on ridership for the transit lanes or other data to support that the mass transit option incorporated in the Plan Amendment would actually promote use of that option. Mr. Woerner seemed to recall some figures on ridership from the PD&E study, which evaluated a mass transit alternative to the new corridor. The figure Mr. Woerner referenced was an estimated 2,772 transit boardings from the alternative corridor analysis conducted during the PD&E study. However, that study was a mass-transit-only alternative to the new corridor. That ridership number is an estimate of the number of West Kendall residents who would choose to take mass transit if that were the only option in the new corridor. It does not reflect the number of users who, given an option between driving their personal vehicle along the new corridor or boarding a bus along that corridor, would choose the bus. In response, Mr. Woerner responded that, in his opinion, the most important data the County needed was the corridor connections. (See Figure 3 depiction of the approximate location of the new corridor, hand drawn in red, in relation to the planned east/west SMART corridors). In this case, Mr. Woerner considered the connections with Kendall Drive and Tamiami Trail bus lines to be important connections for users. But, when asked directly whether the County needed ridership information to support new Policy MT-4D, Mr. Woerner said, “No. I don’t believe we needed it, but it certainly was helpful to know that there had been a projection made.” Mr. Woerner’s testimony was not credible. As discussed above, the projection Mr. Woerner referred to was never made. There is no data to determine whether the County’s directive to another agency to fund and build 13 miles of mass transit service along the expressway route, will actually “promote mass transit use,” as required by the Plan. The burden was on Petitioners to prove that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the cited goals and policies. Petitioners did prove that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Policy TC-4F, because all the experts agreed that the Plan Amendment does not “shift the travel mode” in this part of the County “from single occupancy vehicle to mass transit.” However, Petitioners did not prove the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the Plan’s provisions to: “promote mass transit use,” as required by Policy TE-1A; “support[] use of transit,” as required by the Transportation Element Goal; “significantly enhance public transit services and implement transportation system management programs … to provide feasible alternatives to private automobile use,” as required by CON-1B; or maintain an “efficient” mass transit system, as required by the Goal of the Mass Transit Subelement. Petitioners did prove that the Plan Amendment is not supported by data and analysis to determine whether it is internally consistent with the cited goals and policies.
Conclusions For Petitioners, Limonar Development, LLC; Wonderly Holdings, LLC; and Mills Family, LLC: John C. Lukacs, Esquire John C. Lukacs, P.A., Trial Lawyers 75 Valencia Avenue, Suite 600 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Francisco J. Pines, Esquire Francisco J. Pines, P.A. 3301 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 220 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 For Petitioners, Tropical Audubon Society and Michelle Garcia: Paul J. Schwiep, Esquire Coffey Burlington, P.L. 2601 South Bayshore Drive, Penthouse 1 Miami, Florida 33133 Richard J. Grosso, Esquire Richard Grosso, P.A. 6511 Nova Drive, Mail Box 300 Davie, Florida 33317 For Respondent, Miami-Dade County: Dennis Alexander Kerbel, Esquire Christopher J. Wahl, Esquire Miami-Dade County Attorney’s Office 111 Northwest First Street, Suite 2810 Miami, Florida 33128
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 Miami-Dade County Comprehensive Plan Amendment adopted by Ordinance 2018-109 on September 27, 2018, is not “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b). DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of March, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of March, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Carlos A. Gimenez, Mayor Miami-Dade County Stephen P. Clark Center, 29th Floor 111 Northwest First Street Miami, Florida 33128 Dennis Alexander Kerbel, Esquire Miami-Dade County Suite 2810 111 Northwest First Street Miami, Florida 33128 (eServed) John C. Lukacs, Esquire John C. Lukacs, P.A., Trial Lawyers Suite 600 75 Valencia Avenue Coral Gables, Florida 33134 (eServed) Francisco J. Pines, Esquire Francisco J. Pines, P.A. Suite 220 3301 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Coral Gables, Florida 33134 (eServed) Christopher J. Wahl, Esquire Miami-Dade County Attorney's Office Suite 2810 111 Northwest First Street Miami, Florida 33128 (eServed) James Michael Porter, Esquire James M. Porter, P.A. 10th Floor 9350 South Dixie Highway Miami, Florida 33156 (eServed) Paul J. Schwiep, Esquire Coffey Burlington, P.L. Penthouse 1 2601 South Bayshore Drive Miami, Florida 33133 (eServed) Richard J. Grosso, Esquire Richard Grosso P.A. Mail Box 300 6511 Nova Drive Davie, Florida 33317 (eServed) William Chorba, General Counsel Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building, MSC 110 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed) Ken Lawson, Executive Director Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed) Janay Lovett, Agency Clerk Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed) James Uthmeier, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Executive Office of the Governor Suite 209, The Capitol 400 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-001 (eServed) Barbara Leighty, Clerk Transportation and Economic Development Policy Unit Room 1802, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 (eServed)
The Issue The issue is whether the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) amendments for the Bay County (County) Comprehensive Plan (Plan) are in compliance.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Diane C. Brown resides and owns property within the County, and she submitted written and oral comments to the County during the adoption process of Ordinance No. 09-36. The County is a local government that administers its Plan and adopted the Ordinance which approved the changes being contested here. The Department is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility for reviewing plan amendments of local governments, such as the County. The EAR Process The County's first Plan was adopted in 1990 and then amended through the EAR process in 1999. As required by law, on September 5, 2006, the County adopted another EAR and in 2007 a Supplement to the EAR. See County Ex. 1C and 1D. The EAR and Supplement were found to be sufficient by the Department on December 21, 2007. See County Ex. 1E. After the EAR-based amendments were adopted by the County and transmitted to the Department for its review, the Department issued its Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) report. After making revisions to the amendments in response to the ORC, on October 20, 2009, the County enacted Ordinance No. 09-36, which adopted the final version of the EAR-based amendments known as "Charting Our Course to 2020." See County Ex. 1B. On December 15, 2009, the Department issued its notice of intent determining that the EAR-based amendments were in compliance. See County Ex. 1F. Notice of this determination was published in the Panama City News Herald the following day. See County Ex. 1G. The EAR is a large document comprised of five sections: Overview Special Topics; Issues; Element Reviews; Recommended Changes; and a series of Maps. Section 163.3191(10), Florida Statutes, requires that the County amend its comprehensive plan "based" on the recommendations in the report; subsection (2) also requires that the County update the comprehensive plan based on the components of that subsection. The EAR-based amendments are extensive in nature, and include amendments to all 13 chapters in the Plan. However, many provisions in the 1999 version of the Plan were left unchanged, while many revisions were simply a renumbering of a provision, a transfer of a provision to another element, a change in the format, or an otherwise minor and non-substantive change. Although the EAR discusses a number of issues and concerns in the first three sections of the report, the EAR- based amendments must only be based on the recommended changes. See § 163.3191(10), Fla. Stat. Therefore, it was unnecessary for the County to react through the amendment process to the discussions in the Issues and Element Reviews portions of the EAR. For example, the EAR discusses air quality and mercury but made no specific recommendations to amend the Plan to address either subject. Also, nothing in chapter 163 or Department rules requires that the County implement changes to the Plan that parrot each specific recommendation to the letter. So long as the revisions are "based" on an area of concern in the recommendations, the statutory requirement has been satisfied. Section Four of the EAR contains the "Recommended EAR- Based Actions and Corrective Measures Section 163.3191(2)(i)." See County Ex. 1C, § 4, pp. 1-9. Paragraph (2)(i) of the statute requires that the EAR include "[t]he identification of any actions or corrective measures, including whether plan amendments are anticipated to address the major issues identified and analyzed in the report." Section Four indicates that it was intended to respond to the requirements of this paragraph. Id. at p. 1. Finally, the only issue in this proceeding is whether the EAR-based amendments are in compliance. Therefore, criticisms regarding the level of detail in the EAR and Supplement, and whether the County adequately addressed a particular issue in those documents, are not relevant. A determination that the EAR was sufficient in all respects was made by the Department on December 21, 2007. In her Amended Petition, Petitioner raises numerous allegations regarding the EAR-based amendments. They can be generally summarized as allegations that various text amendments, including entire elements or sub-elements, are inconsistent with statutory and rule provisions or are internally inconsistent with other Plan provisions, and that the County failed to properly react to changes recommended in the EAR. Because this is a challenge to an in-compliance determination by the Department, Petitioner must show that even though there is evidence to support the propriety of these amendments, no reasonable person would agree that the amendments are in compliance. See Conclusion of Law 90, infra. Objections Administrative Procedures - Chapter 1 Petitioner contends that new policy 1.4.1(4) is inconsistent with sections 163.3181 and 187.201(25)(a) and (b)6., which generally require or encourage effective citizen participation, and rule 9J-5.004, which requires a local government to adopt procedures for public participation. She also contends the County should not have deleted policy 1.4.2, which required the County to provide notices (by mail and sign postings) beyond those required by chapter 163. The new policy simply provides that notice of public hearings be provided for in accordance with chapter 163. There is no statutory or rule requirement that more stringent notice requirements be incorporated into a plan. The new notice requirements are consistent with the above statutes and rule. It is fairly debatable that the changes to the Administrative Procedures part of the Plan are in compliance. Future Land Use Element (FLUE) - Chapter 3 Petitioner has challenged (a) one policy that creates a new planning area; (b) the County's failure to adopt new energy standards in the FLUE; and (c) the adoption of new development standards for two land use categories in Table 3A of the FLUE. Table 3A describes each land use category in the Plan, including its purpose, service area, designation criteria, allowable uses, density, intensity, and development restrictions. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 3, pp. 3-5 through 3-17. These contentions are discussed separately below. Southport Neighborhood Planning Area New FLUE policy 3.4.8 creates the Southport Neighborhood Planning Area (Southport), a self-sustaining community with a functional mix of uses. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 3, pp. 3-20 and 21. The effect of the amendment is simply to identify Southport as a potential planning area that includes a mixture of uses. This follows the EAR recommendations to create "new areas where residents are allowed to work, shop, live, and recreate within one relatively compact area while preserving the rural and low density land uses in the area[,]" and to create "higher density rural development." County Ex. 1C, § 4, p. 2. Southport is located north of the greater Panama City area in an unincorporated part of the County near or adjacent to the proposed new intersection of County Road 388 and State Road 77. Southport is also identified in new policy 3.2.5(8) as a Special Treatment Zone (STZ) that is designated as an overlay on the Future Land Use Map Series. Id. at p. 3-5. (There are seven STZs in the Plan that act as overlay districts on the FLUM. Overlays do not convey development rights.) Petitioner contends that policy 3.4.8 is inconsistent with sections 163.3177(6)(a) and (d), (8), and (9)(b) and (e), and rules 9J-5.005(2), (5), and (7), 9J-5.006(5), and 9J-5.013. More precisely, Petitioner generally contends that the amendment will encourage urban sprawl; that there is no need for the additional development; that there are no central water and wastewater facilities available to serve that area; that there is no mechanism for monitoring, evaluating, and appraising implementation of the policy; that it will impact nearby natural resources; that it allows increased density standards in the area; and that it is not supported by adequate data and analysis. Most of the data and analysis that support the establishment of the new planning area are in the EAR. They are found in the Introduction and Overview portion of Section One and the FLUE portion of Section 3 of the Element Reviews. The County Director of Planning also indicated that the County relied upon other data as well. Although the new policy allows an increase in maximum residential density from five to 15 dwelling units per acre, paragraph (b) of the policy specifically requires that "all new development [be] served by central water and sewer." Petitioner's expert opined that the new community will create urban sprawl. However, Southport is located within the suburban service area of the County, which already allows densities of up to five dwelling units per acre; it is currently developed with low-density residential uses; and it is becoming more urban in nature. Given these considerations, it is fairly debatable that Southport will not encourage urban sprawl. The new STZ specifically excludes the Deer Point Reservoir Protection Zone. Therefore, concerns that the new policy will potentially threaten the water quantity and quality in that reservoir are not credited. In addition, there are other provisions within the Plan that are designed to protect the reservoir. Petitioner criticized the County's failure to perform a suitability analysis before adopting the amendment. However, a suitability study is performed when a land use change is proposed. Policy 3.4.8 is not an amendment to the FLUM. In fact, the Plan notes that "[n]othing in this policy shall be interpreted as changing the land use category of any parcel of the [FLUM]." County Ex. 1A, Ch. 3, p. 3-21. In determining the need for this amendment, the County took into consideration the fact that except for the Beaches STZ, the EAR-based amendments delete residential uses as an allowed use in commercially-designated lands. The number of potential residential units removed from the commercial land use category far exceeds the potential number of residential units that could be developed at Southport. Thus, the new amendment will not result in an increase in residential units. Petitioner also contends that the County should have based its needs analysis using Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) estimates. The County's population projections are found in the Introduction portion of the EAR and while they make reference to BEBR estimates, they are not based exclusively on those data. See County Ex. 1C, § 1, pp. 2 and 3. However, there was no evidence that the estimates used by the County are not professionally acceptable. Where there are two acceptable methodologies used by the parties, the Department is not required to evaluate whether one is better than the other. See § 163.3177(10)(e), Fla. Stat. ("the Department shall not evaluate whether one accepted methodology is better than another"). The County's estimates are professionally acceptable for determining need. The other objections to the amendment have been considered and found to be without merit. Therefore, it is at least fairly debatable that the amendment is in compliance. Neighborhood Commercial - Table 3A The purpose of this commercial category is to "provide areas for the convenience of residential neighborhoods so as to generate a functional mix of land uses and reduce traffic congestion." County Ex. 1A, Ch. 3, p. 3-15. Allowable uses include, among others, supermarket centers, restaurants, public facilities, and other similar uses. The County amended the intensity standard for this category by allowing development that is "[n]o more than 50-feet in height." Id. Petitioner asserts that the new 50-foot height limitation for commercial buildings results in the amendment being inconsistent with rule 9J-5.006 because it is not based on adequate data and analysis. Petitioner further argues that the standard is internally inconsistent with FLUE objective 3.9 and policy 3.9.1 and Housing Element objective 8.5, which relate to compatibility. Finally, Petitioner alleges that it will cause unsustainable density in the category and create new demands for public services. The EAR contains a section that analyzes data regarding residential development in commercial land use categories. See County Ex. 1C, § 2. There is, then, data and analysis that support the amendment. The 50-foot height limitation actually limits the intensity that would normally be allowed under current Land Development Regulations (LDRs) if this limitation were not in the Plan. Therefore, it will not increase the intensity of development within this district. Because the Plan specifically provides that the category is for "areas [with] low-intensity commercial uses that will be compatible with adjacent or surrounding residential uses," and such uses must be located "outside subdivisions . . . unless intended to be included in the subdivisions," compatibility issues with adjacent residential areas should not arise. Petitioner failed to establish beyond fair debate that the amendment is not in compliance. Seasonal/Resort - Table 3A This land use category is designed for transient occupancy (temporary seasonal visitors and tourists) under chapter 509, rather than permanent residents. It is limited to areas with concentrations of accommodations and businesses that are used in the tourist trade. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 3, p. 3- The category includes a new intensity standard for buildings of "[n]o more than 230-feet in height." Id. Petitioner contends that this intensity standard is inconsistent with section 163.3177(6)(d), (8), and (9) and rules 9J-5.005(2) and (5), 9J-5.006, and 9J-5.013. These provisions require that an amendment protect natural resources, that it be based on the best available data and analysis, and that it be internally consistent with other Plan provisions. Petitioner also points out that the land use category is located in or adjacent to the Coastal High Hazard Area, that the amendment allows an increase in density, and this results in an inconsistency with statutes and rules pertaining to hurricane evacuation zones. Prior to the adoption of the EAR-based amendments, there was no intensity standard in the Plan for this land use category and all development was governed by LDRs. Pursuant to a recommendation by the Department in its ORC, the new standard was incorporated into the Plan. Before making a decision on the specific height limitation, the County considered existing condominium construction on the beach, current LDR standards for the district, and whether the new standard would create an internal inconsistency with other Plan provisions. Therefore, it is fair to find that adequate data were considered and analyzed. The new height limitation is the same as the maximum height restriction found in the Seasonal Resort zoning district, which now applies to new construction in the district. Because condominiums and hotels that do not exceed 230 feet in height are now allowed within the district, and may actually exceed that height if approved by the County, the amendment is not expected to increase density or otherwise affect hurricane evacuation planning. Historically, transient visitors/tourists are the first to leave the area if a hurricane threatens the coast. Petitioner also contends that the amendment will create compatibility problems between existing one- or two-story residential dwellings in the district and high-rise condominiums, and that the County failed to adequately consider that issue. However, before a condominium or other similar structure may be built, the County requires that the developer provide a statement of compatibility. It is fairly debatable that the new intensity standard is in compliance. Energy Issues Petitioner alleges that the new amendments do not adequately address energy issues, as required by section 163.3177(6)(a). That statute requires, among many other things, that the FLUE be based upon "energy-efficient land use patterns accounting for existing and future electric power generation and transmission systems; [and] greenhouse gas reduction strategies." However, amendments to objective 3.11 and policy 3.11.5, which relate to energy-efficient land use patterns, adequately respond to these concerns. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 3, pp. 3-27 and 3-28. In addition, new Transportation Element policy 4.10.3 will result in energy savings and reduce greenhouse gases by reducing idle times of vehicular traffic. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 4, p. 4-12. It is fairly debatable that the energy portions of the Plan are in compliance, and they promote energy efficient land use patterns and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as required by the statute. Transportation Element - Chapter 4 The EAR contains 14 recommended changes for this element. See County Ex. 1C, § 4, pp. 2-4. Item 2 recommends generally that bike paths be installed in or next to certain areas and roadways. Id. at p. 2. Petitioner contends that this recommendation was not implemented because it is not included in the Recreation and Open Space Element. However, one section of the Transportation Element is devoted to Bicycle and Pedestrian Ways and includes objectives 4.14 and 4.15 and policies 4.14.1 and 4.15.1, which respond to the recommendation. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 4, pp. 4-14 and 4-15. In addition, the General Strategy portion of the element requires the County to install alternative transportation systems where a demonstrated need exists. Id. at p. 4-1. Petitioner contends that by limiting bike paths only to where there is a demonstrated need, the County has not fully responded to the recommendation. This argument is illogical and has been rejected. It is fairly debatable that the above amendments are in compliance. Groundwater Aquifer Recharge - Chapter 5F As required by section 163.3177(6)(c), the County has adopted a natural groundwater aquifer recharge element. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 5F. The goal of this sub-element, as amended, is to "[s]afeguard the functions of the natural groundwater recharge areas within the County to protect the water quality and quantity in the Floridan Aquifer." County Ex. 1A, Ch. 5, p. 5F-1. The EAR contains three recommended changes for this part of the Plan: that the County update its data and analysis to identify areas of high and/or critical recharge for the Floridan aquifer; that it include in the data and analysis an examination of existing LDRs which affect land uses and development activities in high recharge areas and note any gaps that could be filled through the LDRs; and that it include within the data and analysis a study of potential impacts of increased development in high recharge areas, including reasonable development standards for those areas. See County Ex. 1C, §4, pp. 4-5. Petitioner contends that "the objectives and policies pertaining to protecting water recharge areas" are inconsistent with sections 163.3177(6)(d) and 187.201(7) and rules 9J-5.5.011 and 9J-5.013, which require that the Plan protect groundwater; that they violate section 163.3177(8) and rule 9J-5.005(7), which require measurable objectives for monitoring, evaluating, and appraising implementation; and that the County violated section 163.3191(10) by failing to respond to the recommended changes in the EAR. In response to the EAR, in July 2009, the County prepared a watershed report entitled "Deer Point Lake Hydrologic Analysis - Deer Point Lake Watershed," which was based on a watershed management model used by County expert witness Peene. See County Ex. 4. The model used for that report is the same model used by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the United States Army Corps of Engineers. The study was also based on data and analysis prepared by the Northwest Florida Water Management District. The purpose of the analysis was to look at potential future land use changes in the Deer Point watershed and assess their ultimate impact upon the Deer Point Reservoir, which is the primary public water supply for the County. The model examined the entire Deer Point watershed, which is a much larger area than the Deer Point Lake Protection Zone, and it assumed various flows from rain, springs, and other sources coming into the Deer Point Reservoir. The study was in direct response to a recommendation in the EAR that the County undertake a study to determine if additional standards were needed to better protect the County's drinking water supply and the St. Andrews estuary. See County Ex. 1C, § 4, p. 5. Another recommendation was that the study be incorporated by reference into the data and analysis of the Plan and be used as a basis for any amendments to the Plan that might be necessary. Id. at p. 6. Pursuant to that recommendation, the report was incorporated by reference into Objective 5F.1. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 5, p. 5F-1. The evidence supports a finding that the report is based on a professionally accepted methodology and is responsive to the EAR. The model evaluated certain future land use scenarios and predicted the level of pollutants that would run off of different land uses into the Deer Point Reservoir. Based on this analysis, Dr. Peene recommended that the County adopt certain measures to protect the groundwater in the basin from fertilizers, stormwater, and pesticides. He also recommended that best management practices be used, that septic tanks be replaced, and that any new growth be on a centralized wastewater treatment plant. Petitioner's expert criticized the report as not sufficiently delineating the karst features or the karst plain within the basin. However, the report addresses that issue. See County Ex. 4, p. 2-36. Also, Map 13 in the EAR identifies the Karst Regions in the County. See County Ex. 1C, § 5, Map 13. One of the recommendations in the EAR was to amend all goals, policies, and objectives in the Plan "to better protect the Deer Point watershed in areas not included within the Deer Point Reservoir Special Treatment Zone, and [to] consider expanding the zone to include additional areas important to preserving the quantity and quality of water entering the reservoir." County Ex. 1C, § 4, p. 6. Besides amending the sub-element's goal, see Finding of Fact 31, supra, the County amended objective 5F.1 to read as follows: By 2010 protect groundwater resources by identifying and mapping all Areas of High Aquifer Recharge Potential to the Floridan Aquifer in Bay County by using the data and analysis contained in the Deer Point Lake Hydrologic Analysis - Deer Point Watershed, prepared by Applied Technology and Management, Inc., dated July 2009. In addition, policy 5F-1.1 requires that the County use "the map of High Aquifer Recharge Areas to establish an Ecosystem Management overlay in the Conservation Element where specific land use regulations pertaining to aquifer water quality and quantity shall apply." Also, policy 5F-1.2 requires the identification of the Dougherty Karst Region. Finally, the EAR and Map 13A were incorporated by reference into the Plan by policy 1.1.4.4. These amendments sufficiently respond to the recommendations in the EAR. While Petitioner's expert criticized the sufficiency of the EAR, and he did not believe the report adequately addressed the issue of karsts, the expert did not establish that the study was professionally unacceptable or otherwise flawed. His criticism of the County's deletion of language in the vision statement of the sub-element that would restrict development density and intensity in areas known to have high groundwater aquifer potential is misplaced. An amendment to a vision statement is not a compliance issue, and nothing in the EAR, chapter 163, or chapter 9J-5 requires the County to limit "density and intensity" in high aquifer recharge areas. On this issue, the EAR recommended that the County's drinking water supply be protected by using "scientifically defensible development standards." County Ex. 1C, § 4, p. 5. The amendments accomplish this result. Petitioner also contends that while new policy 5F.3 and related policies are "good," the County should have collected additional data and analysis on the existence of swallets, which are places where streams flow underground. Again, nothing in chapter 163 or chapter 9J-5 requires the County to consider swallets. Also, a contention that policy 5F3.2 allows solid waste disposal facilities in high recharge areas is without merit. The policy requires that the County continue to follow chapter 62-7 regulations (implemented by DEP) to protect water quality of the aquifers. In addition, a moratorium on construction and demolition landfills has been adopted, and current LDRs prohibit landfills within the Deer Point Reservoir Protection Zone. Petitioner also criticized the sufficiency of policy 5F.4, which requires the implementation of LDRs that limit land uses around high aquifer recharge areas. The evidence establishes that the new policy is sufficient to achieve this purpose. It is at least fairly debatable that the new amendments protect the natural resources, are based on the best available data and analysis, include measurable objectives for overseeing the amendments, and respond to the recommended changes in the EAR. Conservation Element - Chapter 6 The purpose of this element is to conserve the natural resources of the County. Petitioner contends that "many of the amendments [to this chapter] are not consistent with applicable rules and statutes, and that a number of recommendations in the EAR pertaining to the Conservation Element were not implemented as required by Section 163.3191(10)." These contentions are discussed below. Air pollution While the EAR discusses air pollution, there were no specific recommendations to amend the plan to address air quality. See County Ex. 1C, Element Reviews, Ch. 6, pp. 1 and Petitioner contends, however, that current Plan objective 6.3, which was not amended, is not protecting air quality and should have been revised to correct major air quality problems in the County, including "the deposition of atmospheric mercury caused by fossil fuel burning power plants and incinerators." Objective 6.3 requires the County to maintain or improve air quality levels, while related policies 6.3.1 and 6.3.2 require that the County's facilities will be constructed and operated in accordance with state and federal standards. The policies also require that the County work through state and federal agencies to eliminate unlawful sources of air pollution. Notably, the County does not regulate emissions or air pollution, as that responsibility lies within the jurisdiction of other state and federal agencies. It is fairly debatable that the County reacted to the EAR in an appropriate manner. Policies and Objectives in Chapter 6 Petitioner contends that policy 6.1.1 is inconsistent with section 163.3177(8) and rule 9J-5.005(2) because: it is not supported by adequate data and analysis; it does not implement the EAR recommendations, as required by section 163.3191(10); it is inconsistent with section 163.3177(9)(b) and (f) because it results in "inconsistent application of policies intended to guide local land use decision[s]"; it is inconsistent with sections 163.3177(6)(d) and 187.201(9) and (10) and rule 9J- 5.013 because it fails to adequately protect natural resources, including isolated wetlands; and it is internally inconsistent with other Plan provisions. Policy 6.1.1 provides that as a subdivision of the State, the County "will, to the maximum extent practicable, rely upon state laws and regulations to meet the conservation goals and objectives of this Plan." Item 9 in the recommended changes recommends that the County should resolve the ambiguities and inconsistencies between various policies and objectives which rely on the jurisdiction of state laws and regulation on the one hand, and objective 6.11 and implementing policies, which appear to extend wetland jurisdiction to all wetlands, including isolated wetlands not regulated by the Northwest Florida Water Management District. See County Ex. 1C, § 4, p. 6. The real issue involves isolated wetlands, which at the time of the EAR were not regulated by the Northwest Florida Water Management District. The EAR did not recommend a specific solution, but only to resolve any apparent "ambiguity." Through amendments to policy 6.11.3, which implements objective 6.11, the County reacted to the recommendation. These amendments clarify the Plan and provide that wetlands in the County will be subject to the Plan if they are also regulated by state and federal agencies. Any ambiguity as to the Plan's application to isolated wetlands was resolved by the adoption of new rules by the Northwest Florida Water Management District, which extend that entity's jurisdiction to isolated wetlands. See Fla. Admin. Code Ch. 62-346. This was confirmed by County witness Garlick, who explained that the Plan now defers to the wetland regulations of state and federal agencies. Therefore, any inconsistencies or ambiguities have been resolved. Petitioner contends that objective 6.2 and implementing policy 6.2.1 are inconsistent with statutes and a rule which require protection of natural resources because they focus on "significant" natural resources, and not all natural resources. With the exception of one minor change to the policy, the objective and policy were not amended, and the EAR did not recommend that either be revised. Also, testimony established that existing regulations are applied uniformly throughout the County, and not to selected habitat. Finally, the existing objective and related policies already protect rare and endangered species in the County. Objective 6.3 requires that the County "maintain or improve air quality levels." For the reasons cited in Finding of Fact 45, the objective is in compliance. Objective 6.5 requires the County to maintain or improve estuarine water quality consistent with state water quality standards, while policy 6.5.1 delineates the measures that the County will take to achieve that objective. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 6, pp. 6-4 and 6-5. Except for one minor change to paragraph (3) of the policy (which is not in issue), neither provision was revised. Also, the EAR did not recommend any changes to either provision. Notwithstanding Petitioner's contention to the contrary, the County was not required to revise the objective or policy. Policy 6.5.2 requires that the County "protect seagrass beds in those areas under County jurisdiction" by implementing certain enforcement measures. County Ex. 1A, Ch. 6, p. 6-5. The policy was only amended in minor respects during the EAR process. Petitioner contends that the County failed to amend the policy, as required by the EAR, and this failure results in no protection to natural resources. However, the EAR only discusses the policy in the Issues section. See County Ex. 1C, § 2, p. 7. While the EAR emphasizes the importance of seagrass beds to marine and estuarine productivity, it has no recommended changes to the objective or policy. Even so, the County amended policy 6.5.2(5) by requiring the initiation of a seagrass monitoring program using Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping by 2012. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 6, p. 6-6. It is at least fairly debatable that the objective and policy are in compliance. Objective 6.6 requires the County to "protect, conserve and appropriately use Outstanding Florida Waters, Class I waters and Class II waters." County Ex. 1A, Ch. 6, p. 6-6. Its purpose is to ensure the quality and safety of the County's primary drinking water supply. Id. The objective was not amended and remains unchanged since 1999. Except for a recommendation that the County give a land use designation to water bodies, there were no recommended changes for this objective or related policies in the EAR. Because land use designations are for land, and not water, the County logically did not assign a land use to any water bodies. Petitioner contends that the objective and related policies are not based on the best available data and analysis and are not measurable, and that they fail to protect Lake Powell, an Outstanding Florida Water, whose quality has been declining over the years. Because no changes were recommended, it was unnecessary to amend the objective and policies. Therefore, Petitioner's objections are misplaced. Notably, the Plan already contains provisions specifically directed to protecting Lake Powell. See, e.g., policy 6.6.1(1), which requires the County to specifically enforce LDRs for Lake Powell, and objective 6.21, which requires the County to "[m]aintain or improve water quality and bio-diversity in the Lake Powell Outstanding Florida Water (OFW)." County Ex. 1A, Ch. 6, pp. 6-6 and 6-24. Petitioner's expert also criticized the objective and related policies on the ground the County did not adequately identify karst areas in the region. However, nothing in the EAR, chapter 163, or chapter 9J-5 requires the County to collect new data on the existence of karst areas. Petitioner also points out that objective 6.6 and policy 6.6.1 are designed to protect Deer Point Lake but were not amended, as required by the EAR, and they fail to adequately protect that water body. For the reasons expressed in Finding of Fact 55, this contention has been rejected. Objective 6.7, which was not amended, provides that the County "[c]onserve and manage natural resources on a systemwide basis rather than piecemeal." County Ex. 1A, Ch. 6, p. 6-8. Related policies, which were not amended except in one minor respect, require that the County implement programs in "Ecosystem Management Areas." These areas are illustrated on Map 6.1 of chapter 6. Petitioner contends that even though they were not amended, the objective and policies are not supported by adequate data and analysis, they fail to contain measurable standards, and they are not responsive to a recommendation in the EAR. Because no changes were made to these provisions, and the EAR does not recommend any specific changes, the contentions are rejected. The 17 water bodies comprising the Sand Hill Lakes are identified in policy 6.9.1. Policy 6.9.3, which also implements objective 6.9, continues the practice of prohibiting development with a density of greater than one unit per ten acres on land immediately adjacent to any of the Sand Hills Lakes outside designated Rural Communities. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 6, p. 6- (The three Rural Communities in the County have been designated as a STZ and are described in FLUE policy 3.4.4.) The policy has been amended by adding new language providing that "[p]roposed developments not immediately adjacent to, but within 1320 feet of a Sand Hill Lake, and outside of a designated Rural Community, will provide, prior to approval, an analysis indicating that the development will not be too dense or intense to sustain the lake." Id. Other related policies are unchanged. The amendment was in response to a recommendation in the EAR that all goals, objectives, and policies be amended to more clearly define the area around the Sand Hill Lakes within which densities and intensities of land must be limited to ensure protection of the lakes. See County Ex. 1C, § 4, p. 6. Petitioner contends that the amended policy is inconsistent with various statutes and rules because it contains no specific standards for site suitability assessment and does not restrict density bordering on the lake; it does not implement the EAR; it is not based on EAR data and analysis; and it does not contain procedures for monitoring and evaluating the implementation of all policies. Policy 6.9.3 applies to agricultural areas outside of rural communities where the maximum density is now one dwelling unit per ten acres, and to properties that are designated as agriculture timber, which allows one dwelling unit per 20 acres. Contrary to Petitioner's assertion, it does not change the established densities on those land use categories. Before a property owner can convert a land use affected by the policy, the applicant will be required to provide an analysis that the new development will not be too intense or dense to sustain the lake. It is at least fairly debatable that the amendment responds to the EAR recommendation, that it will not increase density, that it is based on sufficient data and analysis in the EAR, and that adequate standards are contained in the policies to ensure proper implementation. Objective 6.11 requires the County to "[p]rotect and conserve wetlands and the natural functions of wetlands." County Ex. 1A, Ch. 6, p. 6-14. A challenge to an amendment to policy 6.11.3(3), which relates to setbacks or buffers for wetlands, has already been addressed in Case No. 10-0859GM. Policy 6.11.3 provides that in order "[t]o protect and ensure an overall no net loss of wetlands," the County will employ the measures described in paragraphs (1) through (6) of the policy. Petitioner contends that by using the standards employed by state and federal agencies for wetlands in paragraph (2), the County has abdicated its responsibility to protect natural resources. However, as previously discussed, the recent assumption of jurisdiction over isolated wetlands by the Northwest Florida Water Management District allows the County to extend these measures to all wetlands in the County. Petitioner also contends that the term "no net loss" in policy 6.11.3 is not measurable. Through its GIS system, though, the County can monitor any loss of wetlands. This was confirmed by County witness Garlick. In addition, the County will know at the development order phase whether any federal or state agency requires mitigation to offset impacts to wetlands. It is at least fairly debatable that the amendments to policy 6.11.3 will protect all wetlands, including isolated wetlands. Objective 6.12 requires that by the year 2012, the County will "develop a GIS layer that provides baseline information on the County's existing wetlands. This database will be predicated on the USFWS [United States Fish and Wildlife Service] National Wetlands Inventory (Cowardin et al 1979) hierarchy of coastal and inland (wetlands) represented in North Florida. This inventory shall be developed through a comprehensive planning process which includes consideration of the types, values, functions, sizes, conditions and locations of wetlands." County Ex. 1A, Ch. 6, p. 6-15. Related policies 6.12.1, 6.12.2, and 6.12.3 require that the County (a) use the GIS database to identify, classify, and monitor wetlands; (b) adopt LDRs which further the objective and policies; and (c) track in the GIS database the dredge and fill permits issued by DEP. Id. Petitioner criticizes the County's decision to wait until 2012 to develop a GIS layer; contends that policy 6.12.2 improperly defers to LDRs; asserts that the policy lacks meaningful standards; and contends it is not responsive to the EAR. The evidence presented on these issues supports a finding that it is at least fairly debatable that the amendments are in compliance. The EAR-based amendments deleted objective 6.13, together with the underlying policies, which related to floodplains, and created new provisions on that subject in the Stormwater Management Sub-Element in Chapter 5E. This change was made because the County concluded that floodplain issues should more appropriately be located in the stormwater chapter. The natural resource values of floodplains are still protected by objective 5E-9 and related policies, which require that state water quality standards are maintained or improved through the County's stormwater management programs. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 5E, p. 5E-7. Also, "flood zones" are retained as a listed "significant natural resource" in Conservation Element policy 6.2.1. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 6, p. 6-3. It is at least fairly debatable that the transfer of the floodplain provisions to a new element does not diminish protection of that resource. Finally, Objective 6.21 (formerly numbered as 6.23) requires the County to "[m]aintain or improve water quality and bio-diversity in the Lake Powell Outstanding Florida Water (OFW)." Except for renumbering this objective, this provision was not amended, and there is no specific recommendation in the EAR that it be revised. Therefore, the contentions that the existing policy are not in compliance are not credited. Coastal Management Element - Chapter 7 The recommended changes for this element of the Plan are found on pages 7 and 8 of Section 4 of the EAR. In her Proposed Recommended Order, Petitioner contends that the entire element is inconsistent with section 163.3191(10) because the County did not follow the recommendations in items 1, 2, and 4. Those items generally recommended that the County update the data and analysis supporting the element to reflect current conditions for, among other things, impaired waters. This was done by the County. Accordingly, the County adequately responded to the recommendations. Petitioner also contends that policy 7.1.1 improperly deferred protection of coastal resources to the LDRs. The policy reads as follows: 7.1.1: Comply with development provisions established in the [LDRs] for The Coastal Planning Area (Chapter 10, Section 1003.2 of the Bay County [LDRs] adopted September 21, 2004) which is hereby defined as all land and water seaward of the landward section line of those sections of land and water areas seaward of the hurricane evacuation zone. County witness Crelling established, however, that there are numerous other policies in the element that govern the protection of natural resources. Petitioner contends that no changes were made to provide additional guidance in policy 7.2.1 (formerly numbered as 7.3.1) to improve estuarine water quality even though multiple water bodies are listed as impaired. Except for a few clarifying changes, no revisions were made to the policy. Policy 7.2.1 does not reduce the protection for impaired waters. The minor rewording of the policy makes clear that the protective measures enumerated in the policy "will be taken" by the County to maintain or improve estuarine water quality. It is fairly debatable that the element and new objectives and policies are in compliance. Petitioner contends that amended objective 7.2 (formerly numbered as 7.3) will lead to less protection of water quality. The objective requires the County to "[m]aintain or improve estuarine water quality by regulating such sources of pollution and constructing capital improvements to reduce or eliminate known pollutants." County Ex. 1A, Ch. 7, p. 7-2. Its purpose is to regulate all known potential sources of estuarine pollution. The evidence fails to establish that the amended objective will reduce the protection of water quality. Policy 7.3.1 was amended to delete the requirement that areas with significant dunes be identified and mapped and to provide instead that the County may impose special conditions on development in dune areas as a part of the development approval process. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 7, p. 7-4. This change was made because the EAR recommended that a requirement to map and identify dune systems be deleted due to the "extremely dynamic nature of beach and dune systems." County Ex. 1C, § 4, p. 7. A similar provision in the Conservation Element was transferred to the Coastal Management Element to respond to the recommended change. The County adequately responded to the recommendation. Petitioner contends that amended policy 7.3.2 (formerly numbered as 7.4.1) does not include sufficient standards to protect significant dunes. The amended policy requires that where damage to dunes is unavoidable, the significant dunes must be restored and revegetated to at least predevelopment conditions. It is at least fairly debatable that the standards in the policy are sufficient to protect dunes. In summary, the evidence does not establish beyond fair debate that the revisions to chapter 7 are not in compliance. Housing Element - Chapter 8 Petitioner contends the entire element is inconsistent with section 163.3191(10) because the County failed to react to recommendations in the EAR; and that new objective 8.16 and related policies 8.16.1, 8.16.2, and 8.16.3 are inconsistent with section 163.3177(9)(e) and rules 9J-5.005(6) and (7) because they fail to identify how the provisions will be implemented and thus lack specific measurable objectives and procedures for monitoring, evaluating, and appraising implementation. Petitioner focused on item 4 in the Recommended Changes for the Housing Element. That recommendation reads as follows: 4. The revised data and analysis should also include a detailed analysis and recommendations regarding what constitutes affordable housing, the various state and federal programs available to assist in providing it; where it should be located to maximize utilization of existing schools, medical facilities, other supporting infrastructure, and employment centers taking into consideration the costs of real property; and what the likely demand will be through the planning horizon. The objectives and policies should then be revised consistent with the recommendation of the analysis, including the creation of additional incentives, identification on the Future Land Use Map of areas suited for affordable housing, and, possibly amending the County Land Development Regulations to require the provision of affordable housing if no other alternatives exist. County Ex. 1C, § 4, p. 8. Item 1 of the Recommended Changes states that "[t]he County should implement those policies within the Housing Element which proactively address affordable housing, and in particular Policy 8.15.1 outlining density bonuses, reduced fees, and streamlined permitting, to provide incentives for the development of affordable housing." Id. Policy 8.15.1 was amended to conform to this recommendation. The new objective and policies address incentives for the development of affordable housing. While item 4 is not specifically addressed, the new objective and policies address the County's housing concern as a whole, as described in the Recommended Changes. Also, the new objective and policies contain sufficient specificity to provide guidance to a user of the Plan. It is fairly debatable that the element as a whole, and the new objective and policies, are in compliance. Intergovernmental Coordination Element - Chapter 10 Although discussed in the Element Reviews portion of the EAR, there are no recommended changes for this element. See County Ex. 1C, § 3, pp. 1-5. Petitioner contends that because the County deleted objective 10.5, the entire element conflicts with the EAR recommendations, and it is inconsistent with two goals in the state comprehensive plan, sections 163.3177(6)(h)1. and (9)(b) and (h), and rules 9J-5.015 and 9J-5.013(2)(b)8. The deleted provision required the County to "establish countywide resource protection standards for the conservation of locally significant environmental resources." Besides deleting this objective, the County also deleted objective 10.1, which provided that the County "will take the lead role toward the creation of an 'intergovernmental forum' as a means to promote coordination between various jurisdictions and agencies." County Ex. 1A, Ch. 10, p. 10-1. To support her argument, Petitioner relies upon a concern in the Issues part of the EAR that states that "countywide resource protection standards have not been established" and that "consistency of regulation between jurisdictions" must be observed. See County Ex. 1C, § 2, p. 45. Mr. Jacobson, the County Planning and Zoning Director, pointed out that the County currently has numerous interlocal agreements with various municipalities and does not require authorization from the Plan to adopt these agreements. Objective 10.5 was deleted because the County cannot implement its regulations in the various municipalities, and protection of natural resources is addressed in other portions of the Plan. He also noted that the "intergovernmental forum" discussed in deleted objective 10-1 is not required by any statute or rule. It is at least fairly debatable that the element is in compliance and does not violate any statute or rule. (i) Capital Improvements Element - Chapter 11 Petitioner contends that the County failed to implement three recommended changes in the EAR and therefore the entire element is in violation of section 163.3191(10). Those recommendations include an updating of information on the County's current revenue streams, debts, commitments and contingencies, and other financial matters; a revision of policy 11.6.1 to be consistent with Recreation and Open Space Element policy 9.71 with regard to recreational levels of service (LOS); and the development of a five-year schedule of capital improvements. See County Ex. 1, § 4, p.9. Policy 11.6.1 has been substantially revised through the EAR process. Table 11.1 in the policy establishes new LOSs, including one for local parks, regional parks, and beach access points. The County has also adopted an updated five-year Capital Improvement Plan. See County Ex. 36. That exhibit includes a LOS Analysis for recreational services. The same exhibit contains a breakdown of financial matters related to capital improvements. It is fairly debatable that the element is in compliance. Petitioner also contends that objective 11.1 and policy 11.1.1 are not in compliance. Both provisions remain unchanged from the 1999 Plan, and the EAR did not recommend that either provision be amended. The contention is therefore rejected. Other Issues All other issues not specifically addressed herein have been considered and found to be without merit, contrary to the more persuasive evidence, or not subject to a challenge in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the EAR-based amendments adopted by Ordinance No. 09-36 are in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 2011.
The Issue The issue is whether a proposed amendment to the Pinellas County Countywide Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) changing the land use designation on a 22.18-acre parcel located at 2301 Chautauqua Avenue in the City of Clearwater (City) from Residential Suburban/Preservation to Residential Low/Preservation should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background In 1988, the Legislature provided the County with countywide planning authority (see Chapter 88-458, Laws of Florida). That same year, the Legislature enacted Chapter 88- 464, Laws of Florida, which amended Chapter 73-594, Laws of Florida, and required the County to develop "a countywide future land use plan" and "other [necessary] elements," also known as the Countywide Comprehensive Land Use Plan of Pinellas County. Among other things, Chapter 88-464 prescribes the process by which changes to land use designations are made within the County. Under that process, all local government comprehensive plans, including the City's, are required to be consistent with the FLUP. Presumably, the laws were enacted because of the County's dense development (it is one of, if not the most, densely developed counties in the State), the large number of incorporated cities and towns (24) within the County, and the desire to have some degree of countywide uniformity in land use planning decisions. The law goes on to provide that amendments to the FLUP "relating to land use designation for a particular parcel of property may be initiated only by a local government that has jurisdiction over the subject property." In this case, the subject property lies within the City; therefore, the proposed change was initiated by the City. Under the review process in place for adopting an amendment to the FLUP, the proposed amendment is first presented to the City, then to the PPC, which consists of 13 representatives from various towns and cities in the County, the School Board, and the County, and finally to the Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners, sitting as the CPA. The subject property is located at 2301 Chautauqua Avenue, Clearwater, Florida. Chautauqua Avenue (also identified as Main Street on some maps) runs for a short distance in a north-south direction parallel to, and just east of, U.S. Highway 19 in the northeastern part of the City. Except for two houses, some tennis courts, and assessory buildings, the 22.18-acre tract of land is largely undeveloped. The land also includes a small pond located in the northwest quadrant and wetlands along its eastern side, which fronts on Lake Chautauqua (the Lake). Mr. Lawrence H. Dimmitt, III, one of the two co-trustees, acquired ownership of the southern half of the property in January 1986, while the remainder of the parcel was not acquired by the Trustee until December 2001. In June 2002, the property was annexed by the City pursuant to a request by the Trustee (to enable City water and wastewater services to be extended to the property). The property is now under contract to be sold to a developer (The Rottlund Company, Inc.), who desires to construct 90 town homes in 34 buildings, assuming the amendment is approved. Since July 21, 1982, the upland portion of the property (16.22 acres) has been classified as RS, which allows 2.5 residential units per acre. The wetlands and some adjacent land totaling around 4.6 acres on the eastern portion of the property next to the Lake are classified as, and must remain, Preservation. In addition, a small pond (1.35 acres) on the property is classified as Water/Drainage Feature. The proposed amendment does not affect the classifications of the wetlands and pond. All of the surrounding property (except the property immediately to the west between Chautauqua Avenue and U.S. Highway 19, which is classified as Commercial Limited) also carries an RS land use designation. The other nearby property along U.S. Highway 19 is classified as some form of commercial or mixed office/residential use. Countrywide Mall, the County's only regional shopping mall, is situated on U.S. Highway 19, less than a mile away. The property is located approximately 700 feet east of U.S. Highway 19 between Second Avenue South and Second Avenue North. U.S. Highway 19 is six lanes wide, was described by witnesses as being the most heavily traveled roadway in the County, and has intense commercial or mixed use development on both sides of the highway. Immediately to the west of the property (between U.S. Highway 19 and Chautauqua Avenue) is a Chevrolet automobile dealership and repair facility owned by the Dimmitts. A Cadillac dealership (also owned by the Dimmitts) is just south of the Chevrolet dealership. The