The Issue The issue in this case is whether the City of South Daytona Beach plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 94-05 on May 24, 1994, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact have been determined: Background The Parties Respondent, City of South Daytona Beach (City), is a local governmental unit subject to the land use planning requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. That chapter is administered by respondent, Department of Community Affairs (DCA). The DCA is charged with the responsibility of reviewing comprehensive growth management plans and amendments thereto. Petitioner, Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC), is a federal agency now acting as the receiver for Commonwealth Federal Savings & Loan Association, a banking institution taken over by that agency and which owned the property affected by the City's plan amendment. As the owner of property within the City, RTC is an affected person within the meaning of the law and thus has standing to bring this action. The Nature of the Dispute On October 29, 1993, the City received an oral request, which was later confirmed in writing, from Thomas J. Wetherall on behalf of various residential property owners to make an amendment to the City's comprehensive plan to change certain nearby vacant land owned by RTC from a general commercial designation to residential density 1. Under the request, the City would change the use on the eastern part of RTC's 5.6 acre tract of land from commercial to single-family residential use. The specific amendment involves a change in the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). Rather than treating the change as one initiated by a property owner, the City elected to have its city manager file the application on its own behalf. Public hearings were held on the plan amendment on January 19 and February 16, 1994. A transmittal hearing was then conducted by the City on February 22, 1994, and despite objections by RTC, final adoptive action occurred on May 24, 1994, through the enactment of Ordinance No. 94-05. Thereafter, on July 1, 1994, the DCA issued a notice of intent to find the amendment in compliance. On August 5, 1994, RTC filed a petition for an administrative hearing challenging the plan amendment on the ground it was inconsistent with the law in various respects. As clarified at hearing, petitioner contends the amendment (a) violates certain provisions within Section 163.3177, Florida Statutes, (b) is inconsistent with policies 2-1, 2-4, 2-6 and 7-3 of objective 2 of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the plan, and (c) is not supported by adequate data and analysis. The Plan Amendment Petitioner is the owner of a rectangular shaped tract of vacant land more commonly known as the Halifax Center. The land, which totals approximately 5.6 acres, lies between South Ridgewood Avenue (U. S. 1) to the west, Palmetto Avenue to the north, and Palmetto Circle to the east. The property being redesignated (2.6 acres) is the eastern part of the parcel and measures approximately 105 feet deep by 864 feet long. If found to be in compliance, the plan amendment would change the FLUM to redesignate the 2.6 acres of the property from general commercial to residential density 1. This means that instead of having its entire tract of property with a single designated commercial use, RTC would have a split designation, with roughly the eastern half designated as residential. Therefore, the eastern part of the tract could only be subdivided for a few substandard, medium to lower-end, single-family residential homes on lots 105 feet deep. Even then, the amendment does not give consideration to setback and buffer requirements needed between the newly created residential lots and the commercial land directly abutting their rear. Because of this, and the fact that its remaining commercial property has been reduced to a depth of 170 feet, petitioner complains that the value of its property has been substantially reduced, a concern not relevant here, and that the amendment does not conform to the requirements of the law. To the east of the subject property and across Palmetto Circle lie a string of large, single-family lots with upscale homes fronting on the Halifax River. It is this group of property owners who are responsible for the amendment. To the west of the property and across U. S. 1 is found a tract of vacant land designated for professional office land use. To the north of the property is found a combination of multi-family (8-10 units per acre) and general commercial uses. In crafting the amendment, it may be reasonably inferred that the City simply drew an arbitrary line down the middle of RTC's property, leaving what it believed to be was the bare minimum amount of commercial land necessary to comply with the plan. Although the City contended that one of the purposes of the amendment was to further its goal of increasing the amount of single-family housing in the City, it can be reasonably inferred that the true purpose of the amendment was to protect the value of homes located across Palmetto Circle by placing a buffer between their property and the commercial property to the west. Indeed, a City memorandum sent to the City's Land Development Regulation Board on January 12, 1994, stated that the purpose of the change was to "provide a buffer between (the) Ridgewood Avenue commercial zone and existing housing along Palmetto Circle." Is the Plan Amendment in Compliance? The City's comprehensive plan is broken down into elements which conform to the statutory requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. Under each element are found goals, objectives and policies. As is relevant here, the goal for the FLUE is to "(p)rovide for a well-rounded community as described in the overarching goal." Objective 2 of the FLUE is to: (l)ocate commercial and industrial land uses where transportation access is adequate and conflicts with other land uses can be minimized. Petitioner contends that the plan amendment conflicts with four of the policies which implement objective 2. These are policies 2-1, 2-4, 2-6 and 7-3, which read as follows: 2-1: Locate major commercial and industrial land uses along primary arterials. 2-4: Commercial districts along principal arterials shall be made deep enough to provide options to typical strip development. 2-6: Provide adequate commercial/industrial land for development or redevelopment which will result in a 15 percent increase in taxable value over the next ten years. 7-3: New development shall be required to be compatible with existing development by the arrangement of land use and/or the provision of adequate buffering. As noted earlier, petitioner's tract of land lies between U. S. 1 to the west and Palmetto Circle to the east. Because the western part of petitioner's property lies along Ridgewood Avenue (U.S. 1), a principal arterial road, and will continue to remain general commercial, the amendment is deemed to be consistent with policy 2-1. In other words, that portion of petitioner's property which retains a general commercial designation will be located "along primary arterials," in conformity with policy 2-1, while the remaining portion of the property which fronts on a local road (Palmetto Circle) will be designated residential. The purpose of policy 2-4 is to ensure that commercial districts along principal arterials such as U. S. 1 are deep enough to provide options to typical strip commercial development patterns. This type of development is defined as one or more buildings that are parallel to and facing the primary street with no circulation around the back. Petitioner contends that the plan amendment violates this policy since the remaining portion of its land designated general commercial will only be 170 feet deep in relation to U. S. 1, thereby severely limiting its development options. By reducing the depth of property, as will be done here by the City, the flexibility and creativity for developing petitioner's parcel will be substantially reduced. While respondents' experts opined that the site will be deep enough to accommodate some types of commercial development other than the typical strip pattern, such as freestanding buildings, a restaurant, or even two or three office buildings, the more persuasive evidence shows that anything less than 200 feet in depth eliminates virtually all meaningful development options except a strip shopping center. Since the remaining commercial land along U. S. 1 will not "be made deep enough to provide options to typical strip development," the amendment is inconsistent with policy 2-4. Under policy 2-6, the City's goal is to increase its tax base 15 percent by the year 2000. Since the overall plan went into effect in 1990, the City's tax base has increased approximately 14.5 percent. Petitioner contends that the plan amendment will substantially reduce the value of its property, and the concomitant tax base, and thus the plan amendment is inconsistent with the policy. But even if a reduction in value will occur, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the City's taxable value will not increase by an additional half percent during the next five years. Accordingly, the undersigned finds the amendment to be consistent with policy 2-6. Finally, Policy 7-3 requires that new development be compatible with existing development by the arrangement of land use and/or adequate buffering. Under the proposed plan amendment, the City has created a more integrated residential neighborhood along Palmetto Circle. Also, the redesignated land will serve as a form of buffer between the residential development on the east side of Palmetto Circle and the commercial development on the west side of Palmetto Circle. Although the City asserts that the change in land use should reduce the potential amount of traffic on the local road (Palmetto Circle) that would otherwise increase through commercial development, this assertion is questionable given the fact that no access to the commercial property from Palmetto Circle now exists. Finally, if the amendment becomes operative, the property would be the only single-family residential property on the corridor east of U. S. 1 and west of Palmetto Circle. Collectively, these considerations support a finding that the plan amendment's consistency with policy 7-3 is fairly debatable. Property appraisals are not appropriate data or analysis upon which to base future land use designations. In other words, property values should not control planning decisions. If they did, future land use maps would reflect only high intensity uses, not a balanced community. Except to the limited extent it bears on policy 2-6, evidence presented by petitioner that the plan amendment would decrease the value of the Halifax Center from $610,000.00 to less than $359.000.00 has little, if any, probative value on the other relevant issues. Although petitioner raised other contentions in its initial petition, including one that the plan amendment is not supported by adequate data and analysis, these issues have been deemed to be irrelevant, abandoned, or not supported by sufficient evidence to make a finding in petitioner's favor. In determining whether a plan amendment is in compliance, the DCA looks to consistency with the plan as a whole rather than isolated parts. Therefore, an amendment may be inconsistent with the plan in certain respects, but still be in compliance as a whole unless the inconsistency is determined to be "very important." It may be reasonably inferred from the evidence that the City's policy of discouraging "typical strip development" is an important ingredient in its overall plan. To summarize, the evidence fails to show to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan amendment is inconsistent with policies 2-1, 2-6 and 7-3 of objective 2 of the future land use element of the plan. As to policy 2-4, however, it is found that the City's determination of compliance is not fairly debatable, and thus the amendment is not in compliance in that respect.
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 the City of South Daytona Beach comprehensive plan amendment to be not in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of April, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of April, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-5182GM Petitioner: Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 4-6. Rejected as being a conclusion of law. 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. 8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 10. Partially accepted in finding of fact 16. 11-12. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rejected as being a conclusion of law. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. Partially accepted in finding of fact Rejected as being irrelevant since not Rejected as being a conclusion of law. Partially accepted in finding of fact 16. raised as an 13. issue. 19. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15. Rejected as being irrelevant. Partially accepted in finding of fact 17. Rejected as being irrelevant. Respondent (DCA): 1-2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 4. Partially accepted in findings of fact 4, 6 and 7. 5-6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. 7-10. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. 12-13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13. 14. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. 15. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15. 16. Partially accepted in finding of fact 17. Respondent (City): 1-2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 4-5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 6-7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. 8. Covered in preliminary statement. 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. 10-11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. 12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15. 13-14. Rejected as being irrelevant. 15. Partially accepted in finding of fact 16. 16. Covered in preliminary statement. 17-18. Partially accepted in finding of fact 17. 19. Covered in preliminary statement. 20. Partially accepted in finding of fact 16. 21. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. 22. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. 23. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15. 24-26. Partially accepted in finding of fact 16. 27-28. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. 29. Partially accepted in finding of fact 17. 30. Covered in preliminary statement. 31. Partially accepted in finding of fact 19. 32. Partially accepted in finding of fact 17. 33. Partially accepted in finding of fact 19. Note: Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being unnecessary for a resolution of the issues, irrelevant, not supported by the more credible, persuasive evidence, subordinate, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda Loomis Shelley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Dan R. Stengle, Esquire General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Maureen A. Arago, Esquire 1411 Edgewater Drive Suite 203 Orlando, FL 32804 Karen A. Brodeen, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Scott E. Simpson, Esquire 595 West Granada Boulevard Suite A Ormond Beach, FL 32174
The Issue Whether small-scale amendments to the City of Fernandina Beach Comprehensive Plan, adopted by Ordinances 2017-13 and 2017-15 on June 6, 2017 (the “FLUM Amendments”), are “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2016).1/
