The Issue The issue is whether the small scale development amendment adopted by Respondent, Santa Rosa County (County), by Ordinance No. 2005-R-70 on February 23, 2006, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: The record in this case is extremely brief, thus accounting for the brevity of this Recommended Order. Petitioners, Larry Seal and Michelle Seal, reside at 7564 East Bay Boulevard, Navarre, Florida, an unincorporated community within the County. Although Boardwalk did not present any evidence at the hearing, for background purposes only, the parties' pleadings show that Boardwalk is a limited liability corporation which owns a 1.15-acre parcel in Navarre, Florida, and is seeking to have the land use designation on that property changed from Single-Family Residential to Commercial. The pleadings also show that the amendment was adopted by the County on February 23, 2006. Mr. Seal resides within the County. Also, he attended the County meeting on February 23, 2006, and offered comments in opposition to the amendment. As such, he is an affected person and has standing to participate in this proceeding. Mrs. Seal did not attend the final hearing. However, Mrs. Seal's interests are represented by her husband. See Petitioners' Exhibit 1. Whether she owns property adjacent to Intervenor's parcel, as alleged in the Petition, and whether Mr. Seal made comments on her behalf at the County meeting, was not established through Mr. Seal's testimony. Without citing specific portions of the Plan, in their Petition, Petitioners alleged only that the small scale development amendment adopted by the County is internally inconsistent with the Plan.2 Despite this lack of specificity, no discovery was taken by the parties prior to the hearing. At the hearing, Mr. Seal, who is a lay person, asserted that the amendment was inconsistent with Housing Element Policies 51B4 and 51B5 and with undisclosed portions of the Future Land Use Element. (Copies of the Plan itself were not introduced into evidence.) However, it became evident that the two cited policies in the Housing Element relate to land development regulations and are therefore irrelevant.3 See, e.g., Brevard County v. Dept. of Community Affairs et al., DOAH Case Nos. 00- 1956GM and 02-0391GM (DOAH Dec. 16, 2002; DCA Feb. 25, 2003) 2003 Fla. ENV LEXIS 20 at *7 (consistency with land development regulations is not a compliance criterion); Robbins et al. v. Dept. of Community Affairs et al., DOAH Case No. 97-0754GM (DOAH Oct. 30, 1997; DCA Dec. 9, 1997) 1997 Fla. ENV LEXIS 231 at *18 (land development regulations are not relevant to a plan or plan amendment compliance determination). Mr. Seal also asserted that the amendment contravened a resource extraction policy in the Conservation Element but later withdrew that assertion. That policy also appears to have no application to the map amendment. After the County's objection to testimony regarding land development regulations was sustained, Mr. Seal indicated that he did not intend to present any other evidence since the remainder of his prepared testimony related to that subject. Although he was given an opportunity to present further relevant evidence, he rested his case. The County and Boardwalk elected not to offer any evidence in response to Mr. Seal's testimony. Except for a Special Power of Attorney executed by Mr. Seal's wife, no documentary evidence, such as copies of relevant portions of the Plan, the existing and proposed FLUM, drawings or aerial photographs of the property and adjacent area, the application, or the Ordinance which adopted the amendment, was offered into evidence by any party.4 Because Boardwalk did not present any evidence, there is no basis upon which to determine whether it presented written or oral comments, recommendations, or objections to the County during the adoption of the amendment. (In its Motion to Intervene, Boardwalk did allege that such comments were made.) Therefore, there is no evidence to establish that Intervenor is an affected person and has standing to participate 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 small scale plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2005-R-070 is in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of June, 2006, 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 6th day of June, 2006.
The Issue The issue is whether the City of Naples' plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 03-10305 on December 17, 2003, is not in compliance for the reasons alleged in Collier County's Petition for Administrative Hearing (Petition).
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background In 2003, the City began the planning process to adopt an amendment to its Plan which would restrict, but not prohibit, the construction of traffic overpasses or flyovers within the City. Under the process in place for adopting amendments, a City planner initially drafts a proposed amendment; the draft amendment is presented in the form of a recommendation to the City Planning Advisory Board (Board); and the Board then forwards a recommendation to the City Council for a final decision. On July 2, 2003, the City staff submitted a Report to the Board recommending that a new Policy 1-10 be added to the Plan's Transportation Element, which read as follows: Due to impacts on traffic and aesthetics, the City shall not permit construction of road overpasses or flyovers in favor of alternative planning solutions that will improve the long-term traffic circulation patterns in the City. On July 9, 2003, the Board considered the Report and recommended that the language in the amendment be slightly amended by adding the word "vehicle" before the word "road" to clarify the kind of overpass addressed by the amendment. The Board then submitted a recommendation to the City Council that it adopt the following amendment: Due to impacts on traffic and aesthetics, the City shall not permit construction of vehicle road overpasses or flyovers in favor of alternative planning solutions that will improve the long-term traffic circulation patterns in the City. On October 8, 2003, the proposed amendment was transmitted to the Department for its preliminary review. After reviewing the proposal, on December 12, 2003, the Department issued a two-page letter which served as its Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report. In the ORC, the Department offered three comments regarding the proposed amendment: that the City had not "defined the circumstances under which an overpass or flyover would be allowed by the City"; that "issues of this nature are best addressed through the use of existing intergovernmental coordination"; and that the City was encouraged to resolve this matter through the MPO and other intergovernmental coordination avenues available to the City and County. However, there were no objections to the language in the amendment. (A comment in the ORC is advisory in nature, while an objection represents an assertion by the Department that there are inconsistencies in the proposed amendment.) On November 17 and 21, 2004, the Council submitted letters to the City indicating that it "had no adverse comments" to the amendment. After the City adopted the amendment, though, the Council decided to revise its recommendation to the Department and suggested that the amendment be slightly modified by adding language requiring the City to consider alternative planning solutions "in a timely manner." However, the Council supports the overall substance of the amendment. On December 17, 2003, the City approved the amendment without further changes. The amendment was then forwarded to the Department for its compliance determination. On February 13, 2004, the Department published its Notice determining that the amendment was in compliance. Since 1989, and at a cost of several million dollars, the County has been involved in the planning process for infrastructure needed to alleviate traffic demands at or near the intersection of Golden Gate Parkway and Airport-Pulling Road. One quadrant of the intersection lies within the City; the remaining portion of the intersection lies within the County. During this process, and based on recommendations by outside consultants, the County determined that a vehicle overpass (known as the Golden Gate Overpass) would be the most effective traffic planning solution. Alleging that the new amendment was designed solely for the purpose of prohibiting the construction of that overpass, on March 5, 2004, the County filed its Petition challenging the new amendment. As set forth in the parties' Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulations, the County raises three broad grounds for finding the amendment not in compliance: that the amendment is not based on the best available data and analyses, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(2); that the amendment is inconsistent with other provisions within the Plan; and that the amendment lacks coordination with the County's Plan, in violation of Section 163.3177(4), Florida Statutes. The undersigned has rejected as untimely a contention raised for the first time by the County in its Proposed Recommended Order that the amendment is vague and lacks meaningful and predictable standards.2 Finally, because the Department and the City both contest the standing of the County to bring this action, that issue must also be resolved. Standing To demonstrate standing, the County, as an adjoining local government, must prove that the plan amendment "will produce substantial impacts on the increased need for publicly funded infrastructure or substantial impacts on areas designated for protection or special treatment within [its] jurisdiction." § 163.3184(1)(a), Fla. Stat. Therefore, the County must prove that the plan amendment prohibits the construction of the Golden Gate Overpass and that this prohibition will result in the substantial adverse impacts described in the statute. On its face, the amendment restricts, but does not prohibit, the construction of vehicle overpasses within the City. That is, the amendment merely states a preference on the part of the City for "alternative planning solutions" before a vehicle overpass may be permitted. This general expression of policy preferences cannot be read as a blanket prohibition on overpasses, or a specific direction to deny any request by the County that the overpass be constructed. If the amendment is found to be in compliance, the precise manner in which it will be implemented is unknown. These details, however, are not the subject of this dispute. In any event, until the City actually implements the amendment and makes a decision that another alternative planning solution exists, there can be no "substantial impacts on the increased need for publicly funded infrastructure or substantial impacts on areas designated for protection or special treatment," as required by the statute. In support of its standing claim, the County argues that if the amendment is found to be in compliance, the City may implement the amendment in an arbitrary manner. Assuming this to be a legitimate concern, there can still be no "substantial impacts" until a decision is made by the City. The County also points out that in a meeting of the City Council on April 21, 2004, or four months after the amendment was adopted, the City determined that the amendment applies to the Golden Gate Overpass, and that as of that date, the County had still not "satisfied the requirement" that it explore alternative planning solutions. The City did not vote, however, to prohibit the overpass. That post-adoption determination by the City in no way alters the finding that the amendment will not produce substantial impacts on the increased need for publicly-funded infrastructure. As noted above, these impacts, if any, will not occur until the amendment is implemented in a manner adverse to the County's interests. Accordingly, the evidence supports a finding that the County is not an affected person and lacks standing to file this challenge.3 Although this ruling is dispositive of the case, for the purpose of rendering a complete Recommended Order, the County's compliance contentions will be addressed below. The Plan Amendment The goal of the Transportation Element of the Plan is as follows: Provide an efficient, balanced, attractive, and safe multimodal system of transportation facilities in accordance with recognized safety standards, various land use demands and environmental considerations unique to the City of Naples. Under the goal, the Plan contains eight adopted objectives. Objective 1 reads as follows: Protect the character of existing and future residential neighborhoods by maintaining the integrity of the City's identified collector and arterial circulation plan and, where possible, manage traffic flow to protect the residential neighborhoods. Prior to the enactment of the amendment, the Plan contained nine adopted policies to implement this objective. These policies further Objective 1 by requiring that the City ensure the protection of neighborhoods when assessing transportation improvements. For example, street improvements should be evaluated to "protect residential neighborhoods" (Policy 1-1); the City shall "require landscape buffers between residential neighborhoods and arterials" (Policy 1-2); and the City should enhance flow on major roads to divert traffic from "neighborhood collectors and local streets" (Policy 1-4). The amendment adds a tenth policy under Objective 1 to read as follows: Due to impacts on traffic and aesthetics, the City shall not permit construction of vehicle road overpasses or flyovers in favor of alternative planning solutions that will improve the long-term traffic circulation patterns in the City. The new policy is intended to apply to road improvements throughout the City, and not just the Golden Gate Overpass, and would require that "feasible alternative planning solutions" be explored before a vehicle road overpass is permitted. The policy is not intended to act as an absolute prohibition on overpasses in general or any one specific overpass, but only "restricts construction of vehicle road overpasses . . . in the City" if other alternative planning solutions exist. By requiring this type of analysis, the City can further Objective 1 by "protect[ing] residential neighborhoods." Golden Gate Parkway is an east-west arterial roadway that traverses both the City and the County. The County is responsible for maintaining and improving the entire length of Golden Gate Parkway, including that portion lying within the City. Airport-Pulling Road is a north-south thoroughfare that traverses both the City and the County. The two roads intersect around two miles north of the Naples Municipal Airport in the northeastern corner of the City. Three of the four quadrants of the intersection are within the County, while the fourth is within the City. Data and Analysis In the context of the requirement that plan amendments be supported by data and analyses requirement, there are two types of amendments: mandatory and aspirational. A mandatory amendment is one that is required by Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, or Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J-5. Conversely, an aspirational or qualitative amendment is not required by statute or rule. The most common example of an aspirational amendment is one which prohibits skyscrapers or imposes a height restriction on structures within the boundaries of a local government. The County contends that the plan amendment is not supported by data and analyses, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(2). That rule requires that all policies "shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and the analyses applicable to each element." When the amendment package was transmitted to the Department on October 8, 2003, it contained no supporting data and analyses. The City's submission, however, was consistent with the Department's long-standing view, supported by the evidence here, that if an amendment is aspirational in nature, it does not require supporting data and analyses. This is because an aspirational amendment is merely a policy choice by a local government which has a limited or cosmetic effect. Or as stated by Department witness Gauthier, Policy 1-10 is "conditional in nature . . . and it would rely on . . . some subsequent analysis and decision-making [by the City]." In other words, "the scenarios and what direction the policy take will really depend on activities and assessments by the City, which happen later." Therefore, it requires little, if any, data and analyses. Here, the restriction on overpasses is an aspirational amendment, and it represents a policy choice on the part of the City that expresses disfavor for overpasses and flyovers and a preference for at-grade improvements. The amendment does not excuse the City from complying with any of the substantive planning requirements imposed by Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, or Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J-5. The only change accomplished by the amendment is to favor at-grade improvements as the primary way to address level of service standards and access points and other substantive planning requirements. It also represents the City's primary choice when planning for transportation needs with other regional and state entities. Given the nature of the amendment, there is no need for "appropriate and relevant data and analysis" within the meaning of the rule. Notwithstanding the fact that no data and analyses were required, at the time the amendment was adopted, the City had numerous traffic studies indicating that there are often alternatives to overpasses.4 Information was also available which indicated that overpasses can have negative aesthetic impacts on neighborhoods; that overpasses can cause traffic impacts by moving congestion from one intersection to another; and that improvements which improve long-term vehicle flow in the City will also impact the County. Besides the foregoing data, the City had received citizens' concerns about the traffic impacts of intersections and their desire to seek alternatives to overpasses before authorizing one to be built. Assuming arguendo that data are required to support an aspirational amendment, it is at least fairly debatable that the amendment is supported by adequate data and analyses. Consistency With Other Plan Provisions The County next contends that the amendment is inconsistent with portions of the Vision 2005 Work Plan (Vision 2005); certain introductory language