entire eastern boundary of the property fronts on the Lake, while perhaps a dozen or so single-family homes, mainly constructed in the 1990s, sit on large lots scattered throughout the area immediately north of the property. From that area to Enterprise Road, a major arterial east-west roadway approximately 2,000 feet north of the Trustee's property, the land is largely undeveloped. The property immediately to the south is also classified as RS and is also largely vacant at the present time, except for a few single-family dwellings. The land which lies southeast of the property and the Lake is also designated RS and consists of a series of upscale, large, single-family residential subdivisions. The local roads adjacent to and near the property are substandard and do not meet the City or County standards. The main access to the property (from the west) is from U.S. Highway 19 using First Avenue North, which intersects with U.S. Highway 19 next to the car dealership. Because of a median in the middle of U.S. Highway 19, however, cars entering U.S. Highway 19 from First Avenue North can only turn right (northbound).1 The only access from the property to an intersection allowing vehicles to turn north or south on U.S. Highway 19 is provided by traveling south on a series of narrow, meandering, residential County roads (e.g., Third Avenue South, Second Street East, Fourth Avenue South, Union Street, and Soule Road) and eventually reaching Sunset Point Road (State Road 588), an east-west roadway intersecting with U.S. Highway 19 to the west. There is no access to the property from the north. The evidence shows that partly because of the poor road access, the nearby car dealerships and other commercial development, and the commercial lighting at the car dealerships which remains on throughout the night, the property has never been developed. Another contributing factor is that the former long-time owners of the northern half of the property (until it was sold to the Dimmitts in December 2001) had no wish to develop the property while they retained ownership. The Land Use Categories and History of the Area When the County's first comprehensive plan was adopted in 1974, three residential categories were established: low density (up to 7.5 units per acre); medium density (up to 15 units per acre); and high density (up to 30 units per acre). At that time, the Trustee's property and most of the surrounding residential properties were designated the least intensive residential use category and remained unchanged until 1982. In response to the state Growth Management Act, in 1980 the PPC developed more specific residential categories to manage population growth. The low density category was further defined to include five residential categories: Preservation (0.5 units per acre); Residential Conservation (1.0 units per acre); Residential Suburban (2.5 units per acre); Residential Low (5.0 units per acre); and Residential Urban (7.5 units per acre). As noted above, in 1982 the County reclassified the upland portion of the property, as well as the properties to its north and south, and west of the Lake, as RS. Some other areas to the southeast and northwest of the Trustee's land were reclassified at 5.0 dwelling units per acre, which category is now known as RL. In September 1984, two zoning requests "in the neighborhood [of the Trustee's property]" to allow "multifamily development at 5.0 units/acre" were denied by the County, mainly because the area contained "very low density single-family housing, with houses sitting on large lots (mostly about 2 acres in size), used in a residential/agricultural manner." At the same time, the County instructed its staff to "review zoning and Land Use Plan designation in the area to insure protection of the existing character of the land." That same year, the County amended the land use classification on these properties from RL, which permitted 5.0 units per acre, to RS, which permitted only 2.5 units per acre. In 1987, the City annexed a 17.4-acre vacant tract of land directly south of the Lake (and southeast of the Trustee's property). Before annexation, the property was classified as Residential/Open Space. According to a PPC recommendation presented to the County, the City filed an application with the County seeking to amend the CLUP (now known as the FLUP) by changing the land use to RS so that the vacant land would "be compatible with the existing land use pattern in this vicinity." The change was approved by the County. In all, at least thirteen parcels in the Lake Chautauqua area have been reclassified since 1980. Many of these are downzoning changes which merely reflect what had actually been planned, developed, and built pursuant to the dictates of the marketplace. In other words, the change reflected existing development of not more than 2.5 units per acre. There are also two instances when the Commission upzoned parcels in the area, that is, increased the allowable density from Recreation/Open Space to a higher category (7.5 units per acre), but these properties are outlying parcels and not in the immediate area. Most recently (early 2003), a developer proposed (and has pending a request) to develop six lots 130 feet by 600 feet in depth with single-family dwellings on property lying on the western shore of the Lake just north of the Trustee's property. These large lots would be consistent with the development now existing immediately to the west (and just north of the Trustee's property). It is fair to infer from the evidence that the County's intent over the last 25 years or so has been to restrict development in the area around the Trustee's property to single-family residences with a density of no more than 2.5 units per acre. The Application On February 21, 2002, the Trustee filed an application with the City for a change in land use designation on its property from RS and P to RL and P (so as to increase density from 2.5 to 7.0 units per acre). Although not a part of this proceeding, the Trustee also filed an application seeking to rezone the property from Rural Residential to Low Medium Residential and Preservation. The City's Zoning Department reviewed the application, found that all applicable criteria had been met, and recommended approval. The application then proceeded to a public hearing before the City's Community Development Board (CDB) on May 21, 2002. Following the public hearing, the CDB recommended approval of both applications. On June 20, 2002, the matters were taken up by the City Commission. The staff's detailed report recommending approval is found in Petitioners' Exhibit 2. Because of neighborhood opposition, however, the Trustee agreed to amend the application by reducing the density from 7.5 units per acre (RL) to 5.0 units per acre (RS). Thereafter, the City approved the application. This approval was formalized through the adoption of Ordinance No. 6978-02. At that point, the City became the nominal applicant for the amendment. A copy of the amendment was then forwarded to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). The DCA's review was completed on October 3, 2002, when it advised the City by letter that it had "no objections to the proposed amendment" and that its letter would serve as the DCA's Objections, Recommendations and Comments. The application was submitted to the PPC on August 13, 2002. Following its review, the PPC staff, together with the staff of the Professional Advisory Committee (PAC), which is composed of professional planning staff members from the various municipalities throughout the County, recommended that the application be approved. On September 18, 2002, the PPC, by a 6-5 vote, recommended denial of the application, mainly because of traffic issues. Under the review process, the matter then came before the CPA. However, the City and the Trustee requested that the matter be remanded to the PPC to enable the Trustee to address the traffic issues. A remand was approved by the CPA on October 15, 2002. After reconsideration of the matter, which included proposed changes by the City to mitigate the traffic impact, the PPC staff and PAC unanimously recommended approval of the application. The application then proceeded to the PPC, and by a 9-3 vote on March 19, 2003, the PPC recommended approval. Although land use amendments recommended for approval by the PPC are "rarely" overturned or changed by the CPA, on April 1, 2003, the Board of County Commissioners, sitting as the CPA, unanimously rejected the proposed amendment. The same date, Resolution No. 03-55 was adopted which memorialized this action and indicated that the decision was based "upon the facts presented at the hearing, which included the character of the neighborhood and transportation impacts." According to the parties' Pre-Hearing Stipulation, the rejection was "due to [the amendment's] incompatibility with and negative impact on the established character of the neighborhood and the precedence [sic] of allowing multi-family development into an overwhelming single-family residential area." This appeal followed. The issues in the case Under the Countywide Rules, which were adopted in 1989 and govern changes to the FLUP, depending on their size and nature, plan amendments are classified into two categories: subthreshold amendments and general amendments. The former type of amendment is minor in nature and entails a less rigid review process while general amendments (those that do not qualify as subthreshold amendments) must be evaluated according to six "Relevant Countywide Considerations" (Considerations) found in Sections 5.3.5.1 through 5.3.5.6. Because the proposed amendment falls within the general amendment category, the six Considerations must be reviewed to determine if any come into play. If an amendment adversely impacts a Consideration, it is not consistent with the FLUP. In denying the amendment, the CPA determined that only two Considerations were relevant and would be impacted - Section 5.3.5.2 (Adopted Roadway Level of Service (LOS) Standard) and Section 5.3.5.6 (Adjacent to or Impacting an Adjoining Jurisdiction). All other Considerations were determined to be inapplicable. Although the County's Resolution indicated that the traffic Consideration played a part in its decision to deny the amendment, the parties' Prehearing Stipulation reflects that the CPA no longer considers that Consideration to be in issue. However, because evidence concerning traffic was presented at hearing, albeit more in the context of impacts on the character of the neighborhood than on LOS standards on U.S. Highway 19, a discussion of that Consideration is appropriate. Section 5.3.5.2 provides in part that "the amendment must not be located on or impact a roadway segment where the existing Level of Service (LOS) is below LOS 'D', or where projected traffic resulting from the amendment would cause the existing LOS to fall below LOS 'D'." Here, however, the evidence shows that the portion of U.S. Highway 19 (directly west of the property) between Enterprise Road and Sunset Point Road is already operating at LOS "F". Under the existing land use classification (RS), the Trustee (or developer) can construct as many as 46 single- family homes. At hearing, the developer acknowledged that the property can be successfully developed in that mode. Assuming that the maximum number of homes would be built, regardless of which type of development occurs, the traffic impacts would be essentially the same since a town home generates only 60 percent of the traffic of a single-family home. The evidence also shows that any additional traffic generated by development will have a negligible overall impact (less than three-tenths of one percent of the existing capacity) on U.S. Highway 19, which is already at LOS "F". The Florida Department of Transportation concurs in this finding, and has concluded that the development will not adversely impact that road. As noted above, the plan amendment was initially rejected by the PPC by a 6-5 vote, mainly because of traffic issues, and a concern that the additional traffic onto U.S. Highway 19 at First Avenue South might have a negative impact on that roadway. The City and Trustee then requested that the CPA remand the application to the PPC so that traffic issues could be further addressed. At that time, the City considered two alternatives to alleviate traffic concerns and provide a different access route to the area. First, it considered the possibility of extending Second Avenue South to the east and southeast to connect with, and widen, Lake Shore Drive (a County road), which runs around parts of the northwestern and southwestern sections of the Lake, and eventually provides access to Sunset Point Road, which then runs west to U.S. Highway 19. However, the County declined to participate in that effort and thus this proposal was not considered to be feasible. The City also considered extending Chautauqua Avenue north (over City right-of-way) to Enterprise Road, a main arterial east-west roadway that also intersects with U.S. Highway 19 (and enables the driver to turn either left or right at that intersection). If the road is extended in that fashion, it would provide residents in and near the subject property with access to Enterprise Road, and also provide other area residents with access to a City park that may be built just south of Enterprise Road. As to this alternative, even though the developer's share of costs (using the City's calculations) is only 17 percent, the developer has agreed to pay one-half of the cost of the road improvements. With this improvement, both parties now agree that the traffic Consideration has been resolved. Based on the foregoing, it is found that the plan amendment is consistent with the transportation Consideration and will not adversely impact LOS standards on U.S. Highway Two of the County witnesses conceded as much at the final hearing. Section 5.3.5.6 generally provides that if the property adjoins another jurisdiction, the plan amendment must not adversely impact that jurisdiction. In determining whether the plan amendment is consistent with this Consideration (and does not impact the adjoining County land), reference to the goals and policies within the Countywide Comprehensive Plan is necessary. The Land Use Element Goal provides in part that "[t]he land uses associated with development should be compatible and reasonable in terms of both the land, surrounding uses, and the public interest." Two unnumbered Policies within the same Element further provide that "land development patterns should recognize and support coherent neighborhoods," and that "land planning should weigh heavily the established character of predominately developed areas when changes of use or intensity of development is contemplated." In this case, there are enclaves of County land lying on the northern, southern, and eastern boundaries of the Trustee's land. The County contends that the proposed change is inconsistent with the Consideration because it adversely affects the "character" of the adjoining County land in two ways: (a) by the creation of a new access road to the north through a quiet, residential neighborhood, and (b) by the construction of town homes in an area historically classified as RS, which only allows the construction of single-family homes. If the plan amendment is approved, the City has decided to extend Chautauqua Avenue to Enterprise Road, giving the new (and existing) residents an outlet to the north. This alternative was chosen since the County has declined to participate in the southern alternative. The extension will provide access to a new City park, and the developer will pay more than his fair share to aid in the construction of the road. According to the City, the extension is necessary to mitigate the increased traffic from the new project. Currently, the roads in the area around where the extension will be built can be characterized as secluded and rural, with only a small amount of traffic. Besides the automobiles of the existing residents, the only other vehicles using the roads are those being tested by the nearby Chevrolet dealership after being repaired. If the plan amendment is approved, and the town homes constructed, the project will generate hundreds of new trips per day. Understandably so, existing residents of the area (as well as the County) fear that if the road is extended, it will become a "cut-through" street for non-residents traveling north on U.S. Highway 19 to Enterprise Road and who wish to avoid that intersection. Given the current level of traffic on U.S. Highway 19 (LOS "F"), it is fair to infer that this fear is well-founded. Accordingly, by extending Chautauqua Avenue to Enterprise Road, the character of the existing neighborhood will be adversely impacted by the increased traffic generated by new residents seeking an outlet and non-residents using the street as a cut-through. It is true that some form of traffic mitigation will still be required if the plan amendment is not approved, and single-family homes are built on the Trustee's property. However, when or if the property will be developed, and the extent of such development, is not known, and there is no indication in the record that the City will still seek to mitigate this traffic by extending Chautauqua Avenue. The evidence shows that the established character of the neighborhood is quiet, secluded, and low density residential, with many of the homes having large, oversized lots. As noted earlier, a proposal is now pending before the County to develop the area directly north of the Trustee's property along the Lake with six single-family dwellings on "large estate lots behind a gated wall." By doubling the density on the Trustee's property from 2.5 to 5.0 units per acre, the character of the area would be changed, and the new density would be inconsistent with the historic land use and development pattern of the area. The evidence also shows that the residents who live immediately north of the Trustee's property purchased their land, and built their homes, with the expectation that the area would be "a detached single-family residential community within the 2.5 units per acre limitation." For more than 20 years, the County's land use decisions have been consistent with this expectation. Petitioners' witnesses contend, however, that the town homes will (a) serve as a buffer between the commercial uses which lie on the western side of Chautauqua Road and the existing single-family homes which lie on the eastern side, and (b) provide a transition or gradual stepdown in intensity from the commercial uses along U.S. Highway 19 to town homes to single-family homes, which practice is consistent with good land use planning. However, the area maps and site plan introduced into evidence clearly show that the town homes would not buffer anything except the Lake, since the town homes would run from the Lake all the way westward to the rear of the Chevrolet dealership. In other words, to provide a buffer, logically it would be necessary that the town homes be placed between the commercial areas and the single-family homes. The residential property to the north and south (which purportedly would be buffered) is already located adjacent to, and directly east of, the commercial development along U.S. Highway 19, and the town homes would simply increase the density of the property between the two residential areas by 100 percent. For the same reasons, the construction of town homes would not provide a transition or step down in the intensity of development from west to east since they would not be built between the existing homes and U.S. Highway 19. Based on the foregoing facts, it is found that the proposed amendment will adversely affect the character of the neighborhood (and impact the adjoining County land) and is therefore inconsistent with Section 5.3.5.6 of the Countywide Rules.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of County Commissioners of Pinellas County, sitting as the Countywide Planning Authority, enter a final order determining that the plan amendment is inconsistent with Section 5.3.5.6 and that the amendment should be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of September, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of September, 2003.