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Standing Petitioner, Ronald Ross, resides and owns property within the City. Mr. Ross submitted written comments concerning the FLUM Amendments to the City during the period of time beginning with the transmittal hearing for the FLUM Amendments and ending with the adoption of same. Respondent is a Florida municipal corporation with the duty and authority to adopt and amend a comprehensive plan, pursuant to section 163.3167, Florida Statutes (2017). The Subject Properties Together the FLUM Amendments affect eight contiguous parcels located at the corner of North 2nd Street and Broome Street, which runs perpendicular to, and dead ends at, North Front Street, the City’s historic waterfront. The subject properties are located two blocks east of North Front Street. The structure at 211 Broome Street is an existing single-family home built circa 1900. The structure at 205 Broome Street is a vacant single- family home built circa 1900. The parcel at 224 North 2nd Street contains a multi- family structure. The remaining parcels are vacant and undeveloped. The Amendments are owner-initiated. Existing Conditions Residential uses are not allowed in the IND land use category. As such, the residential uses on the subject parcels are non-conforming to the regulations for that category. The residential uses at 211 Broome Street and 224 North 2nd Street are “grandfathered” from the prohibition on residential uses, and are allowed to continue as non-conforming uses until such time as any one of a number of criteria are met. Significant redevelopment of the structure would trigger the requirement to conform to allowable uses. The residential structure at 205 Broome Street is vacant, in disrepair, and cannot be redeveloped for a residential use in the IND category. The FLUM Amendments The FLUM Amendments change the FLUM category for each of the eight parcels from IND to CBD. The purpose of the IND land use category is to “recognize the existing industrial development, appropriate open air recreation activities, and the animal shelter, and to ensure the availability of land for industrial and airport purposes.” Industrial uses include “airport dependent uses, manufacturing, assembling and distribution activities; warehousing and storage activities; green technologies, general commercial activities; integral airport related support services such as rental car facilities, parking facilities; and other similar land uses.” The CBD category is designed to “accommodate single- family or duplex residential uses, either ‘stand alone’ or in a mixed residential and business structures; offices; commercial retail; personal service establishments; restaurants; transient accommodations; commercial parking facilities; civic uses; and cultural uses.” The CBD allows other uses, such as indoor recreation, multi-family, marinas, daycare centers, and educational facilities, subject to certain conditions. The maximum density of residential uses in CBD is 34 units per acre (34/acre). The maximum intensity of non-residential uses in both IND and CBD is a floor area ratio (”FAR”) of 2.0. The Community Redevelopment Area All of the subject properties are located within the City’s Waterfront Area Community Redevelopment Area (“Waterfront Area CRA”). Section 163.360, Florida Statutes, authorizes local governments to undertake community redevelopment projects in areas designated as slum or blighted, or areas with a shortage of affordable housing. The local government must first adopt, by resolution, findings that slum, blight, or inadequate housing exists. See § 163.355, Fla. Stat. Following adoption of this “Finding of Necessity,” the local government, or community redevelopment agency, may adopt a community redevelopment plan for the area, following review and comment by the local planning agency, and an advertised public hearing. Once a community redevelopment area (“CRA”) is designated, the local government may issue redevelopment revenue bonds; approve investments, acquisitions, demolition, removal, or disposal of property in the area; approve community policing innovations; and exercise the power of eminent domain. The statute provides a financial benefit for CRAs known as tax increment financing, or “TIF.” The incremental increase in ad valorem value of properties within the CRA, derived from investment in the CRA, must be deposited in a trust fund established by the local government. TIF revenues may only be utilized for redevelopment projects within the CRA boundary. The City adopted a “Finding of Necessity” to establish a CRA in 2004. The City found the following statutorily- enumerated blighted conditions in its waterfront district: inadequate street layout and parking facilities; unsanitary or unsafe conditions; deterioration of site and other improvements; and inadequate and outdated building density patterns. In June 2004, the City established the Waterfront Area CRA including the marina, shrimping and seafood processing area, and adjacent residential areas, including the subject properties. The total acreage of the Waterfront Area CRA is 37.364 acres. In its 2005 resolution approving the Waterfront Area CRA Redevelopment Plan (Redevelopment Plan), the City found, “The Plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the municipality as a whole, for the rehabilitation or redevelopment of the Area by private enterprise.” Challenges to the Plan Amendments Internal Inconsistency Petitioner first challenges the FLUM Amendments as inconsistent with Housing Element Policy 3.01.01, which reads as follows: The City shall perform a housing needs assessment by December 2013. Information contained in the assessment should include, but not be limited to, information regarding housing trends; the number, type and condition of existing housing units; identification of substandard housing units; the number and types of housing units needed in the future for all income ranges based on growth projections; and shortages and/or deficiencies in the existing housing stock. The housing needs assessment should be updated a minimum of every five (5) years. It is an undisputed fact that the City has not conducted the housing needs assessment mandated by the subject policy. Petitioner maintains that the FLUM Amendments, which allow the subject properties to be developed (or, redeveloped, as the case may be) for residential densities as high as 34/acre, conflict with the policy. Petitioner’s argument on this point is essentially that the FLUM Amendments are not supported by relevant data and analysis in the form of the assessment called for in the policy. That argument is separate and apart from the issue of whether the FLUM Amendments create an internal inconsistency with the policy. The cited policy does not prohibit the City from adopting any plan amendment until the assessment is completed. Petitioner presented no expert witness testimony regarding internal inconsistency between the FLUM Amendments and the cited policy. The record does not support a finding that the FLUM Amendments are inconsistent with Housing Element Policy 3.01.01. Petitioner next contends the FLUM Amendments are inconsistent with Housing Element Policy 3.02.08, which reads as follows: The City shall establish a City-wide neighborhood planning program to encourage the stabilization and preservation of residential areas throughout the City and strengthen linkages between neighborhoods and City government. The parties stipulated that the City has not implemented the neighborhood planning program called for in the policy. Petitioner’s argument on this point is that without the neighborhood planning program, the City cannot assess the impact of the FLUM Amendments on the medium density residential neighborhood to the east of the subject properties.3/ The policy in question does not prohibit the City from adopting plan amendments until the neighborhood planning program is implemented. Petitioner introduced no expert witness testimony regarding internal inconsistency between the FLUM Amendments and the cited policy. The evidence does not support a finding that the FLUM Amendments are inconsistent with Housing Element Policy 3.02.08. Data and Analysis Petitioner’s last argument is the FLUM Amendments are inconsistent with section 163.3177(1)(f), which requires as follows: All . . . plan amendments shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and an analysis by the local government that may include, but not be limited to, surveys, studies, community goals and vision, and other data available at the time of adoption of the . . . plan amendment. The City’s Senior Planner, Kelly Gibson, testified in deposition that the FLUM Amendments are supported by the Findings of Necessity supporting creation of the Waterfront Area CRA, the Redevelopment Plan, and the historic development patterns of the Waterfront Area CRA. One of the City’s stated purposes of creating the Waterfront Area CRA is to “afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the municipality as a whole, for the rehabilitation or redevelopment of the Area by private enterprise.” Applicants for the change in land use designation of 205 and 211 Broome Street seek to redevelop the deteriorated residential structure at 211 Broome Street. The applicants will not invest in redevelopment of the property under the IND designation because that designation prohibits residential uses. The FLUM Amendments will encourage redevelopment by allowing the applicants to invest in the dilapidated structure. Further, the FLUM Amendments afford the applicants more flexibility in development of the vacant lots because, while the IND land use category is limited to the uses described in paragraph 14, above, the CBD category allows single-family and duplex residential uses, offices, commercial retail, personal service establishments, restaurants, transient accommodations, commercial parking facilities, civic uses, and cultural uses. The applicants for change in the land use designation of properties located at 224 North 2nd Street, and the adjoining vacant lots, seek to reinvest in the existing non-conforming multi-family residential structure. The FLUM Amendments encouragement redevelopment by allowing the reinvestment sought by the applicants. Likewise, the FLUM Amendments provide flexibility for infill development of the adjoining vacant lots. The Redevelopment Plan includes initiatives and programs for the Waterfront and “Transitional Areas.” The subject properties are located within a Transitional Area of the Waterfront Area CRA. One of the purposes of the Redevelopment Plan is to “encourage opportunities for new development by allowing a broader mix of uses in the . . . transitional areas[.]” Further, the Plan states, “It is critical that the strategies are prioritized to initiate growth of tax increment revenues to the Agency – a primary or seed funding source for many of the redevelopment efforts identified in this Plan.” Objective 2 of the Redevelopment Plan is to promote a mix of uses within the CRA. This section states, “The existing Future Land Use and Zoning designations along the waterfront and adjacent areas limit the type of allowable uses to industrial uses. Such limitations may be a primary impediment to redevelopment of the CRA.” The Redevelopment Plan further states, “[T]he City should take a proactive position in accommodating a broader mix of uses with design controls.” The CBD category allows a broader mix of uses than the IND category. See paragraphs 14 and 15, above. Further, the FLUM Amendments remove the impediment to redevelopment of the subject properties created by the prohibition on residential uses in the IND category. Petitioner elicited testimony from the City’s experts that there are minimal differences between the uses allowed within the existing zoning category of the subject properties and the zoning category sought under the applicant’s concurrent rezoning request. Petitioner proved that the uses allowed within the CBD zoning category, which are not allowed in the existing I-1 (Light Industrial), are residential, daycare centers, group homes, and bed and breakfast inns. The issue in this case is not the breadth of the zoning category, but that of the FLUM category.4/ The FLUM Amendments are supported by both the Findings of Necessity establishing, and the Redevelopment Plan for, the Waterfront Area CRA.5/ Finally, Petitioner points to Future Land Use (FLU) Policy 1.07.10 to support his argument that the FLUM Amendments are not supported by data and analysis. FLU Policy 1.07.10 reads, in pertinent part, as follows: A proposed amendment to the FLUM to increase the land area within the Central Business District land use category shall demonstrate the suitability of the proposed site based on: The need for additional land area within the Central Business District land use category; Consistency of the land area with the characteristics of the Central Business District; and Consistency of the land area with the characteristics of the downtown. Petitioner presented the lay testimony of former City Mayor and Councilman Greg Roland, distinguishing the location and characteristics of the downtown and the CBD from those of the subject properties. In the same vein, Petitioner grilled both Ms. Gibson and Mr. McCrary in deposition regarding what data and analysis support a need for additional land in the CBD. The testimony and other evidence regarding this policy was largely irrelevant because Petitioner did not allege, in either his Petition or the pre-hearing stipulation, that the FLUM Amendments were internally inconsistent with FLU Policy 1.07.10. The testimony regarding compliance with FLU Policy 1.07.10 was relevant to Petitioner’s contention that the FLUM Amendments are not based on relevant and appropriate data. However, as explained below, the issue is whether the FLUM Amendments are supported by data available at the time the amendments were adopted, not whether non-existent data may be contrary to the amendments. Petitioner did not prove beyond fair debate that the FLUM Amendments are not based upon relevant and appropriate data and analysis in violation of section 163.3177(1)(f).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Economic Opportunity enter a final order determining that the City of Fernandina Beach Comprehensive Plan Amendments adopted by Ordinances 2017-13 and 2017-15 on June 6, 2017, are “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2017). DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of November, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of November, 2017.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Town of Beverly Beach's Comprehensive Plan Amendment 03-1, initially adopted by Ordinance 2003-ORD-6 and amended by Ordinance 2004-ORD-6, is "in compliance," as required by Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes (2004).
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state land planning agency and has authority to administer and enforce the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes (2004). One of the Department's duties under the Act is to review proposed amendments to local government comprehensive plans to determine whether the amendments are in compliance with the Act. The Town of Beverly Beach is a small municipality in Flagler County, Florida, and has the duty and authority to adopt a local government comprehensive plan pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (2004), and to amend the plan from time to time. In June 2002, the Town proposed to amend its Future Land Use Map (FLUM) to change some of the land uses within the 37-acre Shelter Cove Planned Unit Development (PUD). The Shelter Cove PUD was the subject of an earlier lawsuit in the circuit court for Flagler County brought by the owners and developers of the property after the Town denied their PUD application. In 2002, the court entered judgment against the Town and ordered the Town to approve the PUD application. In its order, the court included a statement that the Shelter Cove PUD was consistent with the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of the plan amendment proposed in June 2002 was to re-designate 14.25 acres from Conservation/Spoil Area to Low Density Residential, 0.75 acres of Conservation/Spoil Area to Medium Density Residential, and 8.25 acres of Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. The proposed amendment was transmitted to the Department for compliance review. In its July 2003 ORC Report, the Department set forth four objections to the proposed amendment: 1) increased density in a Coastal High Hazard Area; 2) no traffic impact analysis regarding emergency evacuation; 3) inadequate potable water and sanitary sewer services; and 4) unsuitability for development because of saltwater marsh and potential use by threatened and endangered animal species. The Town made changes to the proposed amendment to address the Department's objections and adopted Plan Amendment 03-1 on October 6, 2003. One significant change made by the Town was to reduce the size of the land affected by the amendment from 23.25 acres to 14.5 acres. The stated purpose of the revised amendment was to deal exclusively with the spoil areas within the Shelter Cove PUD; to convert them from Conservation to Low Density Residential. The Department was not satisfied with the changes made by the Town and on November 17, 2003, it issued a Statement of Intent To Find The Comprehensive Plan Amendment Not In Compliance. This statement did not reassert the four objections of the ORC Report, but identified only two reasons for its determination that Plan Amendment 03-1 was not in compliance: 1) increased density in a Coastal High Hazard Area that would increase evacuation clearance times and 2) inadequate sanitary sewer facilities based on the denial of the utility's permit renewal by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). The Department recommended remedial actions that would bring Plan Amendment 03-1 into compliance. Thereafter, the Department and Town entered into a compliance agreement to identify remedial actions by the Town that would bring the plan amendment into compliance. Pursuant to the agreement, the Town adopted remedial measures in Ordinance 2004-ORD-6 (the Remedial Ordinance) that caused the Department to determine that the plan amendment was in compliance. The Remedial Ordinance (with additions and deletions as indicated in the ordinance) states in pertinent part: Limiting Density on the 14.5-acre amendment site & Hurricane Evacuation Plan Future Land Use Element: contains policies controlling the density and intensity of development (both residential and non- residential) in the Town of Beverly Beach. Policy A.1.1.9 The Low Density Residential (LDR) land use (up to 5 dwelling units/acre) shall be applied to 14.5 acres of upland spoil sites in the Shelter Cove development as shown in Exhibit A, not to exceed a total gross density of 28 residential units. In addition to the provisions described in Policy 1.1.4, the following provisions shall apply to the Shelter Cove Development: Residential land use for the Shelter Cove Planned Unit Development(PUD)shall be limited to a maximum of 115 dwelling units. The Town of Beverly Beach shall not issue a permit or certificate of occupancy until the Building Official certifies the required public facilities and services will be provided consistent with Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code (see Policy A.1.1.1). * * * Policy A.1.1.10 No later than December 2005, Beverly Beach shall revise its comprehensive plan to update the goals, objectives and policies and future land use map series and transmit such revisions to the Department of Community Affairs. The updated plan shall reflect changes to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, since the plan went into effect in 1991. This revision shall be based on a planning period through Year 2015, with current and forecasted conditions and satisfy data and analysis requirements. * * * Revise policies under Objective D.2.1, Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan regarding the provision of potable water and sanitary sewer Public Infrastructure/Facilities Element: refers to the protection of