The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission should promulgate a rule establishing the Fiddler's Creek Community Development District.
The Issue In an order dated July 24, 1991, the Florida Commission on Ethics found probable cause that Respondent violated sections 112.3143(2)(b) and 112.3143(3), by twice participating in, and voting on measures (land use changes) which inured to his special private gain or to the special gain of a principal by whom he was retained. The issue is whether those violations occurred, and if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent The Respondent, Hugh W. Harling, Jr. (Harling, or Respondent) is a Florida registered professional engineer and majority owner of Harling, Locklin and Associates, a firm which he established in 1979. The firm's office is located in Orlando and most of its work is done in the east central area of the state. Harling has a long history of public service. He was director of utilities for the City of Titusville from approximately 1968 until 1972, and during that time was chairperson of the Brevard County Utility Steering Committee. At various times he served as mayor of the City of Altamonte Springs (1980); and on myriad local boards and committees, including the Orange County Underground Utilities Examining Board, City of Altamonte Springs Utility Rate Review Committee, Seminole County Transportation Planning Committee, City of Altamonte Springs Citizen Advisory Committee and Land Use Update Committee. Since 1984, he has served on the Code Enforcement Board for Seminole County. The South Central Citizens Advisory Committee Pursuant to legislative mandate, counties in Florida are required to maintain a comprehensive plan which includes, among other elements, the land uses throughout the county. In 1987 Seminole County began its 10-year update process for the 1977 comprehensive plan. Desiring effective citizen participation, the Seminole County Board of County Commissioners created citizen advisory committees corresponding to five geographical regions of the county. Guidelines for the comprehensive plan update process established by Seminole County describes the citizen advisory committees (CAC) as follows: Citizen Advisory Committees (CAC) - are comprised of individuals representing various interests within a specific geographic area of the County. The role of the CAC is to review, evaluate County-wide policies and assumptions, identify special issues within the sub-planning area, and make recommendations on preliminary Plan policies, land use maps and programs. (Respondent's #10, p.9) Individuals were selected to serve on the committees based on their interests or discipline in the following areas: homeowners, environment, development, technical resource, agriculture, business/industry and property owners (undeveloped). Harling was appointed to the South Central CAC as a "technical resource" member, and served as the committee chairperson. Weekly meetings began in December 1986 and continued until June 1987. The process was considered by county staff to be "fast track", with a lot of material to be covered in an abbreviated time. Thus, a mass of information was presented by county staff to the committee: maps, handouts and staff recommendations as to proposed land use changes in the geographical area covered by the committee. Concurrently with the citizen advisory committee review, the county conducted an "open amendment" process, allowing citizens to request amendments to the future land use maps without having to pay the normal application fee. The applications for these amendments were processed during the course of the entire adoption process for the comprehensive plan update. These citizens' requests were presented to the advisory committees by county staff in summary form, with the staff recommendation. The applications were not presented to the committee, nor were committee members provided with advance notice of items coming before them each week. At the direction of county staff, action by the committee was taken by motion and vote of the members, duly recorded and made available to the county commission. This procedure differed from Harling's previous experience on the comprehensive plan review committee for the City of Altamonte Springs where the members discussed their views and sought a consensus without a formal vote. The Seminole County committee members were told that a record of votes would enable the county commissioners to determine how the various represented interests took sides on the issues. In contrast to his participation on the Seminole County Code Enforcement Board, Harling understood that voting in this committee would not require disclosure of conflicts. Other members of the committee had the same understanding based on statements by county staff. Since the committee itself was comprised of competing, conflicting interests, including property owners who voted on items affecting their property, conflict was inherent to the work of the committee. The Policy Steering Committee Under the Seminole County citizen involvement guidelines, recommendations of the five CACs were referred to a single policy steering committee (PSC) comprised of representatives from the CACs and the Local Planning Agency (the Seminole County Planning and Zoning Board). The purpose of the PSC was to ". . . receive and evaluate the recommendations of the various committees, ensure consistency between plan elements, and make final recommendations to adopting boards." (Respondent Ex. #10, p.9) Respondent Harling was selected from the South Central CAC to be one of the committee's two representatives on the PSC. The PSC meetings involved not only conflicting policy recommendations from the CAC's but a review of land uses for all of Seminole County. As in the CAC's, votes were taken and recorded, and the members were not informed of any need to disclose interests. Nor were the members provided information on ownership of specific parcels presented for review. There were hundreds of requests for land use amendments identified by alphabetical letters, but there was no attempt even by county staff to keep track of who owned what. The Arborio/Clayton Parcel One such request for change of land use involved a parcel located in south central Seminole County comprised of a 40-acre tract on the south side of State Road 426 (Aloma Avenue), and a 100-acre tract along the north side of State Road 426. The two tracts belonged to the Arborio family in New York. In the mid-80's, one family member sold a 25 percent interest to Malcolm and Charles Clayton, cousins with almost fifty years' experience in real estate and development in central Florida. On February 17, 1987, the Claytons, representing themselves and the Arborios, filed a request to change the land use designation from "general rural" to "commercial/multi family". The reason for the request was to avoid a lengthy "red tape" delay in the future when the land was ready to develop. A change in land use designation at this stage of the county plan update would save time for the owner/developer later when the zoning needed to be changed. Although the route had not been finally determined at that point, there was reasonable anticipation that the parcels would be transected by an expressway extension. Land use designation is one of many factors used to determine the value of a particular piece of property. The owners stood to gain or lose by the change in the land use designation. Votes on the Parcel The Clayton's request for land use change was presented to the South Central CAC on June 3, 1987, along with several other requests for changes. The county staff recommended commercial use east of the expressway and medium density residential use north and west of the expressway as depicted on map #19, presented to the committee. The committee, including Respondent Harling, voted unanimously to recommend medium density residential west of the expressway and office use east of the expressway. Map #19 does not reflect the location of the expressway. Map #19 does not identify owners of any of the parcels depicted and Respondent Harling was not aware of the Clayton's ownership interest at the time of the vote. He did not file a conflict disclosure memorandum. The South Central CAC's recommendation was considered by the PSC at its final meeting on July 30, 1987, along with other land use change requests from this and the other four regional CAC's. The Clayton request was considered in the process of reviewing "Map 0" (formerly "Map 19"). Map 0 shows the expressway extension as a heavy black line running north to northeast through the Clayton/Arborio parcel. References to "Maps O, E, and D" in the PSC minutes correspond to the intersection of the expressway and Aloma Avenue on Map 0. Respondent Harling made the motion to recommend all three parcels to be higher intensity planned unit development. The motion carried 10-2. Higher intensity planned unit development (HIP) was a new land use category developed during the 1987 comprehensive plan update. It is a mixed use category that allows for a mix of uses (residential, commercial, office, industrial), but requires planned unit development zoning or planned commercial development zoning in order to develop. Any of the permitted uses are potentially conditional uses which would have to go through a planned unit development process. Unlike conventional planned unit development use which required a master plan at the time the comprehensive plan was amended, the HIP designation allowed a mixed use land use category to be placed on the map without a master plan. The HIP use was designed for use at expressway interchanges where higher intensity development was anticipated or wanted. There was no discussion at the July 30, 1987 meeting of who owned parcels O, E and D, and Respondent Harling was not aware of the Clayton's ownership interest at the time that he participated in and voted on the measure before the PSC. He did not disclose any interest in the property and did not file a disclosure memorandum. Harling's Relationship with the Claytons For over ten years, Harling, Locklin and Associates has provided professional services to Charles and Malcolm Clayton. The Harling firm is not on retainer; separate contracts for services are entered for particular engagements on particular projects. The Claytons also utilize numerous other engineering firms. Harling's firm routinely collects information of a general nature unrelated to a specific project or particular engagement. This information includes flood plain elevations for the entire state, traffic count information, plans for road expansion, zoning and other information of interest to the real estate and development community. Frequently, the firm is contacted for that and other technical information, and as long as the system is not abused, the information is provided gratis. In some instances the firm responds to an inquiry, and gathers and shares the information in the hopes that an engagement will result from its effort. The Claytons utilized this retrieval system with Harling's and other firms. Experienced and careful businessmen, the Claytons most often sought information without disclosing their interest in a parcel or their intended use of the information. Although an employee of Harling, Locklin & Associates may "pull a job number" for work performed for a potential client that was not attributable to a current contract, the time is billed to the client later only when and if a contract is entered into for professional services. Through this method, promotional work done by the firm is in some circumstances recovered by those projects which eventually go to contract. In late May, early June, 1987, Charlie and Malcolm Clayton met with Harling and asked questions relating to a limited access map prepared for the Orlando/Orange County Expressway Authority. The map showed the location of limited access fencing in the area of the intersection of the proposed expressway and State Road 426 (Aloma Avenue). The Claytons did not identify for Harling their interest in the property, or the purpose for which they sought the information. The map shown to Harling did not identify the Claytons as having any interest in the property, nor did Harling have any specific knowledge of the exact location of the particular piece of property, other than along Aloma Avenue. The Claytons also asked similar questions of at least one other engineering firm. In follow up to the meeting with the Claytons, Harling also met with a representative of the Expressway Authority to confirm his interpretation of the limited access map, and to verify the information he had given to the Claytons. Through the office system utilized by Harling, Locklin & Associates, the time spent by Mr. Harling was attributed to the job number established for the dealings with the Claytons concerning property on Aloma Avenue, but no contract then existed and there was no reasonable expectation that Harling, Locklin & Associates would be compensated for the time in the future. During this same time period, Charles and Malcolm Clayton met with Joan Cerretti-Randolph, a Harling, Locklin & Associates employee, concerning property along Aloma Avenue. The amount of work requested of Ms. Ceretti- Randolph by the Claytons was consistent with promotional work done in the past by Harling, Locklin & Associates, and was done initially on a gratis basis. Ms. Cerretti-Randolph was not advised what, if any, the Claytons' interest was in the property in question, or whether there would be a contract executed on any particular job involving the Claytons and concerning the property now referred to as the Clayton/Arborio parcel. A contract was entered into by Harling, Locklin & Associates, the Arborio family, and the Claytons in October, 1987. The contract was not initiated by the Claytons, but was initiated by David Foerster, a condemnation attorney from Jacksonville who represented various landowners, including the Claytons and Arborios, in condemnation actions brought by the Expressway Authority at the time the various parcels were condemned for the construction of the expressway. At the time of the meetings of the South Central CAC in June, 1987, and of the PSC in July, 1987, Harling, Locklin & Associates was not under contract with the Claytons or the Arborios (or Mr. Foerster) to render services concerning the parcels of property in question. At the conclusion of the condemnation action concerning the taking of a portion of the parcels for construction of the expressway, Harling, Locklin & Associates submitted an invoice for services rendered which included time expended, originally as promotional work, for the Claytons in spring and summer, 1987. Some work reflected on the bill was done in May through July of 1987, at a time when Harling was unaware of the interest of the Claytons in the property, or the specific location of the property about which the Claytons were inquiring. Summary of Findings Harling's participation and votes as a member of the South Central CAC and later, PSC, are uncontroverted. These committees, or citizens groups were integral to the public participation component of the ten-year plan update. As a seasoned member of similar, as well as more formal bodies, Harling was well aware of his responsibilities to disclose conflicts. He and other members of the CAC and PSC were misled, however, by county staff or commission members, as to the nature of the committee and the need to disclose. It is also uncontroverted that specific votes, on June 3, 1987 and July 30, 1987, were on property owned, in part, by the Claytons. Although Harling and his staff had been consulted by the Claytons with regard to the parcel, at the time of the votes, the Claytons had not disclosed their ownership interest in the property; their contacts were in the nature of information- gathering and the professional relationship was not formalized until October 1987. The land use changes voted by the CAC and PSC as recommendations for the Arborio/Clayton parcel were not those sought by the applicant, but still positively benefited the owners. The change from "general rural" during the plan update process substantially abbreviated the local approval process required before the property is actually developed. The HIP designation, while still requiring approval of a master plan later, would provide flexibility for the owners/developers to plan for the uses being sought by the Claytons in their February application. A land use designation, though not a controlling or even substantial influence on valuation of a parcel, is still considered by a property appraiser in fixing that valuation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Commission on Ethics enter its final order and public report finding that Hugh Harling did not violate sections 112.3143(2)(b) and (3), F.S. (1985 and 1986 Supp.), and dismissing the complaint at issue. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 24th day of September, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 24th day of September, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-4941EC The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties: The Advocate's Findings Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraphs 5 and 11. Adopted in paragraph 2. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraph 4. Adopted in paragraph 5. Adopted in paragraph 6. Adopted in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 14. 10.-11. Adopted in substance in paragraph 13. 12. Rejected as unnecessary. 13.-14. Adopted in paragraph 14. 15. Adopted in substance in paragraph 14. 16.17. Adopted in substance in paragraph 17. 18.25. Rejected as unnecessary. To the extent that those facts are proposed to establish a motive by Respondent to benefit his "principal", that proposal is expressly rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. 26.-27. Adopted in substance in paragraph 16. 28. Rejected as unnecessary. Moreover, the Pardue testimony was confused, as he said on one hand that he was not concerned with the north side (p.52, 11. 19-21), and it is not clear at p.53, ll. 22-24 whether he was addressing the north or south parcel. 29.-30. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 16. Adopted in paragraph 17. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraphs 17 and 18. Adopted in paragraph 19. Adopted in paragraphs 10 and 11. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 19. Adopted in substance in paragraph 19. Rejected as unnecessary. The evidence cited is confusing, as the recommendation by staff and vote by the CAC is a little different on another document. Adopted in paragraph 20. Rejected as unnecessary. Moreover, the evidence supporting this proposed finding is too confused to be reliable. 43.-44. Adopted in paragraph 21. 45.-46. Rejected as cumulative or unnecessary. Advocate in paragraph 16. Adopted in paragraphs 20 and 22. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to clearer, more credible evidence. Charles Clayton's testimony was rambling and disjointed. Malcolm Clayton more plainly testified that the property was discussed in 1987 and the ownership interest was not disclosed to Harling. (transcript, pages 238-239.) Rejected as unnecessary. Moreover the dates and time sequence provided by Charles Clayton were not reliable and conflicted with other competent evidence. 52.-55. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected. Although an accurate statement of Pardue's testimony, the underlying fact is rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in paragraph 29. Rejected as argument and substantially unsupported by the weight of evidence. Rejected as argument. Respondent's Proposed Findings 1.-2. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraphs 3 and 4. Adopted in paragraph 4. Adopted in paragraph 5. Adopted in paragraphs 4 and 5. 9.-10. Adopted in substance in paragraph 2. 11.-13. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph 9. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 6. Adopted in substance in paragraph 33. Adopted in substance in paragraph 7. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 8. 21.-22. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph 13. Adopted in substance in paragraph 17. 25.-26. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 17. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 17. Adopted in paragraph 34. 31.-32. Adopted in paragraph 10. Adopted in paragraph 11. Adopted in paragraph 12. 35.-36. Rejected as unnecessary. 37. Adopted in substance in paragraph 12. 38.-39. Adopted in substance in paragraph 19. Adopted in substance in paragraph 20. Adopted in substance in paragraph 34. Adopted in substance in paragraph 21. 43.-46. Rejected as unnecessary. 47.-48. Rejected as unnecessary and contrary to the weight of evidence (as to the change not benefiting the landowners). 49.-51. Adopted in paragraph 23. 52.-53. Adopted in paragraph 24. 54. Adopted in paragraph 26. 55. Adopted in paragraph 27. 56. Adopted in paragraph 28. 57.-58. Adopted in paragraph 29. 59. Adopted in paragraph 30. 60. Adopted in paragraph 31. 61. Adopted in paragraph 32. COPIES FURNISHED: Bonnie Williams, Executive Director Ethics Commission Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Phil Claypool, General Counsel Ethics Commission Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Virlindia Doss, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs PL-01, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Michael L. Gore, Esquire Ken Wright, Esquire Shutts & Bowen 20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1000 Orlando, Florida 34801 Bruce Minnick, Esquire Mang, Rett and Collette, P.A. Post Office Box 11127 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-3127