The Issue The issue in these cases is whether amendments to the City of Stuart's comprehensive plan, designated amendments 97-S1, 97-1, 98-R1, and 98-ER1 by the Department of Community Affairs, are "in compliance" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, Board of County Commissioners of Martin County (hereinafter referred to as "Martin County"), is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. Petitioner, 1000 Friends of Florida, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "1000 Friends"), is a Florida not-for-profit corporation. The corporate purpose of 1000 Friends includes monitoring and ensuring the proper implementation of the State's growth management laws. Respondent, City of Stuart (hereinafter referred to as the "City"), is a municipal corporation located within Martin County. Respondent/Intervenor, the Department of Community Affairs (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is an agency of the State of Florida. The Department is charged with responsibility for, among other things, the review of local government comprehensive plans and amendments thereto pursuant to Part II, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). No evidence concerning Intervenor, Hospice Foundation of Martin & St. Lucie, Inc., was presented. Standing. Martin County owns real property located within the jurisdiction of the City. Although Martin County is also an "adjoining local government," the evidence failed to prove that the amendments at issue in these cases will produce "substantial impacts" on the increased need for publicly funded infrastructure or substantial impacts on areas designated for protection or special treatment within Martin County's jurisdiction. There has been a negative impact on Martin County's ad valorem tax base by the annexation of properties formerly under its jurisdiction. Those impacts, however, were caused by the annexation of the properties and not by the amendments at issue in this case. Additionally, those impacts did not cause any need for "publicly funded infrastructure." There may also be some impact as a result in the change in land use designations for some of the annexed property. Martin County's conclusion about the extent of the increase in commercial uses, however, was not supported by the evidence. The evidence also failed to prove that any of the text amendments at issue in these cases will have a negative impact on Martin County's need to provide publicly funded infrastructure. The evidence also failed to prove that the reduction of land subject to Martin County's municipal service taxing district and any resulting decrease in taxable values with the district will cause Martin County to provide additional publicly funded infrastructure. Finally, the evidence failed to prove that Martin County has designated any areas "for protection or special treatment within their jurisdiction" or that there will any "substantial impact" on such areas. Martin County made oral and written comments to the City during the adoption of the amendments at issue in these cases. 1000 Friends, since its formation, has had approximately 6,000 members in Florida. Members from Martin County and the City have totaled approximately 835 and 235 persons, respectively. Martin County and City members constitute a substantial percentage of 1000 Friends' total membership. 1000 Friends' corporate purposes include the representation of its members in legal and administrative proceedings involving the Act. 1000 Friends' litigation committee specifically authorized its participation in these proceedings. The type of relief sought by 1000 Friends in these cases is the type of relief 1000 Friends is authorized to seek on behalf of its members. 1000 Friends made written comments to the City during the adoption of certain large scale amendments to the Future Land Use Map of the City's comprehensive plan and amendments to the City's comprehensive plan adopted as a result of the City's Evaluation and Appraisal Report. Martin County and 1000 Friends are "affected persons" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes. 1000 Friends' standing is limited, however, to standing to challenge certain large scale amendments to the Future Land Use Map of the City's comprehensive plan and text amendments to the City's comprehensive plan adopted as a result of the City's Evaluation and Appraisal Report. Intervenor, Hospice Foundation of Martin & St. Lucie, Inc., failed to prove its has standing to participate in this proceeding. General Information About Martin County and the City. Martin County is a relatively small county located in the central southeast portion of Florida. Martin County is abutted on the north by St. Lucie County, on the west by Lake Okeechobee and a small portion of Okeechobee and Glades Counties, on the south by Palm Beach County, and on the east by the Atlantic Ocean. Martin County has a population of approximately 118,000 permanent residents. The population increases by 32 to 34 percent during the fall and winter. Martin County has the third highest per capita income in Florida. There are four municipalities in Martin County, including the City. The City is located on the Atlantic Ocean at the mouth of the St. Lucie River, which divides the City into two land masses. Most of the City is located south and east of the St. Lucie River. A small part of the City is located just to the north of the St. Lucie River. The north and south portions of the City are connected by the Roosevelt Bridge. The City is connected to Palm City to the west by the Palm City Bridge. The City has a population of approximately 14,000. During the day the population of the City increases significantly to an estimated population of between 25,000 and 30,000. Because of the City's relatively small population and the large influx of persons traveling to the City during the day, the City has a need for a significant amount of ad valorem taxes. More than half of the City's ad valorem property taxes comes from commercial property located in the City. In November 1996 commercial land use in the City accounted for approximately 24 percent of the City's land area. The City is the only full-service incorporated municipality in Martin County. It is the county seat for Martin County and serves as the center of legal, medical, social, commercial, and governmental activities in Martin County. The City has recently characterized itself as follows: For most of its history the character of Stuart was one of low to moderate intensity development in a waterfront community, with a small town feel. A four-story height limit and 10-unit density limit for most residential building were the two main forces that continue this character. In addition, Stuart has long been a hub for Martin County, home to many public and private institutions and businesses. As a result, the percentage of commercial, institutional, and public land in the City was higher than it would be in a city that did not serve as a hub. This role was evident in 1991, and a balance between the residential needs of the citizens of Stuart and the sometimes competing, sometimes complementary needs of those hub-related land uses seemed to drive the 1991 Future Land Use Element. It was recognized at Plan adoption that Stuart was near build-out, and barring further major annexations, would have limited vacant land remaining for new development. City's Evaluation and Appraisal Report, Martin County Exhibit 11 at page 33. Prior to 1997, approximately 2,800 acres of land were located within the jurisdiction of the City. Compared to the rest of Martin County, the City is relatively modest economically. Per capita income in the City is approximately 80 percent of the Martin County-wide average per capita income. Housing in the City consists of approximately 6,300 units. Two-thirds of the City's housing stock is multi-family. Approximately 92 percent of the multi-family housing stock is valued at less than $70,000.00. Approximately 69 percent of the other third of the City's housing stock, which consists of single-family housing, is valued at less than $70,000.00. The median value of owner-occupied housing in the City has been growing at a much slower rate than Martin County, neighboring counties, and the State as a whole. Between 1980 and 1990, the median value of owner-occupied housing in the City increased 56 percent while in Martin County the median value increased 112 percent, in Indian River County 69 percent, in Palm Beach County 77 percent, in St. Lucie County 66 percent, and in the State of Florida 68 percent. Because of the relatively low value of the City's housing stock, ad valorem taxes generated from housing is relatively low. The U.S. 1 Corridor. One of the main thoroughfares in Martin County is United States Highway 1, "Southeast Federal Highway" (hereinafter referred to as "U.S. 1"). U.S. 1 runs north-south through the City. It crosses the St. Lucie River via the Roosevelt Bridge. Land located within unincorporated Martin County along U.S. 1 north of the Roosevelt Bridge almost to the St. Lucie County line is mostly developed or approved for development. Development includes major retail stores such as Target, Sports Authority, Barnes & Noble Bookstore, Office Max, Marshall's, Service Merchandise, PetSmart, Home Depot, Lowe's Home Improvement Center, and grocery stores. There are also many smaller retailers located in strip commercial shopping centers. Most of the development has been permitted during the past five to six years by Martin County. The area to the west and northwest of property annexed by the City north of the Roosevelt Bridge during 1997 and 1998 includes Treasure Coast Mall, strip shopping centers, offices, restaurants, and single-family housing at a density of four to five units per acre. The area to the east and northeast of the property annexed by the City north of the Roosevelt Bridge includes single-family housing at a density of four units per acre, multi- family housing, and commercial and industrial property. The area to the north of the property annexed by the City north of the Roosevelt Bridge includes a development of regional impact known as "West Jensen." West Jensen runs from Jensen Beach Boulevard north to the St. Lucie County line. By 2003, when the project is projected to be fully developed, West Jensen will include 260,000 square feet of limited industrial space, 729,000 square feet of general commercial space, 23,000 square feet of limited commercial space, 235,000 square feet of office space, 200 hotel rooms, 931 residential units, and four golf courses. The area to the immediate south of the City is fully developed. Along U.S. 1 there are large shopping centers, restaurants, car dealerships, strip shopping centers, single-family housing of four to five units per acre, and condominiums. The Martin County Airport abuts U.S. 1 on the east. The area to the west of the City, Palm City, is fully developed. Growth of the City Through Annexation. To the extent that the City grew during the 1970's, it did so through annexation. Subsequent to the 1970's, however, the City turned from annexation and focused on redevelopment of the City's downtown area and the eastern part of the City. Between 1988 and November 1996, the City only annexed 298 acres in 30 annexations. This amounted to an increase of only 18 percent in the geographic size of the City. Subsequent to late 1995, the City shifted its policy back to annexation as a means of growth. Of the 30 annexations the City was involved in between 1988 and November 1996, 19 took place in October 1995. In approximately 1996, the City performed an analysis of its projected revenues and expenditures through the year 2003. The City projected that its revenues would be less than its expenditures. Based upon more recent projections, which take into account recent City annexations, the City has projected that its revenues and expenditures should be about the same for the next eight to nine years. The City has projected that its revenues will increase as a result of ad valorem and sales taxes and other revenues which should be generated from the newly annexed properties. During the Spring of 1997, the City received a number of requests for voluntary annexation pursuant to Chapter 171, Florida Statutes. These requests were accepted by the City and the first 16 parcels were annexed in the Spring of 1997. During 1998, another 27 parcels were annexed through voluntary annexation. Between the spring of 1997, and the end of 1998 the City annexed a total of almost 1,200 acres, increasing the geographic area of the city by 48 percent. The City annexed 254.8 acres in 1997 and 934 acres in 1998. The first requests for voluntary annexations began shortly after Martin County determined that certain roads had no more capacity to sustain further growth. As a consequence of this determination, Martin County imposed a moratorium on new development that would impact U.S. 1 north of the Roosevelt Bridge and the area west of the City on the other side of the Palm City Bridge. Some of the parcels annexed by the City in 1997 and 1998, could not be developed because of the transportation concurrency problem Martin County determined it had. Although there was no direct testimony from owners of parcels annexed by the City during 1997 and 1998, as to the reason they sought voluntary annexation of their property by the City, it is clear that at least some of the voluntary annexations were influenced by Martin County's moratorium and the hope of property owners that the City would take sufficient actions to resolve the transportation concurrency problem on U.S. 1 to allow owners to develop their property. More significantly, the annexations were probably influenced by a perception of property owners that obtaining approval for development from Martin County was a more difficult process generally than obtaining approval through the City. During 1997, the level of service (hereinafter referred to as "LOS") standard selected by Martin County for roads under its jurisdiction was a LOS D. While the City ultimately modified its LOS for roads impacted by development of some of the parcels annexed during 1997 and 1998, the evidence failed to prove that the City's modifications were not based upon reasonable planning principles. The 1997 Small Scale Amendments. The City did not determine specifically how the 16 parcels it annexed during 1997 would impact the City of Stuart's Comprehensive Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "City's Plan") before it accepted the voluntary annexations. Pursuant to Section 171.062(2), Florida Statutes, the 16 parcels the City annexed in 1997 remained subject to the Martin County Comprehensive Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "County Plan") and Martin County's land development regulations until the City amended the City's Plan to incorporate the parcels into the City. In particular, the parcels remained subject to the County Plan until the City amended the City's Plan to assign appropriate land uses to the annexed parcels. Therefore, as the parcels were annexed, the City undertook efforts to amend the City's Plan to assign appropriate land use designations to the parcels. The first nine of the 16 parcels annexed by the City during 1997 took place on September 8, 1997. The parcels were annexed pursuant to the voluntary annexation procedure of Section 171.044, Florida Statutes. Each of the nine parcels consisted of less than ten acres of land. Simultaneously with the annexation of the parcels, the City adopted ten small scale amendments to the Future Land Use Map (hereinafter referred to as the "FLUM") of the City's Plan assigning land use designations under the City's Plan to the parcels. The small scale amendments adopted by the City on September 8, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as "1997 Small Scale Amendments"), were designated Amendments 97S-1 by the Department. The Department did not, however, review the amendments because they constituted small scale amendments exempt from review by the Department pursuant to Section 163.3187, Florida Statutes. On October 8, 1997, Martin County filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing with the Division of Administrative Hearings contending that nine of the 1997 Small Scale Amendments were not "in compliance" as those terms are defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. The Petition was designated Case No. 97-4582GM. 1000 Friends did not challenge the 1997 Small Scale Amendments or intervene in Case No. 97-4582GM. Martin County alleged that the 1997 Small Scale Amendments were not "in compliance" because: They are not supported by data and analysis; They were adopted without adequate intergovernmental coordination; They are internally inconsistent with the City's Plan; They do not discourage urban sprawl; They do not adequately protect natural resources; They cannot be accommodated by existing and planned infrastructure; They are inconsistent with Sections 163.3187(c)(1)(c) [sic] and 163.3187(c)(3)(c) [sic], Florida Statutes; They are inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 187, Florida Statutes; They are inconsistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan for the Treasure Coast; and They are inconsistent Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. The land use designations assigned to the parcels to which the 1997 Small Scale Amendments apply were determined by the City based upon a consideration of the existing uses of the properties, existing and future land use designations of surrounding properties, natural resources on the properties, development trends in the area, analysis of infrastructure availability, and land use designation of Martin County for the properties. In two instances, the Kornbluh and Luce properties, the City's land use designations were virtually the same as Martin County's. Modifications to Martin County's land use designations for the properties were based upon consideration of existing non-conforming land uses of the properties and existing patterns of development in the area. Modifications in Martin County land use designations were based upon sound planning principles. The following findings of fact (with paragraph numbers, footnotes, and citations omitted) were recommended by the City in its Proposed Order. These findings accurately describe the parcels to which the 1997 Small Scale Amendments relate and the rationale for the land use designations assigned to the parcels by the City: Kornbluh property (Parcel 1) This parcel consists of 1.4 acres. In the County, approximately half of the parcel was designated commercial/residential (COR), and the other half commercial. The parcel is surrounded by commercial land use to the north, south, east and west, and a portion of the western boundary abuts existing developed low density residential. The City has given it a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1482-97. There is no substantive difference between the County's land use designation for the Kornbluh property and the City's land use designation. The same types of uses are permitted in both, such as gas stations, restaurants, bars, professional offices, veterinary offices, and other retail and commercial uses. 1st Christian Church property This parcel consists of approximately 2.8 acres and has an existing church on the property. In the County, the land use designation was low density residential. The property abuts some commercial property, some vacant property that was low density residential in the County but which has been changed to neighborhood special district in the City, a mobile home park, and some vacant land designated a medium density residential. Because the land has an existing church on the property, the City determined that institutional was a more appropriate land use designation. Thus, the City adopted an ordinance giving the property a land use designation of institutional pursuant to Ordinance No. 1494-97. City Cemetery property (Parcel 7) This parcel consists of 2.06 acres. Part of the property is used as a cemetery and the other part is vacant. In the County, the land use designation was commercial general. The City has given that part of the property that is used as a cemetery a land use designation of institutional pursuant to Ordinance No. 1501.97 and the vacant part a designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1502.97. The City Cemetery property is at the intersection of Colorado Avenue and Monterey Road which is one of the most developed intersections in all of Martin County. The property is surrounded by commercial development and also a mobile home park. Luce property (Parcel 8) This parcel consists of approximately 4 acres. In the County, the land use designation was commercial. The City has given it a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1506-97. There is no difference between the City's and County's land use designation. The City considered a commercial land use designation as appropriate for the Luce property based on the existing use of the property and the surrounding land uses. Specifically, half of the property is currently used as a produce market and the property abuts commercial land use to the north and to the west. To the east, it abuts the old City landfill which is currently closed and to the south it abuts the Martin County jail. Mush property (Parcel 9A) This parcel consists of approximately 3 acres and is fully developed. In the County, the land use designation was industrial. The City has given it a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1509-97. The City considered the commercial land use designation as appropriate for the Mush property because it is fully developed as a contractor's showcase office. In addition, the surrounding land uses are commercial to the north and west and industrial to the south and east. The City's land use designation of commercial is more restrictive than the County's land use designation of industrial. The County's industrial designation allows both industrial types of uses and commercial uses, such as a gas stations, professional offices, retail buildings, etc. The City's land use designation of commercial does not allow industrial uses. Treasure Coast Auction House property (Parcel 9B) This parcel consists of approximately 5½ acres and is fully developed. In the County, the land use designation was industrial. The City has given it a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1512-97. The City considered the commercial land use designation as appropriate for the Treasure Coast Auction House property because it is fully developed as a Scotty's store. In addition, the surrounding land uses are commercial to the north and west and industrial to the south and east. As explained above in the findings of fact regarding the Mush property (9-A), the City's land use designation of commercial is more restrictive than the County's land use designation of industrial. Hospice