in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE); Objective 6 and Policies 2-1, 5-4, and 8-1 of the Transportation Element; Policies 4-5 and 5-8 of the Capital Improvements Element; the Transportation Element Support Document; and the Goal, Objective 1, and Policies 1-2 and 1-6 of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element. All of the cited provisions generally relate to the City's responsibility to provide a safe and efficient transportation system, or they encourage the City to cooperate with the County and other entities in the planning process. For the following reasons, it is at least fairly debatable that Policy 1-10 does not conflict with the above-cited portions of the Plan. Vision 2005 Work Plan Vision 2005 (which was adopted in 1998) is a part of the Plan which identifies "desired future conditions through vision statements," and a "series of action plans [eleven strategies] to carry out this vision." The County contends that the amendment conflicts with Goal 3 and Objective 3-6 of Vision 2005. The cited goal provides that the "City should enhance its cooperative relationship with the County," while Objective 3-6 states that one of the City's objectives is to have "positive opportunities for the County to enhance its motivation to cooperate with the City." The County has failed to show that Policy 1-10 conflicts with the goal or objective in any respect. Therefore, the County's contention is found to be without merit. Future Land Use Element The County next contends that the amendment conflicts with certain language found in the Introduction portion of the FLUE. The precatory portion of the FLUE describes the general purposes of the FLUE, the principal implementation mechanisms, and the broad functions of the goals, objectives, and policies contained therein. There are, however, no goals, objectives, or policies within the Introduction itself. The County asserts that the amendment conflicts with that part of the Introduction which states that the goals, objectives, and policies within the FLUE should provide guidance for future growth and redevelopment based on the Vision 2005 strategy to "strengthen City and County cooperative planning programs." Assuming that consistency with this language is required under Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, there is nothing in Policy 1-10 that conflicts with this vision. Transportation Element The County also contends that the amendment conflicts with Objective 6 and Policies 2-1 and 5-4 of this element. Objective 6 requires that the City "[a]ssure intergovernmental consistency by an annual review of plans and programs with Collier County . . . ." Nothing in Policy 1-10 interferes with this objective. Policy 2-1 requires that, "based on a system wide study," the City "develop an efficient transportation network that encourages the diversion of traffic from local streets to collectors and arterials." Because Policy 1-10 will require system-wide studies to determine whether overpasses, or some other alternative, are the appropriate choice, the amendment is consistent with Policy 2-1. Policy 5-4 provides that [w]ith the cooperation of Collier County's Department of Transportation, [the City shall] limit direct access onto Goodlette- Frank Road from abutting properties by requiring properties fronting other roadways to use those for access where it is a safe alternative to access on Goodlette-Frank Road. This policy routes traffic from properties abutting Goodlette-Frank Road onto other roads. Because the County has failed to show any logical nexus between Policy 5-4 and Policy 1- 10, it is found that Policy 5-4 has no application to this controversy. Finally, Policy 8-1 requires that the City provide support data and analyses to the MPO as necessary to assist in the development of a public transportation system. Because this policy deals with public or mass transportation such as buses, and not vehicle transportation, Policy 8-1 has no application here. Transportation Element Support Document The City next contends that the amendment conflicts with certain language found in the Transportation Element Support Document. That document is attached to the Plan and is designed to fulfill the Transportation Element data and analyses requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.019. Among other things, the lengthy analyses of the data contains language stating that the intersection for the Golden Gate Overpass is "under Collier County's jurisdiction"; that there will be "increased traffic" in the area of the overpass; that a new interchange to be constructed at Interstate 75 and Golden Gate Parkway (several miles east of the proposed overpass) will generate "heavy traffic"; and that the City "should enhance its cooperative relationship with the County." Assuming that consistency with a support document is required in a compliance determination, the County has not demonstrated that Policy 1-10 conflicts with the cited language. Capital Improvements Element The County also contends that the amendment conflicts with Policies 4-5 and 5-8 in the Capital Improvements Element of the Plan. Policy 4-5 requires the City to Revise the Capital Improvements Program in the future to include projects and programs listed in the Comprehensive Plan which are in addition to those needed to maintain level of service standards or to correct deficiencies if not correctly funded. (Emphasis added). The County contends that the amendment conflicts with the underscored portion of the policy. However, this policy simply requires revisions to the City's capital improvements program to maintain level of service or to correct deficiencies. There is nothing in Policy 1-10 that interferes with the ability of the City to revise its program in the future to satisfy those concerns. Policy 5-8 generally requires that the City coordinate its capital improvements program with all other agencies that provide public facilities to the City and that it participate in the plans of any agency providing public facilities within the City. However, Policy 1-10 does not prevent the City from coordinating its projects with other state agencies, or prevent the City from participating in the plans of other agencies or local governments that provide public facilities. Intergovernmental Coordination Element The County further contends that the amendment conflicts with the Intergovernmental Coordination Element in three respects. First, it argues that because the amendment is inconsistent with the Collier County Plan, it is inconsistent with Objective 1 of this element. That objective requires in part that the City's Plan "should be consistent with the plans of Collier County, the School Board, and other units of government without regulatory authority over land use." Nothing in Policy 1-10 prevents the development of these mechanisms, nor does anything in the policy prevent addressing how the Plan impacts adjacent jurisdictions. Policy 1-2 of the same element requires that the City monitor the County's comprehensive planning efforts to ensure coordination and reduce conflicts between the two local governments. Nothing in Policy 1-10 interferes with those monitoring requirements. Policy 1-6 requires the development of joint planning agreements and land use studies between the County and the City to increase the consistency of land use within two miles of the City/County line. Again, nothing in the challenged policy conflicts with this requirement. Lack of Intergovernmental Coordination Finally, the County contends that because Policy 1-10 "is incompatible with the overpass designated in the Collier County Growth Management Plan, the 1989 interlocal agreement, [and] the Grey Oaks PUD, DRI, and DO," it violates Section 163.31771(4)(a), Florida Statutes. That statute essentially requires that there be "coordination" between the City's Plan and the comprehensive plan of the County (and other adjoining local governments, if any). The City provided a copy of the amendment to the County and received no objections. Moreover, nothing in Policy 1-10 changes either the objectives of the City to coordinate its Plan or the policies that define the relationship of the Plan to the plans of other local governments. While the City and the County may disagree over whether an overpass should be built, there is no evidence that Policy 1-10 affects the intergovernmental relations structures established by the two comprehensive plans. Stated differently, Policy 1-10 does not alter or remove objectives and policies in the Plan regarding coordination with the comprehensive plans of adjoining governments, nor does it conflict with the County's Plan, the MPO, or interlocal agreements of adjoining governments. In the same vein, the County argues that the City cannot express a preference for at-grade improvements without violating intergovernmental coordination because the overpass is in the MPO and the County's Plan. The inclusion of a project in the MPO and County's Plan, however, does not compel the City to accede to the project or risk inconsistency with the intergovernmental coordination provisions of its own Plan. See Department of Community Affairs et al. v. City of Fort Myers, Case No. 89-2159GM, 1992 WL 880106 at *31 (DOAH Jan. 7, 1992, Admin. Comm. April 8, 1992). Other Contentions All other contentions raised by the County not discussed herein or in the Endnotes have been considered and rejected as being without merit.
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 plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 03-2003-45 on December 17, 2003, is in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of August, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of August, 2004.
The Issue Have the Intervenors timely challenged the Hamilton County adoption of its comprehensive plan under the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes? If allowed to pursue their challenge, what is their burden of proof? Is it pursuant to Section 163.3184(9), Florida Statutes, (1991), the "fairly debatable" standard? Is it pursuant to Section 163.3184(10), Florida Statutes, (1991) the "preponderance" standard? Did Hamilton County (the County) fail to adopt its comprehensive plan within sixty (60) days from the receipt of written comments from the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) as required by Section 163.3184(7), Florida Statutes (1991)? If it did, was that failure jurisdictional thereby voiding the adoption process? Within the adopted plan, is Policy V.2.13 requiring special permits for hazardous and bio-medical waste treatment facilities and for their placement in areas designated agricultural and located with the rural area of Hamilton County, consistent with plan adoption requirements set forth in Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, (1991), Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, the State Comprehensive Plan set forth in Chapter 187, Florida Statutes (1991) and the North Central Florida Regional Policy Plan? Within the adopted plan is Policy 1.15.1 prohibiting the disposal of medical, bio-hazardous, hazardous or solid waste by incineration or by other methods which produce air pollution, other than by facilities permitted, legally sited and operated as of July 23, 1991, consistent with plan adoption requirements set forth in Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (1991), Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, the State Comprehensive Plan as set forth in Chapter 187, Florida Statutes, and the North Central Regional Policy Plan? More particularly must these policies meet and do they meet the requirements for surveys, studies and data set forth in Section 163.3177(6)(a),(8) and (10)(e), Florida Statutes (1991) and Rule 9J-5.005(2), Florida Administrative Code?
Findings Of Fact In December, 1990, Hamilton County prepared a proposed comprehensive plan. That proposal was submitted to the Department in accordance with Section 163.3184(3)(a), Florida Statutes. Within the Conservation Element of the proposed plan the County included Policy V.2.13, which stated: The County shall only allow hazardous and bio-medical waste treatment facilities as special permits within areas designated agricultural and located within the rural area of the County. Further, the County's land development regulations shall include conditions for such approval of a hazardous and bio-medical waste treatment facility as a special permit regarding the location, site design, buffer requirements, access to principal arterials and major intersections, requirements for appropriate public facilities, and require- ments which consider wind currents in relationship to population centers, which will direct any incinerated materials or noxious odors from these population centers. In no case shall a hazardous or bio-medical waste treatment facility be located within an Environmentally Sensitive Area as designated within this Comprehensive Plan. Policy V.2.13 was associated with Objective V.2 which states: The County shall include within the land development regulations, by 1992, provisions for the conservation, appropriate use and protection of the quality and quantity of current and projected water sources, water recharge areas and potable water wells. There was no specific data and analysis in the proposed plan directed to Policy V.2.13. Other policies associated with Objective V.2 addressed water issues. In the data and analysis which the County submitted to DCA with its proposed comprehensive plan the County did identify known pollution problems. This included a reference to point discharges for wastewater, non-point sources of water pollution, point air pollution sources and non-point sources of air pollution. None of the known activities were associated with hazardous and bio- medical waste treatment facilities. The data and analysis associated with the Conversation Element in the proposed plan also identified watersheds, wetlands, lakes, flood prone areas, and current water sources. The data and analysis further discussed the circumstances related to watersheds, wetlands, rivers, lakes, flood prone areas and air quality as the County perceived the existing conditions for those topics. Finally, the data and analysis spoke to the issue of projected water needs. No mention was made concerning how the aforementioned data and analysis would be considered in granting special permits for hazardous and bio-medical waste treatment facilities. On April 14, 1991, DCA transmitted its comments to the County concerning the proposed comprehensive plan and supporting data and analysis, together with its objections and recommendations for modifications to the proposed comprehensive plan. This activity was in accordance with Section 163.3184(6), Florida Statutes. The report that was transmitted is known as the "ORC" Report. The County received the ORC Report on April 22, 1991. The ORC Report made a number of objections to the objectives and policies set forth in the Conservation Element to the proposed comprehensive plan and recommendations for modifications to the same. The ORC Report specifically objected to Policy V.2.13 wherein the DCA stated: Policy V.2.13 does not describe the 'special permits' concerning hazardous and bio-medical waste treatment facilities within agricultural areas, does not define the extent of the buffers, and does not prohibit these facilities in conser- vation areas. The general recommendation to improve Policy V.2.13, among policies found within the Conservation Element, was to this effect: Provide data and analysis to support the above- referenced policies. Revise the policies to identify the specific implementation programs or activities that will be undertaken by the County to achieve the goal and objectives with which the policies are associated. Eliminate or define all conditional and vague language. Revise the Future Land Use Map to support the revised policies. The County then held two public hearings related to the adoption of a comprehensive plan. See Section 163.3184(15), Florida Statutes (1991). The first public hearing was held on June 18, 1991. At that time no decision was reached to adopt a comprehensive plan. The public hearing was adjourned. On July 23, 1991, the County reconvened the public hearing related to the comprehensive plan adoption. Following the second public hearing associated with the plan adoption, the County in the person of its Board of County Commissioners who had conducted the public hearings, adopted a comprehensive plan for Hamilton County. The adopted comprehensive plan was transmitted to DCA on July 30, 1991. The transmittal letter supporting the adopted comprehensive plan noted that the comprehensive plan was adopted on July 23, 1991. The transmittal letter pointed out the changes to the adopted comprehensive plan which were not reviewed by DCA when DCA considered the proposed comprehensive plan. As with the proposed comprehensive plan, the County submitted data and analysis with the adopted comprehensive plan pointing out the data and analysis accompanying the adopted comprehensive plan which had not been reviewed by the DCA when it considered data and analysis supporting the proposed comprehensive plan. Within the conservation element to the adopted comprehensive plan Objective V.2 remained as set forth in the proposed comprehensive plan. Certain policies associated with Objective V.2 had changed. However, Objective V.2. and its associated policies set forth in the adopted comprehensive plan continued to address water issues. In particular, Policy V.2.13 did not change with the plan adoption. Additional data and analysis submitted by the County supporting the Conservation Element to the adopted comprehensive plan deleted the Suwannee River State Park as a conservation area. Specific references were made to Jumping Gully Creek, Swift Creek, Hunter Creek and the Withlacoochee River and activities associated with those water bodies. However, as with the proposed plan it was not explained how the County intended to use the original and additional data and analysis in deciding special permit issues for hazardous and bio-medical waste treatment facilities. When the County adopted its comprehensive plan it added an objective and a policy that had not been included with the proposed comprehensive plan in the category of objectives and policies for both urban development areas and rural areas in the Future Land Use Element. New Objective I.15 stated: Residential areas shall be protected from uses which cause or result in greater than average noise, hazards or odors. The associated Policy I.15.1 stated: No medical, bio-hazardous, hazardous, or solid