water quality by specific policies that require deficiencies in wastewater treatment facilities be corrected in accordance with DEP requirements. Objective D.2.1 By December 31, 1992 December 31, 2005, the Town shall require that existing deficiencies in the wastewater treatment package plants owned by Surfside Utilities operated by Ocean City Utilities be corrected in accordance with FDER Department of Environmental Protection [DEP] requirements. Policy D.2.1.1 As the Town does not own the wastewater treatment plants nor has operational control over the same, the Town shall formalize a coordination committee to include the owner/operator of Surfside Utilities Ocean City Utilities, the members of the Town Commission, members of the Flagler County Board of County Commissioners or their appointee, members of the City of Flagler Beach Commission or their appointee, and FDER the Department of Environmental Protection [DEP] and any other identified stakeholder in the Town. Policy D.2.1.2 The Town shall use the coordination committee to address the deficiencies in the wastewater plants, to set priorities for upgrading and replacing components of the plants, and to request FDER the Department of Environmental Protection [DEP]to increase and enforce their regulations requiring periodic monitoring and maintenance of package treatment plants. Policy D.1.2.3 The Town shall use the coordination committee to investigate the feasibility of assuming operational responsibility of the wastewater treatment system by another entity. Applying the five dwelling units per acre density allowed in the Low Density Residential category to 14.5 acres would generate 72.5 units. However, as indicated above, the Remedial Ordinance also restricted the total allowable dwelling units in the 14.5 acres to 28 units. The 28 units coincide with the site plan for the Shelter Cove PUD that was the subject of the circuit court judgment. The site plan called for 28 single- family lots in the former spoil areas. Charles Osbourne, Bernard Knight, and Mary Jo Knight were residents of the Town of Beverly Beach when the Town adopted Plan Amendment 03-1. They intervened against the Town in the original proceedings initiated by the Department. Following the Department's determination that the plan amendment had been brought into compliance by the Remedial Ordinance, they filed an Amended Petition to Intervene and were realigned as the Petitioners. On some date between the filing of their original petition in this case and the date of the final hearing, Petitioners Bernard Knight and Mary Jo Knight moved out of Beverly Beach. They are no longer residents of the Town. In their Amended Petition to Intervene, the Petitioners assert that the Remedial Ordinance did not resolve all the problems originally identified by the Department's ORC Report, and Plan Amendment 03-1 is still not in compliance. The Petitioners' objections to the amendment fall into three categories: insufficient and inaccurate data and analysis, insufficient legal description for the lands affected by the plan amendment, and inadequate wastewater services available for the increased density resulting from the amendment. These three categories will be used to organize the findings of fact that follow. Data and Analysis/Maps The Petitioners assert that the maps used for Plan Amendment 03-1 and the Remedial Amendment are not the official maps currently contained in the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan. They contend the unofficial maps contained errors that caused some of the area designated as Conservation/Saltwater Marsh to be included in the 14.5 acres re-designated Low Density Residential. At the hearing, the Petitioners also attempted to show that maps used by the Town with Plan Amendment 03-1 were not consistent with the Beverly Beach FLUM with regard to the depiction of saltwater marsh areas outside the 14.5 acres affected by the plan amendment. Whether such discrepancies exist is not a relevant inquiry for determining whether Plan Amendment 03-1 is in compliance. A 1997 report regarding threatened and endangered animal species, prepared by Lotspeich and Associates for the developer of the Shelter Cove PUD, includes a statement that there are 10.3 acres of spoil on the 37-acre PUD site. That figure is inconsistent with the Town's claim that the lands affected by Plan Amendment 03-1 consist of 14.5 acres of spoil. Lindsay Haga, a regional planner with the Northeast Florida Regional Planning Council (Council), made the determination that there are 14.5 acres of spoil area. Because the Town does not have a professional planning staff, the Council was providing planning services to the Town under contract. Ms. Haga worked on Plan Amendment 03-1 on behalf of the Town. Ms. Haga obtained a mapping of the land uses within the Shelter Cove PUD from information maintained by the St. Johns River Water Management District (District). The land use categories are based on the Future Land Use Classification Categorization System, and were applied by the District using aerial photography. Using professional software called "ArcView," Ms. Haga derived the size of the various land uses mapped within the Shelter Cove PUD by the District. The software calculated the size of the spoil areas as 14.5 acres. According to Ms. Haga, planners use this method "100 percent" of the time to delineate land uses on future land use maps. Ms. Haga was called as a witness by the Petitioners and by Beverly Beach and testified at length on direct and cross-examination on how she determined the size of the spoil areas. Nevertheless, some ambiguity remains as to whether the size and position of the spoil areas designated in the official Town FLUM are the same as their size and position as delineated by Ms. Haga for Plan Amendment 03-1 using information from the St Johns River Water Management District. The Town and the Department seem to suggest in their joint post-hearing submittal that the size and position of the spoil areas on the FLUM can be "cleaned up" or re-drawn using more site-specific information presented at the final hearing. The implication is that, if the Town's FLUM delineated less than 14.5 acres as Conservation/Spoil Area, but better data is presented at the hearing to show that the spoil areas actually cover 14.5 acres, the FLUM delineation can be ignored or treated as if did cover 14.5 acres. The redrawing of land uses as they are depicted on an adopted FLUM is arguably beyond the authority granted to the Department in Chapter 163. That issue need not be decided on this record, however, because the more credible and persuasive evidence shows there were no material changes to the size and position of the spoil areas in Plan Amendment 03-1, and no saltwater marsh was re-designated as Low Density Residential. Data and Analysis/Topographic Information The Petitioners assert that topographic data used by the Town was flawed and did not accurately reflect that much of the Shelter Cove PUD is within the 100-year floodplain. For example, the June 2002 Transmittal Packet sent to the Department included a statement that, "According to FEMA the 100 year floodplain is confined to the saltwater marsh areas located adjacent to the Intracoastal Waterway." At the hearing, the Town admitted that some of topographic information was inaccurate and described it as a "scrivener's error." The parties stipulated to the introduction into evidence of topographic information that indicates a portion of the 14.5 acres affected by Plan Amendment 03-1 lies within the 100-year floodplain. The Petitioners have not shown how the inclusion of inaccurate topographic in the data and analysis causes Plan Amendment 03-1 to be not in compliance; or, put another way, the Petitioners have not shown how the accurate topographic information proves Plan Amendment 03-1 will be inconsistent with the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan or applicable state laws and regulations. The Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan does not prohibit Low Density Residential uses in the 100-year floodplain. Data and Analysis/Clustering The Petitioners contend that the data and analysis was flawed because it included a reference to the possibility of clustering dwelling units to avoid adverse impacts to areas unsuitable for development, but the Town has no regulations that allow for or address clustering. Neither the Amended Petition to Intervene nor the evidence presented by the Petitioners makes clear how this alleged error causes Plan Amendment 03-1 to be not in compliance. Any alleged error must relate to the 14.5 acres affected by the amendment. The Petitioners did not show that clustering of dwelling units is planned or necessary on the 14.5 acres. Data and Analysis/Scrub Jays The Petitioners contend that the data and analysis is insufficient because it fails to describe and account for the current use of the site by the Florida scrub jay, a bird listed as threatened by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The Town and Department stipulated that scrub jays have been seen on the property. Charles Osbourne and Gail Duggins, a birdwatcher, testified that they have seen scrub jays in the Shelter Cove PUD area on several occasions. They marked Petitioners' Exhibit 15 to indicate eight specific sites within the PUD where they had observed scrub jays. None of the marked sites are located on the 14.5 acres affected by Plan Amendment 03-1. Lotspeich and Associates conducted a scrub jay survey on the 37-acre Shelter Cove PUD in 1997. They observed no scrub jays on the 14.5 acres that will be affected by Plan Amendment 03-1. In the written report of the survey, Lotspeich and Associates concluded that, "no jays reside on-site nor did any birds react as though they were defending territory which extended onto the property." Following a second survey in 2002, Lotspeich and Associates reached the same conclusion that the property "is unlikely to support a resident Florida scrub jay population." The observations of scrub jays made by Mr. Osbourne and Ms. Duggins do not contradict the conclusions of the Lotspeich and Associates reports. Mr. Osbourne and Ms. Duggins did not offer an opinion (and no foundation was laid for their competence to offer such an opinion) that scrub jays reside on the 14.5 acres affected by Plan Amendment 03-1. The Department's ORC Report stated that the originally-proposed amendment was not consistent with Policy E 1.4.3 of the Town's comprehensive plan which calls for the Town to obtain information from appropriate agencies concerning the known locations of listed plant and animal species. The Department recommended in the ORC Report that the Town conduct a survey for gopher tortoises and other listed species. The Department's objection about listed species, however, was not included its subsequent Statement of Intent to Find The Comprehensive Plan Amendment Not in Compliance. The Town had available to it, as part of the data and analysis to support Plan Amendment 03-1 and the Remedial Amendment, the Lotspeich and Associates reports prepared for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The reports convey the results of Lotspeich and Associates' surveys of the Shelter Cove PUD property for gopher tortoises, scrub jays and other listed species. It is likely to be the best information available since it is a site-specific, scientific study. The Petitioners did not show that better data were available or that the Lotspeich and Associates reports are flawed. In fact, the Lotspeich and Associates reports were exhibits offered by the Petitioners. Policy E.1.4.3 of the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan directs the Town to adopt land development regulations that provide protections for known listed species. Land development regulations are the usual and appropriate tools for applying specific protective measures to specific development proposals. No regulations have yet been adopted by the Town to protect listed species. Listed species are not left unprotected from development activities in the Town, however, since there are both state and federal laws to protect listed species and their habitats. Data and Analysis/Beach Access The Petitioners contend that the data and analysis was insufficient because it indicated that there are five locations in the Town where the public can gain access to the beach, but the Petitioners allege there are only two public beach walkovers that qualify under the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan. The beach access issue relates to the Town's recreational level of service standard adopted in the Recreation and Open Space Element of the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan. Policy F.1.1.1 specifies that the adopted level of service standard is "Five publicly-owned beach access facilities." The Petitioners apparently believe that the easements acquired by the Town that provide for public beach access across private property do not qualify as publicly-owned beach access facilities as contemplated by the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan. The term "publicly-owned beach access facilities" is not defined in the Recreation and Open Space Element, but one can find a statement at page F-2 that, "Access points and parking areas are support facilities for public owned beaches." Therefore, the Town considers an access point, without any man- made structures, to be a "facility." Furthermore, the comprehensive plan, itself, includes a map that depicts the location of the five public beach access points. It must be assumed that these access points met the Town's intent and meaning. By raising the issue of whether the data and analysis for Plan Amendment 03-1 is accurate in referring to the existence of five public beach access points, the Petitioners are collaterally attacking the existing comprehensive plan. Stephen Emmett, the mayor of Beverly Beach, stated that the five public beach access points depicted in the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan, as well as a new sixth beach access point, are currently maintained by the Town. Description of the Land Affected The Petitioners alleged in their Amended Petition to Intervene that the Town did not have an adequate legal description for the lands affected by the plan amendment. The issue was not raised in the Petitioners' Pre-Hearing Statement. When the Department objected to the Petitioners' presentation of evidence on this issue because it was not raised in their Pre- Hearing Statement, the Petitioners voluntarily withdrew the issue. Sanitary Sewer Services The Petitioners contend that sanitary sewer services are not adequate for the increased residential density that would result from Plan Amendment 03-1. The Beverly Beach Wastewater Treatment Facility is operated by Ocean City Utilities. Ocean City's application to renew the permit for the facility was denied by DEP in September 2003 because the facility was not in compliance with several DEP regulations. As a result of the denial of Ocean City's permit renewal application, DEP would not allow new customers to connect to the Beverly Beach Wastewater Treatment Facility, including the Shelter Cove PUD. DEP subsequently approved the connection of the Shelter Cove PUD wastewater collection system to the Beverly Beach Wastewater Treatment Facility. Permitting problems associated with the treatment plant was one reason for the Department's objection to the originally proposed plan amendment and the Department's subsequent determination that Plan Amendment 03-1 was not in compliance. No evidence was presented to show that Ocean City Utilities has corrected the deficiencies in the wastewater treatment plant or has obtained a renewal permit from DEP. Nevertheless, the Department determined that Plan Amendment 03-1 is in compliance based on the changes to the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan called for in the compliance agreement and adopted in the Remedial Ordinance. Objective D.2.1 of the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan was amended to require that existing deficiencies in the wastewater treatment plant be corrected by December 31, 2005. Policies D.2.1.1, D.2.1.2, D.2.1.3 were amended to re-constitute and re-energize a coordination committee to address the deficiencies in the wastewater plant and the feasibility of giving operational responsibility to another entity (such as Flagler County). In addition, the Remedial Ordinance amended Policy A.1.19 of the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan to prohibit the Town from issuing a permit or certificate of occupancy for the Shelter Cove PUD "until the Building Official certifies the required public facilities and services will be provided consistent with Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code." No dispute was raised about the available capacity of the Beverly Beach Wastewater Treatment Facility to serve the Shelter Cove PUD.
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 Town of Beverly Beach Plan Amendment 03-1, and Remedial Ordinance 2004-ORD-6, are "in compliance" as defined in Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes (2004). DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of August, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Shaw P. Stiller, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Sidney F. Ansbacher, Esquire Upchurch, Bailey and Upchurch, P.A. Post Office Box 3007 St. Augustine, Florida 32085-3007 Robert J. Riggio, Esquire Riggio & Mitchell, P.A. 400 South Palmetto Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Thaddeus Cohen, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Heidi Hughes, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether development orders (building permits) issued by Monroe County to John F. Myers are consistent with the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and land development regulations.