property (Parcel 10) This parcel consists of approximately 10 acres. In the County, the land use designation was half low density residential and half commercial. The City has given it a land use designation of institutional pursuant to Ordinance No. 1515-97. The Hospice property is developed as a hospice facility and the owners have plans to expand the facility. The property abuts Indian Street, which is an existing two-lane facility which will become a four-lane facility. Indian Street is considered a major collector in the County's comprehensive plan and it links U.S. 1 and State Road 76. Bailey property (Parcel 11) This parcel consists of approximately 10 acres and is currently vacant. In the County, the land use designations was half low density residential and half commercial limited. The City has given it a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1519-97. The Bailey property abuts Indian Street, which is an existing two-lane road which will become a four-lane road. Indian Street is considered a major collector in the County's comprehensive plan and it links U.S. 1 and State Road 76. Since it is a commercial corridor, the City considered the commercial designation on the property to be more appropriate than low density residential. Armellini property (Parcel 12) This parcel consists of approximately 1.2 acres. In the County, the land use designation was industrial and the City has given it a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1522-97. The Armellini property is on the corner of U.S. 1 and Indian Street and is in close proximity to other commercial development. The types of uses permitted by the City's commercial category is similar to the types of uses allowed by the County's industrial category, such as gas stations, office buildings, restaurants, and bars. The 1997 Large Scale Amendments and the Future Land Use Element Amendment. On December 7, 1997, the City adopted an amendment to the text of the Future Land Use Element (hereinafter referred to as the "FLUE") of the City's Plan. This amendment added a new land use designation to the City's Plan: "Neighborhood/Special District." The amendment also added goals, objectives, and policies concerning the new land use category. The newly created Neighborhood/Special District allows mixed land uses, including neighborhood commercial, office, residential, and recreational. Mixed residential and non- residential uses either in the same building or on the same site are required for a Neighborhood/Special District. A Neighborhood/Special District must have at least 30 percent residential uses and at least ten percent non-residential (excluding recreational) uses. Parking must be clustered in separate pockets rather than located in one expanse, and pedestrian interconnections must be used. On December 8, 1997, the City annexed seven parcels of property by voluntary annexation. On the same date the City adopted nine FLUM amendments assigning land use designations to the annexed property consistent with the City's Plan. Each of the parcels to which the FLUM amendments applied consisted of more than ten acres of land and, therefore, were not considered small scale amendments exempt from Department review. The nine large scale amendments to the FLUM and the FLUE amendment adopted by the City in December 1997 (hereinafter referred to as "1997 Large Scale Amendments and the "FLUE Amendment," respectively), were designated Amendment 97-1 by the Department. The Department reviewed the 1997 Large Scale Amendments and the FLUE Amendment. In a Statement of Intent issued February 9, 1998, the Department found the 1997 Large Scale Amendments and the FLUE Amendment were not "in compliance." The Department's determination was based upon its conclusion that the new land use category and existing non-residential land use categories applied in the 1997 Large Scale Amendments lacked a density/intensity standard. On February 17, 1998, the Department filed a Petition of the Department of Community Affairs with the Division of Administrative Hearings. The Petition was designated Case No. 98-0794GM. Martin County was granted leave to intervene in Case No. 98-0794GM by Order Granting Intervention entered March 11, 1998. Martin County challenged the FLUE Amendment and the 1997 Large Scale Amendments. Martin County alleged that the 1997 Large Scale Amendments and the FLUE Amendment were not "in compliance" because: They are not supported by data and analysis; They were adopted without adequate intergovernmental coordination; They are internally inconsistent with the City's Plan; They do not discourage urban sprawl; They can not be reasonably implemented; They cannot be accommodated by existing and planned infrastructure; They fail to establish intensities of use; They are inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan of Chapter 187, Florida Statutes; and They are inconsistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan for the Treasure Coast. 1000 Friends did not challenge the 1997 Large Scale Amendments or the FLUE Amendment. Nor did 1000 Friends intervene in Case No. 98-0794GM. The land use designations assigned to the parcels to which the 1997 Large Scale Amendments apply were determined by the City based upon a consideration of the existing uses of the properties, existing and future land use designations of surrounding properties, natural resources on the properties, development trends in the area, analysis of infrastructure availability, and land use designation of Martin County for the properties. Modifications to Martin County's land use designations for the properties were based upon consideration of existing non-conforming land uses of the properties and existing patterns of development in the area. Modifications in Martin County land use designations were based upon sound planning principles. The following findings of fact (with paragraph numbers, footnotes, and citations omitted) were recommended by the City in its Proposed Order. These findings accurately describe the parcels to which the 1997 Large Scale Amendments relate and the rationale for the land use designations assigned to the properties by the City: Hendry property (Parcel 3) This parcel consists of approximately 7½ acres. The property contains an existing fully developed office warehouse, and in the County the land use designation was commercial general. The parcel abuts commercial property to the north, south, and west, and to the east it abuts a mobile home park as well as a conservation easement within a walled, gated residential development. Because the existing use was a warehouse, the City determined that a more appropriate land use designation would be industrial and suggested this land use to the owner. The City adopted the industrial land use designation pursuant to Ordinance No. 1488-97. With regard to the Hendry property, there is no difference between the County's land use designation of commercial and the City's land use designation of industrial. The existing office warehouse on the property is permitted both in the County's commercial designation. Millenium property (Parcel 4) This parcel consists of approximately 24½ acres and is vacant. In the County, the land use designation was commercial. The City has given it a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1491-97. There is no difference between the County's commercial land use designation and the City's commercial land use designation. Wacha property (Parcel 6) This parcel consists of approximately 47 acres. In the County, the land use designation was part mobile home, part low density, part medium density, and part industrial. The owner of the property approached the City with the idea of building a mixed use village on the property. The City was supportive of this idea and worked with the Treasure Coast Regional Council to develop a new land use category, neighborhood special district, as well as refine the site plan to create the mixed use village concept. The neighborhood special district land use category was adopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 1498-97. Part of the property that was originally designated industrial in the County was designated commercial in the City pursuant to Ordinance No. 1497-97. The neighborhood special district land use category will allow the Wacha property to be developed as a traditional neighborhood development project. The proposed development will include a town square area with shops and restaurants on the ground floor, apartments on the second floor, and parking behind the buildings to create a pedestrian-friendly thoroughfare. The development also includes a home office district where people can live and work in the same building. The development also proposes a single family residential neighborhood clustered around a common green with garages to the rear, and the building set with front porches on the street. The City and County's land use designation for the Wacha property differ significantly. The City's land use designation requires a mix of uses, with not less than 30% residential and not less than 10% commercial or non-residential development within a given property. The County's land use designations are exclusive, so that each specific property can only be used for mobile home park or light industrial or medium density residential or low density residential. The County would not permit a mixed use development on this property. The Wacha property is part of the City's Community Redevelopment Area. The City determined that the neighborhood special district land use designation would further the intent and purpose behind the Community Redevelopment Area which is to encourage redevelopment of blighted areas. Dubner North property (Parcel 13), Republic Industries property (Parcel 14), Dubner South property (Parcel 15) The Dubner North parcel consists of approximately 48 acres, the Republic Industries property consists of approximately 11½ acres, and the Dubner South property consists of approximately 56 acres. In the County, the land use designation for each of the properties was industrial. The City has given the Dubner North property a land use designation of part commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1525-97 and part industrial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1526-97, the Republic Industries property a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1529-97, and the Dubner South property a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1532-97. The Dubner North, Republic Industries, and the Dubner South properties are bound by the railroad tracks to the east. To the north, south, and west, the properties are surrounded by either County industrial or commercial future land uses or City commercial land uses. The Remedial Amendments. Subsequent to the opening of Case No. 98-0794GM, the Department and the City entered into a Stipulated Settlement Agreement pursuant to Section 163.3184(16), Florida Statutes. Martin County declined to enter into the Stipulated Settlement Agreement. The City agreed to adopt remedial amendments which included text descriptions of various land use categories, including the Neighborhood/Special Districts category, and a table setting for residential densities and commercial intensities for land use categories created in the City's Plan. On August 24, 1998, the City adopted remedial amendments consistent with the Stipulated Settlement Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the "Remedial Amendments"). The Remedial Amendments were adopted by Ordinance No. 1646-98. The Remedial Amendments, designated Amendment 98-R1 by the Department, were determined to be "in compliance" by the Department. Upon the adoption of the Remedial Amendments and the determination that the Remedial Amendments were "in compliance," the parties in Case No. 98-0794GM were realigned as required by Section 163.3184(16)(f)1, Florida Statutes, to reflect that Martin County was challenging the Department's conclusion that the 1997 Large Scale Amendments and the FLUE Amendment, as modified by the Remedial Amendments, were "in compliance." Martin County also filed a Petition for Formal Hearing challenging the Department's determination that the 1997 Large Scale Amendments and the FLUE Amendment, as modified by the Remedial Amendments were "in compliance." That Petition was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on December 17, 1998. The Petition was designated Case No. 98-5501GM. 1000 Friends did not challenge the Remedial Amendments. Nor did 1000 Friends intervene in Case No. 98-5501GM. I. The 1998 Large Scale Amendments. Between April 13, 1998, and June 22, 1998, the City annexed 16 large parcels through voluntary annexation. On August 24, 1998, the City adopted 33 FLUM amendments assigning land use designations to the newly annexed parcels consistent with the City's Plan. Eleven of the FLUM amendments were small scale amendments pursuant to Section 163.3187, Florida Statutes (hereinafter referred to as the 1998 Small Scale Amendments). The 1998 Small Scale Amendments were not reviewed by the Department even though they were submitted to the Department with the other 22 FLUM amendments. The parcels to which the other 22 FLUM amendments related consisted of more than ten acres of land and, therefore, were not considered small scale amendments exempt from Department review. The 22 large scale amendments adopted on August 24, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as "1998 Large Scale Amendments), were designated Amendment 98-1 by the Department. The Department reviewed the 1998 Large Scale Amendments and found them "in compliance." Martin County and 1000 Friends filed separate Petitions for Formal Hearing with the Department challenging the determination that the 1998 Large Scale Amendments were "in compliance." The Petitions filed by Martin County and 1000 Friends were filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on December 17, 1998. The Petitions were designated Case Nos. 98- 5503GM and 98-5510GM, respectively. Martin County alleged that the 1998 Large Scale Amendments were not "in compliance" because: They are not supported by data and analysis; They were adopted without adequate intergovernmental coordination; They are internally inconsistent with the City's Plan; They do not discourage urban sprawl; They do not adequately protect natural resources; They cannot be accommodated by existing and planned infrastructure; They are inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan of Chapter 187, Florida Statutes; They are inconsistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan for the Treasure Coast; and They are inconsistent Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. 1000 Friends alleged that the 1998 Large Scale Amendments were not "in compliance" because they were adopted without intergovernmental coordination. The land use designations assigned to the parcels to which the 1998 Large Scale Amendments apply were determined by the City based upon a consideration of the existing uses of the properties, existing and future land use designations of surrounding properties, natural resources on the properties, development trends in the area, analysis of infrastructure availability, and land use designation of Martin County for the properties. Modifications to Martin County's land use designations for the properties were based upon consideration of existing non-conforming land uses of the properties and existing patterns of development in the area. Modifications in Martin County land use designations were based upon sound planning principles. The following findings of fact (with paragraph numbers, footnotes, and citations omitted) were recommended by the City in its Proposed Order. These findings accurately describe the parcels to which the 1998 Large Scale Amendments relate and the rationale for the land use designations assigned to the properties by the City: Pulte Homes property (Parcel F3), Vista A property (Parcel F5), Gibson property (Parcel F6), and Debartolo property (Parcel F24) The Pulte Homes parcel consists of approximately 312 acres. In the County, the land use designation was low density residential and high density residential. The City has given it a combination of conservation, pursuant to Ordinance No. 1549- 97, low density residential, pursuant to Ordinance No. 1550-97, and neighborhood special district, pursuant to Ordinance No. 1551-97. The Vista A parcel consists of approximately 9 acres and is vacant. In the County, the land use designation was commercial/office/residential (COR) and high density residential. The City has given it a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1546-97. The Vista B parcel consists of approximately 44 acres and is vacant. In the County, the land use designation was low density residential and the City has given it a land use designation of low density residential pursuant to Ordinance No. 1553- 97. The Gibson parcel consists of approximately 100 acres. In the County, the land use designation was low density and commercial general. That part of the property that was designated commercial in the County was given a commercial land use designation in the city pursuant to Ordinance No. 1557-97. That part of the property that was designated low density residential in the County was given a combination of low density residential and conservation (Ordinance No. 1558-97), and multi-family residential (Ordinance No. 1559-97) pursuant to Ordinance No. 1549-97, low density residential, pursuant to Ordinance No. 1550-97, and neighborhood special district, pursuant to Ordinance No. 1551-97 in the City. The Debartolo parcel originally consisted of 205.90 acres. However, a portion of the parcel has been reannexed by the City to cure the defects found by the circuit court. The County's land use designation was a mixture of low, medium and high density residential. The City has given it a combination of part neighborhood special district pursuant to Ordinance No. 1618-97, part low density residential and conservation pursuant to Ordinance No. 1620-97, and part multi-family and conservation pursuant to Ordinance No. 1622-97. These five parcels (Pulte, Vista A, Vista B, Gibson, and Debartolo) contain a series of wetlands that form a slough that drains through Arant's swamp, or Haney Creek, and into the St. Lucie River. In terms of long- range planning, the City believed it best to implement a series of greenways and flow-ways to interconnect those wetlands and preserve areas to help clean up a non-point source pollution problem that was occurring in the St. Lucie River. Thus, recommending an appropriate land use designation for these properties, the City considered the pattern of wetlands in the area that form the slough and proposed a conservation land use designation for parts of some of the properties. In addition, the City received a grant from the Florida Communities Trust to purchase 84 acres of Arant's swamp or Haney Creek. This area is south of the five properties described above. The 84 acres form a flow- way for all of the water flow that comes from north to south and ultimately into the St. Lucie River. The City is proposing to construct a greenway which would connect the wetlands in the five properties described above so that water can flow unimpeded into Arant's swamp and ultimately into the St. Lucie River. Those connections would be accomplished at site planning and connected under roadways with staged culverts so animals can travel along the sides and water can flow through the middle. Comparing the City and County's land use designations for these five parcels, the land use designations adopted by the City are more appropriate than the County's land use designations and will result in a better use of the properties. For instance, by changing some of the land uses from low density residential in the County to conservation in the City, the environmentally sensitive areas will be preserved in perpetuity. In addition, by changing the County's high density residential use for the Pulte Homes property to neighborhood special district in the City, the development will require a mix of uses including some commercial which will be interconnected in a pedestrian fashion to the existing single family home development which lies to the east. This will lessen the need for additional vehicular trips and encourage alternative forms of transportation. Stewart property (Parcel F11), Madyda property (Parcel F12), First Eastern Residential property (Parcel F13), First Eastern property (Parcel F14), and SK Partner's I property (Parcel F15) The Stewart parcel (F11) consists of approximately 15 acres of land and is vacant. In the County, the land use designation was a mix of low and medium density residential, and commercial/office/residential (COR). The City has given it a land use designations of multi-family residential pursuant to Ordinance No. 1576-97. The Madyda parcel (F12) consists of approximately 6½ acres. The County's land use designation was a mix of medium density residential and commercial/office/residential (COR). The City has given it a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1579-97. The First Eastern Residential parcel (F13) consists of 50 acres and is a fully developed low income housing project. The County's land use designation was medium density and low density residential. The City has given it a designation of multi-family pursuant to Ordinance No. 1582-97. The First Eastern parcel (F14) consists of 32.20 acres and is vacant. The County's land use designation was a mixture of Commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1585-97. The SK Partners I parcel (F15) consists of 18.94 acres and is vacant. The County's land use designations was commercial general. The City has given it a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1588-97. There is no difference between the City's and the County's land use designations. Sunbelt Partners/Stetson property (Parcel F17), Sunbelt Partners property (Parcel F18), SK Partners II property (Parcel F190) The Sunbelt/Stetson parcel (F17) consists of approximately 25½ acres, the Sunbelt Partners parcel (F18) consists of approximately 2.5 acres, and the SK Partners II parcel (F19) consists of approximately 38 acres. All three parcels are vacant. The City's original annexation of the Sunbelt Partners/Stetson parcels was invalidated by the circuit court. However, a portion of the parcel has been reannexed. The County's land use designation for the three parcels was primarily commercial, with a small amount of commercial/office/ residential. The City's gave all three parcels a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance Nos. 1615-97, 1612-97, and 1609-97. There is no real difference between the County's and the City's land use designations. Dubner East property (Parcel F22), Sellian property (Parcel F22), Dubner West property (Parcel F23) The Dubner East parcel consists of approximately 11.5 acres, the Sellian