The Issue At issue in this case is whether Sections 403, 404, 410, 503, 506, 703, 704, 705, 706, 707, 708, 1805, 1903, 1904, 1905, 1909, 1911, and 2710 of the Bay County Land Development Regulations (the "LDRs"), as adopted by Bay County Ordinance No. 04-30 on September 21, 2004, are inconsistent with the Bay County Comprehensive Plan (the "Plan").
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence presented at the final hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: Standing Petitioners Cornelia F. Hammond and Estelle M. Hicks reside within Bay County and own residential property in unincorporated Bay County. A "substantially affected person" may challenge a land development regulation pursuant to Subsections 163.3213(2)(a) and (3), Florida Statutes. The parties have stipulated that Petitioners are substantially affected persons and have standing to bring this administrative challenge. The Challenged LDRs Section 403 Section 403, titled "Discouraged Activities," states that it is the "specific intent" of the LDRs "to promote homeowner's quiet use and enjoyment of property, and to minimize the potential for public nuisances." In furtherance of that intent, Section 403 lists activities that are "discouraged" in all new subdivisions with individual lots of less than one-half acre created after the effective date of the LDRs. The list includes: the raising or keeping of farm animals or livestock; raising, keeping, or boarding animals as a business activity; commercial activities other than those associated with home occupations; the storage or accumulation of wrecked motor vehicles, junk, derelict vessels, or debris; storage of building materials used as part of a business activity; the use of recreational vehicles for residential purposes; and any activity that would result in excessive and ongoing noise, odor, glare, fumes, dust, telecommunications interference, or other public nuisance. Petitioners allege that this LDR is inconsistent with Plan Objectives 8.5 and 8.9 and Policies 1.2.1.2, 1.2.1.4, 1.2.1.5, and 1.2.1.9, because it "discourages" rather than prohibits the listed activities, and because it applies only to new subdivisions. Chapter 8 is the Housing Element of the Plan. Objective 8.5 states that it is the Plan's objective to "[p]reserve and protect the character, compatibility, and aesthetics of residential areas and neighborhoods through the enforcement of land use regulations." Policy 8.5.1 is the provision directly implemented, in part, by Section 403. Policy 8.5.1 provides: Specific criteria will be included in the Land Use Code4 for the preservation and protection of residential areas. These criteria will include, but may not be limited to: Maintaining compatibility between types of residential buildings; Ensuring that residential areas will be used primarily for residential purposes; Avoiding overcrowding of residential units; Avoiding accumulations of junk and debris; Avoiding nuisances such as excessive noise, dirt, glare, odors, noxious fumes and telecommunications interference, and; Avoiding the raising or keeping of farm animals. Petitioners criticize Section 403 as deviating from Policy 8.5.1, because Section 403 does not contain all of the criteria listed in the policy, because Section 403 uses the word "discourage" rather than the policy language of "avoiding," and because Section 403 limits its application to new subdivisions with lots of one-half acre or less created after adoption of the LDRs. The County points out that neither "discourage," nor "avoiding" constitutes language of absolute prohibition and, therefore, the LDR does not deviate from the objective or the policy. The County concedes that Section 403 applies only to subdivisions created after the effective date of Ordinance No. 04-30, but notes that the County has adopted a nuisance ordinance (Ordinance No. 04-37, as amended by Ordinance No. 05- 35) that applies to all real property. The nuisance ordinance classifies activities, such as failure to store garbage within a sealed container and exceeding certain sound levels, as public nuisances subject to citation and fines. The County reasonably decided to limit the application of Section 403 to subdivisions created after the effective date of Ordinance No. 04-30 to accommodate existing activities that would otherwise be prohibited. Petitioners point to no statute, rule, or Plan provision stating that an LDR implementing a certain policy is required to implement each and every aspect of that policy. The fact that Section 403 fails to expressly implement Policy 8.5.1.1 and 8.5.1.3 does not render it inconsistent with the Plan. Petitioners contend that, by "discouraging" rather than prohibiting the listed activities, Section 403 is inconsistent with Objective 8.9, which states that it is the Plan's objective to "[p]rotect residential property values and ensure that each homeowner has the opportunity for quiet use and enjoyment of their residence." Petitioners, further, contend that this failure to "fully implement" Policy 8.5.1.1 renders Section 403 inconsistent with certain provisions of Policy 1.2.1, which provides, in relevant part: Findings and Purposes: This Plan is predicated upon and intended to promote the following findings and purposes: * * * 1.2.1.2: Encourage the most appropriate use of land, water and resources consistent with the public interest. * * * : Deal effectively with future problems that may result from the use and development of land within unincorporated Bay County. : To preserve, promote, protect and improve the public health, safety, comfort, good order, appearance, convenience, law enforcement and fire prevention, and general welfare. * * * 1.2.1.9: To recognize and respect judicially acknowledged or constitutionally protected private property rights. It is the intent of this Plan that all provisions, requirements, regulations, ordinances, or programs adopted under authority of this Plan be developed, implemented and applied with sensitivity for private property rights and not be unduly restrictive, and property owners must be free from actions by others which would harm their property. Full and just compensation or other appropriate relief must be provided to any property owner for a governmental action that is determined to be an invalid exercise of the police power which constitutes a taking, as provided by law. Any such relief shall be as provided by law. Petitioners contend that Section 403's failure to include the requirement of Policy 8.5.1.3 that overcrowding of residential units should be avoided constitutes a conflict with Policy 3.6.1.2, which requires the LDRs to ensure the compatibility of adjacent uses and provide for open space. None of Petitioner's contentions is well-founded in terms of establishing Section 403's inconsistency with the Plan. As noted above, there is no requirement that an LDR implementing a given Policy must implement each and every aspect of that Policy. Petitioner's evidence on this issue consists of resident's anecdotal complaints that adjacent seasonal/resort uses cause increased noise, traffic, and safety hazards, evidence, which did not establish inconsistency between the LDR and the Policy. Petitioners contention that Section 403 would be more effective if it prohibited rather than "discouraged" the listed activities is inarguable, but beyond the scope of this proceeding. In its Plan, the County has chosen to "avoid" the listed nuisances. For better or worse, the Plan's language is hortatory, not mandatory. Section 403 is not inconsistent with Policy 8.5.1 or with the other Plan provisions cited by Petitioners. Section 404 Section 404 delineates the allowable uses, conditional uses, and accessory uses and structures allowed in the R-1 single-family residential zoning category. The allowable uses include: single-family dwellings built to Florida Building Code Standards pursuant to Chapter 553, Florida Statutes; community facilities such as neighborhood centers, golf courses, swimming pools, and tennis courts; family day care homes; not-for-profit parks and playgrounds; and "low impact public utilities." Conditional uses are those that may be allowed in the R-1 zones subject to such conditions as are necessary to preserve the integrity of the zone. Conditional uses include: public or private schools and houses of worship, subject to buffering and traffic impact mitigation; community residential homes provided they are not located within 1,000 feet of one another and do not substantially alter the nature and character of the surrounding area; electric power substations, to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis; and "others as determined by criteria specified in Chapter 12." Chapter 12 of the LDRs sets forth the application and permitting procedures for conditional uses, which are "intended to provide additional flexibility in the zoning process where a particular use might not be specifically allowed in a particular zone, but would still be compatible with allowed uses in that zone when certain qualifying conditions are applied." Accessory uses and structures, such as unattached garages, carports, swimming pools, storage sheds and docks, are allowed only when a principal use or structure already exists. They must be located in side or rear yards, unless the lot is abutting a body of water, when they may be placed in front of the principal use or structures. Petitioners contend that Section 404 allows incompatible uses in single-family zones and is inconsistent with Objectives 3.9, 8.5, and 8.9, and Policies 3.9.1, 8.5.1, 8.9.1, 1.2.1.2, 1.2.1.4, 1.2.1.5, 1.2.1.9, and 2.1.2.2 of the Plan. Petitioners contend that Section 404 is inconsistent with the listed Plan provisions for the following reasons: while it requires buffering for schools and churches, it does not require buffering between single-family homes and other uses that are known to create nuisances; it allows electrical power substations, which are known health risks; it creates uncertainty by authorizing unspecified conditional uses so long as they are consistent with the criteria of Chapter 12 of the LDRs; it contains no restrictions on noise that is incompatible with the quiet use and enjoyment of a homeowner's residence; and it does not allow manufactured homes. As to the first reason, Petitioners have offered insufficient support for their contention that the absence of language requiring a buffer between residences and uses that are known nuisances is inconsistent with the Plan. Petitioners offer a list of "nuisances" that includes parks, playgrounds, and community facilities, which are not commonly considered "nuisances" in residential areas. Housing Element Policy 8.5.1 of the Plan requires the LDRs to include criteria that maintain compatibility between types of residential buildings, and Policy 8.9.1 requires the County to establish zoning districts in the LDRs that promote compatibility between residential uses and reduce the potential for public nuisances. The County has elected to require buffering in the R-1 zone between residences and churches and schools, but not to require buffering between residences and parks, playgrounds, and community facilities, or between residences and "nuisances" generally. Section 404.2.f provides that "other" conditional uses are required to seek permits under Chapter 12, a process through which compatibility is addressed and buffers could be required as a condition of approving the conditional use. As to the Petitioner's claim regarding electrical power substations, Subsection 163.3208(4), Florida Statutes (2006), requires local governments to allow new electrical substations as a permitted use in all comprehensive plan categories and zoning districts, except those designated as preservation, conservation, or historic preservation. Subsection 163.3208(6), Florida Statutes, provides express conditions for the placement of electric substations in residential areas, requiring the utility to consult with local government regarding site selection and to propose at least three alternative sites, including sites within nonresidential areas. The local government has the authority to make the final decision as to substation placement. Further, electrical substations are classified as conditional uses by Section 404 and, therefore, must meet the requirements of Chapter 12 of the LDRs in order to be approved. One such requirement, in Section 1206.1, is that the conditional use must be "consistent with all applicable provisions of the Plan." Table 3A of the Future Land Use Element ("FLUE") specifically lists public utilities as an allowable use in the Residential land use category. Section 1206.2 provides that a conditional use request "shall not adversely affect adjacent properties in terms of creating a nuisance, reduction in property values, or other quantifiable measure." Section 1206.3 provides that the request must be "compatible with the existing or allowable uses of adjacent properties." Section 1206.7 provides that the request "will not adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare." Section 1205 grants the County's Planning Commission the authority to impose such conditions and safeguards on conditional uses "as deemed necessary to protect and enhance the health, safety and welfare of the surrounding area." In summary, electrical power substations are naturally and appropriately considered "public utilities" and are, therefore, specifically allowed in residential areas under the Plan. Section 404.2.e lists electrical power substations as conditional uses "to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis." As conditional uses, electrical power substations are subject to the review process of Chapter 12 of the LDRs. The health risks of the substations must be considered under Section 1206.7, which prohibits adverse effects on the public health, safety or welfare. Finally, state law in the form of Section 163.3208, Florida Statutes, has preempted any authority the County may have had to completely prohibit electrical substations in residential areas. Petitioners have, also, alleged that Section 404.2.f allows any number of unidentified potential uses that could create nuisances and destroy the character, compatibility and aesthetics of their neighborhoods, which would be inconsistent with Objective 8.5 of the Plan, and that could interfere with the quiet use and enjoyment of their property, which would be inconsistent with Objective 8.9. Petitioners have pointed to no statute, rule, or Plan provision that would require the County to list every possible conditional use for the R-1 zoning category in the LDR. Section 404.2.f simply clarifies that any conditional use not expressly named in Section 404.2 is subject to the permitting criteria of Chapter 12 of the LDRs, which themselves limit conditional uses to those compatible with existing or allowable uses of adjacent properties and that do not create nuisances. Regarding the alleged lack of noise standards, Petitioners have referenced no provision of the Plan requiring noise to be addressed in the LDR that sets forth allowable uses in the R-1 zoning category. The conditional use requirements of Chapter 12 are intended to ensure compatibility of adjacent uses and forestall the creation of nuisances. As noted above, the County, also, has a nuisance ordinance that applies to all property. Finally, Petitioners complain that manufactured homes are not listed as allowable uses in the R-1 single-family zone despite the fact that Table 3A of the FLUE portion of the Plan includes "manufactured housing" among those land uses that are allowable in residential areas. Objective 8.7 of the Plan is to provide for the location of affordable housing, including manufactured housing, in residential districts while avoiding "undue concentrations" of affordable housing in any one area. Policy 8.7.2 of the Plan provides: The Board recognizes that mobile homes and/or manufactured houses are commonly used to provide affordable housing. The Board will provide for the placement of these structures by designating certain land use districts in the Land Use Code in which mobile homes, manufactured homes, mobile home parks, and mobile home subdivisions will be allowed. These areas will be designated in such a way as to avoid undue concentrations in any one particular geographic area. Manufactured homes are listed, either specifically or by reference to another zoning category, as allowable uses in the R-2 (Duplex Dwellings and Manufactured Housing Zones) and R-3 (Duplex, Triplex, and Quadraplex Zones), but not in the R-1 (Single-Family Zones) zoning category. An exception is a manufactured home that meets the Florida Building Code Standards of Chapter 553, Florida Statutes, which is allowed in all residential zoning districts. That fact that Table 3A of the FLUE allows manufactured housing in residential areas does not mean that manufactured housing must be allowed in every zoning category included under the "residential" designation. Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that Section 404 is inconsistent with the Plan. Section 4105 Section 410, titled "Bulk Regulations," sets forth the bulk regulations for all residential zoning categories. Petitioners have alleged that this LDR is inconsistent with Objectives 3.9, 8.5 and 8.9, and Policies 1.2.1.2, 1.2.1.4, 1.2.1.5, 1.2.1.9, 3.6.1, 3.9.1, 3.9.2, and 8.5.1. Section 410 includes Table 4.1, which establishes standards for each residential zoning category set forth in Chapter 4 of the LDRs. These bulk regulations include maximum densities, minimum lot frontages, yard setbacks, maximum building heights, and impervious surface ratios for each zoning category, further divided into urban, suburban, and rural community areas. Petitioners allege that the failure of the bulk regulations to mandate a minimum lot size and the allowance of 15 dwelling units per acre in the urban R-2 and R-3 zones would allow a developer to enter an existing neighborhood, buy an adjacent vacant parcel or assemble several lots and build at a higher density than the existing neighborhood. Petitioners point out that R-2 zoning covers the majority of land in Laguna Beach, and that the overall density in that area is about eight to ten units per acre. However, under Section 410, a developer could assemble an acre and build up to 15 dwelling units per acre. This density is nearly double the eight units per acre allowed in the R-1 zoning category. Petitioners contend that such increased density in existing neighborhoods has the potential to destroy the character, compatibility and aesthetics of these neighborhoods, which is inconsistent with Objective 8.5, and the potential to create nuisances with excessive noise and traffic, inconsistent with Policy 8.5.1. These impacts would have the cumulative effect of interfering with the residents' quiet use and enjoyment of their homes and would devalue their property, inconsistent with Objective 8.5. Despite the Petitioners' concerns, the Plan contains no minimum lot size requirements in the Residential FLUE category. Therefore, no minimum lot size is required for the residential zoning bulk regulations. The Residential FLUE category in Table 3A of the Plan allows a density of no more than 15 dwelling units per acre in urban/coastal areas. The provisions of Section 410 are identical to those of the Plan, limiting density to 15 dwelling units per acre in the urban areas of the R-2 and R-3 zones. While they have voiced legitimate concerns regarding the impact of increased densities imposed on existing neighborhoods, Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that Section 410 is inconsistent with the Plan. Section 503 Petitioners have alleged that Section 503, dealing with the SR-1 Seasonal/Resort Residential zoning category, is inconsistent with Objectives 8.5 and 8.9 and Policy 3.9.1, because the allowable uses under this LDR do not protect existing neighborhoods in or adjacent to the SR-1 zones, specifically the existing single-family residential neighborhoods in the Beaches Special Treatment Zone south of U.S. 98. The alleged incompatible allowable and conditional uses include motels/hotels, condominiums, beach rental vendors, and parking garages. The Seasonal/Resort FLUE category in Table 3A of the Plan states that the purpose of the category is "[t]o provide areas for a functional mix of compatible seasonal/resort land uses where the clientele are predominantly seasonal or temporary visitors and tourists." Listed allowable uses include condominiums, multi-family structures, motels, hotels, lodges, restaurants, convenience stores, and lounges and bars as accessory uses to multi-family structures, hotels, motels, or restaurants. Under the heading "Development Restrictions," Table 3A expressly provides that year-round, permanent residences should not be located in the seasonal/resort areas. Petitioners complain that the seasonal/resort land use category and the SR-1 and SR-2 zoning categories were assigned to many existing R-1 single-family residential structures, and that many of these homeowners have petitioned the County to change their designation from seasonal/resort back to residential. However, Petitioners have not shown that the SR-1 category described in Section 503 of the LDRs is inconsistent with the criteria of the Seasonal/Resort FLUE category set forth above. Section 503.1.a specifically recognizes that the R-1 uses in the seasonal/resort area are not nonconforming. Elliott Kampert, the County's chief planner, testified that many, if not most, of the single-family residences in this area were non- homestead properties being used as rental properties by their owners. Petitioners counter that the Plan does not distinguish between full-time, seasonal, or rental uses in applying compatibility standards or requiring protection of the character and aesthetics of residential areas and the opportunity for the quiet use and enjoyment of homes. Policy 3.9.1 of the Plan defines "compatibility" as "a condition in which land uses or conditions can coexist in relative proximity to each other in a stable fashion over time such that no use or condition is unduly negatively impacted directly or indirectly by another use or condition." This is the same definition of "compatibility" found in Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.003(23). Petitioners contend that Section 503 is inconsistent with Objective 3.9 generally and with Policy 3.9.1 in particular. Petitioners argue that, because SR-1 is a residential zone that has been applied to existing neighborhoods, Objectives 8.5 and 8.9 are also relevant. Objective 8.5 requires the preservation and protection of the character, compatibility and aesthetics of residential areas and neighborhoods "through the enforcement of land use regulations." Objective 8.9 requires protection of residential property values and ensures the homeowner's quiet use and enjoyment of his residence. Petitioners contend that the development allowed under Chapter 5 of the LDRs, including 60-foot high motels/hotels, 100-foot high condominiums and apartment houses, and 45-foot high parking garages, will interfere with the quiet use and enjoyment and change the character and aesthetics of the existing single- family neighborhoods. The stated purpose of the Seasonal/Resort FLUE category is to accommodate primarily seasonal or temporary visitors and tourists. Table 3A of the Plan expressly states that year-round, permanent residences should not be located in this area. Therefore, the allowable and conditional uses listed for the SR-1 category in Section 503 of the LDRs are appropriate and consistent with the relevant portion of the Plan. Petitioners' arguments, at most, demonstrated that the Seasonal/Resort criteria and standards set forth in Table 3A are inconsistent with Objectives 8.5 and 8.9 of the Plan, to the extent that the County has imposed the Seasonal/Resort designation to existing residential neighborhoods despite the express criterion that permanent residences should not be located in this area. Internal inconsistencies in the Plan are beyond the limited scope of this proceeding. Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that Section 503 is inconsistent with the Plan. Section 5066 Section 506 includes Table 5.1, which establishes standards for each seasonal/resort zoning category set forth in Chapter 5 of the LDRs. These bulk regulations include minimum lot areas, maximum densities, minimum lot frontages, minimum setbacks, maximum building heights, and impervious surface ratios for each zoning category. Petitioners contend that this LDR is inconsistent with Objectives 3.11, 8.5, and 8.9, as well as Policies 1.2.1.2, 1.2.1.4, 1.2.1.5, 1.2.1.9, and 3.9.1 of the Plan. Section 506 allows residential structures to be built three feet from the side-yard property line, commercial structures to be built ten feet from the side-yard property line, and contains no floor-to-area ratios. The LDR allows heights up to 60 feet for residential structures and up to 230 feet for commercial structures. Petitioners complain that Section 506 would allow construction of a 230-foot tall hotel ten feet from the property line of an existing single-family home. Petitioners contend that the setback provisions do not require sufficient side yards to preserve the integrity of the area or to protect adjacent property from the ill effects of the allowed uses. Petitioners, also, contend that Section 506 lacks objective measurements of density or intensity to control the bulk and mass of new construction. Table 5.1 includes height limits and impervious surface ratios, but does not include floor-to-area ratios, which Petitioners argue are necessary in order to have meaningful density and intensity controls. The County correctly responds that the Plan does not establish minimum setbacks or floor-to-area ratios for buildings in the Seasonal/Resort FLUE category and, therefore, neither the minimum setbacks prescribed in Table 5.1, nor the lack of floor- to-area ratios in Table 5.1 is in derogation of any provision of the Plan. Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that Section 506 is inconsistent with the Plan. Section 703 Petitioners contend that Section 703, which sets forth the allowable, conditional, and prohibited uses in the Conservation Preservation Zone, is inconsistent with the Plan, because it does not address maintaining water quality standards. Table 3A of the FLUE, in stating the purpose, uses, density and intensity allowed in the Conservation Preservation Zone, states the following "Development Restriction": "No development allowed that can be reasonably expected to degrade water quality standards." Petitioners contend that this statement should have been incorporated into the text of Section 703. Petitioners contend that Section 703 allows uses with the potential to degrade water quality, such as public utilities and infrastructure, docks, piers, seawalls, jetties, groins, boathouses, and "other similar uses."7 Petitioners contend that incorporating the specific language from Table 3A into Section 703 would enable the County to address potential development that could impair water quality. The County points out that environmental standards are set forth in a separate chapter of the LDRs, Chapter 19. Section 1904.2.e of the LDRs provides: "No new development will be permitted that would reasonably be expected to cause violation of state or federal water quality standards." Chapter 18 of the LDRs sets forth the development review process and specifically references Chapter 19 in the provisions stating the environmental information that must be included in a development application. Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that Section 703 is inconsistent with the Plan. Section 704 Petitioners contend that Section 704, which sets forth the allowable, accessory, and prohibited uses in the Conservation Recreation Zone, is inconsistent with the Plan, because it is inconsistent with the development standards set forth in Table 3A of the FLUE for the Conservation Recreation land use category. Table 3A states that the purpose of the Conservation Recreation Zone is "[t]o provide areas that are used jointly for both conservation and recreation purposes." Table 3A sets forth the allowable uses in the Conservation Recreation Zone: "Agriculture (when BMPs are used), Recreation, Public/Institutional, Residential, Commercial on upland areas when used in conjunction with the overall recreation function (e.g. ranger quarters, concessionaires, etc.), docks, piers, seawalls, groins, buoys, "eco-parks" and other similar uses, and public utilities." Table 3A sets forth the following development restriction: "Development is limited to that which supports conservation/recreation purposes." Table 3A lists density and intensity criteria as "not applicable" for the Conservation Recreation Zone. Section 704 lists all allowable and conditional uses in the Conservation Preservation Zone as allowable uses in the Conservation Recreation Zone. In addition, Section 704 lists the following as allowable uses in the Conservation Recreation Zone: Outdoor recreation uses including: parks, recreation areas, campgrounds, preserves, nature trails, historic sites, or other similar uses; hunting or gun clubs or lodges; canoe, kayak or other small boat rentals; fishing camps or lodges; horseback riding stables and trails; youth, institutional, or day camps or lodges; and, other similar outdoor recreation uses. Petitioners argue that the allowable uses listed in Table 3A, in conjunction with the lack of density and intensity criteria, establishes that only uses of limited impact are to be allowed in this area, with the standard for structural development limited to structures necessary to support the allowable recreational uses, such as ranger stations and concessionaires. "High density, high intensity" structures such as hunting, gun, fishing, youth, and recreational lodges are outside the conservation purposes of Table 3A and, are therefore, inconsistent with the Plan. Section 708 of the LDRs contains Table 7.1, the bulk regulations for all of the Conservation Zones described in Chapter 7. Table 7.1 requires a minimum lot area of 20 acres for construction in the Conservation Recreation Zone, with minimum front, rear, and side setbacks of 100 feet, maximum lot coverage of ten percent and a floor area ratio of 20 percent. A lodge constructed under these criteria would not constitute a "high density, high intensity" structure inconsistent with Table 3A of the Plan. Table 3A includes "designation criteria" for the Conservation Recreation Zone that expressly include the following: St. Andrews State Recreation Area and Aquatic Preserve, Pine Log State Forest, Econfina Creek Water Management Area, Shell Island, and Class III waters. Mr. Kampert, the County's planner, stated that the St. Andrews facility has camping sites for RVs and commercial uses such as a snorkel, dive shop, and camping shop. Pine Log State Forest includes RV camping sites with restroom facilities and showers. It is established that the state allows these types of uses in the management of its recreational areas and, therefore, that the Plan contemplates the same uses in the Conservation Recreation Zone. Petitioners, also, complain that Section 704.2.b lists "public/institutional uses" as allowed as accessory uses and structures, but does not provide examples of the type of development that would be allowed under this term. Petitioners cite no requirement that the County must publish a list of examples under each use category within the LDRs. Examples of Public/Institutional Uses are included in Table 3A of the FLUE under that land use category. In any event, such uses would be limited "to that which supports conservation/recreation purposes." Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that Section 704 is inconsistent with the Plan. Section 705 Section 705 lists the allowable and prohibited uses in the Conservation Habitation Zone. Included in the allowable uses under Section 705 are both bird sanctuaries and communications towers. Petitioners complain that communications towers present hazards to birds and that allowing such towers is inconsistent with Table 3A of the FLUE regarding Conservation areas. Petitioner's evidence regarding the dangers that cell phone towers present to migrating and local resident birds is credited, but not relevant to a determination whether the LDR is inconsistent with the Plan. Petitioners contend that communications towers constitute a commercial/industrial use and, thus, are inconsistent with Table 3A's description of the Conservation FLUE category. However, Table 3A of the FLUE lists allowable uses in the Conservation category to include "public utilities, and other similar uses." It was not unreasonable for the County to determine that communications towers are more akin to public utilities than to commercial/industrial uses, and to allow their placement in the Conservation Habitation Zone.8 Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that Section 705 is inconsistent with the Plan. Section 706 Section 706 is titled "Innovative Development Techniques." Section 706 is intended to implement Objective 6.18 of the Conservation Element of the Plan. Objective 6.18 provides that its purpose is to "[p]rovide landowners with beneficial use of their property when environmental restrictions cause the loss of full development potential through use of innovative and flexible development strategies." Policy 6.18.1 of the Plan provides that owners or developers facing development restrictions due to the presence of locally significant environmental resources on their property may use the "innovative land development techniques" of clustering and mitigation. Petitioners contend that the first sentence of Section 706 is inconsistent with the standards set forth in Table 3A for Conservation Preservation and Conservation Recreation land use categories. The first sentence of Section 706 provides: "Conservation zones are intended to accommodate limited development while, also, conserving and protecting valuable natural resources." Petitioners argue that the Conservation Preservation and Conservation Recreation categories do not allow any development at all. Petitioner's contention would be correct only if Section 706 were read to negate or override Sections 703 and 704. Sections limit development in the Conservation Preservation and Conservation Recreation Zones, respectively, through the provision of limited allowable uses and prohibited uses. Nothing in Section 706's provision for innovative development techniques trumps the limited allowable uses of the Conservation Preservation or Conservation Recreation Zones. Petitioners, also, complain that Section 706 is inconsistent with Policy 6.18.1, which states in relevant part that "owners or developers may use, or be required to use, the following innovative land development techniques." (Emphasis added.) Petitioners emphasize the underscored language to argue that the County has retained the right to impose clustering on developers, whereas Section 706 merely "encourages" clustering. On this point, there is no inconsistency between the LDR and the Plan, because the latter does not require the County to impose mandatory clustering on owners or developers. Petitioners are probably correct that Section 706 would prove more effective if it required clustering, but Policy 6.18.1 of the Plan does not mandate that outcome. Section 706 allows the use of "density transfers," defined as "[t]he transfer of all or part of the allowable density on a lot or parcel of land to another lot or parcel of land." Petitioners argue that the LDR does not provide specific and detailed criteria for the application of density transfers, which renders it inconsistent with Policies 1.2.1.2, 1.2.1.4, 1.2.1.5, and where transfers impact existing residential areas, Objectives 8.5 and 8.9. The density transfers are contemplated only for conservation zones, not existing residential areas. The lack of specific criteria to implement the concept of density transfers does not render Section 706 in conflict with the cited Plan provisions. It is noted that the Plan is silent as to density transfers, but it is, also, found that density transfers are not in conflict with the Plan.9 Finally, Petitioners allege that allowing developers to deviate from the bulk requirements for Conservation zones in Table 7.1 of the LDRs may lead to development inconsistent with the Plan. The County contends that allowing deviations from the bulk requirements is not inconsistent with the Plan, because deviations are allowed only when it can be shown that they are "necessary and desirable to avoid or preserve natural resources." Petitioners respond that the terms "necessary" and "desirable" are so vague as to be meaningless in terms of establishing an objective standard for development review. However, Section 706 expressly provides that requests for the use of innovative development techniques in Conservation zones are to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, indicating that the County intends for the common understanding of those terms to be elucidated and amplified through the permitting process. Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that Section 706 is inconsistent with the Plan. Section 707 Section 707 contains nine special regulations that apply in the Conservation zones. Section 707.5 provides: Development will be under-taken [sic] so as to avoid activities that would destroy wetlands or the natural functions of wetlands except for activities authorized by permits issued by federal or state authorities. Petitioners allege that Section 707.5 is inconsistent with Objective 6.11 and Policies 6.7.4 and 6.18.1 of the Plan, because the intent of those Plan provisions is to preserve and protect wetlands. Petitioners, therefore, contend that Section 707.5 is less restrictive than the Plan, because it allows state and federal permits to trump the wetland protections set forth in the Plan. Objective 6.11 of the Plan is to "[p]rotect and conserve wetlands and the natural functions of wetlands." Policy 6.7.4 sets forth development standards applicable in designated Ecosystem Management Areas. Policy 6.7.4.5 provides that development will be undertaken "to avoid activities that would destroy wetlands or the natural functions of wetlands." Section 707.5 of the LDRs is taken verbatim from Policy 6.7.4.5 of the Plan, except for the addition of the phrase, "except for activities authorized by permits issued by federal or state authorities." Policy 6.18.1 is the "innovative development techniques" provision discussed in Section H, supra. The County points out that Objective 6.11 states that the County will "protect and conserve" wetlands, not "preserve" them from development altogether. Petitioners contend that nothing in the Plan distinguishes between "jurisdictional wetlands," those that by definition are regulated by state and federal permitting agencies, and "isolated wetlands" unregulated by state and federal agencies. However, Policy 6.11.1 adopts by reference the definition of "wetlands" as used by the Department of Environmental Protection and set forth in Subsection 373.019(25), Florida Statutes (2006).10 Objective 6.1 of the Plan calls for the elimination of "needless duplication of government and regulatory activities relative to protection of natural resources." Policy 6.1.1 goes on to say that the County "will, to the maximum extent practicable, rely upon state laws and regulations to meet the conservation goals and objectives of this Plan." Despite Petitioner's contentions, nothing in the Plan clearly indicates11 that isolated wetlands are to be afforded the same protections as jurisdictional wetlands. The Plan defines "wetlands" by reference to the Department of Environmental Protection's definition, a clear indication that the Plan is concerned only with jurisdictional wetlands. Section 707.5 defers to the federal and state wetlands permitting authorities in the same manner as the Plan itself. Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that Section 707 is inconsistent with the Plan. Section 708 The bulk regulations for the Conservation zones are contained in Table 7.1 of Section 708 of the LDRs. A minimum lot area of 20 acres and a maximum building height of 50 feet are provided for the Conservation Recreation zone. Petitioners allege that that provision of a minimum lot area is inconsistent with the Conservation Recreation FLUE category contained in Table 3A of the Plan, because no minimum lot area is included therein. Petitioners claim that a minimum lot area precludes smaller parcels from being placed in the Conservation Recreation category, thereby decreasing opportunities for acquiring and conserving smaller areas of ecologically valuable resources. Petitioners, also, argue that allowing buildings up to 50 feet in height is inconsistent with the Conservation Recreation FLUE category, because such a building height is not necessary to accommodate the allowable uses. Contrary to Petitioner's allegation, the minimum lot area in Table 7.1 is not inconsistent with the Plan. Table 3A of the Plan does not set forth minimum lot areas as such for any land use category.12 Petitioner's policy argument regarding smaller parcels is logical, but unsupported by any specific Plan provision. Finally, the County demonstrated that a 50-foot building height is reasonable for uses such as fire towers in the Conservation Recreation zone. Petitioners failed to demonstrate that Section 708 is inconsistent with the Plan. Section 1805 Section 1805 lists all the information that must be included in a development permitting application. Section 1805.2.b sets forth the environmental information to be included in the applicant's site development information package. Petitioners allege that Section 1805.2.b is inconsistent with the Plan, because it does not require applicants to depict wetland buffers or the jurisdictional wetland line on their site plans. Policy 6.11.3.1 of the Plan provides: "Wetlands will be delineated and depicted on all site plans included in applications for development approval." The policy does not require the depiction of wetland buffers. Consistent with Policy 6.11.3.1 of the Plan, Section 1805.2.b of the LDRs requires the applicant's site plan to depict wetland areas. Petitioners failed to demonstrate that Section 1805 is inconsistent with the Plan. Section 1903 Section 1903 of the LDRs provides a list of what the County considers to be "significant natural resources." The list is identical to the list of "locally significant natural resources" contained in Policy 6.2.1 of the Plan, except that "shellfish beds" were added to the LDR list. Petitioners contend that Section 1903 should go beyond the list in Policy 6.2.1 and include all natural resources that are protected under the Plan. In particular, Petitioners claim that native aquatic flora and fauna, that help protect water quality and provide habitat, should be included in Section 1903, because their protection is a part of several Objectives in the Conservation Element of the Plan, including Objectives 6.7, 6.8, 6.9, 6.14, 6.15, 6.16, 6.17, 6.19, 6.20, 6.21, and 6.22. Petitioners argue that nothing in the statutes or rules restrict the County from adopting LDRs that go beyond the specific language of the Plan, provided the additional language is consistent with and further the objectives of the Plan. Petitioners point to the addition of the language relating to shellfish beds as an example of acceptably expanding the list of significant natural resources contained in Policy 6.2.1. Petitioners are correct in noting that the County could, further, expand the list of significant natural resources in the LDRs. This is not to say, however, that the County is required to expand the list beyond the resources listed in the Plan, and Petitioners concede that Section 1903 contains all of the resources identified in Policy 6.2.1 of the Plan. Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that Section 1903 is inconsistent with the Plan. Section 1904 Section 1904 sets forth the environmental standards with which all development must be designed and constructed to comply. The stated purpose of the standards is "to protect and conserve significant natural resources," a reference to the list of resources provided in Section 1903. Petitioners contend that the expanded list of natural resources they sought to be included in Section 1903 should, also, be added to Section 1904. For the same reasons stated in Section M, supra, there is no requirement that the LDRs go beyond the Plan regarding the list of significant natural resources identified for protection. Section 1904.4 provides setbacks for development adjacent to any water body. All principal and accessory structures must be located no closer than 30 feet from the mean high water or ordinary high water line or within 30 feet of any Department of Environmental Protection jurisdictional line, whichever is more restrictive. Natural vegetation is to be preserved within the setback area. The stated purpose of the setback is to "provide a buffer between surface waters and development, preserve quality, limit sediment discharges, erosion, and uncontrolled stormwater discharges, and provide wildlife habitat." Petitioners allege that the 30-foot setback is insufficient to accomplish the stated purpose, because subsurface impacts can extend well beyond a 30-foot setback. Dr. Bacchus testified as to the extensive scientific documentation that coastal areas are eroding. This natural erosion, coupled with the rise in sea levels caused by global warming, means that a 30-foot setback, even if it were scientifically based at the time it was adopted, would no longer have a valid basis. The situation will be exacerbated by the continued increase in Bay County's population, meaning that more and more water will be withdrawn causing the land mass to compress and collapse. The sea level encroachment will, thus, be far greater than the sea level rise alone would predict. The County notes that the setback language of Section 1904.4 is substantively identical to Policy 6.7.4.6 of the Plan, which applies to Ecosystem Management Areas, areas where "extraordinary regulatory standards may be applied to protect natural resources." Though not all surface waters are necessarily included in the Ecosystem Management Area designation, Section 1904.4 provides the same buffer they would enjoy were they so designated. Petitioners point to no specific Plan provision with which Section 1904 conflicts. Dr. Bacchus credibly testified that a larger buffer area would provide greater protection to the surface waters encroached upon by adjacent development. However, the standard in this proceeding is not whether the LDRs could be improved upon, but whether they are inconsistent with the Plan. Petitioners failed to demonstrate that Section 1904 is inconsistent with the Plan. Section 1905 Section 1905 sets forth a list of development restrictions for those areas designated Ecosystem Management Areas by Policy 6.7.3: "Undeveloped, unplatted land in the Rural or Suburban Service Areas adjacent to Class II waters and Outstanding Florida waters, tributaries and headwaters thereto." Policy 6.7.4.5 of the Plan provides: "Development will be undertaken so as to avoid activities that would destroy wetlands or the natural functions of wetlands." Section 1905.4 of the LDRs provides: "Development will be undertaken so as to avoid activities that would destroy wetlands or the natural functions of wetlands except for activities or permits issued by state and federal agencies." Petitioners contend that Section 1905.4 is inconsistent with Policy 6.7.4.5, because it includes the quoted phrase deferring local jurisdiction to permits issued by state and federal authorities. This is the same argument raised by Petitioners regarding Section 707. See Section I, supra. Petitioners, also, contend that Section 1905.5, providing the same 30-foot setback as discussed in relation to Section 1904, is inadequate for the same reasons discussed in Section N, supra. Petitioners' chief concern is the protection of wetlands, and they argue with some force and no little persuasiveness that state and federal agencies do not adequately enforce wetlands regulations. However, it is not within the authority of this tribunal to substitute its judgment for the County's legislative determination to defer to the permitting authority of state and federal agencies. For the same reasons given in Sections I and N of this Order, Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that Section 1905 is inconsistent with the Plan. Section 1906 Section 1906 sets forth development restrictions in the Deer Point Reservoir Protection Zone, established to protect the water quality of the Deer Point Reservoir at or above the ambient levels at the time the County adopted Ordinance 94-12, which established the boundaries of the protection zone and provided standards for land uses in order to protect the water quality of the reservoir. The Deer Point Lake Reservoir is a Class I water that was created in 1961 through the construction of a dam across the northern portion of North Bay, and is the primary source of drinking water for most of the municipalities in the County. Petitioners complain that Section 1906.5 allows on- site sewage disposal systems within the Deer Point Reservoir Protection Zone, provided that the minimum setback for septic tanks and their drainfields is 100 feet from the mean high water or ordinary high water line. Dr. Bacchus credibly testified that allowing septic tanks to proliferate in the Deer Point Lake watershed will cause the water to become extremely eutrophic, due to the leaching of nutrients through the shallow surficial aquifer. There will be problems with aggressive alien species and fish kills, causing the recreational benefits of the area to plummet.13 Again, even if Dr. Bacchus' expert testimony is fully credited, it does not resolve the question whether Section 1906 is inconsistent with the Plan. Policy 6.6.1.5 of the Plan expressly provides that septic tanks are allowed near Class I waters, provided they are no closer than 100 feet from the shoreline. Policy 6.7.4.4 of the Plan provides that, in the Ecosystem Management Areas, septic tanks must be located at least 100 feet upland of the mean high water line, ordinary high water line, or DEP wetland jurisdiction line. Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that Section 1906 is inconsistent with the Plan. Section 1909 Section 1909 sets forth restrictions, constraints and requirements on development activities in wetlands. Petitioners argue nine points of alleged inconsistency. First, Petitioners contend that Section 1909's defining "wetlands" by reference to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-340.200(19) is inconsistent with the Plan, because the Plan covers both jurisdictional and isolated wetlands. The cited rule provides: "Wetlands," as defined in subsection 373.019(25), F.S., means those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or ground water at a frequency and a duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soils. Soils present in wetlands generally are classified as hydric or alluvial, or possess characteristics that are associated with reducing soil conditions. The prevalent vegetation in wetlands generally consists of facultative or obligate hydrophytic macrophytes that are typically adapted to areas having soil conditions described above. These species, due to morphological, physiological, or reproductive adaptations, have the ability to grow, reproduce or persist in aquatic environments or anaerobic soil conditions. Florida wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bayheads, bogs, cypress domes and strands, sloughs, wet prairies, riverine swamps and marshes, hydric seepage slopes, tidal marshes, mangrove swamps and other similar areas. Florida wetlands generally do not include longleaf or slash pine flatwoods with an understory dominated by saw palmetto. The rule's definition is virtually identical to that contained in Subsection 373.019(25), Florida Statutes. See footnote 10, supra. As noted in Section I, supra, Policy 6.11.1 of the Plan adopts by reference the definition of "wetlands" set forth in Subsection 373.019(25), Florida Statutes. For the reasons set forth in Section I, supra, Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the intent of the Plan was to include any wetlands other than the jurisdictional wetlands defined by statute and the Department of Environmental Protection's rule. Petitioner's second point is that Section 1909.2 contains the same exception to the general avoidance of development impacts on wetlands as found in Sections 707.5 and 1905.4: "except for activities authorized by permits issued by federal or state authorities." For the reasons set forth in Sections I and O, supra, this language has not been shown to be inconsistent with the Plan. Petitioner's third point is that Section 1909.3 provides the same 30-foot wetland buffer set forth in Section 1904.4. For the reasons set forth in Section N, supra, the 30- foot buffer has not been shown to be inconsistent with the Plan. Petitioner's fourth point is that the last sentence of Section 1909.3.e is inconsistent with the Plan. This sentence states: "A variance may be granted to allow an accessory use to violate the setback requirement, but by no more than twenty (20) percent."14 Petitioners allege that this language is inconsistent with Objectives 6.11 and 6.18 and their implementing Policies, as well as Policy 6.7.4, because the Plan's provisions contain no express exemption that allows accessory structures to be placed in the wetland buffer. Petitioners, further, contend that the Section 1909.3.e provides no guidelines to ensure that a requested variance is only for a use required to provide the owner with a reasonable use of the property. Petitioners note that "accessory uses" listed in the Plan and LDRs include guesthouses, swimming pools, storage sheds/greenhouses, satellite dishes, jet ski rentals, beverage or food shops, and parking garages. Objective 1.8 in the Administrative Prccedures Element of the Plan is intended to "provide avenues of hardship relief from those aspects of the Plan that have the effect of regulating the use of land, consistent with the provisions of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes." Policy 1.8.1.1 describes the County's variance process, the purpose of which is described as follows: The Plan variance process is designed to provide relief from the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan in those cases where strict application of these requirements could result in an unconstitutional taking or unnecessary hardship prohibiting the use of land in a manner otherwise allowed under this Plan. Policy 1.8.1.1 sets forth nine standards with which an applicant must demonstrate compliance. The ninth standard requires the applicant to prove that the property "cannot be put to a reasonable use which fully complies with the requirements of this Plan unless the variance is granted." This limitation obviates Petitioner's concerns about the potential for granting variances for frivolous accessory uses. The fact that a requested accesory use must go through the variance process set forth in Policy 1.8.1.1 and elaborated in Section 208 of the LDRs ensures consistency.15 Petitioner's fifth point is that Section 1909.3.g is inconsistent with Objective 6.11 and Policies 6.7.4 and 6.18.2. Section 1909.3.g provides: "In situations where the width of the buffer area exceeds the width of the wetland, the buffer may be reduced to the same size as the width of the wetland. The quality of the wetland will determine this possibility." This subsection addresses situations in which the 30-foot buffer is wider than the wetland itself. Mr. Kampert testified that he was unaware that this situation had ever occurred in the County. Dr. Bacchus testified that she was unaware of any proven correlation between the width of the buffer and the width of the wetland in terms of protecting the wetland. She was unaware of any studies, research or other scientific documentation supporting the language regarding buffer reduction, and did not believe it would be possible to state a scientific basis for reducing the buffer to the width of the wetland. Policy 6.7.4.6 of the Plan states that the wetland buffer requirement, "including possible alternatives, may be further addressed in the Land Use Code."16 Allowing the width of the buffer to equal the width of the wetland when the wetland is less than 30 feet wide is an "alternative" that is not inconsistent with any specific provision of the Plan. The County is not required to demonstrate the scientific basis for the LDR. Petitioner's sixth point regards Section 1909.3.h, which provides: Alternative project design and construction may be allowed in lieu of the required buffer when it can be demonstrated that such alternative method provides protection to the wetland or its habitat value that is equal to or greater than the vegetated buffer. Petitioners contend that this provision is inconsistent with Objective 6.11 and Policies 6.11.3.2 and 6.7.4.5. Both policies state that development will be undertaken so as to avoid activities that would destroy wetlands or their natural functions. The County points again to the "possible alternatives" to wetland buffers contemplated by Policy 6.7.4.6 of the Plan, and argues that alternative project design and construction within the parameters outlined in Section 1909.3.h must certainly be considered a reasonable alternative within the meaning of Policy 6.7.4.6. The County, further, notes that any impact of alternative project design would be minimal, because Section 1909 does not apply to wetlands in conservation zones or Ecosystem Management Areas, which contain most of the large wetland systems in the County. These areas have their own sections of the LDRs. See Section 707 (special regulations applicable to conservation zones) and Section 1905 (development restrictions for Ecosystem Management Areas). Petitioner's seventh objection regards Section 1909.5, which provides: In the event a lot or parcel of property is rendered totally undevelopable by avoidance of wetlands the property may be developed when: 1) disturbance of wetlands is the minimum necessary to build an allowable use, and 2) mitigation is provided consistent with applicable law. Petitioners contend that Section 1909.5 is inconsistent with Objective 6.18 and with Plan provisions calling for the protection of wetlands and their natural functions. Petitioners argue that Objective 6.18 establishes the conditions for development of property that is rendered totally undevelopable, because of environmental restrictions such as wetlands avoidance. Section 1909.5 provides for an "allowable use," seemingly a more lenient standard than the "beneficial use" standard of Objective 6.18. Petitioners note that an "allowable use" would appear to be any use listed in the zoning criteria for a particular parcel, which would likely be more intensive than a "beneficial use" under the standard provided by Objective 6.18. In response, the County simply points out that the language of Section 1909.5 is taken verbatim from Policy 6.11.3.5 of the Plan and, therefore, is not inconsistent with the Plan. Petitioner's eighth point regards Section 1909.6, which provides: In order to adequately monitor the loss of wetlands within Bay County, all fill permits granted by an agency other than Bay County shall be reported to Bay County Planning and Zoning Division. This notification is the responsibility of the applicant, and shall be concurrent with the application for development order, where applicable. Before the issuance of the Development Order, the applicant shall file a verified copy of the permit(s). Petitioners first complain that Section 1909.6 deviates from the intent of the Plan by limiting