Findings Of Fact Findings based on parties' stipulations John F. Myers is the owner of real property known as Lot 43, Block 3, Lower Matecumbe Beach subdivision, Lower Matecumbe Key, in unincorporated Monroe County, Florida. Monroe County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and is responsible for issuing development orders for development in unincorporated Monroe County. Monroe County issued the development orders which are the subjects of this proceeding. Petitioner Department of Community Affairs is the state land planning agency with the responsibility to administer the provisions of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, and regulations promulgated thereunder; and with authority to appeal any development order issued in an area of critical state concern to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission. Sections 380.031(18), 380.032, 380.07(2), Florida Statutes. Most of Monroe County, including the subject property, is within the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern, as designated under Sections 380.05 and 380.0552, Florida Statutes. These statutory provisions require that Monroe County adopt and implement a comprehensive plan and land development regulations consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development. Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statutes, formerly Chapter 27F-8, F.A.C. Monroe County has adopted a comprehensive plan, effective September 15, 1986, which complies with the Principles for Guiding Development and which has been approved by the Department in Chapter 9J-14, F.A.C., and by the Administration Commission in Chapter 28-29, F.A.C. The Monroe County comprehensive plan is implemented by and through its adopted land development regulations, codified primarily in Chapter 9.5, Monroe County Code (MCC). On December 10, 1993, Monroe County issued to Respondent Myers seven (7) building permits, each numbered 9230005763, for development of a 4,418 square foot single-family residence with 1,363 square feet of porches, and a 2,300 square foot ground slab. The permits also authorize development of a 183 square foot retaining wall, 38 pilings, and a "dock 183 sq. ft x 8ft." on the subject property. The permits were rendered to the Department on December 14, 1993. The open water shoreline on the subject property has accreted. Included in the environmental standards of the Monroe County land development regulations is Section 9.5-345, Monroe County Code, entitled "Environmental design criteria," which provides, in relevant part: Disturbed Lands: All structures developed, used or occupied on land which are [sic] classified as disturbed on the existing conditions map shall be designated, located and constructed such that: * * * (3) On lands classified as disturbed with beach berm: * * * b. No beach-berm material is excavated or removed and no fill is deposited on a beach berm; * * * f. No structure shall be located within fifty (50) feet of any portion of any beach-berm complex which is known to serve as an active nesting or resting area of marine turtles, terns, gulls or other birds; Lower Matecumbe beach is an active nesting area for marine turtles. Loggerhead turtles, the primary marine turtles which nest on Atlantic beaches in the Keys, are a threatened species under the federal Endangered Species Act. There are thirty beaches in the Florida Keys which consist of loggerhead nesting habitat. The beach on Lower Matecumbe Key, including that portion of the beach which fronts on Mr. Myers' property, is a known turtle nesting beach that is ranked as the second most heavily nested beach in the Keys. The Monroe County comprehensive plan recognizes the beaches on Lower Matecumbe Key as known loggerhead turtle nesting beaches. Pursuant to the comprehensive plan, the County has prepared endangered species maps as a tool to be utilized in identifying known turtle nesting areas. Surveys of turtle nesting behavior in the Florida Keys are accomplished through a network of volunteers. The nesting survey information obtained from this volunteer network provides very general locations with varying degrees of accuracy depending on the number and ability of the volunteers and the extent to which they can obtain access to privately owned beach front property. Because of the limitations in the survey data, it is not generally possible to determine whether turtles have nested on a particular lot. Marine turtles most commonly nest within the first 50 feet landward of the mean high tide line, although they have been known to go farther upland. Because of the compressed beach and berm habitat in the Keys, loggerhead turtles have been known to nest in grassy vegetation and woody vegetation more than 50 feet landward of the mean high water line. Mr. Myers' property is properly designated as "disturbed lands" and there exists on this property a "beach-berm complex" which is known to serve as an active nesting area of marine turtles within the meaning of Section 9.5-345, Monroe County Code. The setback requirement found in Section 9.5-345, Monroe County Code, applies to this development. Consequently, no structure may be located within fifty (50) feet of any portion of the beach-berm complex which is known to serve as an active nesting area of marine turtles. Section 9.5-4(B-3), Monroe County Code, contains the following definition that is pertinent to this proceeding: (B-3) "Beach berm" means a bare, sandy shore- line with a mound or ridge of unconsolidated sand that is immediately landward of, and usually parallel to, the shoreline and beach. The sand is calcareous material that is the remains of marine organisms such as corals, algae and molluscs. The berm may include forested, coastal ridges and may be colonized by hammock vegetation. According to the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, the biota characteristic of beach systems in the Keys occur in up to four distinct generalized zones or associations, assemblages of plants and animals that have adapted to the environmental conditions of that zone. The zones on Keys beaches are described by Volume I of the Comprehensive Plan as follows: The strand-beach association is dominated by plants that are salt tolerant, root quickly, germinate from seed rapidly, and can withstand wave wash and shifting sand. Commonly found species include Sea Purslane (Sesuvium portulacastrum), Railroad Vine (Ipomoea pescaprae), Beach Grass (Panicum amarulum), Sea Oats (Uniola paniculata), Sea Lavender (Tournefortia gnapholodes), Coastal Ragweed (Ambrosia hispida) Bay Cedar (Suriana maritma), Cenchrus and Chamaesyce. On most Keys beaches this association occurs only at the base of the berm since the beach zone is very narrow. These plants also occupy the most seaward portion of the berm and continue some distance landward. * * * The next zone, "strand-dune" association begins with a steep and distinct increase in slope upward from the beach. This sloping portion of the berm receives the effects of the highest spring tides as well as storm-generated wave wash. The berm may be elevated only several inches or as much as several feet above the level of the beach and may extend landward hundreds of feet as a flat-topped plateau or beach ridge. The foreslope of the berm, or beach ridge, is vegetated primarily by the above-listed species of beach association. Grasses and herbaceous plants, which serve to stabilize this area, are most common. Proceeding landward, these pioneer species are joined by other species. * * * The strand-scrub association is generally considered a transition zone between strand-dune and hammock forest. Shrubs and occasional trees occur more frequently here and become more abundant as one proceeds landward. Species often found include Seagrape, . . . Wild Sage (Lantana involucrata), [and] Gray Nicker. . . . The most landward zone on the berm is occupied by tropical hardwood hammocks. On September 11, 1986, Monroe County issued building permit no. 20360 to John Brockway, Respondent Myers' predecessor in title, for development of a single-family residence on the subject property. The permit was issued prior to the effective date of the current Monroe County comprehensive plan and land development regulations, and prior to adoption of the setback provision in Section 9.5-345(o)(3)f., Monroe County Code, which is the subject of this proceeding. The Department of Community Affairs did not challenge the Brockway permit. In 1990, the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund issued to John and Patricia Brockway a deed for sovereignty submerged lands adjacent to the subject property. The County-approved site plans for the subject permits indicate that excavation for a stormwater swale will occur seaward of the proposed residence. Mr. Myers has no intent to excavate a stormwater swale seaward of the proposed residence. The subject building permits and approved plans shall be revised to eliminate the stormwater swale and demonstrate the means by which stormwater runoff will be addressed, as required by the Monroe County Code. Based upon this agreement, the Department will not pursue its allegation that the permits are inconsistent with section 9.5-345(0)(3)b., Monroe County Code, and considers that issue to be resolved by this agreement. The parties agree that that portion of the subject permits which authorizes development of a dock on Lot 43 is acceptable, and a dock may be developed on Lot 43, so long as the permits are amended to specify that (a) the dock shall be developed adjacent to Lot 43 on an existing dredged channel and not on the jetty or open water shoreline, and (b) development of the dock is conditioned upon the Owner obtaining permits for a principal use. Findings based on evidence at hearing The subject property is generally triangular in shape. It fronts on a cul-de-sac on the northeast side. Along the west side of the property is a dredged channel and a jetty or riprap revetment. Along the south side the property fronts on the Atlantic Ocean. On the east side of the property is a single-family residence. The subject property is undeveloped except for a fill pad or fill pile established some time ago around the cul-de-sac to the western side of the property. The purpose of the setback requirement in Section 9.5-345(o)(3)f., Monroe County Code, is to provide a habitat buffer to protect marine turtles from direct and indirect impacts of development, such as lighting impacts, noise, and clearing activities behind structures when people use their back yards. Buffers are a commonly used planning technique for both planning purposes and environmental purposes. The beach berm on the subject property has not moved over time. The shoreline has accreted in recent years and therefore the mean high tide line has moved seaward. This accretion provides additional habitat for marine turtles and affects the setback measurement when it is expressed as a number of feet from mean high water, as both parties have done in this case. However, the fact that a shoreline is either accreting or eroding is not relevant to a determination of the location of the beach berm. The parties agree that the berm is identified, at least in part, by a visual assessment of the increase and decrease in elevation of the property. A berm is essentially a rise in elevation which, moving landward from the water, rises up to a high point then begins to drop back off gradually until one reaches the adjacent grade or the natural grade beyond the berm. When the grade flattens out, that is generally the landward extent of the berm. The greater weight of the evidence shows that the landward extent of the beach berm complex on Respondent's property, and the area commonly utilized by marine turtles as nesting habitat are each approximately 50 feet landward of the mean high water line depicted on the June 1994 survey of Respondent's property. Expressed as a measurement from mean high water, the setback required by Section 9.5-345(o)(3)f., Monroe County Code, on Respondent's property is approximately 100 feet. A variance from the setback provision in Section 9.5-345(o)(3)f., Monroe County Code, is not authorized. However, a variance from the front yard setback may be available to Respondent if he wishes to develop the particular single-family residence shown on the plans approved with the subject permits. The Monroe County comprehensive plan, Vol. I, Background Data Element, Section (3) entitled "Community Character," provides: A principal focus of growth management is the protection and enhancement of quality of life. Community character is a fundamental element of the circumstances described as quality of life. Community character refers to the nature of an area and can be described in terms of both the natural and the built environment. For example, the character of an undeveloped area is determined by the natural environment and is characterized by extensive open space and other environmental values. In contrast, the character of a city is defined by the built environment and the quality of life depends upon the design and effect of buildings. * * * . . . . In the Keys there are readily identifiable community characters that can be defined by the nature and extent of various land uses per community. These community character types are: Native, Sparsely Settled, Sub-Urban, Urban Transition and Urban. The comprehensive plan goes on to describe each type of community character, and includes a lengthy discussion of the criteria for determining community character. These criteria include land use, design of man-made elements including intensity of buildings and the nature of open spaces, landscaping, and social interactions and experiences. Setbacks are not mentioned in the list of criteria for determining community character or in the descriptions of the various community character types. Regardless of whether other homes in the neighborhood meet the setback requirement in Section 9.5-345(o)(3)f., Monroe County Code, requiring Respondent to do so will not affect the community character of the neighborhood as defined in the Monroe County comprehensive plan.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission enter a final order denying permission to develop under Monroe County building permits no. 9230005763 as issued on December 10, 1993. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order state that Respondent will become eligible for permits if his development plans are modified as provided in paragraph 40 of the Conclusions of Law. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of August 1995 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 15th day of August 1995. APPENDIX The following are the specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Findings proposed by Petitioner: Paragraphs 1 through 7: Accepted. Paragraph 8: Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law, rather than a proposed finding of fact. Paragraphs 9 through 14: Accepted. Paragraphs 15 and 16: Rejected as statements of position or legal argument, rather than proposed findings of fact. (The statements in these paragraphs are essentially correct, but they are not proposed findings of fact.) Paragraphs 17 through 20: Rejected as further statements of position or legal argument, rather than proposed findings of fact. (To the extent necessary, the parties' positions are addressed in the conclusions of law portion of this Recommended Order.) Paragraph 21: Accepted. (This is a stipulated "fact".) Paragraphs 22 through 24: Accepted, with some minor clarification. Paragraphs 25 through 34: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. (Most of the details proposed in these paragraphs are supported by the evidence and all were considered in the formulation of the ultimate findings of material fact, but none of these details need to be included in the findings of fact in this Recommended Order. The findings proposed in paragraph 33 are rejected for the additional reason that they are supported only be uncorroborated hearsay evidence.) Paragraphs 35 and 36: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 37: Rejected as a statement of position, rather than a proposed finding of fact. Paragraphs 38 and 39: Accepted. Paragraph 40: Rejected as constituting argument, rather than proposed findings of fact. Paragraph 41: Accepted. Paragraphs 42 and 43: Rejected as constituting argument, rather than proposed findings of fact. Findings proposed by Respondent: Paragraphs 1 through 14: Accepted. (These are all stipulated facts.) Paragraph 15: Accepted. Paragraph 16: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 17: First and last sentences rejected as irrelevant. Middle sentence accepted. Paragraph 18: First sentence accepted. Last sentence rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 19: Most of this paragraph is rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details or as irrelevant. Some portions are rejected as not fully supported by persuasive evidence. Paragraph 20: First sentence rejected as too broadly worded to be meaningful. The last sentence is rejected as being a conclusion that is not warranted by the evidence. Paragraph 21: Accepted. Paragraph 22: First three sentences rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Last sentence accepted. Paragraph 23: First sentence rejected as not fully supported by the evidence. The berm line is, in general, a gentle curve that for the most part runs parallel to the gentle curve of the shore line. Second sentence is rejected as irrelevant or as unduly repetitious. Paragraph 24: Second sentence accepted. The remainder of this paragraph is rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details or as irrelevant. Paragraph 25: The first sentence is rejected as not fully supported by the persuasive evidence; the evidence is too vague to support the use of the word "immediately" in this context. The second sentence is rejected as irrelevant. The third, fourth, fifth, and sixth sentences are rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of the persuasive evidence. Paragraph 26: The first four sentences are rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details because the greater weight of the evidence is consistent with the version put forth by the Petitioner's witnesses. Greater confidence has been placed in the measurements by the Petitioner's witnesses than in the conflicting measurements described by Respondent's expert witness. The fifth sentence is accepted in substance. The sixth and seventh sentences are rejected as consisting of arguments or of conclusions that are contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 27 and 28: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 29: First two sentences rejected as argument. Third and fourth sentences rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and as apparently based on testimony that has been taken out of context or has been misunderstood. Fifth sentence rejected as argument. Sixth sentence rejected as an over-simplification. Seventh sentence rejected as an argument or conclusion that is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 30: Rejected as unnecessary summaries of testimony, rather than proposed findings of fact. Further, these summaries are, for the most part, either not fully supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence or are contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Some of these summaries also emphasize details that are apparently based on a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of selected portions of the evidence and ignore the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 31: First sentence rejected as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. (To the contrary, it appears to be based on a misunderstanding or a misinterpretation of Mr. Metcalf's testimony.) The second, third, and fourth sentences are rejected as argument; specifically, argument that is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 32: Rejected as argument; specifically, argument that is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Sherry