parcel (F22) consists of approximately 4 acres, and the Dubner West (F23) consists of approximately 10 acres. Dubner East is vacant, the Sellian property is developed as an office building and indoor assembly, and the Dubner West property is partially developed as an office building. The County's land use designation for each of the parcels was industrial. The City has given each a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance Nos. 1600-97, 1603-97, and 1606-97. The three properties abut County industrial land uses, although for the most part, the properties are developed as commercial uses. The properties also abut City commercial land uses. The City's land use designation is more restrictive than the County's because the County industrial allows both industrial and commercial uses while the City's commercial designation allows only commercial uses. The City's Evaluation and Appraisal Report Amendments. Consistent with Section 163.3191, Florida Statutes, the City conducted an Evaluation and Appraisal Report, including suggested amendments to the City's Plan. On August 24, 1998, simultaneously with the adoption of the 1998 Large Scale Amendments and the 1998 Small Scale Amendments, the City adopted amendments to all elements of the City's Plan (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "EAR Amendments") based upon the recommendations of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report. The EAR Amendments include density and intensity standards adopted as part of the Remedial Amendments to the Future Land Use Element of the City's Plan. The EAR Amendments revise the schedule for capital improvements and establish new concurrency requirements as part of the Capital Improvements Element of the City's Plan. The EAR Amendments set out the steps the City will take to coordinate the City's Plan and its implementation with other agencies and entities as part of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element of the City's Plan. The EAR Amendments revise LOS standards for transportation in the Transportation Element of the City's Plan The EAR Amendments were reviewed by the Department simultaneously with the 1998 Large Scale Amendments and found to be "in compliance." The EAR Amendments were designated Amendment 98-ER1 by the Department. The 1998 Small Scale Amendments were also submitted to the Department with the 1998 Large Scale Amendments and the EAR Amendments but were ultimately withdrawn by the City at the request of the Department. Martin County and 1000 Friends also challenged the EAR Amendments in their Petitions challenging the 1998 Large Scale Amendments filed in Case Nos. 98-5503GM and 98-5510GM, respectively. Martin County alleged that the EAR Amendments were not "in compliance" because: They are not supported by data and analysis; They were adopted without adequate intergovernmental coordination; They are internally inconsistent with the City's Plan; They do not discourage urban sprawl; They do not adequately protect natural resources; They cannot be accommodated by existing and planned infrastructure; They are inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan of Chapter 187, Florida Statutes; They are inconsistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan for the Treasure Coast; and They are inconsistent with Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. Martin County did not allege which specific elements of the City's Plan amended by the EAR Amendments were being challenged in its Petition. It merely alleged that "Stuart's comprehensive plan amendments" are not in compliance. In the Joint Proposed Order filed by Martin County and 1000 Friends, specific portions of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element (Policies A1.13 through A1.23, Policy A2.4, Policy A7.3, Objective 8, and Policies A8.1 through A8.11), the FLUE (Policies B1.2 through B1.4), and the Capital Improvements Element (the selection of LOS E) are cited. The specific objective and policies cited in the Joint Order are hereby incorporated into this Recommended Order by reference. Additionally, the Future Annexation Map adopted as part of the EAR Amendments by the City is cited in the Joint Proposed Order. The Future Annexation Map includes 8,000 additional acres which are projected to be annexed into the City by the year 2015. 1000 Friends' challenge to the EAR Amendments is limited to a challenge to the City's Intergovernmental Coordination Element. Data and Analysis. At the time that all of the amendments at issue in this proceeding were adopted there was more than adequate data and analysis to support all of the amendments. The data and analysis relied upon by the City in adopting the 1997 Small and Large Scale Amendments, the FLUE Amendment, the Remedial Amendments, the 1998 Large Scale Amendments, and the EAR Amendments was professionally acceptable. The testimony of Martin County's expert planner concerning data and analysis was not persuasive. That testimony was not based upon a complete review of the data and analysis relied upon by the City and the Department. The evidence presented by Martin County concerning data and analysis focused largely on the fact that the property to which the 1997 Small and Large Scale Amendments and the 1998 Large Scale Amendments related had been annexed before the accumulation of all the data and analysis relied upon in support of the amendments. That evidence was irrelevant because the Act and the rules promulgated thereunder do not govern annexations; they govern plan amendments and require that the data and analysis be available at the time a plan amendment is adopted and not at the time of annexation. Data and analysis were required for the 1997 Small Scale Amendments and the 1997 and 1998 Large Scale Amendments, not to support the need for the annexed property, but to support the City's choice of land use classifications assigned to the annexed property. There were ample data and analysis to support the City's choices. Once the properties at issue in this proceeding were annexed consistent with Chapter 171, Florida Statutes, the City began the process of considering the amendments to the City's Plan necessary to accommodate the annexations and bring them under the City's Plan. While the evidence did prove that the City now has approximately 33 years of commercial property to meet the needs of the City during the 20 years of the City's Plan, there is no requirement in the Act or the implementing rules that a need for annexed property be present before annexation occurs. The commercial property located in the City as a result of the 1997 Small Scale Amendments and the 1997 and 1998 Large Scale Amendments is not significantly different from the amount of commercial property which existed prior to the amendments. Most of the annexed property was designated commercial or industrial by the County Plan. Industrial uses under the County Plan include many of the same uses of commercial property under the City Plan. Under these circumstances, the City made the most reasonable planning decision by classifying the annexed property consistent with surrounding land uses and Martin County's prior land use designation of land use for the property. The City completed a needs analysis as part of its review and revision of the City's Plan through the EAR Amendments. That analysis was based upon data available at the time of the EAR Amendments. The data was also available at the time the 1997 Small Scale Amendments, the 1997 and 1998 Large Scale Amendments, the FLUE Amendment, and the Remedial Amendments were adopted. The City's needs analysis included an allocation of land uses to the land use categories designated in the City's Plan. Although the allocation of land resulted in an allocation of more commercial land than may be required during the life of the City's Plan, the evidence failed to prove that such a surplus results in any under allocation of land to other classifications. Approximately 150 acres of the property annexed by the City during 1997 and 1998 were re-designated commercial by the City. Eighteen of those acres have already been developed, leaving an additional 132 acres of commercial land in the City. The evidence failed to prove that this increase of acreage is significant. Evidence presented by Martin County as to the increase in commercial property was not persuasive. In actuality, the increase in property designated commercial as a result of City's annexations amounts to approximately 48 acres. There were a total of 35 parcels designated commercial by the City, including the 1998 Small Scale Amendments. Most of those parcels were already developed in whole or in part with commercial, commercial-like, or industrial land uses. The uses of property classified industrial are also substantially similar to the uses allowed for commercial to result in little discernable effect on the supply of commercial property in the City. The only vacant parcels assigned a land use designation of commercial by the City that were not classified commercial or industrial by Martin County were referred to at hearing as parcels 1, 11 F4, F7, F12, and F14. Parcel 1 consisted of 1.4 acres. Approximately half of parcel 1 was designated commercial and the other half was designated commercial/office/residential. At most, this amounts to an increase of .7 acres of commercial. Parcel 11 consists of ten acres, parcel F4 consists of nine acres, parcel F7 consists of 5.06 acres, parcel F12 consists of 6.67 acres, and parcel F14 consists of 32.20 acres. Half of parcel F14 was classified as commercial by Martin County. The evidence also proved that the possible intensity of use for the property annexed by the City during 1997 and 1998, when compared with the possible intensity of use under the County Plan is less under the City's land use classifications. Martin County's expert testimony concerning increases in intensity was not credible. That testimony was based upon small scale parcels 5, 10, and 11, and large scale parcels 6, F6, and F24. Parcel 5 is already developed as 1st Christian. Parcel 10 is partially developed and the testimony concerning Martin County's land use designation for the property was incorrect. For parcel 6, the Wacha property, the testimony by the Martin County expert concerning Martin County's land use designation for part of the property was incorrect. The portion of the property designated commercial by the City was classified as industrial by Martin County. For parcel F6, the Gibson property, only a fourth of the property was designated multi-family. The rest of the property was given a land use designation that is the same or less intense then that allowed by the County. For parcel F24, the Debartolo property, Martin County's land use designation was a combination of low, medium, and high density residential and not just low density residential as testified by Martin County's expert witness. Most of the property was low density residential under the County's Plan and remained low density residential under the City's Plan. The calculations concerning the increase in intensity of use made by Martin County's expert witness were flawed and not credible, as explained in findings of fact 123 through 125. Martin County's assertion that the Remedial Amendments are not supported by data and analysis because of the increase in intensity of commercial property is rejected. In addition to the question of data and analysis to support the land use classifications assigned to the annexed property by the City, Martin County has suggested that there is insufficient data and analysis concerning how public facilities will be provided to the annexed property. The evidence failed to support this assertion. At the time of the 1997 and 1998 Small and Large Scale Amendments the City did not perform a concurrency analysis. Concurrency analyses are required at the time of site plan review or other application for another development permit. Therefore, neither the Act nor the City's Plan required a concurrency analysis. A transportation analysis involves transportation planning for an extended period of time and not planning for individual parcels. Capital facilities and available capacity for a five-year period are looked at in a transportation analysis. Concurrency analyses, on the other hand, are performed on individual parcels of property at the time of proposed development of those parcels. Neither a transportation analysis nor a concurrency analysis is required when a local government designates a general land use classification for a parcel of property. Martin County has asserted that the City's decision to adopt a LOS E and to "maintain" the actual existing LOS for two segments of U.S. 1 and State Roads 707 and 714, both of which are projected to have LOS F within the next five years in light of the moratorium it has imposed on development along U.S. 1 supports its argument that the FLUM amendments are not supported by data and analysis. They assert that evidence presented by the City's expert transportation engineer cannot be considered data and analysis because it was prepared after the FLUM amendments. This assertion is rejected. While the analysis may not have been available, the data was. More importantly, the testimony of the City's expert engineer may be relied upon to refute Martin County's assertion that there existed a transportation concurrency problem at the time the FLUM amendments were adopted. Martin County based its conclusion on an outdated Florida Department of Transportation table adopted as part of the County's Plan. That table lacked a footnote that cautioned against anything other than very general reliance on the table. Martin County's assertions concerning transportation concurrency were also refuted by the more accurate analysis performed by the City's expert engineer. Based upon his analysis, which was unrefuted by credible evidence, there is in fact no LOS deficiency not addressed by the City's Plan. The difference between the LOS adopted by the City and Martin County's LOS is not significant. The reports of the City's expert transportation engineer were sufficient data and analysis to support the EAR Amendments to the Capital Improvements and Transportation Elements. The LOS selected by the City, LOS E, is the most efficient use of the City's arterial roadways under current conditions. The evidence failed to prove that there were inadequate data and analysis to support Policy A1.1 of the FLUE. The evidence failed to prove that there were inadequate data and analysis concerning the effectiveness of existing intergovernmental coordination mechanisms. Intergovernmental Coordination. In May 1997, the City notified Martin County that it was considering a series of voluntary annexation requests it had received. The City and Martin County have entered into formal and informal agreements dealing with the provision of a number of services, including water and sewer, emergency rescue, solid waste, and law enforcement. Impact fees are dealt with by interlocal agreement pursuant to which the City collects impact fees for library services, regional parks, and county roads on behalf of the Martin County. Following the City's notification to Martin County of the voluntary annexation requests it had received, City staff and the Director of Public Works for Martin County met to discuss the provision of water and sewer service to the annexed areas. An agreement was reached between the City and Martin County as to which entity would be responsible for water and sewer services to each parcel to be annexed. Discussions between City and Martin County staff concerning responsibility for maintenance of roads were also held, including discussions at meetings of the Metropolitan Planning Organization Technical Advisory Committee. The Metropolitan Technical Advisory Committee was established to provide for intergovernmental coordination in Martin County. Issues concerning road maintenance were resolved. Beginning essentially at the time of the notice to Martin County of the voluntary annexation requests the City had received, Martin County attempted to prevent the annexations. Although Martin County cooperated to resolve some of the problems that resulted from the annexations, Martin County prepared an emergency agenda item directing staff to evaluate the annexations and seek ways of preventing the annexations. Martin County staff reports concerning the proposed annexations indicated few problems that would result from the annexations. The reports were submitted to the City by Martin County. Martin County indicated, however, that it would be conducting further analysis on potential traffic impacts. Martin subsequently reported to the City that it had further concerns and would be attending a City scheduled workshop to be held in July 1997. No one from Martin County attended the workshop held in July or the workshop held by the City in September 1997. City staff reviewed all of Martin County's comments, notified the City Commission of the comments, and took the comments into consideration in making recommendations concerning the annexations and amendments to the City's Plan to the City. On September 16, 1997, the City notified Martin County of further requests for voluntary annexation. City staff thereafter attempted to schedule meetings with Martin County staff to discuss these annexations. Additional discussions were held with Martin County concerning utilities. These discussions resulted in agreements concerning the provision of utilities to the annexed parcels. Discussions concerning stormwater were also held between the City and Martin County. Transportation issues were discussed at Metropolitan Planning Organization Technical Advisory Committee meetings. Martin County wrote letters to the City and made oral comments concerning the FLUM Amendments. Martin County raised concerns over urban sprawl, concurrency, and intergovernmental coordination. Martin County also filed challenges to the City's annexations resulting in a number of civil actions between the City and Martin County. As a result of these actions and Martin County's attempts to prevent the annexations, relations between City and Martin County staff became strained. It became increasingly difficult for staff to work together to resolve common issues. In November 1997 Martin County sent a letter to the City expressing concerns over the late 1997 annexations involving urban sprawl and transportation concurrency. These comments were considered by the City. Martin County staff attended an August 1998 meeting at which the City adopted the FLUM Amendments relating to the late 1997 annexations. These comments were considered by the City. While the City and Martin County did not come to a consensus over all issues relating to the FLUM amendments, it cannot be said that there was not sufficient intergovernmental coordination between them. Given the diametrically opposing positions of the two governments concerning the annexations which gave rise to the amendments at issue in these cases, it is doubtful that any further coordination between the City and Martin County could have resolved the issues between the City and Martin County. Prior to adopting the EAR Amendments and the 1998 Large Scale Amendments, the City's planning consultant reviewed the FLUM amendments that had already been adopted, the EAR Amendments, and the additional FLUM amendments the City was considering. The consult obtained data from Martin County concerning population and traffic. Efforts to obtain information from Martin County, however, were by this time difficult. The City even had to result to a public records request from Martin County to obtain some information. Again, while the City and Martin County did not come to a consensus over all issues relating to the EAR Amendments and the 1998 Large Scale Amendments, it cannot be said that there was not sufficient intergovernmental coordination between them. Given the state of deterioration of the relationship between the City and Martin County by the time these amendments were considered and adopted by the City, it is doubtful that any further coordination between the City and Martin County would have resulted in any improvement in the EAR Amendments or the 1998 Large Scale Amendments. In addition to the fact that the intergovernmental coordination between the City and Martin County under the circumstances of this matter was adequate, any lack of coordination did not result in any substantial issues concerning the amendments to the City's Plan not being resolved. The evidence in these cases has not supported Martin County's or 1000 Friends' alleged deficiencies with the amendments. Evidence concerning intergovernmental coordination or the lack thereof before and during annexation of the parcels to which the FLUM amendments in these case relate was irrelevant. Nothing in the Act or the rules promulgated thereunder requires intergovernmental coordination on annexations. The City adopted an Intergovernmental Coordination Element as part of the EAR Amendments. The Element includes policies which relate to procedures for dealing with coordination concerning the development of the annexed areas. Those policies are quoted in the City's Proposed Order at finding of fact 149 and are incorporated herein by reference. The Intergovernmental Coordination Element adopted by the City does not meet the requirements of Section 163.3177(6)(h), Florida Statutes. It does, however, meet the requirements of Sections 163.3177(4)(a) and (10)(b), Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5.015, Florida Administrative Code. The requirements of Section 163.3177(6)(h), Florida Statutes, must be met by local governments no later than December 31, 1999. Pursuant to Section 163.3177(6)(h)4., Florida Statutes, the Department adopted Rule 9J-40, Florida Administrative Code, providing, in part, that the City submit an intergovernmental coordination element in compliance with Section 163.3177(6)(h), Florida Statutes, no later than June 1, 1997, and that the element be adopted no later than December 31, 1997. In a publication of the Department called the Summer 1998 Community Planning publication, the Department informed the City to ignore Rule 9J-40, Florida Administrative Code, and submit its intergovernmental coordination element no later than December 31, 1999. The City complied with this direction from the Department. The Department did not repeal Rule 9J-40, Florida Administrative Code. Although Section 163.3177(6)(h)4., Florida Statutes, authorizes local governments to comply with Section 163.3177(6)(h), Florida Statutes, earlier than December 31, 1999, the City has not opted to do so. Internal Inconsistency. Goal A of the FLUE provides that the City will "[m]aintain and enhance its small town waterfront character." Although the City has increased its size by 48 percent, it has not increased its "waterfront." None of the amendments to the FLUM at issue in these cases involve property located