data gathering to jurisdictional wetlands, a variation of the argument already disposed of in Section I, supra. Petitioners, further, argue that Section 1909.6 is insufficient, because it leaves permit reporting to the applicant and provide no enforcement provisions. The standard in this proceeding is not whether the LDR falls short of Petitioner's desires and expectations, but whether it is inconsistent with the Plan. Petitioners have shown no inconsistency in Section 1909.6 Petitioner's ninth point regards Section 1909.7, which provides: Violations of this section, or noncompliance cases, may be required to implement appropriate corrective measures developed in consultation with the Planning Official and other appropriate agencies. In addition, triple application fees may apply, such as development order application fees, if this section is violated. Petitioners contend that this provision is inconsistent with the Plan's protection of natural resources, because the penalties are not mandatory, and in any event are not severe enough to deter intentional destruction of wetlands. However, Petitioners point to no particular Goal, Objective, or Policy of the Plan that sets forth enforcement criteria for the wetlands provisions. Again, Petitioners here urge the imposition of their policy preference on the County, rather than demonstrate that Section 1909.7 is inconsistent with the Plan. In summary, Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that Section 1909 is inconsistent with the Plan. Section 1911 Objective 6.16 of the Plan is to "[p]rotect and conserve selected trees and important vegetative communities." Policy 6.16.1 provides that the County will maintain tree protection regulations as part of the LDRs, and that these regulations will include criteria for: the type and size of protected trees; exemptions; conditions for tree removal; replacement of removed trees; protection of trees during development; and preservation of certain large trees. In furtherance of Objective 6.16, the County adopted Section 1911, which provides lengthy and detailed provisions for tree protection and allowable removal of "protected" trees, defined as any hardwood tree or coniferous tree other than pine with a diameter at breast height of 18 inches or more. Section 1911.5 establishes standards for "historic," "specimen," "champion," and "heritage" trees. Petitioners claim that Section 1911.5 is inadequate, because it fails to establish how these trees are to be identified in order to qualify for protection. Section 1911.5 in fact states that historic and specimen trees are to be designated as such by the County Commission, after a public hearing on the designation "with due notice to the owner of the tree." Thus, it appears that any member of the public, not just the landowner, may bring a tree to the County's attention. A champion tree is one that has been designated by the Florida Division of Forestry as the largest of that species in the State of Florida or by American Forests (a nonprofit conservation organization that has maintained the "National Register of Big Trees" since 1940) as being the largest of that species in the United States. Anyone is eligible to nominate a tree as a "champion" tree. A heritage tree is defined as any tree with a diameter of at least 30 inches. Section 1911.5 does not include any means for official recognition of a heritage tree, though it is noted that a heritage tree would, also, meet the definition of a "protected" tree. As noted above, Section 1805 of the LDRs sets forth the information that a developer must include with his application and site plan. Section 1805.2.b sets forth the environmental information that must be included on the site plan. Section 1805.2.b.vi requires the inclusion of the "location and size of all protected trees." The County concedes that the LDR includes no procedure for the County itself to go out into the field and identify qualifying trees. Objective 6.16 does not require the County to proactively identify qualifying trees. Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that Section 1911 is inconsistent with the Plan. Section 2710 Section 2710 regulates the location and construction of communications towers. Section 2710.3 provides the following location standards for a "communications tower," defined as a structure greater than 35 feet in height that is designed to support communications transmission or receiving equipment: Except as provided in subsection 2,17 the following standards and criteria shall apply to the location of new or expanded communications towers: Communications towers may be allowed in all land use districts or zones when all of the following standards and criteria are met. The applicant shall make every effort to locate his communications tower in a non-residential land use district or zone. No other industrial or commerically zoned property is available to the applicant for this intended use. The proposed location will minimize the impact of the antenna structure due to the height, use or appearance of the adjacent structures or surrounding area. There are no existing building structures located within the area that are available to the applicant for this intended purpose. No other existing antenna structure located within the area is available for purposes of co-location. The antenna structure and its proposed height is the minimum necessary by the applicant to satisfy the applicant's communication system needs at this location. The applicant must provide a written, notarized statement to the Planning Division demonstrating compliance with (i) through (vi). Requests to locate communications towers in residential districts or zones can only be approved by the Planning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing by comptetent substantial evidence demonstrating compliance with (a) through (h) above18 and all other applicable provisions of this Chapter [27, dealing with guidelines and standards for the design, installation, construction and maintenance of utility facilities]. Petitioners allege that allowing communications towers in all land use districts or zones is inconsistent with Objectives 3.9, 8.5 and 8.9 and Policies 3.9.1 and 8.5.1 of the Plan, because communications towers are not compatible with and should not be placed in residential areas. The Plan lists public utilities as an allowable use in all FLUE categories, including the Conservation and Residential categories. The Plan does not define "public utility." The LDRs define a "public utility" as "[a] regulated utility provider with a franchise for providing to the public a utility service deemed necessary for the public health, safety, and welfare." The LDRs define "utility, public or private" as (1) Any agency that, under public franchise or ownership, or under certificate of convenience and necessity, or by grant of authority by a governmental agency, provides the public with electricity, gas, heat, steam, communication, transportation, water, sewage collection, or other similar service; (2) a closely regulated enterprise with a franchise for providing a needed service. Based on the above definitions, which Petitioners have not challenged, the County has reasonably concluded that telecommunications providers are public utilities and that their telecommunications towers may, therefore, be placed in residential areas, subject to the conditions set forth in Section 2710.3 Section 2710.3.a.i requires the applicant to make every effort to avoid locating a comunications tower in a residential area. Section 2710.3.a.ii requires the applicant to demonstrate the unavailability of any industrial or commercially zoned property for the tower. Section 2710.3 requires the five- member Planning Commission, the appointed local planning agency for the County pursuant to Section 163.3174, Florida Statutes,19 to approve all requests to locate communications towers in residential areas at a public hearing in which the applicant demonstrates compliance with the listed criteria. These are consistent, reasonable requirements for the placement of a public utility. Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that Section 2710 is inconsistent with the Plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is ORDERED that: The challenged land development regulations adopted by Bay County Ordinance No. 04-30 are determined to be in compliance. DONE AND ORDERED this 24th day of May, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of May, 2007.
The Issue The issue for determination in this case is whether the Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. SSA 03-07 (Plan Amendment) adopted by Bay County (County) through the enactment of Ordinance No. 03-06 is "in compliance" as that term is defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioner, T & P Enterprises of Bay County, Inc. (T & P), is a Florida corporation authorized to do business in this state, and operates such business at 20016 Front Beach Road in Panama City Beach, Florida. Petitioner, Edgar Garbutt, is a resident of Bay County, Florida, and is the President of T & P, which operates a seasonal resort at 20016 Beach Front Road in Panama City Beach, Florida. Petitioner, Edgar Garbutt, submitted written comments in opposition to the Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment at issue before the adoption of SSA 03-07. Intervenor, Barbara S. Harmon, owns a house located at 190 16th Street in Panama City, Florida. Mrs. Harmon and her husband purchased their house in 1994. The Harmon property is located in the Laguna Beach subdivision. Mrs. Harmon was one of the property owners who petitioned the County for adoption of SSA 03-07. The Property The property affected by SSA 03-07 consists of twelve separate parcels of land totaling approximately 2.35 acres located in unincorporated Bay County. The property lies within a two-block area generally situated south of First Avenue, East of Wisteria Lane, and along both sides of 16th Street, which is west of the municipal boundaries of Panama City Beach in what is commonly known as the West Beaches. Two of the parcels subject to the Plan Amendment are located on the Gulf of Mexico south of Front Beach Road. The twelve parcels are not contiguous. The predominant type of structure on these parcels are one-story housing structures used primarily for residential purposes. Some of the structures are used as short-term or long-term rentals. Others, including the Harmons' house, are used as second homes during the summer season, or on weekends. Mrs. Harmon and her husband purchased their house in Bay County in 1994. They reside there six to nine months a year. They also have a residence in Gadsden, Alabama. The Harmons bought their house in Bay County because they wanted a house close to the beach in a clean, quiet neighborhood. The area affected by the Plan Amendment is predominantly residential in character. The area is generally built-out as residential land use. The area has not substantially changed since the Harmons purchased their house in 1994. Background Bay County adopted a Comprehensive Plan in 1990. The 1991 existing conditions map accompanying the Comprehensive Plan shows that most of the property in the West Beaches Area was "predominantly medium density residential with low density residential also being a majority land use category." Mrs. Harmon testified that her house on 16th Street was designated Residential under the County's Comprehensive Plan at the time she purchased it in 1994. In 1994-1995, as part of its Comprehensive Plan evaluation and appraisal process, Bay County's planning staff undertook a "windshield survey" of the West Beaches Area. The windshield survey indicated that Laguna Beach 1st through 7th additions were platted or developed between 1938 and 1954, and consisted primarily of a mix of older single-family houses, mobile homes, multi-family buildings, and church buildings. The windshield survey reflected seasonal resort uses on the south side of Front Beach Road on the Gulf of Mexico. The windshield survey shows that the predominate land use in the West Beaches Area in 1994-1995 continued to be residential, as it was at the time of the 1991 existing conditions map. In December 1999, Bay County adopted amendments to its Comprehensive Plan in which it created the SR FLUM category. Under the Plan, the purpose of the SR FLUM category is "to provide areas for a functional mix of compatible seasonal/resort land uses where the clientele are predominantly seasonal or temporary visitors and tourists." The uses allowed include beach houses, cottages, condominiums, townhouses, apartments or other similar multi-family structures, motels, lodges, restaurants, convenience stores, retreats, and lounges, bars, and other similar uses and public utilities." The criteria for designating areas as SR are "areas with concentrations of accommodations and businesses that are used for non-residential, tourist-oriented purposes." The Plan further provides that "Year-round, permanent residences should not be located in this area." The County's Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR), which was the data and analysis relied upon by Bay County for the 1999 plan amendments, defined these seasonal or temporary visitors and tourists as people who visit Bay County for an average 5.385 days. Terry Jernigan, the former Bay County Planning Director, testified that in developing the SR category, the County focused primarily on "typical summertime tourists" who stay for weekend, weekly, and monthly rental periods and attempted to identify areas that were tourist areas or were likely to become transient in nature in the future. Second homeowners and seasonal visitors were not considered when the SR category was developed. The SR Future Land Use Map category has also been applied in the beach areas of unincorporated Bay County located east of the municipal boundaries city of Panama City Beach. Development in that area includes large high-rise condominiums and hotels, bars, T-shirt shops, and night clubs. The SR category was also applied to a number of properties in the West Beaches Area that are indicated as residential uses in the County's official windshield survey, including the parcels that are the subject of the amendment at issue. Mr. Jernigan testified that an indicator of an area that was transient in nature was the large number of signs indicating that the properties were for rent. Mrs. Harmon testified that since she purchased her property in 1994, she had observed no signs advertising rentals in the area in which the properties subject to the amendment are located. Mrs. Harmon was motivated to seek the FLUM amendment from SR to Residential to prevent high-rise development, bars, T-shirt shops, and noise increases that she has observed in the SR category east of Panama City Beach. The applicants for the subject amendment are concerned that the SR category may adversely affect the character of the neighborhood. Development of the Plan Amendment In the spring and early summer of 2002, Bay County began receiving "grass roots petitions" from property owners in the West Beaches Area requesting that either their future land use designation or zoning be changed from SR back to Residential. The petitions stated that the FLUM designations were changed without notice to the property owners. These petitions initially involved 400-500 parcels of land. In response to the grass roots petitions, the County identified several "target areas" where there were a large number of parcels generally contiguous to each other. At the direction of the Board of County Commissioners, on August 28, 2002, County staff sent letters to individuals within the target areas asking them if they wanted the land use designated on their properties changed from SR to Residential and attaching a land use map application form. Allara Mills Gutcher, a County Senior Planner III, testified that the County wanted assurances that the petitioning property owners understood the nature of the change they were requesting. The County's letter directed to the property owners in the target areas not only asked if the owners wanted a land use designation change, but also indicated that a petitioning property owner would be required to pay the County a $1,100 fee to apply for the land use change. Although the letter indicated that the Board was considering waiving the fee, no evidence was presented that the Board made a decision on the waiver or that the approximately 180 property owners to whom the County had written had received further notice from the County regarding the $1,100 fee. Some County property owners, including Mrs. Harmon, complained to the County that the application fee discouraged a number of property owners from submitting FLUM amendment applications. The forms accompanying the County's August 28, 2002, letter also advised the property owners that small scale plan amendments could only be considered in connection with a specific plan of development or hardship, restrictions not contained in either the County's Plan or Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. Ms. Gutcher testified that only 20 responses to the County's letter were received. The Plan Amendment Summary Sheet on the subject amendment, however, indicates that a result of the mail out was the submittal of an application to change approximately 30 properties along Front Beach Road in another area, Sunnyside Beach, from SR to Residential. This amendment is known as the Centeno amendment, and was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners in December 2002. One of the target areas of the mail out was the Laguna Beach Subdivision area where Intervenor Harmon's property is located. After receiving the County's August 28, 2002, letters and learning of the Centeno/Sunnyside small scale plan amendment, Mrs. Harmon spearheaded an effort to seek the subject small plan amendment in her neighborhood. She worked with County staff on the locations of properties to be included in the proposed amendment. Erroneously included in the first proposed plan amendment was The Laguna Beach Christian Retreat property on Front Beach Road, owned by Petitioners. Mrs. Harmon brought this error to the attention of County staff, and Petitioners' property was removed from the proposed amendment, leaving 16 lots included in the amendment package. County staff initially supported the 16-lot proposed small scale plan amendment in Mrs. Harmon's neighborhood in part because it included properties adjacent to First Avenue on the north and contiguous to properties currently designated Residential on the FLUM. Prior to and at the Planning Commission meeting at which the subject amendment was considered, three individuals owning four of the 16 lots withdrew from the plan amendment application. These withdrawals included the two lots on First Avenue contiguous to the existing Residential FLUM area, a lot on 16th Street, and a lot on Front Beach Road. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the requested FLUM change from SR to Residential on the 12 remaining parcels. County staff did not dispute the appropriateness of the Residential FLUM designation for the subjected properties, but did not support the plan amendment for the remaining 12 lots because of the configuration of the map. Ms. Gutcher testified that her objection was not to the actual land use designation of the subject land parcels, but to the configuration of the Plan Amendment which interspersed parcels designated SR with the residential parcels. The 12 lots subject to the Plan Amendment are not contiguous to existing Residential lands and there are SR lots adjacent to lots that were changed to Residential. Ms. Gutcher, however, stated that adjacency of future land uses is not a requirement of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, or Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. Ms. Gutcher further testified that although she considered the Plan Amendment "poor planning" and did not support the Plan Amendment, she did not consider the Plan Amendment violative of the Bay County Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, or Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. On June 3, 2003, the Bay County Board of County Commissioners accepted the Planning Commission recommendation and voted to adopt small scale amendment No. SSA 03-07 amending the FLUM designation on the 12 lots from SR to Residential. Internal Consistency Section 163.3177(2), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(5), require that all comprehensive plan amendments, including amendments to the FLUM be consistent with the other provisions of the applicable comprehensive plan taken as a whole. Petitioners allege that the Plan Amendment is internally inconsistent with several discrete provisions contained in the County's Comprehensive Plan; however, when taken as a whole, the Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with the goals and policies of the County's Comprehensive Plan. Because the Plan Amendment at issue here amends the FLUM designation from SR to Residential, of particular significance to the analysis of internal consistency in this case is the County Comprehensive Plan's Residential FLUM Category. Policy 3.3.1. of the Future Land Use Element in the County's Plan provides that "criteria for designating land use categories on the FLUM and attendant standards for development shall be as shown on Table 3A." Table 3A contains the following criteria and standards for the Residential FLUM category: Purpose: To provide areas for a functional, compatible mix of residential land uses, and to protect property values in viable residential neighborhoods. Designation Criteria: Existing residential areas, residential subdivisions recorded with the Clerk of the Court prior to adoption of this Plan, areas adjacent to existing residential areas, "in-fill" of vacant areas otherwise surrounded by urban development, and low density rural community development. Allowable Uses: Those land uses typically associated with residential occupancy including single-family, duplex, triplex, quadraplex, and manufactured housing. These uses are generally coded as 100 to 900 on the DOR Property Use Code Table for property tax purposes. Public utilities, recreation, conservation. Limited public institutional uses and educational facilities (Policy 2.8.1) may also be allowed. The County Comprehensive Plan does not define the terms "residential occupancy" or "residential use." Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J-5, setting out the minimum criteria for review of comprehensive plans, defines "residential uses" as "activities within land areas used predominantly for housing." Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.003(108). In its compatibility analysis, the County described the subject area as "primarily developed as a single-family use today" "similar to current uses in the area." The area is an existing residential area. The predominant type of structure in the area is one-story residential structures used for housing. Except for one vacant lot, each property that is the subject of the amendment contains a one-story single-family residence. All houses on the amendment properties are used as homes, second homes or long-term rentals. None of the houses included in the Plan Amendment are rented on a short-term basis. The evidence demonstrates that the properties included in the Plan Amendment are now used for housing. All but one of the Plan Amendment properties are coded 100 on the tax code, which is the same as the DOR Property Use Code Table referenced in the Residential FLUM category in Table 3A of the Plan. One lot included in the Plan Amendment is vacant and is coded 0000 on the tax code. The Plan Amendment is consistent with the stated purpose, designation criteria for existing residential areas, and allowable uses for the Residential FLUM designation stated in the County's Comprehensive Plan. Many properties in the West Beaches area are rented; however, according to Mrs. Harmon, most properties that are subject to the Plan Amendment are not rented or are rented on a long-term basis. Neither the provisions of Table 3A describing the Residential FLUM category, nor the definition of "residential use" in Chapter 9J-5, distinguish between owner-occupied and rental housing use. One significance of a land use designation from a planning perspective is its impact on infrastructure. That impact is the same whether a house is rented or owner-occupied. Whether the structures are owner-occupied or rented is not a land use amendment compliance issue. Wendy Grey, Petitioners' expert witness, testified that the configuration of the Plan Amendment is not consistent with those portions of the Goal Statement in the Future Land Use Element of the Plan that express the County's goals "to promote an orderly and efficient pattern of growth and development" and "to promote compatibility between land uses and reduce the potential for nuisances." Ms. Grey opined that leaving some properties designated SR surrounded by Residential properties does not promote an orderly and efficient pattern of growth and development. That portion of the Goal Statement referring to an orderly and efficient pattern of growth and development was taken directly from the intent sections of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. The language governs the overall planning process of allocation of future land uses based upon infrastructure, natural resource protection and efficiency in terms of using existing infrastructure. It is based upon the purpose of the Growth Management Act to manage the extent, distribution and timing of future growth, discourage urban sprawl, and maximize existing infrastructure. These are terms of art under the Growth Management Act, and have nothing to do with drawing the polygons on the map. Tony Arrant, the County's expert witness, testified that the predominance of the small scale amendments he has seen focus on specific areas that have other land use classifications next to the parcel amended, just as with the Plan Amendment. Further, the Goal Statement also includes a statement that the plan should "protect viable neighborhoods." The amendment is consistent with this portion of the goal statement by designating an existing residential area for residential use. When read as a whole, the Plan Amendment is consistent with this Goal Statement. Designating residential properties for residential use is also consistent with the Goal Statement in the Housing Element of the Plan and with Housing Element Objective 8.5, which requires that the County preserve and protect the character, compatibility, and aesthetics of residential areas and neighborhoods. To make a land use amendment uniform throughout a block, connected to existing residential land uses, and following street rights-of-way helps with code enforcement issues and is easier for the public to understand. However, these are not compliance issues. The configuration of the Plan Amendment and the symmetry or lack of symmetry of the future land use map is not a compliance issue. Policy 3.2.1 of the Future Land Use Element governs amendments to the FLUM. It does not require any particular map configuration, or that FLUM boundary lines follow street rights- of-way. There is no express requirement in the Plan that FLUM boundaries must always follow roads. Petitioners contend that the Plan Amendment is internally inconsistent with Policy 3.7.2. of the Future Land Use Element of the County's Plan. Policy 3.7.2. prescribes the general criteria for zoning districts shown on an Official Zoning District Map. This policy implements Objective 3.7, which provides that "By 2001, (the County will) adopt a zoning code to further the intent, and implement the objectives and policies of this Plan." The County has not yet adopted a zoning code. Petitioners specifically rely on the following criteria in Policy 3.7.2.: 4. District boundaries will be drawn so as to follow property lines, road rights-of way, geographic features, section lines, or other readily identifiable features. Where possible, district boundaries will be drawn so as to create buffers between potentially incompatible land uses. District boundary lines shall be drawn so as to minimize the potential for nuisances caused by incompatible land uses. Ms. Grey opined that the Plan Amendment is not consistent with Policy 3.7.2. because the FLUM boundary lines do not follow roads and other geographic features, making it difficult to implement Policy 3.7.2. when a zoning code is adopted. Ms. Grey, however, also acknowledged that it would be possible to draw a zoning map that is consistent with the Plan Amendment. Petitioners contend that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 3.9.1. which defines "compatibility" of land uses. Ms. Grey opined that interspersing SR with Residential land uses does not promote compatibility. The Plan Amendment recognizes the current use of the subject property. Under the broad categories of permissible uses for the SR designation there are many compatible uses. Moreover, Mrs. Harmon testified that she believes Petitioners are entitled to engage in their business activity, and that everyone in the West Beaches Area got along fine until the SR designation was adopted. The Plan Amendment can be viewed to support the compatibility of land uses because it is consistent with the land uses that are already there. Therefore, the Plan Amendment may serve to decrease the possibility of future incompatibility. It will provide a level of security for the areas that are residential in that any redevelopment of other developed properties will have to be reviewed in light of Comprehensive Plan policies requiring protection of viable residential areas. Additionally, Petitioners contend that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with several of the many policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan to implement Objective 1.2. Policy 1.2.1.2 states that it is the intent of the Comprehensive Plan to encourage the most appropriate use of land, water and resources consistent with the public interest. The subject property has historically been residential, the current use of the property is residential, and the interest of the public is served in continuing the residential nature of the property as indicated by the responses to the County's letter of August 28, 2002. Policy 1.2.1.3 states that a purpose of the Comprehensive Plan is to overcome "present handicaps." Ms. Grey opined that if the SR category is a handicap, the Plan Amendment does not overcome it because there are still SR parcels around the subject property. However, the Comprehensive Plan does not define "present handicap" and there is no evidence that the SR category is a "present handicap." Policy 1.2.1.4 requires that the Plan deal effectively with future problems that may result from the use and development of land because the Plan Amendment does not address potential incompatible uses between SR and Residential. There are many permissible land uses, including beach houses, cottages, condominiums, townhouses, and apartments in the SR category that are compatible with the Plan Amendment. Moreover, Ms. Grey stated that a zoning map could be drawn consistent with the Plan Amendment. The Plan Amendment recognizes the land uses that currently exist on the subject property. The Plan Amendment is consistent with the land uses already there. Taken as a whole, the Plan Amendment furthers the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Data and Analysis Petitioners contend that the amendment is not supported by adequate data and analysis. Ms. Grey opined that there was not adequate data and analysis to demonstrate that residential land use was the most appropriate or suitable for the subject property and within the public interest. Ms. Grey stated that the primary purpose for the Plan Amendment was to respond to individual requests to change the land use classification. She also believed that the lack of homestead exemptions for the majority of the area was data that supported the SR and not the Residential land use classification. Ms. Gutcher, however, testified that she reviewed appropriate data and the Plan Amendment was supported by the types of data and analysis typically provided for FLUM amendments listed in Policy 3.2.1. of the plan. These data included the national wetlands inventory, the ITE Journal for the Traffic Counts, and other data contained in the checklist in Chapter 3 of the Comprehensive Plan. There was sufficient data and analysis to support the Plan Amendment, including the following: (a) the fact that the 1990 Plan designated the area as Residential; (b) the 1994 windshield survey identifying the area as residential; (c) the fact that the actual uses of the properties are for housing; (d) the existing residential character of the area; (e) the property owners' desire that their properties be designated Residential; and (f) the 1991 existing land use map identifying the area that is the subject of this case as "predominantly medium density, residential with low density residential also being a majority land use category." The population projections in the County's EAR are required to include both resident and seasonal populations to arrive at a functional population. This number is then used to plan for the amount of residential, commercial land use authorized. Chapter 9J-5 and Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, do not differentiate seasonal housing from permanent housing in forecasting future land use needs. There is adequate data and analysis to support the Plan Amendment.
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 concluding that the FLUM Plan Amendment No. SSA 03-07 adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Bay County in Ordinance No. 03-06 is "in compliance" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of January, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of January, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Terrell K. Arline, Esquire 3205 Brentwood Way Tallahassee, Florida 32309 Gary K. Hunter, Jr., Esquire Hopping, Green & Sams 123 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Sherry A. Spiers, Esquire Law Office of Robert C. Apgar 320 Johnston Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Colleen M. Castille, 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 Whether the Department of Community Affairs (Department) should be precluded from prosecuting the instant challenge to the Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP) of Metropolitan Dade County (Metro-Dade, Dade County or County), as amended by Ordinance No. 90-28, on the ground that it did not comply with the statutory prerequisites to instituting such a challenge? Whether the Redland Citizens Association, Inc., the Sierra Club, the League of Women Voters, Evelyn B. Sutton, Martin Motes, Frances L. Mitchell, Rod Jude, Bruce Rohde and Carol Rist (hereinafter referred to collectively as "the Objectors") are "affected persons," within the meaning of Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes, entitled to intervene in this matter and pursue their challenge to the CDMP, as amended by Ordinance No. 90-28? Whether Carol Rist's motion to amend her petition for leave to intervene in this matter should be granted? Whether the challenged amendments made to the CDMP through the adoption of Ordinance No. 90-28, specifically those resulting from the approval of Applications 39, 40 and 47, have rendered the CDMP not "in compliance," within the meaning of Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes? Whether John H. Wellenhofer is entitled to an award of fees and costs against the Department pursuant to Section 163.3184(12), Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: Metropolitan Dade County: A General Overview Metropolitan Dade County is one of Florida's coastal counties. It is located in the southeastern part of the state and is bordered by Broward County on the north, by Monroe County on the south and southwest, by Collier County on the northwest and by the Atlantic Ocean on the east. Within the boundaries of Metropolitan Dade County are 1,413,629 acres, or approximately 2,209 square miles, of land and water. The major natural features of the County are the Florida Everglades National Park, tropical vegetation, an Atlantic Ocean coastline with several peninsulas and inlets, including Biscayne National Park at Biscayne Bay, and several barrier islands and reefs. The County contains several bodies of water, including various lakes, rivers and streams. Among the most noteworthy water bodies are the Intracoastal Waterway in the eastern part of the County and the expansive wetland systems and their accompanying wildlife habitat located primarily in the western part of the County. Among the major man-made features of the County are I Florida Turnpike, the Metrorail System, canals, causeways connecting Miami Beach and the barrier islands to the mainland, Miami International Airport, Kendall Airport, and Homestead Air Force Base. Metropolitan Dade County is Florida's most populous county with a population approaching two million people. On average, Dade County's population has grown by approximately 36,000 persons per year since the 1970's. There are 26 incorporated municipalities located in Metropolitan Dade County, including the City of Miami, whose downtown area may be viewed as the principal focal point of the entire metropolitan area. Metropolitan Dade County Home Rule Amendment, Charter and Selected Ordinances In 1956, the statewide electorate adopted Article VIII, Section 11 of the 1885 Florida Constitution granting "the electors of Dade County, Florida, . . . power to adopt, revise, and amend from time to time a home rule charter of government for Dade County, Florida, under which the Board of County Commissioners of Dade County shall be the governing body." 4/ The following year, the electors of the County adopted such a home rule charter (Charter). Section 1.01 of the Charter provides that the "Board of County Commissioners shall be the legislative and governing body of the county and shall have the power to carry on a central metropolitan government." The power to "[p]repare and enforce comprehensive plans for the development of the county" is expressly mentioned in Section 1.01 as within the Board's authority. Other powers of the Board specifically enumerated in Section 1.01 include the power to provide, regulate, develop and enforce master plans for the control of traffic; to provide and regulate sewage collection and disposal, waste collection and disposal and water supply programs; to establish and administer drainage programs; to establish and administer conservation programs; and to establish and administer housing programs. Section 4.07 of the Charter establishes a Department of Planning as a unit of central metropolitan County government. This section provides as follows: The department of planning shall be headed by a planning director appointed by the County Manager. The planning director shall be qual- ified in the field of planning by special training and experience. Under the supervision of the Manager and with the advice of the Planning Advisory Board elsewhere provided for in this Charter, the planning director shall among other things: Conduct studies of county population, land use, facilities, resources, and needs and other factors which influence the county's development, and on the basis of such studies prepare such official and other maps and re- ports as, taken together, constitute a master plan for the welfare, recreational, economic, and physical development of the county. Prepare for review by the Planning Advi- sory Board, and for adoption by the Board of County Commissioners, zoning, subdivision, and related regulations for the unincorporated areas of the county and minimum standards governing zoning, subdivision, and related re- gulations for the municipalities; and prepare recommendations to effectuate the master plan and to coordinate the county's proposed capital improvements with the master plan. Review the municipal systems of planning, zoning, subdivision, and related regulations and make recommendations thereon with a view to coordinating such municipal systems with one another and with those of the county. By ordinance, codified in Section 2-106.1 of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County, the Department of Planning has been designated as the County's local planning agency "responsible for the preparation of the Comprehensive Development master plan for the county." Section 4.08(A) of the Charter directs the Board of County Commissioners to, "by ordinance create a Planning Advisory Board." The Board has done so. The Planning Advisory Board (PAB), as established by the Board, is a nine-member body. The members of the PAB are citizens appointed by the