A. Spiers, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Stephanie M. Gehres, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2796 Overseas Highway, Suite 212 Marathon, Florida 32301-1859 Chris Haughee, Esquire Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A. 216 South Monroe Street, Suite 200 Post Office Box 10555 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Randy Ludacer, Esquire Fleming Street Key West, Florida 33040 Carolyn Dekle, Director South Florida Regional Planning Council 3400 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 140 Hollywood, Florida 33021 Linda Loomis Shelley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Dan Stengle, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Bob Bradley, Secretary Florida Land & Water Adjudicatory Commission Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The ultimate issue is whether the Applicant, Florida-Georgia Venture Group, is entitled to development orders for its proposed development of regional impact, Hunter's Ridge, in Flagler County and the City of Ormond Beach, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is Florida-Georgia Venture Group, 402 Clifton Avenue, Holly Hill, Florida 32117, and its authorized agent is Thomas L. Durrance, Managing Partner. The Hunter's Ridge project lies within the jurisdiction of both the Northeast Florida Regional Planning Council (NEFRPC) and the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council (ECFRPC) and underwent concurrent review. The Hunter's Ridge project as proposed in this proceeding is a proposed planned unit development located in the unincorporated area of Flagler County and in the City of Ormond Beach on approximately 5,037 acres. The portion of the Hunter's Ridge project located in the unincorporated area of Flagler County consists of approximately 3,800 acres, of which 1,940 acres will be preserved as conservation area. The portion to be developed in the unincorporated area of Flagler County is approximately 1,860 acres, consisting of 1,702 residential units, plus commercial, recreational, and other uses. The portion of the Hunter's Ridge project located in the City of Ormond Beach consists of approximately 1,237 acres, of which 327 acres will be preserved as conservation area. The portion of the property in Ormond Beach to be developed is approximately 910 acres, consisting of 982 residential units, plus commercial, recreational, and other uses. Of the residential units to be developed in the City of Ormond Beach, 109 residential units were approved by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) under a preliminary development agreement. The Board of County Commissioners of Flagler County held a public hearing on the DRI/ADA on July 13, 1989, which was continued to October 12, 1989, to November 2, 1989, to January 11, 1990, and to January 25, 1990. On January 25, 1990, the Board of County Commissioners of Flagler County passed and adopted a Development Order for the Hunter's Ridge DRI, which Development Order was recorded in Official Records Book 0423, Page 0669 through 0728, Public Records of Flagler County, Florida. The City Commission of the City of Ormond Beach held a public hearing on the DRI/ADA on August 15, 1989, which was continued to September 5, 1989, to September 19, 1989, to October 3, 1989, to October 17, 1989 and to January 30, 1990. At the public hearing on January 30, 1990, the City of Ormond Beach adopted Resolution 90-20 denying the DRI/ADA for the portion of the Hunter's Ridge DRI located in the City of Ormond Beach. The DCA, pursuant to Section 380.07, Florida Statutes, and Rules 42- 2.002 through 42-2.011, Florida Administrative Code, timely filed a Notice of Appeal and Petition for Administrative Hearing with the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (FLWAC), whereby DCA appealed the Development Order adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Flagler County. The Applicant, pursuant to Section 380.07, Florida Statutes, and Rules 42-2.002 through 42-2.011, Florida Administrative Code, timely filed a Notice of Appeal and Petition for Administrative Hearing with FLWAC, whereby the Applicant appealed the denial of approval by Ormond Beach. This cause came before FLWAC on May 22, 1990, for consideration of the Appeals and the Petitions for Administrative Hearing; FLWAC ordered that this matter be forwarded to Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) for assignment of a hearing officer and further proceedings. At the Administrative Hearing conducted by DOAH, on December 5-7, 1990, the Applicant amended its DRI/ADA to reduce the size of the project and to reallocate land uses, densities, and other components of the project. The current scope of the project is reflected in Florida-Georgia Exhibits 1-5, 9, and 14. As amended by the Applicant, the proposed project now consists of the following uses in Flagler County: 11.61 acres of Village Retail Office; 5.71 acres of Village Office; 16.68 acres of Light Industrial; 197.18 acres of Village Services/Recreational; 90.89 acres of Parks and Schools; 64.52 acres of Multi-Family Residential (with Upland Buffer); 259.34 acres of Wetlands; 146.93 acres of Roads, Drainage, and Retention; 52.90 acres of Lakes; 130.00 acres of Golf Course; 57.25 acres of Utility Easement; and 130.00 acres of Single Family Residential. The total number of dwelling units permitted in the County is 220 townhouses and villas and 145 apartments and condominiums. As amended by the Applicant, the proposed project now consists of the following uses in the City: 192.00 acres of Village Services/Recreational; 30.61 acres of Parks and Schools; 14.51 acres of Multi-Family Residential (with Upland Buffer); 174.54 acres of Wetlands; 110.95 acres of Roads, Drainage, and Retention; 28.65 acres of Lakes; 17.32 acres of Utility Easement; and 341.42 acres of Single Family Residential (with Upland Buffer). The total number of dwelling units permitted in the City are 932 single family units and 50 townhouses and villas. Generally speaking, the portions of the development within the County which are to be developed are in Township 41 South, Range 31 East, Section 22 and the east half of Section 21; Section 15 and the east half of Section 16, with the exception of a golf course in Section 15, constitute an area that, if it is to be developed in the future, will require a substantial deviation approval from all concerned agencies. Pursuant to stipulation of the Applicant and Flagler County, an area approximating Section 15 and the east half of Section 16 will be redesignated under the Flagler County Comprehensive Plan as Agricultural, with a permitted residential density of not more than one unit per five acres. Pursuant to stipulation, Sections 17 and 20 and the west halves of Sections 16 and 21, along with most of the portions of Sections 29 and 30 north of State Road 40, will be deeded to a public or public interest agency, with the Applicant retaining the right to conduct silviculture with best management practices except in those wetland areas of the property designated for conservation. The parties, with the exception of Citizens, have stipulated that Florida-Georgia Exhibit 5 constitutes the necessary affordable housing conditions for the project. The affordable housing provisions of the proposed project are consistent of the requirements of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, Rule 9J-2, Florida Administrative Code, and the State Comprehensive Plan. The affordable housing conditions adequately address affordable housing needs of the project consistent with all local government, state, and regional requirements and regulations. The Applicant, the Florida Audubon Society, Flagler County and the City of Ormond Beach, have stipulated that the conditions contained in their Joint Stipulation, filed as Florida-Georgia Exhibit 9 satisfactorily resolve all issues concerning wetlands, wildlife habitat, and endangered species. The soils on the project will support the proposed development. During review of the DRI/ADA by the RPCs, Volusia County submitted comments and recommendations to ECFRPC. The comments and recommendations of Volusia County were considered by ECFRPC when it adopted its recommended conditions of approval. The conservation area proposed by the Applicant represents a significant contribution to conservation and wildlife. The proposed Development Orders and Conditions of Approval adequately address the regional impacts of the project on the environment and natural resources. The proposed Development Orders and Conditions of Approval include measures intended to address impacts upon, and to protect, the Little Tomoka River. The proposed Development Orders and Conditions of Approval provide for preservation and conservation of wetlands. The proposed Development Orders and Conditions of Approval provide flexibility for protection of environmentally sensitive areas. The proposed plan of development reflects a development that provides adequate environmental protection. The proposed project will have no adverse environmental impacts in the City of Ormond Beach. The proposed Development Orders and Conditions of Approval provide protection for the Little Tomoka River, preventive measures regarding stormwater discharge and stormwater treatment, and mitigative, water quality treatment methods in the surface drainage system, if any degradation is found at a later date. The proposed Conditions of Approval require that all construction within the project be protected against flooding. The project has sufficient safeguards to prevent construction within flood prone areas. Minimum floor elevations for flood plain purposes will be controlled by FEMA flood plain designations and by local rules and regulations, and will be established on a case by case basis for the Hunter's Ridge project. The proposed Conditions of Approval addressing transportation impacts and facilities are consistent with the provisions of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, with the provisions of Rule 9J-2, Florida Administrative Code, and with the State Comprehensive Plan. The proposed Conditions of Approval ensure that the Hunter's Ridge project will not have an adverse impact on regionally significant roadways, including State Road 40. The proposed Conditions of Approval will ensure that the regional highway network will function at the desired level of service during the project buildout. The proposed Conditions of Approval are consistent with the provisions of Section 380.06(12), Florida Statutes, relating to transportation impacts. The proposed Conditions of Approval adequately address the transportation concerns of Flagler County. The proposed Conditions of Approval adequately address the transportation impacts on the City of Ormond Beach. The proposed Conditions of Approval dealing with public facilities are consistent with the provisions of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, consistent with the provisions of Rule 9J-2, Florida Administrative Code, and consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan. If the conditions for providing public facilities are not met by the Applicant, development must cease. The proposed Conditions of Approval dealing with public facilities are consistent with the concurrency requirements of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. The proposed Development Orders and Conditions of Approval adequately address the regional impacts of the project on public services and facilities. The proposed plan for development of the Flagler County portion of the project provides for all required public facilities and services. The Applicant will have to subsidize any deficits in providing public services. The Applicant has agreed to make contributions intended to assist Flagler County in providing public services to residents of areas outside of the Hunter's Ridge project. Solid waste is not an issue in Flagler County. The proposed Conditions of Approval for the Flagler County portion of the project provide three options for wastewater treatment. The proposed Conditions of Approval for the Flagler County portion of the project require that the project must stand on its own and must provide water supply and wastewater treatment without cost to the rest of the residents of Flagler County. The Flagler County portion of the project requires 1,200 to 1,500 dwelling units to provide a self-contained, self-supporting, self-sufficient development which will not require subsidy by other Flagler County taxpayers. The good mix of land uses contained in the proposed plan for development will help the tax base of Flagler County and avoid a deficit during the buildout of the project prior to construction of 1,200 to 1,500 dwelling units. The tax base, the values, and the assessments for the proposed project will provide sufficient funds to support the development. The proposed Conditions of Approval for the Flagler County portion of the project provide for voluntary contributions by the Applicant in excess of what is required by local ordinance. The dedication and donation of the golf course and conservation areas to Flagler County are voluntary contributions by the Applicant. The Ormond Beach portion of Hunter's Ridge project will not require a separate police patrol zone. The Ormond Beach Police Department can provide acceptable response times for the portions of the project within the City. The public safety site to be dedicated by the Applicant will benefit the City and the Police Department and will be helpful in rendering public safety services to the citizens of Ormond Beach. The Ormond Beach portion of Hunter's Ridge project will provide needed revenue to provide needed Police Department services. The Ormond Beach Police Department can adequately provide public safety services for the Hunter's Ridge area and respond to public safety needs within a reasonable amount of time. The City of Ormond Beach is capable of providing potable water service to the project. Impact fees generated by the project will be sufficient to fund water supply and wastewater capital facilities needed to serve the project. The City has adopted the West Ormond Plan to provide utilities to the Hunter's Ridge project. The Applicant has dedicated to the City a westerly wellfield site which will be needed for the entire city in the future, even if the Hunter's Ridge project is not developed. The City of Ormond Beach does not lose money on water and sewer fees. If the homes built in the Ormond Beach portion of the Hunter's Ridge project approximate the assessed values of existing homes within the city, there will be no revenue strain on the operating budget of the City of Ormond Beach. The average sale price for homes in the Hunter's Ridge project will be higher than the current average sale price within the City of Ormond Beach. The Hunter's Ridge project will not place an economic strain on the City of Ormond Beach. Future growth in the City of Ormond Beach will pay for itself in terms of capital needs. The fiscal problems of the City of Ormond Beach are not unique, but are similar to those occurring throughout the state. Increased property values from the Hunter's Ridge project will help the city's fiscal problems in the long run. The City of Ormond Beach has a great deal of ad valorem capacity to meet service needs and operating budgets. The Hunter's Ridge DRI will make significantly more contributions to public services and facilities than traditional subdivisions. The reduced project as proposed for approval in this proceeding contributes a greater amount of money toward public facilities. The public safety site to be dedicated in the Ormond Beach portion of the project is adequate to serve the fire fighting needs of the project and the surrounding areas. The public safety site to be dedicated in the Ormond Beach portion of the project gives the city flexibility in providing fire fighting services if the road network connecting the project with Shadow Crossings and Breakaway Trails is in place and will enable the city to better serve Shadow Crossings and Breakaway Trails. The roadway network for the Hunter's Ridge project will provide interconnections with Shadow Crossings and Breakaway Trails for the provision of police, fire, and emergency services. The Hunter's Ridge project will have no impact on solid waste in the City of Ormond Beach. The Hunter's Ridge project will have no impact on the vehicular needs of the City of Ormond Beach Department of Public Works. The Hunter's Ridge project will have no adverse impact on road maintenance in the City of Ormond Beach. The proposed Hunter's Ridge DRI is consistent with the requirements of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, the requirements of Rule 9J-2, Florida Administrative Code, and the requirements of the State Comprehensive Plan. The Hunter's Ridge DRI meets all regional requirements. The Hunter's Ridge DRI does not represent "leap frog development," nor does it constitute "urban sprawl." The density of 982 dwelling units for the Ormond Beach portion of the Hunter's Ridge project is consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. Reducing the density proposed for the Ormond Beach portion of the project from 982 residential units to 882 residential dwelling units would not necessarily be considered an improvement to furthering the plan concept. The Hunter's Ridge DRI is consistent with the plans and policies of the Regional Planning Councils. As to the portions within Flagler County, the Hunter's Ridge DRI: Is consistent with the provisions of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes; Is beneficial to Flagler County; Is consistent with the Flagler County Comprehensive Plan; Is consistent with the NEFRPC report and recommendations; Is superior to existing zoning; Provides better development and more planning opportunities than non- DRI approaches to development; and, Provides adequate controls for the development of Hunter's Ridge. The Ormond Beach portion of the project: Is consistent with the provisions of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes; Is consistent with the Ormond Beach Comprehensive Plan and all City ordinances and regulations; Adequately mitigates against adverse impacts through the Conditions of the proposed Development Order. To the extent that the opinions of some witnesses, primarily Mr. Grace and Mr. Shearer, have not been adopted in these Findings of Fact, they are deemed to be unreliable or lacking in substantial weight or persuasive value.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission enter a Final Order and therein: Adopt the development order with conditions as set forth in the Joint Stipulation of Florida-Georgia Venture Group and the City of Ormond Beach. Adopt the development order with conditions as set forth in the Joint Stipulation of Florida-Georgia Venture Group and Flagler County. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of March, 1991. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Florida-Georgia Venture Group Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1-5(1-5); 12-14(6-8); 16- 19(9-12); 20(18); 22-25(19-22); 27-38(23-34); 40-89(35-83); 91(84); 92(85); 94(86); 97(87(; and 98(88). Proposed findings of fact 26, 39, 90, 93, 95, and 96 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 6-11 and 21 are unnecessary. Proposed finding of fact 15 is irrelevant. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Department of Community Affairs Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 8-12(13-17). Proposed findings of fact 1, 2, and 13-17 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 3-7 are unnecessary. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the City of Ormond Beach 1. Proposed findings of fact 1, 8, 10-17, 21, 33-36, 38-40, 43, 46, and 49 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 2-7, 19, 20, 22, 23, 37, 47, 48, and 50 are irrelevant. Proposed findings of fact 9, 18, 24-32, 41, 42, 44, 45, 51, and 52 are unsupported by the credible, competent and substantial evidence. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Citizens for Ormond Beach 1. Proposed findings of fact 7, 9-11, 13-19, 21-25, 35, 47, and 49-52 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 8, 12, 20, 26-32, 34, 42, and 57 are irrelevant. Proposed findings of fact 33, 36-39, 43-46, 48, and 53-56 are unsupported by the credible, competent and substantial evidence. Proposed findings of fact 1-6, 40, and 41 are unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: J. Doyle Tumbleson, Attorney at Law Kinsey Vincent Pyle Professional Association 150 South Palmetto Avenue, Box A Daytona Beach, FL 32114 Fred S. Disselkoen, Jr. Attorney at Law City of Ormond Beach Post Office Box 277 Ormond Beach, FL 32175-0277 Gerald S. Livingston Attorney at Law Post Office Box 2151 Orlando, FL 32802 Timothy Keyser, Attorney at Law Post Office Box 92 Interlachen, FL 32148 Jonathan Hewett Attorney at Law Central Florida Legal Services, Inc. 216 South Sixth Street Palatka, FL 32177 David Russ, Senior Attorney Julia Johnson, Attorney Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Charles Lee Senior Vice President Florida Audubon Society 1101 Audubon Way Maitland, FL 32751 Linda Loomis Shelley Attorney at Law Dixon, Blanton & Shelley 902 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, FL 32303 Noah McKinnon Attorney at Law 595 West Granada Avenue Ormond Beach, FL 32075 Douglas M. Cook, Director Planning and Budgeting Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Executive Office of the Governor The Capitol, PL-05 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts Jim and Paulette Holzinger own Lot 17, Section B, Long Beach Estates, located on Big Pine Key in unincorporated Monroe County, Florida. The property is south of Long Beach Drive. The property is located within the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern. See Sections 380.05 and 380.0552, Florida Statutes. Under these statutes, Monroe County adopted a comprehensive plan and implemented it with land development regulations which are consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development found in Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statutes. The Department of Community Affairs approved the County's comprehensive plan in Rule Chapter 9J-14, Florida Administrative Code, and the Administration Commission approved the comprehensive plan in Chapter 28-29, Florida Administrative Code. The County's comprehensive plan is implemented through its land development regulations, codified as Chapter 9.5 of the Monroe County Code. Monroe County is responsible for issuing development orders for land development in unincorporated Monroe County, including these development orders (building permits). The Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Act, Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, restricts the County from permitting development which is inconsistent with the Monroe County Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Sections 163.3161(2) and 163.3194(1), Florida Statutes. No person may undertake any development within an area of Critical State Concern except in conformity with Chapter 380; Section 380.05(16), Florida Statutes. After the County issued the three related permits, the Holzingers engaged Pinewood Enterprises, Inc., as general contractor, for the construction of their single-family residence. Those permits were rendered to the Department of Community Affairs on July 21, 1992, and the Department issued its notice of appeal of those permits on September 4, 1992. No party disputes the timeliness of the appeal. The Holzingers' lot is vegetated by mangroves, transitional plant species, and beach berm plant species. The site plan, and which was part of the Holzingers' application for the permits, which Monroe County approved, includes the approval of dredging of a portion of Lot 17 and the placement of fill on site to provide driveway access to the single-family residence. The site plan locates the single-family residence in an area of Bay Cedar thicket. The mangroves are located along the north of the lot along Long Beach Drive. Facts Found Based on Evidence Adduced at the Final Hearing The Holzingers' lot is located at the southernmost area of Big Pine Key, and is separated from the rest of the key by a wetland to the north of the property. To its south is the Atlantic Ocean. The lot is approximately 100' x 230' and contains approximately 22,750 square feet from property line to property line. On the lower keys land elevations only extend from sea level to a maximum of approximately five or six feet above sea level. The soil or substrate conditions on the lot are white calcareous deposits which appear to the untrained eye to be sand. It is not quartzite, but deposits from the breakdown of marine grasses or marine algae which have the appearance of sand. There is no caprock on the property. B (1). Habitats Recognized in the Monroe County Plan The Monroe County Comprehensive Development Plan is based upon the Data and Analysis found in volume 1 of the Plan. According to that Data and Analysis, there are different types of habitat found in the Keys. These include salt marsh, salt marsh and buttonwood association, mangrove community, tropical hardwood hammock, and beach berm complex. The most significant one here is beach berm complex; it includes: "bare, sandy shoreline with a mound or ridge of unconsolidated sand that is immediately landward of and usually parallel to the shoreline and beach. The sand is calcareous material that is the remains of marine organism such as corals, algae and mollusks. The berm may include forested costal ridges and may be colonized by hammock vegetation." Section 9.5-4(B-3), Monroe County Code [the land development regulations]. In the Data and Analysis, the County records that on Long Beach Key the most landward area of the berm is tropical hardwood hammock. The low hammocks are upland hardwood forest communities containing species such as blolly, buttonwoods, darling plums, spanish stopper and wild dilly, all of which are found on the vegitation survey of the lot done by a biologist for Mother Nature's Enterprises, Linda Pierce, as part of the Holzinger building permit application. See Section 9.5-4(L-10), Monroe County Code, which defines low hammocks. Low hammocks include berm hammock, and the beach berm association described in the County comprehensive plan includes berm hammocks (Tr. 184). B (2). The Land Use Maps and their Designations The existing conditions map which is part of the Monroe County comprehensive plan designates the area of the Holzingers' property as beach berm association. That map is drawn at the sale of one inch equals 2,000 feet. Similar aerial maps at a scale an order of magnitude smaller (one inch equals 200 feet) also show the land as beach berm with fringing mangroves. These aerial photographs have been overlaid with the Comprehensive Plan's habitat designations for use in the practical application of the land development regulations by County employees. Under the land use regulations found in the Monroe County Code, the County Commission is required to follow the existing conditions map it adopted, Section 9.5-227, Monroe County Code. Under the first paragraph of Section 9.5- 345 the environmental design criteria applicable to development of a parcel of land depend upon the habitat designated for the parcel on the existing conditions map (the map drawn at the larger scale of one inch equals 2,000 feet). Ground proofing of the habitat on the lot done by the Lower Keys' biologist, Diana Stephenson, and by the Department of Community Affairs planner/biologist, Kathleen Edgerton, show that the land is actually beach berm from the ocean to the mangroves, and there is a small area of disturbed saltmarsh landward from the mangroves to the county road which runs down the center of the key. I am not persuaded by the testimony of the biologist for the Holzingers, Mr. Smith, who believes that there is a separate tropical hardwood hammock habitat on the Holzingers' lot. A full habitat analysis would have been required if there were mixed habitats on the lot (Tr. 88, 96) and the Holzingers did not submit one to the County as part of their application. Because the County biologist found no separate low hardwood hammock habitat on the lot, she believed that no habitat evaluation index was required in processing the Holzinger application, and none was done independently by the County. Mr. Smith contended at final hearing that there are several distinct habitats on the single lot. Moving south from Long Beach Drive toward the ocean he first finds a disturbed saltmarsh of approximately 4,000 square feet; then a mangrove community of about 2,500 square feet; then a saltmarsh and buttonwood association of about 2,500 square feet; next a tropical hardwood hammock of moderate quality and finally, closest to the ocean, beach berm complex. This analysis, which designates a separate saltmarsh and buttonwood association waterward of the mangrove community, and then a separate tropical hardwood hammock waterward of the saltmarsh and buttonwood association, fails to give significant weight to the fact that low hammocks are typically found within beach berm complex. While Mr. Smith testified to the square footages for each of the five habitats, he only performed rough calculations for their size, he was not working with, nor did he perform an actual survey which would define the boundaries of the various habitats he believes are present. He readily acknowledged his preliminary habitat analysis was incomplete. Moreover, accepting for the sake of argument that there is a mixed habitat on the lot under the evidence adduced by the Holzingers, a complete habitat evaluation index should have been performed by the Holzingers as a necessary part of their application, since the County biologist did not do one in the belief there was no need for one. The essential problem with the view expressed by Mr. Smith that there are five habitats on this 100-foot lot is his contention that due to the very small changes in elevation through the Keys, one must identify different habitats recognized in the Monroe County comprehensive plan and land development regulations by assessing the predominance of different types of vegitation typical of a habitat. To Mr. Smith, if the vegitation is of a type normally found in a tropical hardwood hammock, and it predominates over the other vegitation, that area must be classified as a tropical hardwood hammock. At that level of generalization, the statement is no doubt true. Neither the land development regulations or the County's Comprehensive Plan require, or even permit, a microanalysis of the vegitation for the purpose of defining multiple habitats on a lot. Taking a broad view, such as that embodied in the existing conditions map, the predominate vegetative and soil conditions on the southern part of the island where Lot 17 is located are consistent with the categorization as beach berm association. The same is true using the aerial maps on which the different habitat designations from the land development regulations have been overlaid. What Mr. Smith has done is to look for small areas within the 100' x 230' parcel to identify areas where tropical hardwood species may be said to "predominate." The obvious purpose of Mr. Smith's division of the lot into small areas is to be able to characterize these uplands species as "predominating." This is essential to justify intensive use of the property. The comprehensive plan and the land development regulations do not permit any use of areas colonized by mangroves, which are wholly protected by a 100 percent open space requirement. This means that 100 percent of the area colonized by mangroves must be maintained in its natural condition and free and open to the sky, Section 9.5-343, Monroe County Code. Open space ratio for saltmarsh and buttonwood associations is .85 but for moderate quality low hammocks is only .60. Beach berm association is highly protected, with an open space requirement of 90 percent. Only 10 percent of the land area waterward of the mangrove habitat, therefore, can be covered with the footprint of the single-family residence and any associated driveway or other access way because it is beach berm complex. Accepting the mangrove line contained in the vegitation assessment submitted by the Holzingers in their application done by Mother Nature's Enterprises, and then using a "planimeter" to measure the area from the mangrove line to the mean high water line on the lot, there is 16,594 square feet of property. Given the 90 percent open space requirement, a very small area of 1,659 square feet may be covered with the footprint of the single-family home, including its porch, eaves, and driveway. The footprint of the house, its porch, and driveway shown on the site plan approved by the County, with the addition of a five-foot clearing zone around the footprint of the house [because it is essentially impossible to clear land only to the footprint of the completed building] reveals that the County's permits would allow the clearing of 2,880 square feet. Even without the five-foot construction zone around the house, porch and driveway, the County permits allow the clearing of 2,172 square feet. It is very difficult to understand how the Monroe County official in charge of the office which issues building permits could have determined that the development proposed by the Holzingers was permittable. That official did not testify. The County biologist for the Lower Keys who did testify, Ms. Stephenson, was adamant that the project was never permittable under the Monroe County land development regulations. The only explanation by which the permit conceivably could have been granted would be to do something the land development regulations do not permit: aggregate the square footage which the code makes available for development on the landward side of the mangroves, in the area of disturbed saltmarsh between the road and the mangroves, and add the usable square footage for that habitat area to the usable square footage on the waterward side of the mangroves, in the beach berm association. But the amount of each habitat which must remain as open space is determined for each habitat type. They cannot be aggregated across habitats, to give some total usable number of square feet, to be cleared anywhere on the property. That would ignore the significance of the separate habitat designations. The 1,659 square feet available for development in the beach berm association must be used only within that habitat, and square footage available for development within the disturbed salt marsh cannot be added to it. Fill Issues The site plan approved by the County permits fill to be used to construct a driveway on the property through the mangrove area and the beach berm area. This is simply an error on the part of the County, for no party disputes that fill is forbidden in these areas. The performance standards in the land development regulations do permit certain piers, docks, utility pilings and walkways over mangrove areas, but no fill is permitted. Section 9.5- 345(m)(1), Monroe County Code (Tr. 139). The Holzingers could receive a permit to build a raised bridge over the mangroves for access to the beach berm association portion of the lot, as has been done on a nearby lot to the west of the Holzingers' lot. They cannot, however, fill the mangroves to create the driveway shown on the site plan the County approved. The building permit the County granted which purports to allow fill in mangrove areas is inconsistent with the County's own land development regulations and cannot stand. The next question is whether there is some alternate means of access to the lot which can be used instead of that permitted. At the final hearing Mr. Smith stated that on a recent visit to the Holzingers' property, he found an old road on the east side of the property which is high land which could serve as a location for a driveway or accessway to the interior of the Holzingers' property. There is, however, actually no old road anywhere on Lot 17. There was an old road on Lot 16, and a bit of the spoil from that road may be found on Lot 17, but there simply never has been a road on the Holzingers' lot which they can use for a driveway. Fill will be required to locate any driveway, and that is inconsistent with the County land development regulations. The only thing the Holzingers can do to overcome this problem would be to build a bridge over the mangrove area and completely avoid the use of any fill. Summary of Findings The scarified or a disturbed saltmarsh area from the county road to the mangrove area is too small to be useful. The Holzingers do not plan to build in that area. Whatever portion of that area which is not required to be open space cannot be "banked" to allow additional clearing in the beach berm association on the waterward side of the mangroves. For all practical purposes, that disturbed saltmarsh area adds nothing to the buildable or clearable area on Lot 17. The mangrove area has a 100 percent open space requirement. Mangroves are a highly protective habitat, which contribute nothing to the buildable area on Lot 17. The remaining portion of the Lot 17 waterward from the mangrove area to the mean high water line is too small to permit the construction and erection of the house and driveway permitted by the development orders (building permits) issued by Monroe County. The buildable area in the beach berm association is no more than a total of 1,660 square feet for the house, its porch, the driveway. The County has issued a permit to use 2,880 square feet of that habitat (including an allowance for a construction zone), or at least 2,172 square feet, assuming the location of the house, porch, and an eight-foot wide driveway and no construction clearing around the footprint around the house/porch. This fails to meet the 90 percent open space requirement found in the Monroe County Code. The building permits issued by Monroe County to the Holzingers are therefore invalid. To obtain valid permits, the Holzingers must substantially reduce the footprint of the house, including an allowance for a construction clearing zone. A house that small may be undesirable, but it could be permitted. What the County has attempted to permit, however, is invalid under its own regulations.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that development approval for the subject lot be denied, unless the applicant presents, and the County and the Department approve, a revised permit and site plan which demonstrates compliance with the mandatory open space requirements for the beach berm and mangrove habitats, and which eliminates the placement of fill in the beach berm complex and the mangrove wetlands on site. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 9th day of July 1993. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 9th day of July 1993. APPENDIX The Findings of Fact proposed by the Department have been generally adopted, although the long quotation from Volume I and II of the County Comprehensive Plan are not essential or necessary. See proposed finding 10. The Respondents submitted no proposed Findings of Fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephanie M. Callahan Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Theodore W. Herzog, Esquire 209 Duval Street Key West, Florida 33040 Linda Loomis Shelley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 G. Steven Pfeiffer, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 David K. Coburn, Secretary Florida Land & Water Adjudicatory Commission Executive Office of the Governor 311 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues to be determined in this appeal are whether the decision of the Community Development Board (Board) to approve Flexible Development Application FLD2017-07012 filed by Gulfview Lodging, LLP (Gulfview), cannot be sustained by substantial competent evidence before the Board, or that the decision of the Board departs from the essential requirements of law.