waste shall be disposed of by incineration or by any other method which produces air pollution emissions subject to permitting by the Department of Environmental Regulation within Hamilton County, unless the use or facility was permitted and otherwise legally sited and operated as of July 23, 1991. The supporting data and analysis which the County provided the Department with the adopted comprehensive plan did not address Objective I.15 nor Policy I.15.1, with the exception that residential land use projections are described. The adopted plan provided specific information concerning future residential land use. That description was supported by a residential land use need methodology and analysis of future residential land use needed. As with the proposed plan, the adopted plan included a reference to industrial land use within the Future Land Use Element. In both the proposed plan and the adopted plan in Policy 1.3.1 it was stated: Lands classified as industrial consist of areas used for the manufacturing, assembly processing or storage of products. Industrial development may be approved in areas of the County not designated industrial on the Future Land Use Plan upon submission and approval of a development plan which shall include at the least: an industrial site plan; traffic plan; and traffic impact studies; provisions for the construction and maintenance of a wastewater treatment system meeting requirements of the State of Florida for that use; and a submission of a Future Land Use Plan Map amendment to Industrial classification. Industrial uses shall be limited to an intensity of less than or equal to 1.0 floor area ratio. The data and analysis associated with industrial land use which had been provided with the proposed comprehensive plan remained consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan when describing the methodology for identifying projected industrial land use. The comments in the data and analysis supporting the proposed and adopted plans indicated: Projecting the need for additional acreage for industrial use cannot be approached using a methodology similar to those used for residential and commercial Future Land Use needs. This is due to the fact that there is no direct relationship between population and industrial location. The additional future acreages for industrial location are anticipated to occur on a site specific basis as needed at the time industrial activities are proposed. Within the adopted comprehensive plan, Future Land Use Element related to urban development areas and rural areas is found the general industrial land use classification. The general industrial land use designations are located in the central area of the county to the southwest of the City of Jasper along County Road 249. There is an additional limited industrial land use classification within the urban development area and rural area category. It identifies industrial opportunities at interchanges on Interstate 75. At these interchanges, upon submission of a site plan that comports with development standards, with due regard for safety and adequate access, light industrial development is allowed which does not require an air emission permit from the State of Florida. Industrial land use designations as well as other land use designations were based upon an analysis of the amount and character of undeveloped land in the county, reliable population projections and growth patterns anticipated for the area, together with the availability of the public services to accommodate the projected population. The adopted comprehensive plan includes a Future Land Use Map and Map Series found within the Future Land Use Element of the adopted plan which depicts industrial land use. Intervenors' property carries a general industrial classification in the future land use designation in the adopted plan. Intervenors' property is not located on the Interstate 75 corridor and therefore would not be considered for this special industrial land use classification. The North Central Florida Regional Planning Council (the Council) assisted the County in preparing its proposed and adopted plans. The Council staff were engaged in that process as early as 1986. From that point forward the Council staff conducted field surveys relating to land use, compiled data from existing data sources and reviewed population projections and growth patterns in Hamilton County. The Council staff compiled information concerning public facilities, recreational and solid waste facilities, information relating to physical capacity for those facilities and information concerning the financing of capital projects. In anticipation of the requirements set forth in Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, the Council staff conducted field surveys of existing land use to determine the character of undeveloped land in the county. The staff reviewed the population projections of the University of Florida Bureau of Business and Economic Research. These activities were designed to assist the County in analyzing the amount of land necessary to accommodate projected growth and the availability of public services. The Council staff was responsible for preparing the proposed plan statement related to goals, objectives, and policies. The staff also prepared the Future Land Use Plan Map. The documents prepared by the Council staff were subject to review and workshops were held to consider those matters. Modifications were brought about through public comments presented at the workshops. The Council staff prepared an evaluation, appraisal and review report to examine the success of previously adopted comprehensive plans. Following the conduct of workshops the public sessions for plan adoption were held on June 18, and July 23, 1991. As representative for the County, the Council staff invited the Department to send representatives to attend the public hearing sessions. The Department was represented at those sessions. In the public hearings related to the plan adoption, there was considerable public testimony expressing concern about health and environmental impacts involved with the incineration of bio-medical waste. In particular, remarks were made about air emissions of mercury and dioxins and the disposal of ash residue from the incineration process. Documents were also presented by members of the public who opposed waste incineration. One document was from the United States Environmental Protection Agency, entitled Seminar-Medical and Institutional Waste Incineration: Regulations, Management, Technology, Emissions and Operations. Another document was entitled Hazardous Waste News #82, June 20, 1988, identified as a weekly news and resource for citizens fighting toxins. A third document was entitled "Facts" related to definitions within Section 403.703, Florida Statutes and observations from the author of this document concerning Intervenors intended operations of a bio-medical incineration facility in Hamilton County. Finally, there was a document from the Hamilton County School Board calling for a buffer zone between any school in the county and facilities which incinerated or otherwise disposed of substances through incineration or other disposal means which would create air emissions from the destruction of solid waste, hazardous substances, bio-hazardous waste and biological waste as defined within Section 403.703, Florida Statutes. The Hamilton County School Board also expressed a desire to completely prohibit the incineration or other disposal of those substances which were generated outside Hamilton County. The EPA document spoke in terms of the emissions from incinerators as being particulate and gaseous emissions. The particulate emissions being constituted of char and soot and minerals in the form of metals, silicates and salts. The gaseous emissions referred to in the EPA document were constituted of combustible emissions such as hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, PCDD and PCDF and noncombustible emissions, such as nitrogen oxides, HCLs, hazardous compounds such as POHCs, products of incomplete combustion such as dioxins, and uncondensed volatile metals in excess air. Dr. Ralph Dougherty, an expert in environmental mass spectrometry, analytical chemistry and the chemistry of waste incineration, provided expert testimony concerning the significance of some of the information provided to the County in its public sessions. This testimony was presented at the administrative hearing. Dr. Dougherty did not attend the public hearing associated with the plan adoption. Dr. Dougherty in addressing the waste stream that is created by bio- medical waste described how the incineration process in destroying polyvinyl chloride, PVC plastic, saran wrap and neoprene converted those materials to chlorinated organics such as dioxin. As Dr. Dougherty established, dioxins are very hazardous substances. Kenneth Krantz appeared for the Intervenors at the public sessions for the plan adoption. At that time Basic Energy Corporation was known as TSI Southeast, Inc. (TSI). He provided written information to the county commissioners concerning the TSI bio-medical waste disposal business intended to be located in Hamilton County. TSI took no issue with Objective I.15 which was adopted on July 23, 1991. Intervenors proposed different text for policy I.15.1 and requested adoption of two additional policies I.15.2 and I.15.3 which would place some restrictions on solid waste disposal but would allow an opportunity for operating the TSI facility in the county. Information provided by Krantz in the public sessions indicated that TSI intended to operate a business to incinerate solid, bio-medical and solid municipal waste, together with a waste recycling area, Pelletizer area and turbine-generator area. Krantz addressed the county commissioners concerning county building permit information about the facility, permitting by the St. Johns River Water Management District and the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation. Information was provided concerning square footage for buildings within the overall TSI facility. Information was provided by TSI concerning the intended pollution control systems as being constituted of fabric filters and dry-lime injection systems, together with a detailed description of pending permit applications before the Department of Environmental Regulation for additional incineration units. Information provided by TSI addressed the expected constituents of the air emissions to include carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, organics such as dioxide, sulphur dioxide, hydrogen chloride and particulate matter. A site location map and schematic showing the flow within the waste stream was also provided. TSI also provided information at the public sessions about the Intervenors anticipated emissions rates for two previously permitted units and the third and fourth units that were being considered by the Department of Environmental Regulation. This data about emission rates included a comprehensive listing of anticipated emissions by pollutant type to include projected measurements of omissions for units one and two which would deal with medical waste combustion and units three and four which would deal with medical waste combustion and possibly refuse-derived fuel (RDF). As commented on by members of the public who appeared at the public sessions for adopting the plan, information provided by the Intervenors verified that significant amounts of pollutants would be discharged into the air through Intervenors' operations. TSI provided information concerning the modeling that was done to measure concentration levels for the expected pollutants. Information was provided concerning the incineration process and the manner in which calculations were made concerning expected emissions levels. Information was provided concerning anticipated annual and short term emission rates for the four units intended to be operated by the TSI. The technical information about the intended TSI facility was through documents that appeared to be from an engineering consulting firm. All information provided in the public sessions that has been described was properly available to the county commissioners when adopting the plan. The information provided at the public sessions which has been described was not presented to the Department with the adopted plan. As stated, on July 30, 1991, the County submitted its plan to the Department to determine if the adopted plan was in compliance with the requirements of law. See Section 163.3184(8), Florida Statutes (1991). On September 12, 1991, DCA issued a notice of intent to find the adopted plan, not "in compliance". See Section 163.3184(10), Florida Statutes (1991). Pursuant to that provision, DCA filed a petition with the Division of Administrative Hearings setting forth the reasons for its decision to find the adopted plan not "in compliance". That petition was filed on September 23, 1991. The DCA took no issue with Policies I.15.1 and V.2.13. On February 20, 1992, Intervenors petitioned to intervene in the not "in compliance" case. As identified in the statement of issues, the Intervenors were and continue to be opposed to the adoption of Policies I.15.1 and V.2.13. On March 17, 1992, an order was entered which granted the Intervenors leave to intervene. Intervenors own property in Hamilton County. As contemplated by Section 163.3184(16), Florida Statutes (1993), DCA and the County engaged in settlement discussions. This culminated in a stipulated settlement agreement executed by DCA and County on November 24, 1993. The stipulated settlement agreement is referred to in the statute as a compliance agreement. Intervenors did not join in the settlement. On January 18, 1994, the County adopted the remedial amendments, referred to in the statute as plan amendments pursuant to a compliance agreement called for by the compliance agreement. The remedial plan amendments were submitted to the Department for consideration. On March 10, 1994, DCA issued a cumulative notice of intent addressing the compliance agreement amendments and the plan. DCA gave notice that it attended to find the plan and remedial comprehensive plan amendments/compliance agreement amendments "in compliance" with Sections 163.3184 and 163.3187, Florida Statutes. Notwithstanding that the Intervenors did not submit further pleadings within 21 days of the publication of the cumulative notice of intent, the Intervenors were allowed to proceed with their challenge to the plan that was not the subject of the compliance agreement leading to the compliance agreement amendments.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and the conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding the Hamilton County comprehensive plan to be "in compliance" with the exception that Policy V.2.13 is only "in compliance" in its latter sentence, the remaining language in Policy V.2.13 is not "in compliance". DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of April, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of April, 1995. APPENDIX "A" CASE NO. 91-6038GM The following discussion is given concerning the proposed fact finding by the parties: Intervenors' Facts: Paragraph 1 is subordinate to facts found. The first sentence to Paragraph 2 is contrary to facts found. The remaining sentence is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 3 is rejected in its suggestion that there is a perpetual ban on bio-hazardous waste incineration. It is otherwise not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Intervenors' Facts: Paragraphs 1 through 7 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 8 is not relevant. Paragraphs 9 through 12 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 13 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 14 is subordinate to facts found with the exception that the date of adoption was January 18, 1994. Paragraphs 15 through 22 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 23 is not relevant. Paragraph 24 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 25 constitutes legal argument. Paragraph 26 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 27 through 31 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 32 through 38 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 39 and 40 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 41 is rejected to the extent that it is suggested that it constitutes agency policy. Paragraphs 42 through the first phrase in 49 are subordinate to facts found. The latter phrase in Paragraph 49 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 50 through 58 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 59 constitutes legal argument. Paragraphs 60 through 75 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 76 through 82 are rejected as not constituting allowable analysis of data presented in support of the plan adoption. Paragraphs 83 and 84 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 85 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 86 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 87 through 91 are rejected to the extent that it is suggested that some lesser standard is involved with consideration of data for optional plan elements as opposed to mandatory plan elements. See Section 163.3184(8), Florida Statutes (1991) and Section 120.57(1)(b)15, Florida Statutes (1993). Paragraph 92 is acknowledged but did not form the basis for fact finding in the recommended order. Paragraph 93 is rejected as intended to interpret Policy I.15.1 as an absolute prohibition against waste incineration in the County. Paragraph 94 constitutes legal argument. Paragraphs 95 through 102 are not relevant. Paragraphs 103 through 105 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 106 through 108 are subordinate to facts found with the exception of the rejection of Policy V.2.13 in part. COPIES FURNISHED: David L. Jordan, Esquire Terrell L. Arline, Esquire Suzanne Schmith, Certified Legal Intern Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 John H. McCormick, Esquire Post Office Box O Jasper, FL 32052 William L. Hyde, Esquire Gunster, Yoakley, Valdes-Fauli and Stewart, P.A. 515 North Adams Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Donald J. Schutz, Esquire Suite 415 535 Central Avenue St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Linda L. Shelley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Town of Yankeetown (Town) plan amendment 08-01 (adopted by Ordinance 2007-10) and plan amendment 08-CIE1 (adopted by Ordinance 2008-03), as modified by remedial amendment 09-R1 (adopted by Ordinance 2009-02) (together, referred to as the Plan Amendments or the Revised Comprehensive Plan), are "in compliance" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2009).1