Board. Section 5.02 of the Charter describes the powers that may be exercised by the County's municipalities. It provides as follows: Each municipality shall have the authority to exercise all powers relating to local affairs not inconsistent with this Charter. Each municipality may provide for higher standards of zoning, service and regulation than those provided for by the Board of County Commis- sioners in order that its individual character and standards may be preserved for its citizens. Comprehensive Planning in the County: An Historical Perspective Metropolitan Dade County's first Comprehensive Development Master Plan was adopted by the Board in 1965. This initial version of the CDMP was based upon the unrealistic projection that the County would have two and one half million residents at the planning horizon. To accommodate this projected population, it provided for a spread pattern of low density residential growth, served by numerous expressways. Substantial changes to the CDMP were made in 1975 based upon a lower, more realistic population projection and a consideration of environmental and infrastructure constraints. The result was a plan that provided for a more compact form of urban development concentrated around nodes of activity in the eastern portions of the County. The 1975 version of the CDMP introduced the concept of an urban development boundary. The urban development boundary (UDB) was, and remains to this date, an important part of the plan's urban containment strategy. As its name suggests, the UDB is a line drawn on the plan's future land use map (FLUM) that indicates where urban development will be permitted to reach by the end of the planning period. Since 1975, the CDMP has been amended on various occasions. On eight of these occasions, including most recently in 1990, the amendments have included an expansion of the area inside the UDB. As a result of these amendments, the area inside the UDB has increased by more than 32,000 acres. Notwithstanding the various amendments that have been made to the CDMP, its overall approach, focus and direction have remained essentially the same since 1975. Since 1975, the CDMP's policies have "encourage[d] in-filling, redevelopment, and contiguous development in order to lessen urban sprawl and the associated transportation and energy costs." For years, the CDMP has required the coordination of development with services, the protection of agriculture as a viable economic use of land, the encouragement of a broad spectrum of housing allowing for choice of location, the protection of communities from encroachment by incompatible uses, and a wide variety of other goals, objectives and policies which remain the foundation of the CDMP. The 1988 CDMP In December 1988, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance No. 88-110 entitled "The Master Plan Amendatory Ordinance" (Amendatory Ordinance). The Amendatory Ordinance revised and reformatted the CDMP in an effort to comply with changes made to the state's growth management laws in 1985. The CDMP's primary planning horizon was extended by the Amendatory Ordinance to the year 2000. Like the current version, the version of the CDMP adopted in 1988 (1988 CDMP) had an statement of legislative intent and the following eleven separate elements, containing goals, objectives and policies and other textual material, as well as maps depicting future conditions, including a future land use map: land use; traffic circulation; mass transit; port and aviation; housing; conservation; water, sewer and solid waste; recreation and open space; coastal management; intergovernmental coordination; and capital improvements. Prior to the adoption of the Amendatory Ordinance, the County's Planning Department prepared a "support component," containing background data and analyses, for each of the foregoing elements. These "support components" were used in the formulation of the 1988 CDMP and they were transmitted to the Department of Community Affairs for the Department's consideration during the compliance review process. The 1988 CDMP: Land Use Element "Support Component" The "support component" for the 1988 CDMP land use element (LUSC) was a 232-page document that analyzed existing and future land uses in Dade County, including the amount of land that would be needed and available to accommodate anticipated growth, the County's projected population, the environmental characteristics of the County's undeveloped land, the availability of urban services in the County, and those areas in need of redevelopment. According to the LUSC, as of 1985, of the County's 1,413,629 acres, 86,111.5 acres (6.09%) were devoted to residential uses, 9,389.1 acres (.66%) were devoted to commercial uses, 770.3 acres (.05%) were devoted to hotels, motels and other transient uses, 15,128.9 acres (1.07%) were devoted to industrial uses, 8,967.6 acres (.63%) were devoted to institutional uses, 660,620.7 acres (46.73%) were devoted to parks and recreational open space, 5/ 69,091.3 acres (4.89%) were devoted to transportation, communications and utilities, 93,187.6 acres (6.59%) were devoted to agriculture, 18,268.9 acres (1.29%) were inland waters, 162,640.0 acres (11.51%) were coastal waters, and 289,453.2 acres (20.48%) were undeveloped or vacant. Of this undeveloped or vacant land, 149,823.5 acres (10.55%) were environmentally sensitive. The LUSC examined the pattern of growth in Dade County over the years and reported that, in the 1970's and 1980's, growth occurred primarily in the unincorporated area on the western fringe of the urbanized portion of the County. According the LUSC, this pattern of growth is anticipated to "persist throughout the remainder of this century and beyond." This projection was accompanied by the following explanation: Urban development opportunities are limited on the coastal ridge and on the barrier islands because there is little remaining developable land. It is on the western fringes that land is available. In Dade County these western growth areas extend from the Broward line to the farm lands and open areas of South Dade. With respect to what the future holds for the "urban interior," the following was stated: In the County's urban interior, its central city areas, growth will be modest or nonexis- tent. In most of these areas there is little remaining developable land and projected de- clines in average household size will offset whatever new development occurs. The Downtown area . . . is projected to show some modest gains in the 1990s and beyond, as downtown development efforts succeed in attracting more residents to the County's heart. The LUSC also contained an analysis performed by the Planning Department of the supply of vacant land available for development and the demand that would exist for such land on a countywide and sub-area basis during the planning period. 6/ In determining the supply of land available for residential development, the Planning Department considered the development potential of only vacant and agricultural land inside the UDB, as it existed prior to the adoption of the 1988 CDMP (pre-1988 UDB). Neither redevelopment opportunities, nor the residential capacity of land outside the pre-UDB, were taken into consideration. For each tract of vacant and agricultural land inside the pre- 1988 UDB, the Planning Department ascertained the number of units that would be able to be built, employing a methodology that was described as follows in the LUSC: This determination is based on the current [pre-1988] CDMP Land Use Plan density classi- fication, with numerous exceptions: In areas where no neighborhood or municipal plan has been adopted since the CDMP map classification was established for the parcel, existing zoning is used if greater than agricultural use (AU) or general use (GU). Where the existing zoning is used and land is zoned and platted for single family use, the development capacity of this land is determined by counting the vacant platted lots. In addi- tion, whenever the density of zoned land is further limited by covenants or approved site plans, those conditions are reflected. Where land is unplatted and zoned for estate den- sity residential, but is designated on the CDMP in a higher residential density category and is substantially surrounded by land that is zoned or designated for higher residential density, the land is assigned the density of the surrounding development. Similarly, small parcels zoned AU or GU are assigned a zoning classification comparable to surrounding de- velopment. AU and GU parcels 10 acres or larger are assigned the Plan density appli- cable to the area. In places where neighbor- hood or municipal plans have been adopted or completed since the CDMP classification was established for the parcel and the neighborhood or municipal plan shows a higher use or den- sity, the neighborhood or municipal plan density is used in estimating the development capacity. In instances where the existing zoning permits greater development than the neighborhood or municipal plan proposes, the zoned density is utilized. The gross supply for each area is discounted by a factor of 6 percent to reflect the finding that 6 percent of land in fully developed areas is typically vacant at any given time. The methodology employed by the Planning Department to determine the supply of land available in the County to accommodate growth is professionally accepted. To determine the demand that would exist for residential land during the planning period, the Planning Department first estimated the 1985 countywide population and then projected what the countywide population would be in the years 2000 and 2010. In so doing, it utilized a component methodology, which examined the three components of population change --births, deaths and migration. This methodology is professionally accepted. The Planning Department also made population estimates and projections for each of the minor statistical areas (MSAs) in the County. In making these estimates and projections, it used an extrapolation methodology that is professionally accepted. 7/ Pursuant to this methodology, a portion of the countywide projected population was allocated to each MSA based upon such factors as long- term subarea growth trends, estimates of current subarea population and existing subarea housing units, and subarea development capacity. The Planning Department estimated that the 1985 countywide population was 1,771,000 and it projected that the countywide population would be 2,102,000 by the year 2000 and 2,331,000 by the year 2010. Its population estimates and projections for MSA 6.1 and MSA 6.2, which collectively comprise an area of the County on the western urban fringe known as West Kendall, and MSA 7.2, which is part of the South Dade area of the County, were as follows: 1985- MSA 6.1: 76,961; MSA 6.2: 36,820; MSA 7.2: 32,791; year 2000- MSA 6.1: 135,932; MSA 6.2: 94,628; MSA 7.2: 44,127; year 2010- MSA 6.1: 162,611; MSA 6.2: 124,414; MSA 7.2: 52,518. It was noted in the LUSC that the West Kendall area was the "fastest growing part of Dade County in the 1970's and early 1980's" and that this area was "projected to account for about 38% of the County's growth" from 1985 to 1990. MSA 7.2 was described in the LUSC as among the "rapidly developing areas" of the County. The countywide and MSA population estimates and projections made by the Planning Department not only appeared in the LUSC, but they were adopted by the Board of County Commissioners and included in the future land use element of the 1988 CDMP. After making these population estimates and projections, the Planning Department sought to ascertain the future demand for new housing in the County. As it explained in the LUSC: This projection is a function of the projected population increase. The methodology assumes that the mix of housing units in that area will remain as it is currently and that house- hold sizes will decline slowly. Residential unit requirements are derived from the pro- jected increase in households with a 5 percent allowance for vacancy of dwelling units. The Planning Department projected that countywide demand would be 9,150 total units annually until 1990, 10,731 total units annually between 1990 and 1995, 10,983 total units annually between 1995 and the year 2000, 11,449 total units annually between the year 2000 and the year 2005 and 11,734 total units annually between the year 2005 and the year 2010. For MSA 6.2 and 7.2, the Planning Department's demand projections were as follows: MSA 6.2- 1,498 total units annually until 1990, 1,739 total units annually between 1990 and 1995, 1,630 total units annually between 1995 and the year 2000, 1,453 total units annually between the year 2000 and the year 2005, and 1,288 total units annually between the year 2005 and the year 2010; MSA 7.2- 269 total units annually until 1990, 309 total units annually between 1990 and 1995, 332 total units annually between 1995 and the year 2000, 360 total units annually between the year 2000 and the year 2005, and 373 total units annually between the year 2005 and the year 2010. Having projected future housing demand, the Planning Department then compared the projected demand to the supply of available residential land and concluded that, assuming no additional residential capacity was added, there was a sufficient aggregate supply of single-family and multifamily housing units inside the pre-1988 UDB to accommodate projected growth until the year 2008. 8/ With respect to MSA 6.2 and MSA 7.2, the Planning Department concluded that the former had sufficient residential capacity to last until the year 2001 and that the latter's supply of residential land would be depleted a year earlier. Notwithstanding its conclusion that there was a sufficient supply of residential land inside the pre-1988 UDB to last until the year 2008, the Planning Department recommended that the 1988 version of the CDMP provide even more residential capacity within the UDB. 9/ It explained its position on the matter as follows in the LUSC: [The urban development boundary] contains sufficient capacities to sustain single family development until 2004 and multi-family development until 2014. However, it is recognized that decisions regarding the development and purchase of residences involve complexities that trans- cend the single consideration of the presence of vacant zoned land. Market conditions, neighborhood pressure, transportation or service deficiencies, and investment deci- sions can impede development of vacant parcels. 10/ The proposed land use plan for 2000 and 2010 includes substantially more additional land than indicated above to insure that no short- ages will occur. . . . [T]he proposed LUP map for 2000 and 2010 in- cludes capacities for an additional 23,590 single family-type dwelling units in the area located between the 1990 urban development boundary of the comprehensive plan LUP map which is currently in effect, and the pro- posed year 2000 UDB of the proposed plan map. The Planning Department also inventoried the supply of land available for industrial and commercial development in the County. As reported in the LUSC, it determined that, as of 1985, the County had almost a 50-year supply of industrial land and a 16.6-year supply of commercial land. It further determined, and reported in the LUSC, that, as of 1985, MSA 6.2 had a 5.1-year supply of commercial land and a 92.5-year supply of industrial land and that MSA 7.2 had a 10.1-year supply of commercial land and a 48.7-year supply of industrial land. The 1988 CDMP: Compliance Review and Stipulated Settlement Agreement The 1988 CDMP was submitted to the Department of Community Affairs for its review. On January 30, 1989, the Department issued its statement of intent to find the 1988 CDMP not "in compliance." The Department's objection to the plan concerned the low level of service standards the plan established for certain roadways. The Department subsequently, by petition, referred the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings. Thereafter, the Department and County entered into a stipulated settlement agreement. Pursuant to the agreement, the County was to make certain changes to the 1988 CDMP to satisfy the concerns expressed by the Department in its statement of intent. The changes involved the 1988 CDMP's capital improvements element and its traffic circulation element. The County was to amend the capital improvements element to incorporate the primary components of the County's existing concurrency management system. The traffic circulation element was to be amended to establish three geographical zones or "tiers." One of the zones, the area inside the UDB east of the Palmetto Expressway (N.W. 77th Avenue), was to be denominated the "Urban Infill Area." 11/ The level of service standards for roadways in the Urban Infill Area were to be lower than those for roadways in the other two zones. Although these level of service standards for roadways in the Urban Infill Area were extremely low, and may have been unacceptable under other circumstances, it was felt that they were necessary, at least on a temporary basis, to promote infill development and encourage the use of mass transit, including the County's rapid rail system, which is underutilized. The agreement provided that if the County made these changes, the Department would find the 1988 CDMP, as amended in accordance with the agreement, "in compliance" and would recommend to the Administration Commission that the compliance proceeding that had been initiated by the Department be dismissed without the imposition of any sanctions. The County made the changes described the settlement agreement by adopting Ordinance No. 90-37. On June 14, 1990, the Department published its notice of intent to find the 1988 CDMP, as amended by Ordinance No. 90-37, "in compliance." This finding was made notwithstanding that the LUSC indicated that there was enough land inside the pre-1988 UDB to accommodate residential development well beyond the year 2000 and there had been, as a result of the Amendatory Ordinance's westward extension of the UDB and its redesignation of certain lands inside the realigned UDB, an addition to the existing supply of land available for residential development. The 1989-1990 CDMP Amendment Application Cycle A total of 71 applications to amend the CDMP were filed during the 1989-1990 CDMP amendment application cycle (Amendment Cycle). Twenty-seven of these applications were filed by private citizens as authorized by County ordinance. The remaining applications were filed by the Planning Department. Of the 27 privately filed applications, 25 requested changes to the FLUM and two requested changes to the text of the CDMP's land use element. The Planning Director filed a like number of applications to amend the FLUM. Application 39 Among the privately filed applications was Application 39, which was submitted by John H. Wellenhofer. The subject of Application 39 was a 25-acre parcel of land owned by Wellenhofer (Wellenhofer's property). Wellenhofer's property is in Study Area G and MSA 6.2. It is bounded on the north by Southwest 116th Street, on the south by Southwest 118th Street, on the east by Southwest 142nd Avenue and on the west by Southwest 144th Avenue. The property was located near, but inside, the UDB as established by the 1988 CDMP (1988 UDB). Through Application 39, Wellenhofer requested that the land use designation of his property on the FLUM be changed from "industrial and office" to "low density residential" (up to six dwelling units per gross acre). Application 39 and the Tamiami Airport The southern boundary of Wellenhofer's property lies two blocks, or approximately 660 feet, to the north of Tamiami Airport. The Tamiami Airport, which was opened in 1967, serves as a general aviation reliever for Miami International Airport. Tamiami is 1,380 acres in size and is the busiest general aviation airport in the County. The aircraft that use Tamiami are light aircraft, principally single and twin propeller driven airplanes. Tamiami does not, and in any event is not equipped to, handle commercial aircraft. Tamiami has three runways: (1) the north runway (9L-27R), an east- west runway; (2) the south runway (9R-27L), a parallel east-west runway; and the diagonal runway (13-31), a northwest-southeast runway. The north runway, which is the runway closest to Wellenhofer's property, lacks facilities to permit navigation by instrument for flights at night or in inclement weather. The flight pattern for the north runway is an oval shape. Wellenhofer's property is not under any portion of this flight pattern, nor is it under the flight patterns for the other two runways. It lies in the center of the oval created by the flight pattern for the north runway. It should be noted, however, that there are instances where aircraft, for one reason or another, deviate from these flight patterns. Residential communities in the vicinity of Tamiami already exist. A recent proposal to lengthen the south runway was opposed by a large number of the residents of these communities. In the face of such opposition, no action was taken on the proposal. Because of the noise generated by airport operations, residential uses in the area surrounding an airport may be incompatible with those operations. 