Findings Of Fact The 0.59-acre project site is located at the northeast corner of South Gulfview Boulevard and Fifth Street and wraps around the McDonald’s parking lot and Frenchy’s Beach Café (Frenchy’s) to the west. The project site includes two parcels owned by Gulfview, and 2,195.09 square feet of the South Gulfview Boulevard right-of-way, which will need to be vacated by the City. Gulfview’s proposal is to demolish all structures currently on the project site and build a seven-floor hotel with 150 units per acre, which would be 88 rooms if the City vacates the 2,195.09 feet of right-of-way. Gulfview’s application for development approval was filed with the City on July 28, 2017, including design plans. The subject property is zoned Tourist (T) District with an underlying Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) category of Resort Facilities High (RFH). The subject site is located in the Beach Walk district of Beach by Design.2/ The maximum permitted density for the site pursuant to Beach by Design is 150 units per acre. The application contemplates a subsequent vacation process for the 2,195.09 square feet of City right-of-way. On July 20, 2017, the City Council approved the allocation of up to 59 units from the Hotel Density Reserve under Beach by Design (Case No. HDA2017-04001) and adopted a resolution to the same effect (Res. No. 17-19). Preston’s attorney admitted that he attended the July 20, 2017, City Council hearing that resulted in the July 28, 2017, Hotel Density Reserve Development Agreement (Development Agreement) between Gulfview and the City. Preston’s attorney attended the July 20 City Council hearing on behalf of Frenchy’s, but conceded to the Board and at oral argument that Frenchy’s is located on the land owned by Preston, as trustee, and Preston is the sole shareholder of Frenchy’s. The Development Agreement was recorded in Book 19727, Page 2465-2503 of the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida, on August 2, 2017. The Development Agreement includes Exhibit “B”-- the same set of design plans that were filed with Gulfview’s July 28, 2017, application for development approval. Section 6.2.4 of the Development Agreement specifically states: The overall number of proposed units density provided for by this Agreement (88 units) is contingent upon the proposed vacation of the 2,195.09 square feet of South Gulfview Boulevard right-of-way within the Beach Walk district. The City shall process a right-of- way vacation ordinance to vacate the 2,195.09 square feet of South Gulfview Blvd. right of way within the Beach Walk district conditioned upon submission of a complete set of building plans for construction of the improvements shown on Exhibit “B”. Regardless of whether or not the vacation is granted the maximum permitted density of the property may not exceed 150 units per acre. Gulfview’s application requires a Level Two approval. Under Section 4-206 of the Community Development Code, a Level Two approval requires mailing of a notice of application to owners of properties “within a 200-foot radius of the perimeter boundaries of the subject property.” The notice mailed by the City identifies both the north parcel and the south parcel by address and parcel number. The notice also describes the quasi-judicial public hearing process before the Board and ends with an invitation “to discuss any questions or concerns about the project and/or to better understand the proposal and review the site plan” with the assigned planner. The City Clerk mailed notice of Gulfview’s application to owners of parcels located within 200 feet of the two parcels identified in the notice, including Preston. Preston does not dispute receiving the notice. Section 4-206 of the Community Development Code also requires the posting of a sign on the “parcel proposed for development.” Preston does not dispute that the sign was posted. Preston objected that the mailed and posted notices did not reference the proposal to vacate 2,195.09 square feet of right-of-way. He argued that if he had known more than “a few days ago” when he received the Staff Report ahead of the October 17, 2017, Board meeting that the right-of-way was proposed to be vacated, he would have had expert witnesses at the hearing to give “an equal presentation” in response to Gulfview’s presentation. Preston requested a continuance citing lack of proper notice and insufficient time to prepare for the public hearing. Preston did not introduce any testimony or other evidence regarding the application. Preston’s primary objection to the project was vacation of the right-of-way and he wanted the opportunity to present witnesses regarding that issue. Vacating the right-of-way is a separate process and the hearing before the Board is not the proceeding in which the right-of-way vacation is decided. However, the substantial competent record evidence shows that Preston had actual notice as early as July 20, 2017, that the proposed project contemplated vacating 2,195.09 square feet of right-of-way. Preston’s other objection was that Gulfview’s design plans did not meet the requirements of Beach by Design’s Beach Walk District overlay. Preston argued to the Board that the hotel’s proposed design did not meet the redevelopment goals for addition of facilities and amenities generally described as areas for outdoor dining, outside cafes, and other seaside amenities.3/ However, although Preston had actual notice of the hotel design plans as early as July 20, 2017, he did not introduce any expert testimony or other evidence to support those objections. The Staff Report states that Beach by Design proposed to create a great beach front, known as “Beach Walk,” by relocating South Gulfview Boulevard from the existing right of way. Beach by Design recognized that the redevelopment and revitalization of the properties that front on South Gulfview were and, to a certain extent, still are generally constrained by several factors including small parcel sizes and the Coastal Construction Control Line. As a result, most of the motels and hotels which existed along the east side of South Gulfview would have limited opportunities for redevelopment even if Clearwater Beach were repositioned in the tourism market place. Beach by Design proposed to relocate South Gulfview to the west of its current alignment in order to achieve multiple purposes. First, it would create a drive with a real view of the Beach and the Gulf of Mexico. Second, it would allow the City to vacate the east 35 feet of the existing right of way in favor of the properties along the eastern frontage of existing South Gulfview as an incentive for appropriate redevelopment. Many of those existing properties would substantially benefit from an additional 35 feet of depth which could be used for the addition of facilities and amenities such as safe and comfortable areas for outdoor dining. The creation of Beach Walk and the realignment of South Gulfview Boulevard have all been realized. Several segments of the South Gulfview Boulevard have already been vacated and many of the properties along South Gulfview Boulevard have, in the years since the initial adoption of Beach by Design, been redeveloped with hotels. As noted, this proposal also includes a vacation of a portion of the South Gulfview Boulevard right-of-way which will facilitate the redevelopment of the subject site with a new hotel playing an important role in the ongoing renewal and revitalization of the Beach. Specifically, the vacation will allow for the location of an outdoor seating area providing a strong link between Beach Walk and the proposed hotel as supported by Beach by Design. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this provision. (Emphasis added). The Staff Report concluded that the proposed project is consistent with applicable provisions of the Community Development Code, applicable components of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, the Beach Walk District of Beach by Design, and the Design Guidelines of Beach by Design. Mark Parry, Senior Planner with the City, testified that “the proposed number of units, 88, is contingent on vacation of that right-of- way,” and if the right-of-way is not later vacated, it “would knock out about eight units.” Mr. Parry also testified that the proposed project provides amenities and an outdoor seating area as specified by Beach by Design. Preston only conducted a very short cross-examination of Mr. Parry, despite having party status to do so. Sue Ann Murphy, an experienced land use planner, also testified that the proposed development complied with all applicable Community Development Code, Comprehensive Plan and Beach by Design requirements. The project architect, Istvan Peteranecz, AIA, was accepted by the Board as an expert. Mr. Peteranecz answered questions from Board members regarding the design of the proposed hotel’s main entrance, including the porte cochere and public seating area adjacent to the Beach Walk and immediately south of Frenchy’s. Preston did not cross- examine Ms. Murphy or Mr. Peteranecz, despite having party status to do so. Substantial competent evidence in the record supports the conclusion that the proposed project is consistent with applicable provisions of the Community Development Code, applicable components of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, the Beach Walk District of Beach by Design, and the Design Guidelines of Beach by Design. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Board acknowledged Preston’s pending request for continuance and proceeded with discussion. After extensive discussion among the Board members, a motion was made and seconded for the Board “to approve case number FLD2017-07012 based on the evidence, the testimony presented, and the application, the staff report, and at today’s hearing, and to adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law stated in the staff report with all of the conditions of approval, as listed.” The motion carried. On October 19, 2017, the City entered a Development Order memorializing the Board’s decision. The Development Order includes a Finding of Fact that “[t]he total lot area includes 2,195 square feet of the South Gulfview Boulevard right-of-way which would need to be vacated by the City,” and includes a Condition of Approval that “application for a building permit be submitted no later than October 17, 2019, unless time extensions are granted.” The City represented at oral argument that if the proposed development is not consistent with the Development Order (e.g., if the approximately 2,195 square feet of the South Gulfview Boulevard right-of-way is not vacated), Gulfview will not be able to get a building permit without going through a minor amendment process for a less intense project.
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether two amendments to the Sunny Isles Beach Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan), adopted by Ordinance Nos. 2019-549 and 2019-550 (Plan Amendments) on December 19, 2019, are "in compliance," as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The following Findings of Fact are based on the stipulations of the parties and the evidence adduced at the final hearing. The Parties Petitioner resides and owns property within the City. Petitioner provided oral comments and objections to the City during the period beginning with the transmittal hearing for the Plan Amendments and ending with the adoption of the same. The City is a Florida municipal corporation with the authority to adopt and amend a comprehensive plan, pursuant to section 163.3167. Land Use Designations The City was incorporated in 1997. In 2000, the City adopted its initial Comp Plan. As part of the initial Comp Plan, the City established the Town Center Planned Development District (Town Center) as an overlay area, which did not establish any densities or intensities. However, the Town Center overlay did contain underlying land use designations for the area as set forth in Policy 14A and 14B of the Comp Plan, which had established densities and intensities. The Mixed-Use Business land use category established a base density of 25 dwelling units per acre (du/acre), with a maximum density of 85 du/acre with density bonuses. Intensity was limited to a maximum of 2.0 floor area ratio (FAR). Community Facilities land use category established a maximum density of 25 du/acre, with the intensity limited to a maximum 2.0 FAR. Recreation Open Space land use category does not allow for development; therefore, there is zero density and intensity. In addition to the densities and intensities permitted for the identified land use categories, pursuant to Policy 14C of the Comp Plan, locations within the Town Center were designated as receiver districts for Transferable Development Rights (TDRs). Specifically, subparagraph (c) of Policy 14C established the limits on the use of TDRs by providing that: In no case […] shall the density or intensity on a receiver site exceed thirty (30) percent increase in the maximum permitted by the land use category limitations set in Policy 15B . . . and . . . in no case shall the resulting density bonus increases on any given receiver site exceed the number of dwelling units attainable on the sender site(s) under [comprehensive plan] provisions so as to assure NO net increase in city-wide residential dwelling unit Comprehensive Plan capacities occurs. Policy 14B of the Comp Plan set forth the Town Center's goals and objectives, including: The Town Center is encouraged to become the hub for future urban development intensifications around which a more compact and efficient urban structure will evolve. The Town Center is intended to be a moderate to high intensity design-unified area which will contain a concentration of different urban functions integrated both horizontally and vertically. The center will be characterized by physical cohesiveness, direct accessibility by mass transit services and high quality urban design. The Town Center is located to have direct connections to the 167th Street Causeway and Collins Avenue to ensure a high level of accessibility to the northeast Miami-Dade/bi-county area. Background In 2004, the City established the Town Center Zoning District in its Land Development Regulations (LDRs), which provided a maximum FAR of 5.2, and a maximum density of 75 du/acre. The intensity in the LDRs, as reflected by the FAR, exceeded the amount in the Comp Plan. However, the density in the LDRs was less than what was allowed in the Comp Plan. In 2007, the City proposed a comprehensive plan amendment that would have assigned density and intensity to the Town Center Planned Development District in its entirety. The state land planning agency objected to the proposed plan amendment in part because of a lack of data and analysis related to concurrency, emergency services, and hurricane evacuation routes. Beginning in 2005, the City approved a number of site plans for various development projects in the southern portion of the Town Center with underlying Mixed-Use Business land use designations. At that time, the City reviewed those developments solely for compliance with the City's LDRs for the Town Center Zoning District and without consideration of the maximum density and intensity allowable for the underlying land uses in the Comp Plan. As a result, all the approved projects in the southern portion of the Town Center with an underlying land use of Mixed-Use Business were permitted to be developed with intensities up to 5.2 FAR, which exceeded the allowable intensity of 2.0 FAR set forth in the Comp Plan for the Mixed-Use Business land use category. However, the densities allowed for those approved projects followed the Comp Plan, as the maximum density for the Mixed-Use Business land use category was 85 du/acre, whereas the maximum density allowable in the LDRs was 75 du/acre. Therefore, even though the City had not been evaluating the proposed site plans for compliance with the Comp Plan, all of the developed projects had densities that complied with the Comp Plan. In December 2018, a public hearing was conducted by the City Commission to consider the site plan for a development known as the Infinity Project. The proposed site for the Infinity Project was in the northern half of the Town Center. The City Commission unanimously voted to defer the matter to the January 2019 City Commission Meeting. To date, the application for site plan approval for the Infinity Project in the northern portion of the Town Center has not been approved or considered by the City Commission. While the City was considering the Infinity Project, the City became aware of the inconsistency between its Comp Plan and its LDRs with respect to the density and intensities within the entire Town Center area. As a result, the City began to take actions to remedy this inconsistency. In July 2019, the City Commission considered an ordinance to transmit to the state land planning agency, the Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO), a text-based comprehensive plan amendment to modify the FAR in the entire Town Center area. The City Commission voted to defer the matter. Instead, on August 28, 2019, the City Commission adopted on first reading an ordinance establishing a 12-month moratorium on the submission and consideration of any zoning applications in the Town Center District. The City Commission adopted the ordinance on second reading on September 19, 2019. On August 28, 2019, the City Commission also adopted a resolution declaring zoning in progress relating to development and redevelopment in the Town Center Zoning District. The Plan Amendments On October 17, 2019, the City Commission adopted on first reading Ordinance No. 2019-549, transmitting to DEO text-based amendments to the Town Center District that divided the Town Center into two overlay development districts: Town Center South and Town Center North. The text-based amendments also provided for density and intensity in the Town Center South overlay for the first time. Specifically, the maximum density was established at a maximum of 75 du/acre, and the intensity was established at a maximum of 5.2 FAR. These were the same as the LDRs. The Plan Amendments did not amend any portions of Policy 14C of the Comp Plan with respect to TDRs. The purpose of these amendments was to grandfather the various developments within Town Center South, which were previously approved with intensities that were inconsistent with the Comp Plan. Contrary to Petitioner's allegation, the density of each of these developments complied with the Comp Plan at the time of each’s approval. On October 17, 2019, the City Commission also adopted on first reading Ordinance No. 2019-550, transmitting to DEO the FLUM Plan Amendments reflecting the creation of the Town Center South and Town Center North overlay districts, and providing for amendment of the land use designation for certain properties located in Town Center South. Amendments to land use designations for specific properties in the Town Center South overlay area included changing the Bella Vista Park and Gateway Park from Mixed-Use Business to Recreation and Open Space. The Gateway Park Parking Garage changed from Recreation and Open Space to Community Facility. The Miami-Dade County Water and