Findings Of Fact The Town is located in the southwest corner of Levy County. The Town is bounded on the east by the Town of Inglis, on the north by unincorporated Levy County, on the west by the Gulf of Mexico, and on the south by the Withlacoochee River. The Town has significant planning challenges due to its geographic location. The maximum elevation in the Town is 10 feet, and the entire Town is located in the 100-year floodplain and Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA). The Town is located in a rural area north of the banks of the Withlacoochee River and is surrounded by wetlands and environmentally-sensitive land. The Town is located at the end of County Road 40, and is separated from the nearest intersection of major roads (State/County Road 40 and U.S. 19) by the Town of Inglis. The Plan Amendments are a community-generated plan that incorporates the results of an extensive community visioning survey conducted by the Town and numerous public meetings that exceeded the public participation requirements for plan amendments contained in Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 9J-53 and Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. The Plan Amendments resulted in a Revised Comprehensive Plan for the Town. IWI is a legal entity that owns land within the Town and submitted oral or written comments on the Plan Amendments during the period of time beginning with the transmittal hearing for the Plan Amendments and ending with the adoption of the Plan Amendments. IWI contends that the Plan Amendments are not "in compliance" for several reasons. Population Projections and Need In its pleadings, IWI contended that "[t]here is inadequate data regarding projected population growth and the infrastructure needed to support the projected population growth for both the short term (five years) and the long term (horizon of the plan)"; "[t]he Plan Amendment is not in compliance with [Section] 163.3177(6)(a) Florida Statutes, by failing to provide future land use categories that are based on need"; and "[t]he Plan Amendment is not in compliance with the requirements of 9J- 5.006, Florida Administrative Code, demonstrating that future land use is based on need." Prehearing Stipulation § 2.H., U., and GG. However, its expert planning witness, Gail Easely, conceded that the data and analysis submitted by the Town was adequate to demonstrate that the residential land uses in the Revised Comprehensive Plan are based on need. IWI limited its contention on this point to the alleged inadequacy of the data and analysis to support the Revised Comprehensive Plan's new Light Industrial land use and revised commercial land use designations. The Revised Comprehensive Plan designates the same areas for commercial as the currently effective Comprehensive Plan, with the exception of one parcel that was changed from commercial to Light Industrial. The Revised Comprehensive Plan designates the commercial parcels near the Withlacoochee River as Commercial Water Dependent and the other commercial parcels as Commercial Neighborhood, totaling approximately 51 acres. Of the 51 acres of commercially-designated land, approximately 26 acres are currently developed and 25 acres are vacant and undeveloped. Of the 26 developed commercial acres, 19 parcels are currently developed and utilized as residential. There is no shortage of land available for commercial development in the Town. Inglis, a town located adjacent and to the east of Yankeetown, and Levy County near Yankeetown provide "more than adequate" existing commercial buildings on the market to serve the residents of Yankeetown and surplus vacant commercially- designated land to serve the future needs of Yankeetown. There is no shortage of commercial potential near the Town. The evidence was that it is acceptable for a local government to plan for the future need for the availability of commercial and industrial lands by maintaining the existing proportionate of availability of land use categories. Alternatively, it is acceptable to plan to mimic the proportions found to exist in other communities. This is essentially how the Town planned its allocation of commercial and industrial lands in its Revised Comprehensive Plan. IWI also contended that the intensity standards for commercial and industrial land uses in the Revised Comprehensive Plan unduly restrict commercial development. The existing Comprehensive Plan did not have explicit intensity standards and criteria for commercial land uses. After extensive debate at numerous public hearings, the Revised Comprehensive Plan established a floor/area ration (FAR) of 0.07, which limits the size for each single structure to a maximum of 3,000 square feet. It also allows for multiple 3,000 square foot structures on larger parcels in a "campus style" development. These standards and criteria reflect the existing, built environment of the Town and the Town's vision of itself. Existing commercial buildings run from 960 square feet to 3,600 square feet. Although the existing Comprehensive Plan did not have an FAR ratio, other standards--such as setbacks, square footage required for on-site septic tanks, drainfields, and parking, a 50 percent open space ratio, and a building height restriction of 35 feet--restricted commercial development in a manner similar to the Revised Comprehensive Plan. Petitioner's expert economist, Dr. Fishkind, testified that the restrictions on intensity of commercial land uses are not financially feasible because not enough revenue can be generated to make a profit, given the cost of land in Yankeetown. His testimony was refuted by his University of Florida colleague, Dr. James Nicholas, who was called as an expert economist for the Town. Dr. Nicholas pointed out that there was some commercial use in the Town and that economics would lower the cost of land in the Town if it is too expensive to allow the kind of commerce desired by the Town to make a reasonable profit. Businesses requiring more space to make sufficient revenue could locate outside the Town but close enough in Inglis or Levy County to serve Yankeetown as well. The character of the Town, its limited projected population growth, and the availability of commercial development nearby in Inglis and in Levy County all support the Town's decision to limit the intensity of commercial land use, and to maintain the existing amount of land available for commercial and light industrial uses. 15. Rules 9J-5.006(1)(a)(3) and 9J-5.006 (4)(a)(3) require the designation of some industrial lands, and the Revised Comprehensive Plan changes the designation of six acres of land located to the west of the intersection of County Roads 40 and 40-A from "Commercial" to "Light Industrial." Since industrial uses are generally not compatible with residential uses, the Light Industrial parcel is separated from residential parcels by commercial. The Light Industrial parcel is allocated for more intense commercial uses (such as fishing trap and boat storage) or reserved for economic development of light industrial uses that may wish to locate in Yankeetown, such as aquaculture. The existing ratio of residential to commercial land is adequate to supply the existing need as reflected by the existing surplus, vacant, and unused commercial lands. The Plan Amendments maintain residential lands and commercial lands in their general designations with refinements to the categories. The existing ratio and availability of vacant commercial land indicate that there is no deficit in any category, and maintaining the existing residential/commercial ratio preserves the existing character of the Town. Urban Service Area versus Urban Service Boundary IWI contends that "[t]he Plan Amendment is not in compliance with [Section] 163.3177(14), Florida Statutes, by failing to ensure that the urban service boundary was appropriately adopted and based on demonstrated need." This contention has no merit. Section 163.3177(14), Florida Statutes, encourages a local government to adopt an "urban service boundary." If one is adopted, there must be a demonstration "that the amount of land within the urban service boundary does not exceed the amount of land needed to accommodate the projected population growth at densities consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan within the 10-year planning timeframe." If a local government chooses to adopt an "urban service boundary" under Section 163.3177(14) and a community vision under Section 163.3177(13), Florida Statutes, it may adopt plan amendments within the urban service boundary without state or regional agency review. See § 163.3184(17), Fla. Stat. The Revised Comprehensive Plan does not use the term "urban service boundary," and the Town did not intend to adopt one under Section 163.3177(14), Florida Statutes, nor did it seek to avoid state and regional agency review of plan amendments under Section 163.3184(17), Florida Statutes. Instead, as explained on page 6 of the Revised Comprehensive Plan, it uses the term "urban area" to designate an area allowed to receive development rights from the sending area, namely the Residential Environmentally Sensitive (formerly Conservation) land use district. The Revised Comprehensive Plan uses the term urban service "area" (rather than "boundary") as the area located generally between County Roads 40 and 40-A that can receive development rights transferred from the Residential Environmentally Sensitive land use district. This area is depicted as "Urban Service Area Overlay Zones" Map 2008-02 of the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) series to more clearly designate the area on a larger scale than the FLUM map of the entire Town (Map 2008-05). The existing FLUM series also used the term "urban area" to depict the transfer of development rights receiving area. Financial Feasibility and Capital Improvements IWI’s expert, Dr. Henry Fishkind, testified that he ran his Fiscal Impact Analysis Model for the Town and concluded that the Revised Comprehensive Plan is not financially feasible because the Town cannot generate sufficient operating revenue to cover its operating costs without increasing property tax rates. Dr. Fishkind was not asked to explain how his computer model works, give any specific modeling results, or explain how he reached his conclusion. The Town's expert, Dr. James Nicholas, refuted his University of Florida colleague's testimony on this point as well. Essentially, Dr. Nicholas testified that a small and unique community like Yankeetown can choose to limit its operating costs by relying on volunteers and part-time employees. In this way, it can operate on a bare-bones budget that would starve a more typical and larger community. It also could choose to increase property tax rates, if necessary. Recent amendments to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, in Senate Bill 360, the "Community Renewal Act," which became effective June 1, 2009, postponed and extended until December 1, 2011, the statutory requirement to maintain the financial feasibility of the five-year capital improvements schedule (CIS) for potable water, wastewater, drainage, parks, solid waste, public schools, and water supply. However, the Town concurred with Petitioner in requesting findings of fact and conclusions of law on this issue in case Senate Bill 360 is struck down in a pending constitutional challenge. The Plan Amendments include a CIE (Chapter 8) with a five-year CIS and a table to identify sources of revenue and capital projects sufficient to achieve and maintain the adopted levels of service, supported by data and analysis submitted with the Remedial Amendments. The Town's CIS five-year lists projects to achieve and maintain the adopted level of service (LOS) standards and identifies funding sources to pay for those projects. It describes the projects and conservatively projects costs and revenue sources. The CIS identifies revenue sources and capital projects for which there are committed funds in the first three years and identifies capital projects for which funds have not yet been committed in year four or year five. CIS is adequate to achieve and maintain the adopted level of service and is financially feasible. Stormwater and Drainage A drainage LOS is adopted in Revised Comprehensive Plan Policy 4.1.2.1, which states: "All new development and expansion of existing residential development greater than 300 square feet of additional impervious coverage shall meet requirements under Chapter 62-25, F.A.C. for Outstanding Florida Waters." The exemption of minor residential improvements of 300 square feet or less is reasonable and does not violate Rule Chapter 9J-5 or Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. The Department's ability to require retrofitting for existing drainage problems is limited by Rule Chapter 9J- 5.011(2)(c)5.b.i., which states that the Rule "shall not be interpreted or applied to [m]andate that local governments require existing facilities to be retrofitted to meet stormwater discharge water quality standards or stormwater management level of service standards." Nonetheless, the Town agreed in the Compliance Agreement to adopt appropriate policies and provide additional data and analysis on this issue. Policy 4.1.2.13 requires that the "Established Storm Water Drainage Committee shall monitor storm water facilities in [the] town, oversee maintenance functions, and evaluate and recommend capital improvements projects and funding sources." To pay for stormwater capital improvement projects, Policy 4.1.2.14 in the Plan Amendments states: "Yankeetown shall adopt a storm water utility fee ordinance and establish storm water utility fees by December 31, 2009 to provide necessary funding for capital improvements to the Town's storm water drainage facilities and maintenance of storm water drainage facilities." In accordance with the Compliance Agreement, the Town modified CIS Table 1 by adding $120,000 to FY 2011-2012 (Year 5) for the stormwater drainage improvement project and adding Note 5 to Table 1, which states: "Anticipated to be funded by a 75%/25% matching grant from SWFWMD, DEP or DCA. The matching (town) funds will be obtained from the proposed stormwater improvement fund. If no grants can be obtained and the stormwater improvement fund is not approved[,] the project will be funded from the general fund reserves and long term loans." Because the stormwater utility fee ordinance must still be adopted, and these funds are not technically committed at the time of adoption of the Plan Amendments, the stormwater capital improvement project was placed in year 5 (2011-1012) of the CIS. As funding becomes available and committed, the project may be moved to an earlier year in required annual updates to the CIS. Drainage also is addressed in new Objective 4.3.2 and in new Policies 4.3.2.1. through 4.3.2.5. The Town has addressed stormwater and drainage appropriately in the Revised Comprehensive Plan. Proportionate Share and Concurrency Management Policy 4.1.2.6 in the Public Facilities Element states: "The Town shall consider, and adopt as appropriate, a means to ensure that new development shares proportionate responsibilities in the provision of facilities and services to meet the needs of that development and maintain adopted level of service standards." Policy 8.1.3.4 in the CIE of the Revised Comprehensive Plan states: The Town shall consider, and adopt as appropriate, a means to ensure that new development shares a proportionate cost on a pro rata basis in the provision of facilities and services necessitated by that development in order to maintain the Town’s adopted level of service standards. Proportionate costs shall be based upon, but not limited to: Cost for extension of water mains, including connection fees. Costs for all circulation and right-of-way related improvements to accommodate the development for local roads not maintained by Levy County. Costs to maintain County Road 40 and 40[-]A and any other road within the town that are maintained by Levy County shall be governed by the Levy County Proportionate Share Ordinance and Yankeetown will continue to adopt and ensure the level of service is maintained [through] coordination mechanisms between the two planning departments. Costs for drainage improvements. Costs for recreational facilities, open space provision, fire protection, police services, and stormwater management. Although the Town does not have any public facility deficiencies, Rule Chapter 9J-5 requires that the CIE address "[t]he extent to which future development will bear a proportionate cost of facility improvements necessitated by the development in order to adequately maintain adopted level of service standards"; and include a policy that addresses programs and activities for "[a]ssessing new developments a pro rata share of the costs necessary to finance public facility improvements necessitated by development in order to adequately maintain adopted level of service standards . . . ." Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.016(3)(b)4. and (c)8. Policy 8.1.3.4 meets this requirement. The statute forming the basis of IWI’s contentions regarding proportionate fair share is Section 163.3180(16)(a), Florida Statutes, which requires local governments "to adopt by ordinance a methodology for assessing proportionate fair-share mitigation options." The evidence was that the requirements of this statute will be met by the Town's Proportionate Fair Share Concurrency Management Ordinance, which had been drafted and scheduled for adoption hearings at the time of the final hearing, and which will implement Policy 8.1.3.4. IWI did not present any evidence regarding the alleged lack of a concurrency management system in the Revised Comprehensive Plan and did not prove that the Revised Comprehensive Plan fails to meet the requirements of Rule 9J- 5.055 for concurrency management. The Town is exempt from maintaining school concurrency requirements. Objective 8.1.3 and Policies 8.1.3.1 through 8.1.3.6 of the Revised Comprehensive Plan meet the requirements of Rule 9J-5.055 for concurrency management. Policy 8.1.3.6 states: "The Town shall evaluate public facility demands by new development or redevelopment on a project by project basis to assure that capital facilities are provided concurrent with development." Policy 8.1.3.3 states: "The Yankeetown Land Development Code shall contain provisions to ensure that development orders are not issued for development activities which degrade the level of service below the adopted standard as identified in each comprehensive plan element. Such provisions may allow for provision of facilities and services in phases, so long as such facilities and services are provided concurrent with the impacts of development." The Town has a checklist system to track the specific impact of each development order on LOS concurrent with development. As indicated, a Proportionate Fair Share and Concurrency Management Ordinance had been drafted and scheduled for adoption hearings. Wastewater Treatment and Water Quality The Town is located entirely within the 100-year floodplain and coastal high hazard area. See Finding 2, supra. This presents challenges for wastewater treatment. The adoption of the Revised Comprehensive Plan followed public meetings and workshops held with representatives of DCA, including Richard Deadman, and expert Mark Hooks, formerly with the State of Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and now with the State of Florida Department of Health. The Plan Amendments include Policy 8.1.3.1.1, which states in part: Due to the location of the town within the 100 year flood plain and within the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA), there are no plans to provide central wastewater treatment until a regional system can be developed in conjunction with the neighboring town of Inglis and Levy County, and constructed outside the Coastal High Hazard Area east of U.S. Highway 19. In the interim period before a regional central wastewater system is available, the Town shall require in all land use districts: a. Yankeetown shall develop a strategy to participate in water quality monitoring of the Withlacoochee River; b. develop an educational program to encourage inspection (and pump-out if needed) of existing septic tanks; c. all new and replacement septic tanks shall meet performance based standards (10mg/l nitrogen). The Town's approach to wastewater treatment under the circumstances is sound both economically and from planning perspective and is sufficient to protect natural and coastal resources, including water quality, and meet the minimum requirements of Rule Chapter 9J-5 and Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. There is direction in the State Comprehensive Plan to: "Avoid the expenditure of state funds that subsidize development in high-hazard coastal areas." § 187.201(8)(b)3., Fla. Stat. This direction is also found in Chapter 163.3178(1), Florida Statutes, and in Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b)5., which require local governments to limit public expenditures that would subsidize development in the CHHA. It also is impractical for the Town, with a population of 760 people, to fund and operate a central wastewater system. It is logical and economical to do this in partnership with the adjoining Town of Inglis and Levy County, which could share in the costs and provide a site for a regional wastewater facility located nearby but outside of the CHHA. In contrast, this approach was not a viable option for the entirety of the Florida Keys. The Town already has begun water quality testing under Policy 8.1.3.1.1.a. The Town will be required to prepare educational programs to encourage inspection of existing septic tanks (and pump-out, if needed) under Policy 8.1.3.1.1.b. and under new Policy 4.3.1.2. In the short-term, while the Town pursues a regional treatment facility located outside the CHHA, Policy 8.1.3.1.c. in the Revised Comprehensive Plan will be implemented by new Policy 4.1.2.1.IV.B., which states: Yankeetown shall require that all new or replacement sanitary sewage systems in all land use districts meet the following requirements: All new or replacement sanitary sewage systems shall be designed and constructed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwaters into the system and discharge from the system into floodwaters. Joints between sewer drain components shall be sealed with caulking, plastic or rubber gaskets. Backflow preventers are required. All new or replacement sanitary sewage systems shall be located and constructed to minimize or eliminate damage to them and contamination from them during flooding. The DCA has objected and recommended, and Yankeetown has concurred that all new and replacement septic systems are to be performance-based certified to provide secondary treatment equivalent to 10 milligrams per liter maximum Nitrogen. Performance-based treatment systems that are accepted as achieving the 10 mg/l nitrogen standard have already been tested by the National Sanitation Foundation and approved by the State of Florida Department of Health. Performance-based systems achieving the 10 mg/l nitrogen standard have been certified and approved for use in Florida and are now available on the market "in the $7,200 range" for a typical two- or three-bedroom home, and there are systems that would meet the 10mg/l nitrogen standard for commercial and multi-family buildings. Compliance with the performance-based 10 mg/l nitrogen standard is measured at the treatment system, not in the receiving water, and additional nutrient removal and treatment occurs in the drainfield soils. Performance-based treatment systems also require an operating permit and routine inspection and maintenance, unlike conventional septic tanks. The United States Environmental Protection Agency stated in its 1997 report to Congress: "Adequately managed decentralized wastewater systems are a cost-effective and long- term option for meeting public health and water quality goals." The existing Comprehensive Plan addresses wastewater in Chapter 4, Policy 13-2, which states: "Prohibit the construction of new publicly funded facilities or facilities offered for maintenance in the coastal high hazard area (including roads, water, sewer, or other infrastructure)." It also is addressed in the existing Comprehensive Plan in: Chapter 1, Policies 3-1 and 3-2 (Vol. II p. 11); and Chapter 4, Policies 1-2-1 and 1-2-7 (Vol. II, pp. 32, 34). A more in-depth analysis of the Town's previous approach to wastewater treatment is found in Volume III, Infrastructure Element, pp. 107-109 ("Facility Capacity Analysis, Sanitary Sewer"), which expresses similar long-term and interim approaches to wastewater treatment. The Revised Comprehensive Plan removes confusing and out-of-date references to "class I or other DOH-approved aerobic systems" used in the existing Comprehensive Plan. The Plan Amendments contemplate that the Town will pursue a long-term solution of a regional wastewater facility with the Town of Inglis and Levy County to be located outside the CHHA. The Revised Comprehensive Plan is adequate to protect the natural resources in Yankeetown and includes a short-term requirement that all new and replacement septic tanks meet the 10 mg/l nitrogen standard measured at the performance-based treatment system, together with a long-term requirement that the Town pursue a regional wastewater treatment plant to be located outside the CHHA. The Plan Amendments include: Objective 4.1.3; Policies 4.1.3.1 through 4.1.3.3 and 4.1.2.8 through 4.1.2.11; Policy 5.1.4.4; Policy 7.1.22.6; Policy 8.1.3.1; Policy 10.1.2.1; and Policy 10.1.2.3. These provisions move the Town in the direction of a regional central wastewater treatment located outside the CHHA and establish appropriate interim standards. Petitioner contended that the Town has allocated money for a new park when it needed a new central wastewater treatment facility. But the evidence was that the money for the new park came from a grant and could not be used for a new central wastewater treatment facility. Protection of Natural Resources and Internal Consistency The Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and the FLUM in the Revised Comprehensive Plan contain "Resource Protection" and "Residential Environmentally Sensitive" land use designations. In the existing Comprehensive Plan, these lands are designated Public Use Resource Protection and Conservation, respectively. The Plan Amendments reduce density in the Residential Environmentally Sensitive land use district, which contains a number of islands, to a maximum gross density of one dwelling unit per ten gross acres and maximum net density of one dwelling unit per five acres of uplands. Policy 1.1.2.1 in the Plan Amendments would allow development rights to be transferred from the Residential Environmentally Sensitive land to the development rights area receiving zone located between County Roads 40 and 40-A, as shown in Map 2008-02. The current Conservation designation for those lands sets a "maximum density of 1 unit per 5 acres"; and Policy 1-2 in the existing Comprehensive Plan allows the transfer of development rights within the Conservation district "as long as gross density does not exceed 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres." Under Policy 1-2 of the existing Comprehensive Plan, a minimum of "two (2) acres of uplands" is required for a development in the Conservation land use district. Likewise, under Policy 1.1.2.1.2 of the Plan Amendments, a minimum of "two (2) contiguous natural pre-development upland acres" is required in the Residential Environmentally Sensitive land use district. Although allowed, few if any transfers of development rights actually occurred under the existing Comprehensive Plan. To provide additional incentive to transfer development out of the "Residential Environmentally Sensitive" land use district and into the urban receiving area, Policy 1.1.2.7.F. of the Plan Amendments would allow the land owner to retain private ownership and passive recreational use on the "sending" parcel, including one boat dock. All other development rights on the sending parcel would be extinguished. Besides facilitating the transfer of development rights, it is expected that use of boat docks on the islands will decrease environmental damage from boats now grounding to obtain access to the islands. Although the policies for Environmentally Sensitive Residential and Conservation Lands are slightly different, the minor differences do not fail to protect natural or coastal resources or fail to meet the minimum criteria set forth in Rule Chapter 9J-5 and Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. Numerous policies in the Plan Amendments establish standards and criteria to protect natural and coastal resources, including: Policy 1.1.2.1.7(i), restricting dredging; Policies 1.1.1.2.10, 5.1.5.7, and 5.1.6.10, restricting the filling of wetlands; Policy 5.1.6.7, establishing wetlands setback buffers; Policy 5.1.6.4, establishing nutrient buffers; Policy 5.1.5.1, limiting dredge and fill; Policies 1.1.3.4 and 5.1.5.5, establishing standards and criteria for docks and walkways; Policy 5.1.16.1, protecting certain native habitats as open space; Policy 1.1.1.3, establishing low-impact development practices for enhanced water quality protection; and Policy 5.1.5.1, protecting listed species, including manatees. These provisions are more protective than the provisions of the existing Comprehensive and are supported by data and analysis. The Plan Amendments acknowledge and protect private property rights and include Objective 1.1.11 (Determination and Protection of Property Rights), providing for vested rights and beneficial use determinations to address unintended or unforeseen consequences of the application of the Plan Amendments in cases where setbacks cannot be achieved for specific development proposals due to lot size or configuration. FLUE Policy 1.1.1.2.8 and Conservation and Coastal Management Element Policy 5.1.6.4 in the Plan Amendments sets out procedures, standards, and criteria (including mitigation) for variances from the 150- foot Nutrient Buffer Setback. Taken as a whole, the Plan Amendments protect natural and coastal resources within the Town. Internal Consistency Docks, Open Space, and Dredge and Fill IWI contends that the Plan Amendments are internally inconsistent because policies addressing docks, open space, and dredging requirements use different language and with different meanings in different contexts. Policies in the Revised Comprehensive Plan establish 100 percent open space requirements for certain natural habitats, namely: (a) submerged aquatic vegetation; (b) undisturbed salt marsh wetlands; (c) salt flats and salt ponds; (d) fresh water wetlands; (e) fresh water ponds; and (f) maritime coastal hammock. Pile-supported, non-habitable structures such as boat docks and walkways are allowed if sited on other portions of a site. (Conservation and Coastal Management Element Policies 5.1.5.7, 5.1.6.7, 5.1.6.10, and 5.1.16.1). Other policies limit dredging to maintenance dredging. Policy 5.1.5.1 states that the Town will: Prohibit all new dredge and fill activities, including construction of new canals, along the river and coastal areas. Maintenance dredging of existing canals, previously dredged channels, existing previously dredged marinas, and commercial and public boat launch ramps shall be allowed to depths previously dredged only when the applicant demonstrates that dredging activity will not contribute to water pollution or saltwater intrusion of the potable water supply. Applicant must also demonstrate that development activities shall not negatively impact water quality or manatee habitat. Maintenance dredging is prohibited within areas vegetated with established submerged grass beds except for maintenance dredging in public navigation channels. This prohibition does not preclude the minor dredging necessary to construct "pile supported structures such as docks and walkways that do not exceed 4’ in width and constructed in accordance with OFW and Aquatic Preserve regulations," which are specifically exempted and allowed by Policy 5.1.5.7 of the Plan Amendments. Additional dredging and filling activities (beyond installation of pile supports) would not be required for docks sited where adequate water depth exists. Docks and walkways allowed under Policy 5.1.5.7 are not counted as open space. The policies concerning docks and walkways can be reconciled and do not render the Plan Amendments internally inconsistent. Low-Impact Development Policies IWI also contends that policies in the Plan Amendments requiring and encouraging low-impact development (LID) practices (which are not required or mandated under minimum requirements of Rule Chapter 9J-5 F.A.C. and Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, but adopted for additional water quality protection) are internally inconsistent. The Plan Amendments require LID practices for some new uses (new subdivisions, planned unit developments, and commercial development) and encourage them for existing uses. The Plan Amendments require or encourage these practices in different land use districts, which address different commercial or residential uses, and also discuss these practices in different elements of the Revised Comprehensive Plan, which addresses different purposes and concerns, including the FLUE (Chapter 1), the Public Infrastructure Element (Chapter 4), and the Coastal Management Element (Chapter 5). FLUE Policy 1.1.1.3 states that: In addition to complying with Outstanding Florida Water (OFW) standards, all new subdivisions, planned unit developments, and commercial development in all land use districts shall utilize "low impact" development practices appropriate for such use including: Landscaped biofiltration swales; Use native plants adapted to soil, water and rainfall conditions; Minimize use of fertilizers and pesticides; Grease traps for restaurants; Recycle storm water by using pond water for irrigation of landscaping; Dry wells to capture runoff from roofs; Porous pavements; Maintain ponds to avoid exotic species invasions; Aerate tree root systems (for example, WANE systems); Vegetate onsite floodplain areas with native and/or Florida-friendly plants to provide habitat and wildlife corridors; Rain barrels and green roofs where feasible; and Use connected Best Management Practices (BMPs) (treatment trains flowing from one BMP into the next BMP) to increase nutrient removal. Existing development shall be encouraged, but not required to use the above recommendations and shall not be considered nonconforming if they do not. In the Residential Low Density land use district, FLUE Policy 1.1.2.2.5 states: "All (a) new planned unit residential developments or (b) new platted subdivisions of 2 or more units (construction of 1 single family dwelling unit or duplex is exempt) shall utilize 'low impact' development practices for storm water management. Individual dwelling units and duplexes are encouraged to utilize those 'low impact' development practices that may be required or recommended in the Land Development Regulations." In the Residential Highest Density land use district, FLUE Policy 1.1.2.3.3 states: "Existing platted parcels are encouraged to utilize site suitable storm water management such as connecting to swales where available. All (a) new planned unit residential developments or (b) new platted subdivisions of 2 or more units (construction of 1 single family dwelling unit or duplex is exempt) shall utilize 'low impact' development practices for storm water management. Individual dwelling units and duplexes are encouraged to utilize those 'low impact' practices that may be required or recommended in the Land Development Regulations." In the Resource Protection and Public Use land use districts, FLUE Policies 1.1.2.5 and 1.1.2.6. require LID practices for all development. In the Neighborhood Commercial land use district, FLUE Policy 1.1.2.7.6 requires LID practices for "all development." In the Commercial Water-Dependent land use districts, FLUE Policy 1.1.2.8.9 requires LID practices for "all new commercial development." In the Light Industrial land use district, FLUE Policy 1.1.2.9.2 requires LID practices for "all development." These policies can be reconciled. The use of slightly different language in a particular district, or creation of an exemption for existing uses, does not render the policies internally inconsistent. Policy 4.2.2.2 of the Public Infrastructure Element (Chapter 4) of the Plan Amendments requires the adoption of land development regulations (LDRs) establishing minimum design and construction standards for new subdivisions, planned unit developments, and commercial development that will ensure that post development runoff rates do not exceed predevelopment runoff rates and encourage the same LID practices set out in FLUE Policy 1.1.1.3. IWI also contends that the inclusion of the phrase "as appropriate for such use" in the LID policies is internally