on the City's waterfront. The evidence also failed to prove that a 48 percent increase in the size of the City in and of itself is contrary to the City's small town character. Finally, the impact on the City's character is a result, not of the designation of land use categories for the annexed property, but from the annexation itself. Although annexation is the catalyst for the amendments being challenged in this proceeding, the fact of the annexation cannot be the issue. Policy A.3.2 of the FLUE provides that the City should "direct development to areas already served by adequate government utilities, services and schools . . . ." While some of the roads serving many of the annexed parcels were determined to be over-utilized, that over-utilization was based upon Martin County's LOS. Based upon the City's newly established LOS E, there are adequate road services for the annexed properties. The delivery of other utilities, services, and schools to the annexed properties has been coordinated between the City and Martin County or those services are already being provided. Objective B.3 of the FLUE provides that the City will discourage urban sprawl and continuous linear development along major roadways in order to achieve a compact urban form. While the annexed parcels are located along U.S. 1, their designated land uses pursuant to the amendments at issue are essentially consistent with their present uses or designated land uses. Little change in the form of development of the annexed parcels will occur as a result of the amendments. Therefore, the FLUM amendments do not increase linear development. Rather, they recognize it. As discussed, infra, the annexed properties do not constitute urban sprawl. As amended by the EAR Amendments, Objective B.1 of the FLUE provides that the City will "[d]iscourage urban sprawl by planning for urban infill and redevelopment of lands located within Stuart." The FLUM amendments constitute urban infill and are consistent with Objective B.1 as amended by the EAR Amendments. Objective B.3 of the FLUE requires a commitment of the City to the promotion of patterns of land use that are compatible and convenient to residents, businesses, and visitors, and the avoidance of the wasteful use of land. The evidence failed to prove that the FLUM amendments are inconsistent with this objective. Again, there is little difference in the uses of the property which is the subject of the FLUM amendments before and after their annexation. Policy A.8 of the Infrastructure Element of the City's Plan requires that the City will maximize the use of existing facilities and discourage urban sprawl through its annexation policy. Policy A.3.3, Objectives A.5, A.6, A.7, and A.9, and Policy A8.1 also provide similar guidance to the City. As discussed, infra, the FLUM amendments do not fail to discourage urban sprawl. The FLUM amendments also are not inconsistent with these provisions to the extent that they require the City to maximize the use of existing services. Policy A1.1 of the Housing Element of the City's Plan provides that the City must designate adequate residential land to accommodate projected need for housing. The most up to date analysis of existing population data suggests that there is adequate housing to meet the City's need for housing through the year 2015. The evidence failed to prove that anything about the amendments at issue in these cases are inconsistent with this policy. The evidence failed to prove that the amendments at issue in these cases are inconsistent with any provision of the City's Plan. The consistency of the foregoing goals, objectives, and policies with the City's Plan were the only ones specifically addressed in the Joint Proposed Order. The City also addressed the consistency of a number of other goals, objectives, and policies with the City's Plan. Those findings of fact (182-190, 193-195, 197, and 200-204) are hereby accepted and incorporated into this Recommended Order by reference. Urban Sprawl. The areas annexed by the City, while including some vacant land, are not located in a rural or predominately rural area. Instead, the annexed parcels are all located in an area designated in the County's Plan as the "Primary Urban Service Area." An independent evaluation of the properties confirms their urban location. The indicators of urban sprawl listed in Rule 9J- 5.006(5), Florida Administrative Code, do not apply to the annexed parcels when considered "within the context of features and characteristics unique to each locality." The testimony of Martin County's witnesses concerning the "linear pattern" of development evidenced by the annexed parcels failed to take into account the character of surrounding and abutting, unincorporated properties and the location of all the parcels within the "Primary Urban Service Area" established in the County's Plan. Testimony offered by Martin County concerning urban sprawl was also not credible because Martin County's expert witness did not complete the land use analysis of Rule 9J-5.006(5)(h) through (j), Florida Administrative Code, because she failed to evaluate local conditions and development controls. Natural Resources. The evidence did not prove that any of the amendments at issue in these case fail to adequately protect natural resources. Availability of Infrastructure. As explained, supra, the City and Martin County coordinated the continued provision of most public utilities and services to the annexed parcels. Continued water, sewer, emergency rescue, law enforcement, and solid waste disposal services for the annexed parcels were all coordinated between the City and Martin County. Water and sewer services and recreational facility needs were analyzed by the City and found to be adequate. The evidence failed to prove that any necessary infrastructure is not available or will not be provided by the City. The Future Annexation Map. The City's Evaluation and Appraisal Report included a Map of Future Annexation. The Map of Future Annexation identified a small area south of the City for future annexation over the next ten years. The areas actually annexed by the City during 1997 and 1998 involve a more extensive area than that identified on the Map of Future Annexation. The areas identified on the Map of Future Annexation were areas which the City believed it would likely desire to annex and did not take into account voluntary annexation. The Map of Future Annexation was not intended to exclude such voluntary annexations. The EAR Amendments also include a Future Annexation Area Map (hereinafter referred to as the "FAA Map"). The FAA Map identifies approximately 8,000 additional acres of land which the City may consider annexing through the year 2015. The FAA Map is not, however, intended to represent an area which the City intends to pursue for annexation. It simply identifies the maximum area within which the City intends to consider annexation. It is, in effect, intended as a limitation on annexations that the City would pursue. The evidence failed to prove that the FAA Map is not a reasonable boundary for the possible expansion of the City through the year 2015 by annexation. The State and Regional Plans. The evidence failed to prove that any of the challenged amendments are inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 187, Florida Statutes. The evidence failed to prove that any of the challenged amendments are inconsistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan for the Treasure Coast. The Strategic Regional Policy Plan for the Treasure Coast was not offered into evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Secretary of the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order dismissing Hospice Foundation of Martin & St. Lucie, Inc., as a party. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Secretary of the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order finding the 1997 Small and Large Scale Amendments, the Remedial Amendments, the 1998 Large Scale Amendments, and the EAR Amendments to be "in compliance" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of October, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of October, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul R. Bradshaw, Esquire Paul R. Bradshaw, P.A. 1345 Dupont Road Havana, Florida 32333 Gary K. Oldehoff, Esquire Martin County Attorney 2401 South East Monterey Road Stuart, Florida 34996 Terrell Arline, Esquire 1000 Friends of Florida, Inc. 926 East Park Avenue Post Office Box 5948 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert C. Apgar, Esquire Yeline Goin, Esquire 902-A North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Carl Coffin, Esquire City of Stuart 121 South West Flagler Avenue Stuart, Florida 34994 Shaw Stiller, Assistant General Counsel Karen A. Brodeen, Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Tim B. Wright, Esquire Louis E. Lozeau, Jr., Esquire Warner, Fox, Seeley, Dungey and Sweet, L.L.P. Post Office Drawer 6 Stuart, Florida 34995 Steven M. Seibert, Secretary Department of Community Affairs Suite 100 2555 Shummard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Cari L. Roth, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs Suite 315 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
The Issue The issue is whether the Land Development Code (LDC) adopted by Ordinance No. 2007-12 on August 22, 2007, as amended on February 27, 2008, is inconsistent with the effective comprehensive plan for the City of Doral (City), which is the Miami-Dade Comprehensive Development Master Plan (County Plan).
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: The Parties Section 64 is a Florida corporation. The Grand is a Florida limited partnership. Both entities are owned by the same individual. On September 25, 2001, Section 7 acquired ownership of an approximate ten-acre tract of property in the County (now the City) located along the southern boundary of Northwest 82nd Street, between 109th and 112th Avenues. See Petitioners' Exhibit 416. On December 16, 2005, title in one- half of the property was conveyed to The Grand in order to divide the property into two different ownerships. Id. It was Petitioners' intent at that time to build two hotels on separate five-acre tracts, one owned by Section 7 and the other by The Grand. The City is located in the northwestern part of Dade County and was incorporated as a municipality in June 2003. At the time of incorporation, the County's Plan and Land Use Code were the legally effective comprehensive plan and land development regulations (LDRs), respectively. On April 26, 2006, the City adopted its first comprehensive plan. After the Department determined that the Plan was not in compliance, remedial amendments were adopted on January 10, 2007, pursuant to a Stipulated Settlement Agreement. Although the Department found the Plan, as remediated, to be in compliance, it was challenged by a third party, and the litigation is still pending. See DOAH Case No. 06-2417. Therefore, the County Plan is still the legally effective Plan. See § 163.3167(4), Fla. Stat. The Department is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing LDRs whenever the appeal process described in Section 163.3213, Florida Statutes, is invoked by a substantially affected person. History of the Controversy When Petitioners' property was purchased in 2001, the County zoning on the property was Light Industrial (IU-1), having been rezoned by the County to that designation on October 9, 1984. See Petitioners' Exhibit 5. One of the uses permitted under an IU-1 zoning classification is a hotel with up to 75 units per acre. See Petitioners' Exhibit 6. The land use designation on the County's LUP map for the property is Low- Density Residential (LDR), with One Density Bonus, which allows 2.5 to 6 residential units per acre with the ability for a "bump-up" in density to 5 to 13 units per acre if the development includes specific urban design characteristics according to the County urban design guide book. Language found on pages I-62 and I-63 of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) in effect at the time of the incorporation of the City (now found on pages I-73 and I-74 of the current version of the FLUE) provides in relevant part as follows: Uses and Zoning Not Specifically Depicted on the LUP Map. Within each map category numerous land uses, zoning classifications and housing types may occur. Many existing uses and zoning classifications are not specifically depicted on the Plan map. . . . All existing lawful uses and zoning are deemed to be consistent with the [Plan] unless such a use or zoning (a) is found through a subsequent planning study, as provided in Land Use Policy 4E, to be inconsistent with the criteria set forth below; and (b) the implementation of such a finding will not result in a temporary or permanent taking or in the abrogation of vested rights as determined by the Code of Metropolitan Dade County, Florida. As noted above, if there is a concern that zoning might be inconsistent with land use, using the criteria described in the provision, the County may initiate a planning study to analyze consistency and down-zone the property to a less intense use if an inconsistency is found. Although the County initiated a number of planning studies after it adopted its Plan in 1993, and ultimately down-zoned many properties, none was ever initiated by the County for Petitioners' property. Essentially, when existing uses and zoning are not depicted on the County LUP map, the language in the FLUE operates to deem lawfully existing zoning consistent with the land use designation on the property. In this case, the parties agree that the zoning of Petitioners' property is not depicted on the County LUP map. Therefore, absent a planning study indicating an inconsistency, the zoning is deemed to be consistent with the land use category. On August 22, 2007, the City adopted Ordinance No. 2007-12, which enacted a new LDC, effective September 1, 2007, to replace the then-controlling County Land Use Code. Although the LDC was adopted for the purpose of implementing the new City Plan, until the new Plan becomes effective, the LDC implements the County Plan. Amendments to the LDC were adopted by Ordinance No. 2008-1 on February 27, 2008. The LDC does not change the zoning on Petitioners' property. However, it contains a provision in Chapter 1, Section 5, known as the Zoning Compatibility Table (Table), which sets forth the new land use categories in the City Plan (which are generally similar but not identical to the County land use categories) and the zoning districts for each category. Pertinent to this dispute is an asterisk note to the Table which reads in relevant part as follows: Under no circumstances shall the density, intensity, or uses permitted be inconsistent with that allowed on the city's future land use plan. . . . Zoning districts that are inconsistent with the land use map and categories shall rezone prior to development. See Petitioners' Exhibit 27 at p. I-3. Under the Table, only residential zoning districts (with up to ten dwelling units per acre and no density bonus) are allowed in the City's proposed LDR land use category. Therefore, if or when the City Plan becomes effective, before Petitioners can develop their property, they must rezone it to a district that is consistent with the land use designation shown on the Table. There is no specific requirement in the LDC that the City conduct a planning study when it has a concern that the zoning is inconsistent with the relevant land use category in the new City Plan. Petitioners construed the asterisk note as being inconsistent with the text language on pages I-62 and I-63 of the County Plan. See Finding of Fact 5, supra. Accordingly, on August 21, 2008, Petitioners submitted a Petition to the City pursuant to Section 163.3213(3), Florida Statutes, alleging generally that they were substantially affected persons; that the LDC was inconsistent with the County Plan; that the LDC changes the regulations regarding character, density, and intensity of use permitted by the County Plan; and that the LDC was not compatible with the County Plan, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.023.2 See Petitioners' Exhibit 103. The City issued its Response to the Petition on November 20, 2008. See Petitioners' Exhibit 104. The Response generally indicated that Petitioners did not have standing to challenge the LDC; that the Petition lacked the requisite factual specificity and reasons for the challenge; that the LDC did not change the character, density, or intensity of the permitted uses under the County Plan; and the allegation concerning compatibility lacked factual support or allegations to support that claim. On December 22, 2008, Petitioners filed a Petition with the Department pursuant to Section 163.3213(3), Florida Statutes, alleging that the LDC implements a City Plan not yet effective; that the LDC changes the uses, densities, and intensities permitted by the existing County Plan; and that the LDC changes the uses, densities, and intensities permitted by the not yet effective City Plan. See Petitioners' Exhibit 105. After conducting an informal hearing on April 7, 2009, as authorized by Section 163.3213(4), Florida Statutes, on July 23, 2009, the Department issued a Determination of Consistency of a Land Development Regulation (Determination). See Petitioners' Exhibit 102. See also Section 7 Tract 64 Property, Inc., et al. v. The City of Doral, Fla., Case No. DCA09-LDR-270, 2009 Fla. ENV LEXIS 119 (DCA July 23, 2009). In the Determination, the Department concluded that Petitioners were substantially affected persons and had standing to file their challenge; that the provision on pages I-62 and I-63 of the County FLUE did not apply to Petitioners' property because the uses and zoning of the property are specifically designated on the LUP map; that the law does not prohibit the Department from reviewing the LDC for consistency with the not yet effective City Plan; and that because the LDC will require Petitioners to rezone their property to be consistent with the City Plan, the challenge is actually a challenge to a rezoning action and not subject to review under this administrative process. See § 163.3213(2)(b), Fla. Stat. On August 13, 2009, Petitioners filed their Petition for Formal Proceedings with DOAH raising three broad grounds: that the LDC unlawfully implements a comprehensive plan not yet effective; that it changes the uses, densities, and intensities permitted by the County Plan and is therefore inconsistent with the County Plan; and that it changes the uses, densities, and intensities permitted by the not yet effective City Plan and is inconsistent with that Plan. See Petitioners' Exhibit 39. These issues are repeated in the parties' Stipulation. As to other issues raised by Petitioners, and evidence submitted on those matters over the objection of opposing counsel, they were tried without consent of the parties, and they are deemed to be beyond the scope of this appeal. The Objections Petitioners first contend that the LDC unlawfully implements a comprehensive plan not yet in effect, in that it was specifically intended to be compatible with, further the goals or policies of, and implement the policies and objectives of, the City Plan. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.023. But Petitioners cited no statute or rule that prohibits a local government from adopting LDRs before a local plan is effective, or that implement another local government's plan (in this case the County Plan). While the LDC was adopted for the purpose of implementing a City Plan that the City believed would be in effect when the LDC was adopted, the City agrees that until the new City Plan becomes effective, the LDC implements the County Plan. Even though the two Plans are not identical, and may even be inconsistent with each other in certain respects, this does automatically create an inconsistency between the LDC and County Plan. Rather, it is necessary to determine consistency between those two documents, and not the City Plan. Except for testimony regarding one provision in the LDC and its alleged inconsistency with language in the County FLUE, no evidence was presented, nor was a ground raised, alleging that other inconsistencies exist. The Table note and the County Plan do not conflict. The LDC is not "inconsistent" merely because it was initially intended to implement a local plan that has not yet become effective. Petitioners next contend that the LDC changes the uses, densities, and intensities permitted by the County Plan and is therefore inconsistent with that Plan. Specifically, they contend that the note following the Zoning Compatibility Table in Chapter 1, Section 5 of the LDC is inconsistent with the language on pages I-62 and 63 (now renumbered as pages I-73 and I-74) of the County Plan. In other words, they assert that an inconsistency arises because the note requires them to down- zone their property before development, while the County Plan deems their zoning to be consistent with the County LUP map unless a special planning study is undertaken. The evidence establishes that if there is a conflict between zoning and land use on property within the City, it is necessary to defer to the language on pages I-62 and I-63 of the County FLUE for direction. This is because the County Plan is the effective plan for the City. Under that language, if no planning study has been conducted, the zoning would be deemed to be consistent with the land use. On the other hand, if a planning study is undertaken, and an inconsistency is found, the property can be rezoned in a manner that would make it consistent with the land use. Therefore, the LDC does not change the use, density, or intensity on Petitioners' property that is permitted under the County Plan. It is at least fairly debatable that there is no conflict between the Table note and the County Plan. Finally, Petitioners contend that the LDC changes the uses, densities, and intensities permitted by the not yet effective City Plan because the current industrial zoning designation will be inconsistent with the LDR land use designation. Petitioners argue that once the new City Plan becomes effective, the LDC requires them to down-zone their property before development. However, this concern will materialize only if or when the new City Plan, as now written, becomes effective; therefore, it is premature. Further, the definition of "land development regulation" specifically excludes "an action which results in zoning or rezoning of land." See § 163.3213(2)(b), Fla. Stat. Because the challenged regulation (the note to the Table) is "an action which results in zoning or rezoning of land," the issue cannot be raised in an administrative review of land development regulations. Id. The other contentions raised by Petitioner are either new issues that go beyond the scope of the Petition filed in this case or are without merit.