Sewer Facility changed from Mixed-Use Business to Community Facility. All these FLUM changes reflected a decrease in density. On October 17, 2019, the City Commission passed Resolution 2019-3006 (Plan of Action), adopting a schedule to bring the City's LDRs into conformity with the provisions of the amended Comp Plan, as provided by section 163.3194(1)(b). On October 30, 2019, the Florida Department of Transportation issued a letter to Alex David, the City’s planning and land use consultant, advising that it had reviewed the proposed text-based Plan Amendments and "found that the amendment will not have an adverse impact on transportation resources and facilities of State importance." On November 15, 2019, the South Florida Water Management District sent correspondence advising that there are "no regionally significant water resource issues" and offered only technical guidance regarding regional water supply planning. On November 25, 2019, the South Florida Regional Planning Council found that the proposed Plan Amendments were generally consistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan for South Florida. On November 22, 2019, the City's Mayor received correspondence from DEO advising that it had reviewed the proposed Plan Amendments and "identified no comment related to adverse impacts to important state resources and facilities within the [DEO's] authorized scope of review." DEO did provide a technical assistance comment. On December 19, 2019, the City Commission adopted both Ordinances on second reading. DEO's technical assistance comment directed the City to clarify that Town Center South and Town Center North were overlay districts and not separate land use categories. The City incorporated that clarification in bold text in the body of the adopted ordinance. The City then forwarded the adoption package of Plan Amendments to DEO for its review. On December 30, 2019, DEO issued a letter to Mr. David advising that the Plan Amendments package was complete and would be reviewed in accordance with section 163.3184(3). On January 28, 2020, DEO issued a letter to the City's Mayor advising that it had completed its review "and identified no provision that necessitates a challenge of the Ordinances adopting the amendment." Petitioner challenged the Plan Amendments on four grounds: (1) the City failed to submit relevant and appropriate data and analysis; (2) the Plan Amendments were internally inconsistent with the existing Comp Plan; (3) the Town Center South District was a new land use category; and (4) the Plan Amendments should not have been reviewed under the expedited review process pursuant to section 163.3184(2). Relevant and Appropriate Data and Analysis Petitioner alleged that the City did not provide any data or analysis to show it considered the impacts of alleged "massive increase of density and intensity in Town Center South on hurricane evacuation times [. . .]". Hurricane Evacuation Times and CHHA Petitioner's expert witness, Daniel L. Trescott, an expert in comprehensive planning and hurricane evacuation, opined that only increases in density would impact hurricane evacuation times, and that increases in intensity would not adversely affect hurricane evacuation times. Specifically, Mr. Trescott testified that if there was no increase in density then, in his expert opinion, the Plan Amendments would not trigger the need to evaluate the other policies and issues related to hurricane evacuation and Coastal High Hazard Areas (CHHA). Petitioner did not introduce any evidence that would support a finding that the Plan Amendments would actually increase density in Town Center South. Mr. Trescott testified that he did not perform an analysis that would demonstrate potential impacts on density resulting from the Plan Amendments. Also, Petitioner did not introduce any evidence to support a finding that the Plan Amendments would diminish future hurricane evacuation times, in the absence of a density increase. In fact, the undisputed testimony of the City's experts established that the Plan Amendments actually decreased the net density allowed in Town Center South. Claudia Hasbun, the City's planning and zoning director, was accepted as an expert in land use planning. Ms. Hasbun testified that the Plan Amendments would decrease the potential maximum allowable density in Town Center South by 462 dwelling units. Ms. Hasbun's analysis demonstrated that after consideration of the density provided by the Plan Amendments, including the land use changes reflected in the FLUM amendment, there was a significant reduction in potential maximum allowable density in Town Center South. Ms. Hasbun testified that the net total number of dwelling units that could ever be developed would decrease by 462 dwelling units for Town Center South because of the Plan Amendments. This analysis encompassed the absolute maximum redevelopment potential, and still reflected a reduction in density in Town Center South. Mr. Trescott confirmed that the potential maximum allowable density that existed under the current Comp Plan was actually greater than would be allowed under the Plan Amendments. He also acknowledged that land use changes reflected on the FLUM amendment would result in a decrease in density within Town Center South. Therefore, the uncontroverted evidence showed that the Plan Amendments decrease density. The City also presented the expert witness testimony of Alex David, the planning consultant with Calvin, Giordano & Associates, Inc. Mr. David testified that there would not be any impact on hurricane evacuation times resulting from the Plan Amendments. The reason was that the potential maximum allowable density resulting from the Plan Amendments was significantly reduced from the existing maximum potential density. Mr. David's testimony was undisputed, and Petitioner's expert witness conceded that there would be a net decrease in maximum potential density resulting from the Plan Amendments. Mr. David testified that a map created from a 2016 Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges for Hurricanes (SLOSH) computerized storm surge model was utilized to determine whether any portions of Town Center South were in the CHHA. The referenced SLOSH map was incorporated into the Comp Plan in 2016. Mr. David testified that the SLOSH model does depict five very minimal areas of Town Center South within the CHHA. However, those areas either have an underlying land use designation of Recreation Open Space, cannot be developed for residential purposes and have no density, or they are located on parcels that have already been developed (or in one case is currently being developed) at higher elevations. The parcels developed or being developed at higher elevations have the appropriate mitigation to remove them from the CHHA. As a result, under the 2016 SLOSH model map in the Comp Plan, none of the property affected by the Plan Amendments was located in the CHHA. During the hearing, Mr. Trescott suggested that the City should utilize the map developed from the 2017 version of the SLOSH model, rather than the 2016 version adopted in the Comp Plan. Despite testifying that the City was required to use the 2017 version of the SLOSH map, Mr. Trescott admitted that Miami-Dade County, the entity responsible for emergency management, had not adopted the 2017 SLOSH map. Mr. Trescott also admitted that the State of Florida had not adopted the 2017 SLOSH map into the State's Emergency Plan. In addition, Mr. David testified that he was unaware of any jurisdiction in Florida that had adopted the 2017 SLOSH map. Thus, it was reasonable for the City to rely on the data contained in the 2016 SLOSH map incorporated in its Comp Plan. Consistent with Mr. Trescott's testimony, since there is no increase in density, the Plan Amendments would not trigger the need to evaluate the other policies and issues related to hurricane evacuation and CHHA. Petitioner did not prove beyond fair debate that the City failed to provide relevant and appropriate data or analysis with respect to impact on hurricane evacuation times. The evidence adduced at the hearing established that such an evaluation was not required because density was decreased by the Plan Amendments. Even so, the evidence established that since density was decreased by the Plan Amendments, hurricane evacuation times would not be impacted, and that, pursuant to the 2016 SLOSH model map adopted in the Comp Plan, none of the property affected by the Plan Amendments was located within the CHHA. Concurrency Analysis Petitioner also contended that the City failed to submit any data or analysis to show the impacts on sewer and water capacities, traffic/transportation, coastal management, infrastructure, and schools. However, the memorandum incorporated into Ordinance No. 2019-549 clearly demonstrated that an analysis was conducted. The analysis determined that the City did meet its level of service (LOS) standards for each of those areas. In addition, Mr. David testified to the methodology used to analyze concurrency for each of the areas and the conclusions reached with respect to them. His testimony was not contradicted and demonstrated that the Plan Amendments meet the City's LOS standards. Mr. David testified that in completing the concurrency analysis, he utilized data based upon the existing development in Town Center South. He opined that the methodology was a conservative approach for evaluating concurrency. Mr. David also testified that all the projects developed in Town Center South had been individually and separately reviewed for concurrency purposes during the site plan approval process. Internal Inconsistency Petitioner alleged that the Plan Amendments were internally inconsistent with two provisions of the City's existing Comp Plan. Objective 3C, which reads as follows: The City of Sunny Isles Beach shall not increase maximum densities and intensities in the Coastal High Hazard Area beyond that which is permitted in the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations as of May 1, 2016, including bonuses and transfer of development rights provided therein. The provision of facilities and services to accomplish the timely evacuation of the City's residents in advance of approaching hurricanes shall be a priority of the Sunny Isles Beach's transportation and hurricane preparedness programs. The City's Comp Plan did not assign densities and intensities in the Town Center Development District overlay as of May 1, 2016. However, as previously found, the City's LDRs did include densities and intensities for the Town Center as of May 1, 2016. These Plan Amendments did not increase the densities and intensities contained in the LDRs as of that date, and therefore, are not internally inconsistent with the City's existing Comp Plan. Petitioner also asserted that the Plan Amendments were inconsistent with Policy 5C, which provides as follows: All planning activities pertaining to development and redevelopment and the provision of public services and facilities in the City of Sunny Isles Beach shall be consistent with the "Population Estimates and Projections" outlined below, as they are periodically amended and updated. During the hearing, the City introduced the 2019 population estimates derived from the U.S. Census Bureau. The census data reflected that the 2019 population estimate was 21,804, which was below the 2020 estimates set forth in Policy 5C. Further, the unrebutted testimony of the City's experts, Ms. Hasbun and Mr. David, was that the Plan Amendments would decrease the maximum potential density that could be developed in Town Center South. Petitioner did not introduce any evidence that the population estimates and projections would increase because of the Plan Amendments. Petitioner did not prove beyond fair debate that the Plan Amendments were internally inconsistent with Objective 3C and Policy 5C of the City's existing Comp Plan. New Land Use Category Petitioner alleged that Town Center South was a new land use category. Petitioner referenced the comments from DEO that the City should consider amending the FLU text to clarify that Town Center North and Town Center South are overlay districts, not separate land use categories. However, the City did specifically incorporate those comments in Ordinance No. 2019-549, where the word "overlay" appears in bold text to reflect said clarification. Petitioner's claim that the City created a new land use category called "Town Center South" was not supported by the evidence. Expedited Review Process Petitioner alleged that the City should not have proceeded with the expedited review process because of the City's alleged past failures to comply with the law. Section 163.3184(2) provides for an expedited review process for adoption of comprehensive plans and amendments. The two exceptions to this expedited review process are contained in section 163.3184(2)(b) and (c), neither of which are applicable to the Plan Amendments. Petitioner suggested that the Plan Amendments should have been treated as an evaluation and appraisal review (EAR) under section 163.3191. However, the determination of whether the comprehensive plan should be evaluated under this provision is the responsibility of the City. Also, the City's last EAR was conducted in 2016, so the City is not required to perform the analysis again until 2023. Petitioner failed to introduce any evidence to support a finding that the City is precluded from proceeding pursuant to section 163.3184(3). Summary Petitioner failed to carry her burden of proving beyond fair debate that the City of Sunny Isles Beach Plan Amendments adopted by Ordinance Nos. 2019-549 and 2019-550 on December 19, 2019, are not in compliance, as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b).
Conclusions For Petitioner Magaly Gordo: Ralf Gunars Brookes, Esquire Ralf Brookes Attorney Suite 107 1217 East Cape Coral Parkway Cape Coral, Florida 33904 For Respondent City of Sunny Isles Beach: Gregory Thomas Stewart, Esquire Elizabeth Desloge Ellis, Esquire Nabors, Giblin & Nickerson, P.A. Suite 200 1500 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Valerie Vicente, Esquire Nabors, Giblin & Nickerson, P.A. Suite 1000 8201 Peters Road Plantation, Florida 33324
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Economic Opportunity enter a final order determining that the City of Sunny Isles Beach Plan Amendments adopted by Ordinance Nos. 2019-549 and 2019-550 on December 19, 2019, are "in compliance," as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b). DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of September, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: S FRANCINE M. FFOLKES Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of September, 2021. Gregory Thomas Stewart, Esquire Nabors, Giblin and Nickerson, P.A. Suite 200 1500 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Elizabeth Desloge Ellis, Esquire Nabors, Giblin and Nickerson, P.A. Suite 200 1500 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Ralf Gunars Brookes, Esquire Ralf Brookes Attorney Suite 107 1217 East Cape Coral Parkway Cape Coral, Florida 33904 Janay Lovett, Agency Clerk Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 Edward A. Dion, Esquire City of Sunny Isles Beach Fourth Floor 18070 Collins Avenue Sunny Isles Beach, Florida 33160 Valerie Vicente Nabors, Giblin and Nickerson, P.A. Suite 1000 8201 Peters Road Plantation, Florida 33324 Tom Thomas, General Counsel Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building, MSC 110 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 Dane Eagle, Executive Director Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128
Findings Of Fact W. B. Johnson Properties, Inc., Petitioner, is the owner of the 428- room Holiday Inn Surfside located on Clearwater Beach. This hotel was constructed in 1981 on land zoned CTF-28 for commercial tourist facilities. The tract of land on which the hotel is situated is approximately ten acres and the maximum density of 42 rooms per acre is utilized. This hotel is currently in conformity with all building and zoning regulations. Holiday Inn Surfside has decking around its swimming pool which is capable of accommodating only 120 to 150 deck chairs for the guests of the hotel. Additional chair space, if needed, must be obtained by using the undecked area of the beach in front of the hotel. The occupancy rate for this hotel from the beginning of 1983 to date has been 80 percent. Petitioner owns the entire beach fronting its property, a distance of some 340 feet. Prior to the passage of Clearwater Ordinance No. 3075-83, the western setback line for this property was 50 feet from-mean highwater (MHW). Ordinance 3075-83 made the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL), as established by Section 161.063, Florida Statutes, as the western setback line for property located on Clearwater Beach. This is now the Coastal Control setback line. The Coastal Construction setback line as it crosses Petitioner's property is 338 feet from MHW of the Gulf of Mexico. Prior to the passage of Ordinance No. 3075-83, Petitioner could have constructed decking up to the then setback line, 50 feet from MHW. Petitioner is one of the few property owners on Clearwater Beach that has undisputed ownership of the beach fronting its property seaward of the CCCL. This area of Clearwater Beach in the vicinity of Holiday Inn Surfside is the widest part of the beach between the CCCL and MHW. Exhibit 7, which was submitted as a late-filed exhibit, clearly shows the beach north of Petitioner's property is not as wide as is the beach fronting Petitioner's property, and much of the property on the beach south of Petitioner's property is owned by the City. Solely by having ownership of more beachfront property seaward of the CCCL, Petitioner is more adversely affected by Ordinance No. 3075-83 than are other property owners. Petitioner has signs restricting the use of the decking around the pool to hotel guests. Petitioner also has a patio bar in the vicinity of the pool which is accessible from the beach and from the hotel. Drinks are served to the public at this patio bar. By extending the deck 28 feet seaward of the OCCL, Petitioner would be able to provide decking for an additional 150 to 170 chairs for the use of hotel guests. With an 80 percent occupancy rate there is insufficient deck space to accommodate all of the hotel guests who desire to use these facilities. Currently the excess place their deck chairs in the sand seaward of the CCCL. Those who testified in opposition to the variance requested did so on the grounds that the increased deck facilities would bring more people to the patio bar, thereby increasing the traffic and parking problems on the beach, that the hotel did not adequately restrict the use of the existing deck to guests of the hotel, and that if this application is granted it will open the doors to others who would like to construct a deck seaward of the CCCL. None of these grounds is deemed particularly meritorious. Many factors could increase the patronage of the patio bar and more adequate decking would not be a significant one, particularly in view of Petitioner's contention that the deck was reserved for guests of the hotel, albeit not strictly enforced during periods of low occupancy.