inconsistent. To the contrary, it acknowledges that some of the listed practices may not be appropriate for a proposed specific use. For example, subsection (d) on "grease traps for restaurants" would not be appropriate if no restaurant is proposed. Under Section 163.3202, Florida Statutes, the Town has a year to adopt implementing LDRs providing further details, standards, and criteria for low-impact development BMPs for specific uses and within specific districts. The use of the phrase "as appropriate for such use" in the low-impact development policies allows for the exercise of engineering discretion in formulating LDRs. It does not render the policies internally inconsistent. Setbacks and Variances IWI also contends that the Plan Amendments are internally inconsistent because buffers contain different setback distances and allow for a variance to the setback buffers. The policies addressing setbacks can be read together and reconciled. The Plan Amendments include two types of setback buffers adopted for different purposes: (1) for structures, a 50-foot setback from the river and wetlands in Policies 1.1.1.2.7 and 5.1.6.7; (2) for sources of nutrient pollution other than septic systems (such as fertilized and landscaped areas and livestock sources), a 150-foot nutrient buffer setback from the river in Policies 1.1.1.2.8 and 5.1.6.4; and (3) for septic systems, special setbacks in Policy 1.1.1.2.11 (which is referred to in the nutrient buffer setback policies). These different setback policies were adopted for different purposes and are not internally inconsistent. Data and analysis supporting the establishment of these different setbacks further explains the different purposes of the different types of setbacks adopted in the Revised Comprehensive Plan. The availability of variances to the 150-foot nutrient buffer setback allows some use on a parcel to ensure protection of private property rights in the event of an unforeseen taking of all use on a specific parcel where an applicant cannot meet the setback but can meet the listed criteria for a variance and provide the mitigation required for impacts. Protection of private property rights is a competing concern that must be addressed under Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Rule Chapter 9J-5. The Plan Amendments need not address every possible or potential set of facts and circumstances. Additional detail can be provided in implementing LDRs adopted under Section 163.3202, Florida Statutes. Specific implementation and interpretation of policies and LDRs applicable to any particular development proposal will be made by the Town during application review process. Seemingly inconsistent policies can be reconciled by applying the most stringent policy. Seemingly inconsistent policies also could be reconciled by application of a specific exemption, variance, or beneficial use determination. Site-specific application and interpretation of policies and LDRs in development orders, and issues as to their consistency with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Revised Comprehensive Plan, can be addressed under Section 163.3215, Florida Statutes. Small Local Governments IWI contends that the Town was not held to the same data and analysis standards under Section 163.3177(10)(i), Florida Statutes, as larger local governments. Under that statute and Rule 9J-5.002(2), the Department can consider the small size of the Town, as well as other factors, in determining the "detail of data, analyses, and the content of the goals, objectives, policies, and other graphic or textual standards required " Prior to adoption of the remedial amendments, the Town was unable to utilize GIS mapping. However, for the remedial amendments, GIS mapping was provided with the assistance of the Regional Planning Council. IWI did not prove beyond fair debate that the Town's data and analyses were insufficient under Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Rule Chapter 9J-5. State and Regional Plans IWI also contends, for essentially the same reasons addressed previously, that the Plan Amendments are inconsistent with State Comprehensive Plan provisions on water resources, natural systems, and public facilities and Withlacoochee Strategic Regional Policy Plan provisions on natural resources, fisheries, and water quality. A plan is consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan and regional policy plan if, considered as a whole, it is "compatible with" and "furthers" those plans. "Compatible with" means "not in conflict with" and "furthers" means "to take action in the direction of realizing goals or policies of the state or regional plan." § 163.3177(10)(a), Fla. Stat. Using those definitions, IWI failed to prove beyond fair debate that the Revised Comprehensive Plan, as a whole, is inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan or the Withlacoochee Strategic Regional Policy Plan.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order finding the Plan Amendments to be "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of October, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of October, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: The City of Oakland Park and Its Roadways The City of Oakland Park is an incorporated municipality located in Broward County, Florida. It is situated in the geographic center of the County. A six-lane divided expressway, I-95, runs north/south through the middle of the City. Among the major east/west thoroughfares in the City is Oakland Park Boulevard. It is a six-lane divided roadway that is functionally classified by the Florida Department of Transportation as an urban principal arterial. The roadway is lined almost exclusively with commercial development. I-95 can be accessed at Oakland Park Boulevard. The Stroks' Property and Its Surroundings Mr. and Mrs. Strok own 20.709 acres of contiguous land in the City. The land is among the few remaining undeveloped properties in the City. The Stroks' property abuts Oakland Park Boulevard to the south. Its southernmost point is a relatively short distance to the west of the Oakland Park Boulevard/I-95 interchange. At present, Oakland Park Boulevard provides the only vehicular access to the Stroks' property. Commercial development lies immediately to the east and to the west of that portion of the Stroks' property fronting on Oakland Park Boulevard. Further north on the property's western boundary is a residential neighborhood of single family homes. Single family homes also lie to the east of the Stroks' property north of Oakland Park Boulevard, but they are separated from the property by a canal. Oakland Park Boulevard, in the vicinity of the Stroks' property (Segment 366), is heavily travelled. Currently, it is operating well over its capacity and therefore, according to standards utilized by the Florida Department of Transportation, is providing a Level of Service (LOS) of "F." There are no formal plans at the moment to expend public funds on capital improvements that would increase the capacity of Oakland Park Boulevard. Whether the Stroks' property is ultimately used primarily for commercial purposes or for single family residential purposes, the development of the property will increase the traffic volume on this segment of Oakland Park Boulevard, as well as other roadway segments in the County that are now operating over capacity, but are not programmed for any capital improvements. As a general rule, however, commercial development generates more traffic than single family residential development. The City's 1989 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map The City adopted its 1989 comprehensive plan on April 5, 1989. Adopted as part of the plan was a Future Land Use Map (FLUM), which was based upon appropriate surveys, studies and data concerning the area. Over Petitioners' objections, all but a small portion of the Stroks' property was designated for commercial use on the FLUM. 1/ Under the City's two prior comprehensive plans, the Stroks' entire property was designated for commercial use. "Commercial uses" are defined in Chapter IV, Section 1.32 of the City's 1989 comprehensive plan as "activities within land areas which are predominantly connected with the sale, rental and distribution of products, or performance of services." Furthermore, Chapter IV, Section 3.02(C) of the plan provides as follows with respect to lands designated for commercial use on the FLUM: Each parcel of land within an area designated in a commercial land use category by the City's land Use Plan Map must be zoned in a zoning district which permits any one or more of the following uses, but no other uses: Retail uses. Office and business uses. Wholesale, storage, light fabricating and warehouses uses, if deemed appropriate by the City. Hotels, motels and similar lodging. Recreation and open space, cemeteries, and commercial recreation uses. Community facilities and utilities. a. Special Residential Facility Category (2) development . . . . b. Special Residential Facility Category (3) development . . . . Non-residential agriculture uses. Residential uses are permitted in the same structure as a commercial use provided that the local government entity applies flexibility and reserve units to the parcel and: The residential floor area does not exceed 50% of the total floor area of the building; or The first floor is totally confined to commercial uses. Recreational vehicle park sites at a maximum density of ten (10) sites per gross acre if permanent location of recreational vehicles on the site is permitted by the City land development regulations, or twenty (20) sites per gross acre if such permanent location is prohibited by the local land development regulations, subject to allocation by the City government entity of available flexibility or reserve units. Transportation and communication facilities. The decision to designate in the City's 1989 comprehensive plan almost all of the Stroks' property for commercial use was not made without consideration of the adverse impact commercial development would have on traffic in the vicinity of the Stroks' property. Although it was recognized that such development would add more traffic to the already congested roadways in the area than would single family residential development, the prevailing view was that the additional traffic that would be generated by commercial development, as compared to that which would be generated by single family residential development, would be relatively insignificant. The designation of the major portion of the Stroks' property for commercial use is not inherently incompatible with the designations assigned other parcels of property in the surrounding area. The Stroks' property was designated for commercial use under Broward County's 1989 comprehensive plan. The Broward County Charter mandates that the land use plans of the County's incorporated municipalities be in substantial conformity with the County's land use plan. Goals, Objectives and Policies The City's 1989 comprehensive plan also includes various goals, objectives and policies. Those of particular significance to the instant case provide in pertinent part as follows: Goal 1- Protect and enhance the single family residential, multiple-family residential, non-residential and natural resource areas of Oakland Park. Objective 1.1- By November 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, revise the development code to assure that all new development . . . avoids traffic problems now impacting the City . . . . Policy 1.1.5- By November 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, the development code shall be amended to specify that no development permit shall be issued unless assurance is given that the public facilities necessitated by the project (in order to meet level of service standards specified in the Traffic Circulation, Recreation and Infrastructure policies) will be in place concurrent with the impacts of the development. A concurrency management system shall be included that specifies the latest DCA and City criteria for what constitutes "assurance" in addition to budgeted projects or signed development agreements. Goal 2- To develop an overall transportation circulation system which will provide for the transportation needs of all sectors of the community in a safe, efficient, cost effective and aesthetically pleasing manner. Objective 2.1- Provide for a safe, convenient and efficient motorized and non-motorized transportation system. Policy 2.1.1- Monitor annual traffic accident frequencies by location. Policy 2.2.2- Improve selective enforcement at high accident locations. Policy 2.1.4- Within one year of Plan submission, or when required by legislative mandate, provide safe and convenient on-site traffic flow through development review procedures. Policy 2.1.7- Reduce the amount of through traffic on local streets and collectors through the implementation, within three years of plan adoption, of a Local Area Traffic Management Program (LATMP) . . . . Policy 2.1.11- Improve the efficiency of traffic flow on existing roadways by implementing the policies of Objective 2.1. Objective 2.2- After November 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, coordinate the traffic circulation system with existing and future land uses as shown on the Future Land Use Map. Policy 2.2.1- After November 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, provide a Development Management System that will allow development to occur in concurrence with the Future Land Use Map and in concert with development of the traffic circulation system. Provide daily and peak hour LOS "D" on all arterial and collector roadways where existing plus committed traffic allows, and maintain traffic conditions on all other roadways segments. Provide daily and peak hour LOS "C" on all local roadways. LOS shall be based on the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual and the FDOT Generalized Daily and Peak Hour Level of Service Maximum Volumes. Other methods may be utilized but are subject to technical review and acceptance by the City. Policy 2.2.2- Within 120 days of plan adoption, adopt a list of local roadway segments where traffic operations are at LOS "C" or better. This list may be based on the February 21,1989 run of the Broward County TRIPS model, which includes traffic generated by committed development or other sources as appropriate. Policy 2.2.3- After 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, the City will only issue development permits for projects impacting links identified from Policy 2.2.1, under the following circumstances: There is an approved Action Plan accompanying the traffic impacts of the proposed development, where an Action Plan refers to any combination of accepted transit, ride- sharing, transportation systems management methods, etc. methods of traffic impact mitigation. The necessary improvements to provide LOS "C" are under construction, under contract for construction or the City Council determines they will be under contract during the same fiscal year. The necessary improvements to provide LOS "C" are included in an enforceable development agreement. Policy 2.2.4- Within 120 days of plan adoption, adopt a list of arterial and collector roadway segments where traffic operations are at LOS "D" or better. This list shall be based on the February 21, 1989 run of the Broward County TRIPS model, which includes traffic generated by committed development. Policy 2.2.5- After November 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, the City will issue development permits for projects impacting links identified from Policy 2.2.1, under the following circumstances: There is an approved Action Plan accompanying the traffic impacts of the proposed development, where an Action Plan refers to any combination of accepted transit, ride- sharing, transportation systems management methods, etc. methods of traffic impact mitigation. The necessary improvements to provide LOS "D" are under construction, under contract for construction or the City Council determines they will be under contract during the same fiscal year. The necessary improvements to provide LOS "D" are included in an enforceable development agreement. Policy 2.2.6- Within 120 days of plan adoption, adopt a list of arterial and collector roadway segments where traffic operations are worse than LOS "D" and there is a scheduled improvement in the City 2010 Traffic Circulation Plan. Traffic operations shall be based on the February 21, 1989 run of the Broward County TRIPS model, which includes traffic generated by committed development. These links will be identified as "Planned Improvement Facilities" and the LOS will be "Maintained" within 10% of identified existing plus committed conditions, where traffic conditions are measured by volume to capacity ratios. Policy 2.2.7- After November 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, the City will only issue development permits for projects impacting links identified from Policy 2.2.3, under the following circumstances: The proposed impacts will "Maintain," within 10% of existing plus committed traffic conditions and the scheduled 2010 improvement will be able to operate at LOS "D" once constructed. There is an approved Action Plan accompanying the traffic impacts of the proposed development, where an Action Plan refers to any combination of accepted transit, ride- sharing, transportation systems management methods, etc. methods of traffic impact mitigation. The necessary improvements to provide LOS "D" are under construction, under contract for construction or the City Council determines they will be under contract during the same fiscal year. The necessary improvements to provide LOS "D" are included in an enforceable development agreement. Policy 2.2.8- Within 120 days of plan adoption, adopt a list of arterial and collector roadway segments where traffic operations are worse than LOS "D" and there is no scheduled improvement in the City 2010 Traffic Circulation Plan. 2/ Traffic operations shall be based on the February 21, 1989 run of the Broward County TRIPS model, which includes traffic generated by committed development. These links will be identified as "Constrained Facilities" and the LOS will be "Maintained" within 10% of identified existing plus committed conditions, where traffic conditions are measured by volume to capacity ratios. Policy 2.2.9- After November 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, the City will only issue development permits for projects impacting links identified from Policy 2.2.5, under the following circumstances: The proposed impacts will "Maintain," within 10% of existing plus committed traffic conditions. There is an approved Action Plan accompanying the traffic impacts of the proposed development, where an Action Plan refers to any combination of accepted transit, ride- sharing, transportation systems management methods, etc. methods of traffic impact mitigation. Policy 2.2.10- The City will annually update existing traffic counts and review updated Broward County Trips assignments. Based on the update the City may reclassify any roadway segment within the City. The City may also reclassify a roadway segment if development from outside the City has effected traffic conditions within the City. Policy 2.2.11- Subsequent to plan adoption, modify the land development regulations such that after 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, require trip generation studies from all proposed development within the City and traffic impact studies for developments generating more than 10% of adjacent roadway capacity and allow development contingent upon the provision of LOS Standards. Objective 2.4- Provide for the protection of existing and future rights of way from building encroachment. Policy 2.4.2- Modify land development regulations to ensure consistency with the Broward County Trafficways Plan right-of-way requirements during development review activities. Goal 9- To ensure the orderly and efficient provision of all public services and facilities necessary to serve existing and future local population needs. Objective 9.2- By November 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, provide that development or redevelopment proposals are approved consistent with existing service availability or coincident with the programmed provision of additional services at the adopted level of service standards and meets existing and future facility needs. Policy 9.2.1- Within one year of Plan submission, or when required by legislative mandate, revise development procedures to review development proposals cognizant of the City's adopted level of service standards, existing levels of service and where appropriate, the timeframe for implementation of additional facility improvements. Policy 9.2.2- After 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, condition the approval of proposed development or redevelopment projects on the basis of project related needs being concurrently available at the adopted level of service standards specified in Policy 9.2.4. Policy 9.2.3- After November 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, allow for phasing of development related infrastructure improvements concurrently with project impacts on public facilities. Policy 9.2.4- The Level of Service (LOS) for capital facilities shall be: * * * for Arterials and Collectors- LOS "D" or "Maintain" for Local Roadways- LOS "C" ADT, PSDT and PKHR Objective 9.3- By November 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, provide that private developers participate on a proportionate share basis in any facility improvement costs necessary to maintain LOS standards. Policy 9.3.2- Establish a preference for the actual construction of adjacent site road improvements in lieu of impact fee payments. Policy 9.3.3- By November 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, establish in the land development regulations a process for assessing new development on a pro rata share of the costs necessary to finance public facility improvements in order to maintain the adopted level of service standards specified in Policy 9.2.4. Development Review Requirements Chapter IV, Section 4 of the City's 1989 comprehensive plan prescribes development review requirements. It provides in pertinent part as follows: Following the effective date of the Land Use Plan, the City shall not grant a permit for a proposed development unless the City has determined that public facilities are adequate to serve the needs of the proposed development or unless the developer agrees in writing that no certificate of occupancy shall be issued for the proposed development until public facilities are adequate to serve its needs. Public facilities may be determined to be adequate to serve the needs of a proposed development when the following conditions are met. Traffic circulation . . . public facilities and services will be available to meet established level of service standards, consistent with Chapter 163.3203(g) Florida Statutes and the concurrence management policies included within this Plan. Local streets and roads will provide safe, adequate access between buildings within the proposed development and the trafficways identified on the Broward County Trafficways Plan prior to occupancy. Capital Improvements Implementation Chapter VII of the plan deals with the subject of capital improvements implementation. It contains a section which addresses the matter of level of service standards. This section provides in pertinent part as follows: The minimum criteria for Comprehensive Plans requires that Level of Service Standards for the City of Oakland Park be included for public facilities described in the plan. The Level of Service Standards for the City of Oakland Park are provided in the following Table 2. Subsequent to the adoption of this Comprehensive Plan, all future development approvals will be conditioned upon the provision of services at the local level of service standards. Table 2 sets forth the following level of service standards for roadways: Principal Arterials- LOS "D" or "Maintain" Minor Arterials- LOS "D" or "Maintain" Collectors- LOS "C"- AADT, 3/ PSDT 4/ PKHR 5/ Submission and Approval of the Stroks' Plat On June 6, 1989, the Stroks submitted to the County Commission for its approval a final plat of their property. The plat reflected the Stroks' plan to have 15 single family dwelling units, 180,000 square feet of office space and 36,000 square feet of commercial space constructed on the property. County staff analyzed the plat to ascertain the impact that the proposed development would have on traffic. In performing their analysis, they relied on the County's TRIPS computer model. Broward County assesses impact fees against a developer where it is projected that a development will add traffic to road segments in the County that are over-capacity, but are planned for improvement. The TRIPS computer model is used to determine the amount of the assessment. County staff did a TRIPS run on the Stroks' plat on September 13, 1989 and determined that the development proposed in the plat would generate a total of 6,879 trips on road segments throughout the County, including over-capacity road segments that were not planned for improvement, as well as over-capacity road segments that were planned for improvement. 6/ The County Commission approved the Stroks' plat on September 19, 1989. A short time earlier, the City Council had also approved the plat. Petitioners' Motives Petitioners are all residents of the City of Oakland Park. In filing their petitions challenging the City's 1989 comprehensive plan, they were motivated only by a desire to improve the quality of life in their city. They had no ulterior motive. They filed the petitions because they felt that it was in the best interest of the City that they do so.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs issue a final order finding that the City of Oakland Park's 1989 comprehensive plan is "in compliance," within the meaning of Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of May, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of th Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of May, 1990.
The Issue The issues to be determined in this case are whether amendments CPA-09-13 and CPA-09-14 (“Plan Amendments”) to the Citrus County Comprehensive Plan, which were adopted by Ordinance 2009-A24, are “in compliance,” as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2009).1/
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Florida Department of Community Affairs is the state land planning agency and is statutorily charged with the duty of reviewing comprehensive plan amendments and determining they are “in compliance,” as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Citrus County has adopted a comprehensive plan that it amends from time to time pursuant to Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. Petitioner, Robert Schweickert, Jr., is a resident of the City of Inverness in Citrus County. Petitioner made oral comments about the Plan Amendments to Citrus County Commissioner John Thrumston in one or more telephone conversations during the period of time between the transmittal and adoption hearings for the Plan Amendments. In Petitioner’s telephone conversations with Commissioner Thrumston, the Commissioner was on his personal cellular telephone or home telephone. No evidence was presented as to whether Commissioner Thrumston conveyed Petitioner’s comments to the Board of County Commissioners or to the County’s planning staff. CMT is a Florida corporation and owns the property that is the subject of Plan Amendment CPA-09-14, which would re- designate the property as the Hollinswood Harbor Port Subarea. CMT submitted oral comments to the Citrus Board of County Commissioners at the transmittal and adoption hearings for the Plan Amendments. The Site The subject property is a 525-acre site situated on the Cross Florida Barge Canal. There is a channel “cut” from the barge canal into the property. CMT owns the submerged lands beneath the channel cut, and owns the submerged lands along the southern boundary of its property to the middle of the barge canal. Currently the site has future land use designations of “Industrial,” “Conservation” (for the CMT-owned water bottom), “Extractive,” and “Transportation, Communications, and Utilities.” A portion of the site is planted in pine trees, which CMT plans to harvest. The small area of the site designated Extractive is used to store mined materials. A power line and natural gas pipeline bisect the site. The waterfront portion of the site was used in the past for a cruise ship operation. A docking facility, parking lot, and office used in conjunction with the cruise ship operation still exist on the site. To the west of the site is other land owned by CMT, which is leased to a mining company and is used for mining limestone. To the east is land owned by the State of Florida, on which it proposes to build public boat ramps. The Plan Amendments Amendment CPA-09-13 amends the FLUE to create a new land use designation, “Port District.” CPA-09-14 amends the FLUE to create the Hollinswood Harbor Port (“HHP”) Subarea Plan, and amends the Future Land Use Map to designate the 525-acre site owned by CMT as the HHP Subarea. The HHP Subarea Plan divides the 525-acre site into four land use districts: “Port- Industrial,” “Port-Water Dependent,” “Port-Commercial,” and “Transportation Communication & Utility.” The HHP Subarea Plan proposes a mix of industrial, commercial, institutional, water dependent, and residential uses, and establishes minimum and maximum standards for those uses. The HHP Subarea Plan includes a requirement to comply with the FDEP 2007 Clean Marina Action Plan Guidebook. Residential uses within the HHP Subarea cannot exceed a density of six units per acre, or a maximum of 600 units. Residential units must be clustered on no more than 20 percent of the site’s total 525 acres. The residential density may be increased by one unit per acre if workforce housing is provided. Petitioner’s Issues Petitioner’s issues were limited to whether the amendments were consistent with the Citrus County Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J-5, with respect to manatee protection, workforce housing, the provision of public water and sewer services, and urban sprawl. Manatee Protection The barge canal is a manmade waterway with a depth of 12 to 14 feet. The canal is too deep to allow sunlight to penetrate to the bottom and, therefore, there are no grass beds in the area of the site. Water grasses are the primary food of the manatee. Although manatees are known to travel in the barge canal, the canal is not essential habitat for the manatee. The proposed Plan Amendments would not prevent achievement of the criteria established in the Manatee Protection Element of the comprehensive plan. Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the Plan Amendments would cause an unreasonable risk of harm to manatees or are otherwise inconsistent with any provision of the comprehensive plan. Workforce Housing Petitioner alleges that the County has more than sufficient affordable housing and that the Plan Amendments would add to the surplus of affordable housing by allowing for a residential density bonus if workforce housing is provided. “Workforce housing” is generally defined in Section 420.5095(3)(a), Florida Statutes, as “housing affordable to natural persons or families whose total annual household income does not exceed 140 percent of the area median income.” The Housing Element of the comprehensive plan encourages affordable housing. Citrus County has not established in its comprehensive plan a “cap” on affordable housing units. There is also no cap on affordable housing units established in Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, or in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J-5. Petitioner did not adequately explain how an amendment that encourages the provision of affordable housing for some of the persons who work on a site or in the local area could be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, Chapter 163, or Rule 9J-5. Public Water and Sewer Services At the final hearing, Petitioner claimed that the Plan Amendments for the HHP Subarea require that the district be served by central water and sewer services, but do not specify what entity is required to provide the services. Stated in this form, Petitioner’s issue is without merit because Petitioner did not identify a provision of the comprehensive plan, Chapter 163, or Rule 9J-5 that requires an identification of the entity that will provide water and sewer services in the future. Petitioner stated at the final hearing that “What I’m attempting to do is to narrow [the issues] down to the urban sprawl issue because to me that is the strength and the meat of the argument.” Therefore, Petitioner’s issue regarding the provision of public water and sewer services is treated as an aspect of his allegation that the Plan Amendments would encourage urban sprawl, and is addressed below. Urban Sprawl Petitioner alleges that the Plan Amendments encourage urban sprawl because they would result in the prematurely and poorly planned conversion of rural lands, would “leapfrog” over undeveloped lands, and would add new residential units there are not needed. Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5), entitled “Review of Plans and Plan Amendments for Discouraging the Proliferation of Urban Sprawl,” includes 13 primary indicators that a plan amendment does not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. Discussed below are the indicators implicated by the evidence presented by the parties. The first indicator of urban sprawl refers to “low- intensity, low-density, or single-use development or uses in excess of demonstrated need.” The Plan Amendments call for a mix of land uses which are relatively high in intensity and density. Therefore, this indicator is not presented by the proposed Plan Amendments. The second indicator of urban sprawl is promoting significant amounts of urban development in rural areas at substantial distances from existing urban area while leapfrogging over undeveloped lands available and suitable for development. Respondents and Intervenor claim that this would not be leapfrog development because the land was used in the past for industrial and commercial purposes and because the port uses are water- dependent. A County planner testified that there is a deficit of residential units in the planning district in which the HHP site is located. However, the addition of 600 residential units (even more, if workforce housing units are included) a substantial distance from urbanized areas is an indicator of urban sprawl. The fourth indicator is failing to protect and preserve natural resources as a result of the premature or poorly planned conversion of rural lands. Petitioner presented no evidence to show that the Plan Amendments would fail to protect or preserve natural resources. Therefore, this indicator of urban sprawl is not present. Indicators 6 through 8 are related to the orderly and efficient provision of public services and utilities. Generally, urban sprawl is indicated when public facilities must be created or expanded to serve a proposed land use due to its density or intensity, and its distance from existing facilities. Public water and sewer lines are not currently available to the site, and the County has no plans to extend public water and sewer services to the site. The Plan Amendments require all development within the HHP to be served by central water and sewer. If on-site, central wastewater facilities are used, they must provide advanced wastewater treatment and reuse capability. Respondents and Intervenor assert that the Plan Amendments would reduce the development intensity that is allowed under the current land use designations and development approvals for the site. They presented evidence that there would be a reduction of the water and sewer usage that potentially could have been required to serve the land uses on the site. Florida Administrative Code Rule 9-5.006(5)(k) states that the Department “shall not find a plan amendment to be not in compliance on the issue of discouraging urban sprawl solely because of preexisting indicators if the amendment does not exacerbate existing indicators.” However, there was insufficient evidence presented on past, present, and future public water and sewer utility capacity. The evidence was insufficient to determine whether there are pre-existing indicators of urban sprawl, or whether the current situation indicates urban sprawl based on a need to expand the capacity of public utilities to serve the site. Petitioner has the burden of proof. The record evidence is insufficient to support his claim that the Plan Amendments show a failure of Citrus County to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a Final Order finding that amendments CPA-09-13 and CPA-09-14 to the Citrus County Comprehensive Plan are “in compliance.” DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of May, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of May, 2010.
Findings Of Fact The Department as the State Land Planning Agency is charged with the responsibility of reviewing the Comprehensive Plans submitted by local governments. Following such review conducted pursuant to Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, the Department is to determine whether the plan submitted is "in compliance" or "not in compliance" with applicable statutes and rules employed in the review process. McIntosh is a local government which adopted its Comprehensive Plan pursuant to Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. The McIntosh Comprehensive Plan was adopted was received by the Department on July 24, 1992. On September 4, 1992, the Department published Notice of Intent to find the Comprehensive Plan "in compliance" with applicable statutes and rules. McIntosh is a town of approximately 450 acres in size, which had a residential population in 1990 of 411 and was projected to increase population by the year 2000 to 418 people. Single family residential and agricultural land uses are the predominant land uses in the community. Petitioner Harris owns property within the incorporated limits of McIntosh. He owns and operates Sportsman Cove, a business located on Orange Lake. Portions of Orange Lake are found within the corporate limits of McIntosh where Harris conducts his business. Harris owns blocks 35 and 36 and portions of blocks 37, 53 and 54 within the corporate limits. His business involves 49 licensed mobile home sites and a number of "RV" sites located on approximately 4.648 acres along the shore of Orange Lake. He also operates a fish camp there. When the Comprehensive Plan was being prepared Harris submitted written and oral comments, objections and recommendations pertaining to the plan. He is a person affected by the adopted Comprehensive Plan. Colwell owns property in the incorporated limits of McIntosh. She owns and operates the McIntosh Fish Camp which has 8 mobile home sites and 5 "RV" sites along the shore line of Orange Lake within the town limits. Colwell submitted written and oral comments, objections and recommendations during the process of review and adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. Colwell is a person affected by the adopted Comprehensive Plan. The fish camp operations and "RV" sites of Harris and Colwell are classified in the Comprehensive Plan as lakefront commercial. The Stott's own property in the incorporated limits of McIntosh. That ownership includes blocks 1, 2, 13, 14 and 15 constituted of 13.6 acres, a portion of which is located on the shore of Orange Lake. In 1986 part of their property was used as a restaurant for about a year. The Stott's engaged in a bait business for approximately a year beyond that point. In the past prior to the plan adoption, there had been a fish camp located at blocks 1 and 15 with cabins and camper sites. These blocks are located adjacent to Orange Lake and are classified lake front residential in the Comprehensive Plan. At the time of hearing the property was not being operated as a fish camp. In the past lots 2, 13 and 14 had been used by the Stott's for unspecified light industry. The Stotts submitted written and oral comments, objections and recommendations during the plan review and adoption process. The Stotts are persons affected by the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. The notice that was provided on September 4, 1992 concerning the intent to find the Comprehensive Plan "in compliance" made mention that the adopted plan would be available for public inspection Monday through Friday, with the exception of legal holidays. The location contemplated for inspection was the McIntosh Town Hall, Clerk's Office, at 5975 Avenue G, McIntosh, Florida. A problem arose concerning the opportunity to inspect the adopted Comprehensive Plan. The problem was occasioned by an illness to the Town Clerk. This influenced petitioners' ability to review the adopted plan and to timely submit their challenges to the decision to find the Plan in compliance. Under the circumstances a slight delay in conforming to the 21 day requirement for filing the petitions in challenge to the Comprehensive Plan is acceptable. With some inconvenience to Petitioners, persons other than the Town Clerk offered assistance in making the adopted plan available for inspection. Nonetheless, petitioners were afforded sufficient opportunity to apprise themselves concerning the contents of the adopted plan when considered in the context of their participation in the overall process for adopting the McIntosh Comprehensive Plan. The complications experienced in reviewing the adopted Comprehensive Plan did not compromise the ability of these petitioners to advance their claims in a setting in which other procedural requirements for plan adoption, review and approval have been met. The inconvenience experienced by the petitioners in reviewing the adopted plan do not evidence a quality of prejudice that should form the basis for deciding that the plan is not in compliance with applicable statutes and rules. When the Town Council adopted the plan and established Policy 2.1.4.5 it intended to use the word "abandonment" where the written text found within the adopted plan at Page 2-23 uses the word "suspension." This mistake is evidenced by the minutes of the meeting for adoption where a motion was made to change the word "suspension" to "abandonment." In the course of the hearing the attorney for McIntosh stipulated that this was an error and that the written text would be changed to reflect the proper wording. With that change Policy 2.1.4.5 would read: Provisions in the Land Development Regulations shall discourage the continuance of existing inconsistent land uses within designated land uses. These provisions shall limit the expansion of inconsistent land usage and, upon a 90 days abandonment of the incompatible land use, require reversion to designated land uses. Petitioner Harris is not satisfied that the Figure 2-6, Page 2-11, which is a map of the wetlands within the incorporated town limits, in the Comprehensive Plan, is accurate. He claims that a lobe, which is an RV site on his property known as site 9C is not within the wetlands as shown on that map. He also takes issue with the designation in Figure 2-9, page 2-17, of the future land map which shows this lobe of property as conservation/open space. He perceives this property at site 9C to be uplands. By virtue of his own activities in May 1991 in which he arranged to have a survey performed on his property in the incorporated limits of McIntosh, Harris asserts that site 9C was not found to be wetlands then and is not wetlands now. When McIntosh designated the wetlands in the community through the use of the wetlands map and identified conservation/open space in the future land use map it was acting in accordance with legal requirements incumbent upon it in adopting the Comprehensive Plan. The specific designations of wetlands and conservation/open space areas are based upon appropriate data and analysis. The data was taken from a professionally accepted existing source and was the best available data. The work that was done in preparing the wetland mapping requirements was done by the same consulting firm which Harris had employed in May 1991, that is to say Environmental Service and Permitting, Inc. In preparing the wetlands survey for McIntosh the private consulting firm used ground-truthing, as well as a review of wetland mapping data sources to delineate the wetlands. The data consulted included the U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey of Marion County, U.S.G.S. Quadrangle maps for the Town of McIntosh, as well as a review of the McIntosh Land Planning Agency Drainage Map. Although Harris takes issue with the clarity of some of the maps depicting the lobe of property for his site 9C, the adopted plan is acceptable as it describes wetlands and conservation/open space to include his site 9C. Objective 7.1.1 at Page 7.4 establishes wetland setbacks within the town where it states: The Town of McIntosh shall protect the natural drainage features within and adjacent to the Town limits, by the establishment of the wetland setbacks, and compliance with State Water Quality standards, to be a part of the Land Development Regulation. In furtherance of this Objective, Policy 7.1.1.1 is set out at page 7- 4 where it states: Setbacks shall be established from the limit of wetlands landward to buildings, septic tanks and land coverage. The following setbacks shall be a part of the Land Development Regulations. Buildings shall be set back at a minimum of 75 feet. Septic tanks and drain fields shall be set back at a minimum of 200 feet. Impervious areas shall be set back at a minimum of 50 feet. Drainage Retention Areas shall be set back 25 feet. These set backs were arrived at by the Town Council having heard from the petitioners. In the face of remarks by the petitioners made in the adoption process the council reduced the set backs. While no specific data and analysis was offered to support the set backs, they are within limits which would be recommended by the Department to protect the wetlands resources. According to the Department, from a planning viewpoint, the mere existence of wetlands is sufficient to promote protections through the use of set backs. The set backs found within this Comprehensive Plan are appropriate. Moreover, the set backs associated with the protections of wetlands have the additional benefit of protecting Orange Lake, a Class III Outstanding Florida Water Body, entitled to special water quality protection. Protection of that water body is the responsibility of McIntosh in its comprehensive planning, together with other local governments and environmental regulators. Future land use classifications in the Comprehensive Plan are set out at Page 2-14. Property which abuts Lake Orange is classified as lake front residential and lake front commercial. Lake front residential is defined as: [T]his category allows a maximum of 2 units per acre. Dwelling units includes: single family houses and mobile homes. Maximum coverage of 35% and maximum building height of 35 feet. Lake front commercial is defined as: this category allows fish camps, marinas, and recreational vehicle parks. Maximum coverage of 50% and a maximum building height of 35 feet." These classifications and densities protect natural resources to include the wetlands and Orange Lake and are appropriate. Petitioners Harris and Colwell may take advantage of the lake front commercial for their fish camp operations and "RV" sites. Stott is not entitled to take advantage of the lake front commercial classification in that her property did not include a fish camp and recreational vehicle operations at the time the plan was adopted. Petitioners have failed to show to the exclusion of fair debate that the adopted Comprehensive Plan is not "in compliance" with applicable statutes and rules concerning the issues raised in the challenges to the determination to find the Comprehensive Plan "in compliance."
Recommendation Based upon the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered which finds the Town of McIntosh Comprehensive Plan to be "in compliance" and dismisses the petitions. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of March, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of March, 1993. APPENDIX The following discussion is given concerning the proposed facts of the parties: Harris' Facts: This paragraph is not relevant in that it was not alleged in the petition. This paragraph in its various parts concerning available low and moderate income housing and the densities is rejected in its suggestion that the Comprehensive Plan is not acceptable. This paragraph is rejected in its suggestion that the seasonal population for dwelling units affiliated with fish camp operations should cause a reconsideration of the classifications and densities for land use. This paragraph is ejected in its legal conclusion. 5-8 These paragraphs are not relevant in that these issues were not set out in the petition. 9, 10 To the extent that paragraphs 9 and 10 describe concerns about the treatment in the Comprehensive Plan of wetlands and comment critically on wetlands protections, the proposed findings of facts are rejected. Colwell's Facts: The unnumbered facts proposed are subordinate to facts found, with the exception that the changes in Orange Lake described even if true do not persuade that the wetlands protection of Orange Lake contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan is inappropriate. Stott's Facts: 1-2 Paragraphs 1 and 2 are subordinate to facts found. 3-5 Constitute legal argument. 6 It is acknowledged that the Orange Lake is used for fishing. 7-11 To the extent that paragraphs 7 through 11 suggest inappropriate identification and protection of the wetlands through the adopted Comprehensive Plan, the proposed facts are rejected. McIntosh's Facts: A-E, A-C, A-E Are subordinate to facts found with exception that the word "increase" in fact should be "decrease" when describing residential density. Department's Facts: 1, 2 Subordinate to facts found. Subordinate to facts found with exception that the reference to the property being within "unincorporated" limits should read "incorporated" limits. - 6 Subordinate to facts found. Subordinate to facts found with exception to the suggestion that the petitioners had to contact city council members to obtain a copy of the adopted plan in the absence of the clerk. - 20 Subordinate to facts found. Not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. - 26 Subordinate to facts found. COPIES FURNISHED: R. Jerry Harris P. O. Box 107 McIntosh, FL 32664 Anna Colwell P. O. Box 135 McIntosh, FL 32664 Thomas C. Stott Marie Stott P. O. Box 551 McIntosh, FL 32664 David Wilcox, Esquire 425 Pleasant Grove Road Inverness, FL 32652 Linda Loomis Shelley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Michael P. Donaldson, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100