12/ The CDMP recognizes that there is the potential for such land use incompatibility. It mandates that the federal government's 65/75 LDN contour standard contained in 14 C.F.R., Part 150, be used to determine if a particular residential use in the vicinity of an airport would be incompatible with the operations at that airport. The noise contour at 65 LDN for the north runway at Tamiami does not leave the airport property and barely leaves the runway itself. That is not to say, however, that one standing on Wellenhofer's property cannot hear the sound of aircraft using the airport. Wellenhofer's property is separated from Tamiami by land that is designated on the FLUM for "industrial and office" use. An identical 660 foot, "industrial and office" buffer separates the airport from the residential lands that lie to the south of the western end of the airport. The area immediately to the north, to the south and to the east of Tamiami is denominated an "employment center" in the CDMP. Accordingly, a substantial amount of land in this area, particularly to the east of the airport, has been designated on the FLUM for "industrial and office" use. Land immediately to the west of the site of current airport operations at Tamiami is designated on the FLUM for "transportation-terminals" use. Immediately west of this land is a large expanse of land, outside the UDB, which is designated on the FLUM for "agriculture" use. The CDMP's port and aviation facilities element indicates that "future aviation facility improvements are proposed to be made on or adjacent to the sites of existing airports" in the County and that the "westward 1,900 foot extension of the southern runway at Tamiami Airport" is one such proposed improvement that will be the subject of future consideration. Application 40 Another application filed by a private applicant during the Amendment Cycle was Application 40. It was submitted by the Suchmans. The subject of Application 40 was 320 acres of land (Application 40 property) located in Study Area G and MSA 6.2 and bounded on the north by Southwest 136th Street, on the south by Southwest 152nd Street, on the east by Southwest 157th Avenue and the Black Creek Canal, and on the west by Southwest 162nd Avenue. This land was located outside, but contiguous to on the north and east, the 1988 UDB. Immediately to the north of the Application 40 property is land that is shown on the FLUM as part of the western end of the Tamiami Airport. The CSX railroad tracks run parallel to the southern perimeter of the airport and they bisect the Application 40 property. The land immediately to the east of the Application 40 property which is north of the railroad tracks is designated on the FLUM for "industrial and office" use. The land immediately to the east of the Application 40 property which is south of the railroad tracks is designated on the FLUM for "low density residential communities" use. The land immediately to the south and the west of the Application 40 property is designated on the FLUM for "agriculture" use. At the time of the filing of Application 40, the area immediately surrounding the Application 40 property was undeveloped and in agricultural use. By the time of the formal hearing in the instant case, however, residential development was underway on a portion of the land immediately to the east of the Application 40 property which is south of the railroad tracks. Further to the east is a large scale residential development known as "Country Walk." The Suchmans own 190 acres of the Application 40 property. All but 30 acres of the land they own is on the western side of the property. The Suchmans first acquired an interest in the property in 1973 or 1974. They are in the real estate business and they purchased the property for investment purposes. While the Suchmans are not involved in the agricultural business, over the years they have leased their land to tenants who have used it for agricultural purposes. Since about 1987, it has become increasingly difficult, albeit not impossible, for the Suchmans to find such tenants. At least up until the time of the formal hearing in the instant case, their property was being actively farmed. The Suchmans, through Application 40, originally sought to have the land use designation of the Application 40 property north of the railroad tracks changed from "agriculture" to "industrial and office" and to have the land use designation of the remaining 280 acres of the property changed from "agriculture" to "low density residential." 13/ Subsequently, at the final adoption hearing, they amended their application. The Suchmans' amended application sought redesignation only of that land within the boundaries of the Application 40 property that the Suchmans owned: the western 20 acres of the Application 40 property north of the railroad tracks (from "agriculture" to "industrial and office" use); and 170 acres of the remaining land (from "agriculture" to "low density residential"). Under the amended application, the 130 acres of the Application 40 property not owned by the Suchmans was to remain designated for "agriculture" use. 14/ In addition to seeking the redesignation of their land, the Suchmans' application, in both its original and amended form, requested that the 1988 UDB be extended to encompass all 320 acres of the Application 40 property. Application 47 Application 47 was also filed by a private applicant. It was submitted by Alajuela N.V. The subject of Application 47 was an 160-acre tract of land (Application 47 property) located in Study Area I and MSA 7.2 and bounded by Southwest 264th Street on the north, Southwest 272nd Street on the south, Southwest 157th Avenue on the east and Southwest 162nd Avenue on the west. This land was located outside, but contiguous to on the south and east, the 1988 UDB. Immediately to the south and to the east of the Application 47 property is land designated on the FLUM for "estate density residential communities" use (up to 2.5 dwelling units per gross acre). The land immediately to the north and to the west of the Application 47 property is designated "agriculture" on the FLUM. Through its application, Alajuela N.V. requested that the land use designation on the FLUM of the Application 47 property be changed from "agriculture" to "estate density residential" 15/ and that the 1988 UDB be extended to encompass this property. Alajuela N.V. owns the entire western half of the Application 47 property. The eastern 80 acres is divided into a number of parcels, the majority of which are under five acres, with different owners. The eastern half of the Application 47 property contains 15 acres of Dade County pine forest. The Application 47 property lies approximately three-quarters of a mile both to the west and north of the U.S. 1 corridor in South Dade, which, according to the LUSC, "[s]ince 1970 . . . [has] experienced particularly heavy development and intensification of land use." This puts it on the southern fringe of an area of South Dade known as the Redlands. While the boundaries of the Redlands are not precise, it is generally understood to range from Southwest 184th Street on the north to the urbanizing areas of the City of Homestead on the south and from U.S. 1 on the east to a meandering line on the west where predominantly mixed agricultural and residential uses end and large-scale agricultural operations generally uninterrupted by residential development begin. While there is significant agricultural activity in the Redlands, primarily involving grove and nursery operations, 16/ an increasing residential trend has been established, particularly on the urbanizing fringes of the area and on parcels less than five acres in size that, because of the grandfathering provisions of the CDMP, are not subject to the restriction imposed by the CDMP that lands designated for "agriculture" use not be used for residential development in excess of one unit per five acres. Residential developments lying south of the Application 47 property constitute the urbanizing area of the City of Homestead. Homestead is a CDMP- designated activity center and, according to the LUSC, it was the fastest growing municipality in Dade County during the period from 1970 to 1987. Homestead's northern jurisdictional limits lie approximately two miles south of the Application 47 property. A substantial portion of the land between the Application 47 property and Homestead is presently undeveloped. The Application 47 property is approximately four and one half miles, by road, from the Homestead Air Force Base, a CDMP-designated employment center. Also in proximity to the Application 47 property are the Homestead/Florida City Enterprise Zone; the Villages of Homestead, which is a 7,000 acre development of regional impact; and commercial and industrial development along the U.S. 1 corridor in South Dade. 17/ The land immediately surrounding the Application 47 property is currently being used primarily for agricultural purposes, however, there is also residential development, as well as vacant land in the area. The western half of the Application 47 property is presently in active agricultural use. The eastern half of the Application 47 property is also the site of agricultural activity. Unlike the western half of the property, however, the eastern half is not used exclusively for agricultural purposes. Residences are located in this half of the property. Other Applications of Note Application 58, which was filed by the Planning Department, sought an amendment to the text of the land use element which would allow new agricultural uses in utility easements and right-of-way areas inside the UDB. Application 62 was another application filed by the Planning Department. Through Application 62, the Planning Department sought to have the Board of County Commissioners update and revise the countywide and MSA population estimates and the MSA population projections for the years 2000 and 2010 that had been adopted as part of the CDMP's land use element in 1988. In Application 62, the Planning Department recommended that the 1985 countywide and MSA population estimates found in the CDMP be replaced by 1989 estimates, including the following: countywide- 1,894,999; MSA 6.1- 92,715; MSA 6.2- 50,841; and MSA 7.2- 33,511. With respect to the population projections adopted in 1988, the Planning Department requested that they be modified to reflect a different distribution of the projected countywide population. The proposed modifications, as they pertained to MSA 6.1, MSA 6.2 and MSA 7.2, were as follows: year 2000- MSA 6.1: 137,612; MSA 6.2: 89,404; MSA 7.2: 42,012; year 2010- MSA 6.1: 175,504; MSA 6.2: 124,380; MSA 7.2: 53,823. In making these modified projections, the Planning Department utilized the same professionally accepted methodology it had used to make the projections that had been adopted in 1988. The Planning Department did not propose in Application 62 that any material change be made to the year 2000 or the year 2010 countywide population projections. A third application filed by the Planning Department was Application This application sought to have the Board of County Commissioners amend the text of the land use element to provide for the establishment of Traditional Neighborhood Developments (TNDs) by the adoption of land use regulations. Under the proposed amendment, TNDs, designed to provide a mix of employment opportunities, to offer a full range of housing types, and to discourage internal automobile use, among other objectives, would be permitted in areas designated for residential use on the FLUM. Planning Department's Preliminary Recommendations Report On August 25, 1989, the Planning Department prepared, for the benefit of the Board of County Commissioners, and published a two-volume report (PR Report) containing its initial recommendations on the 71 applications filed during the Amendment Cycle, as well as the background information and analyses upon which those recommendations were based. In its PR Report, the Planning Department analyzed, among other things, the amount of land that was needed and available to accommodate anticipated growth. In conducting its analysis, the Planning Department employed essentially the same, professionally accepted methodology, previously described in this Recommended Order, that it had used in 1988. The population estimates and projections upon which it relied were the updated and revised estimates and projections that were the subject of Application 62. The Planning Department estimated that in 1989 the County's residential capacity was 247,438 total dwelling units (134,333 single-family units and 113,105 multifamily units). Countywide demand was projected to be 9,157 total dwelling units a year from 1989 to 1995, 10,920 total dwelling units a year from 1995 to the year 2000, 11,440 total dwelling units a year from the year 2000 to the year 2005, and 11,601 total dwelling units a year from the year 2005 to the year 2010. Under this scenario, in the year 2010, there would remain a residential capacity of 22,689 total dwelling units. According to the Planning Department's analysis, this remaining countywide residential capacity would be depleted in the year 2012 (depletion year). The Planning Department forecast an earlier depletion year, 2009, for single-family units. In addition to analyzing countywide residential capacity, the Planning Department conducted an analysis of the amount of land that was available in the County for commercial and industrial development. The Planning Department's analysis revealed that the County had sufficient commercial capacity to last until the year 2008 and that it had sufficient industrial capacity to last until the year 2041. The Planning Department analyzed residential, commercial and industrial capacity, not only on a countywide basis, but on a subarea basis as well. This subarea analysis yielded the following forecast as to Study Areas G and I and MSAs 6.2 and 7.2: Study Area G- depletion year for residential land: year 2005 (all dwelling units), year 2006 (single-family units), and year 2005 (multifamily units); depletion year for commercial land: year 2003; and depletion year for industrial land: year 2076. Study Area I- depletion year for residential land: year 2019 (all dwelling units), year 2016 (single-family units), and year 2030 (multifamily units); depletion year for commercial land: year 2015; and depletion year for industrial land: year 2091. MSA 6.2- depletion year for residential land: year 2006 (all dwelling units), year 2002 (single-family units), and year 2025 (multifamily units); 18/ depletion year for commercial land: 1995; and depletion year for industrial land: year 2075. MSA 7.2- depletion year for commercial land: year 2009; and depletion year for industrial land: year 2078. In its PR Report, the Planning Department also surveyed the environmental, physical and archaeological/historic conditions in each study area of the County, with particular emphasis on the lands that were the subject of the various applications to amend the FLUM (hereinafter referred to collectively as the "application properties"). The PR Report noted that Study Area G, "a large area (approx. 81 sq. mi.) located along the westerly fringe of southwestern Dade County," was characterized by the following environmental, physical and archaeological/historical conditions: Study Area G encompasses the western portions of the Snapper Creek (C-2), C-100 and Black Creek (C-1) canal drainage basins. Natural ground elevations range from five to six feet msl in the northwestern portion of the area to ten to fifteen feet in the part of the Study area generally south of SW 120 Street. Similarly, there is a gradient in the soil conditions from the NW to the SE. In the NW quarter of the area, generally west of 144 Avenue and north of Kendall Drive, the limerock substrate is covered with seasonally flooded Everglades peats and mucks. The southern and eastern three quarters of the study area is generally characterized by well drained rocklands interspersed with poorly drained marls in the former transverse glades. Where organic soils exist, they must be re- moved prior to filling to meet County flood criteria. Therefore as much as four feet of fill may be required to meet the County cri- teria in the northwestern part of this area. The average groundwater table elevations range from above five feet in the northwest to four feet in the southeast. Therefore, the area of Bird Drive and much of the area north of Kendall Drive west of SW 137 Avenue has tradi- tionally experienced considerable flooding and drainage problems. * * * Approximately 70 percent (5,522 acres) of the Bird Drive Basin is vegetated with native wet- land wet prairie, shrub and tree island habi- tats. However, 3,083 acres are heavily or moderately invaded by the exotic tree, Malaleuca. In 1987 the County initiated a Special Area Management Planning (SAMP) pro- cess for this area to develop a wetlands miti- gation plan and funding proposals that will facilitate development in some portions of the Bird Drive Everglades Basin. The poten- tial presence of a new 140-million gallon per day (mgd) Biscayne Aquifer water wellfield in the western part of the Bird Drive Basin has made the feasibility of on-site wetland miti- gation highly questionable for the Basin area. Therefore, the County is exploring several off-site mitigation options as part of the SAMP. Proposals to develop in this Basin are presently constrained by language in the adopted components of the CDMP which tie de- velopment orders to the conclusion of the SAMP, unless the applicants can demonstrate vested rights. * * * In the portion of the study area south of Kendall Drive, the most significant environ- mental resources are stands of native pinelands. There are several environmentally sensitive pinelands in Study Area G, however, none of the properties included in applications 34-4 contain significant natural, historical o archaeological resources. . . . Table 1G of the PR Report contained the following information regarding the specific environmental, physical and archaeological/historic characteristics of Wellenhofer's property and the Application 40 property: Wellenhofer's Property: Soils- rockdale/rockland; drainage characteristics of soils- good; elevation: eight feet; drainage basin- C-100; wetlands permits required- none; native wetland communities- none; natural forest communities- none; endangered species- none; within wellfield protection area?- no; archaeological/historic resources- none. The Application 40 Property: Soils- rockdale, marl; depth of organic soils (marl)- one foot; drainage characteristics: good; elevation: eight feet; drainage basin: Black Creek Canal; wetlands permits required- none; native wetland communities- none; natural forest communities- none; endangered species- none; within wellfield protection area?- no; archaeological/historic resources- none. The environmental, physical and archaeological/historic characteristics of Study Area I, "a large (approx. 164 sq. mi.) region of south Dade County," were described as follows in the PR Report: Study Area I includes portions of CDMP Envi- ronmental Protection Subarea A, Biscayne National Park; Subarea D, the C-111 Wetlands; Subarea E; the Southeast wetlands; and Subarea F, Coastal Wetlands and Hammocks. These areas have been so designated because they contain important, relatively unstressed high-quality wetlands, which provide important water quality and wildlife values. Study Area I also includes a large part of CDMP Open Land Subarea 5. In most of the area east of Krome Avenue and west of U.S. 1, natural ground elevations range from ten to fifteen feet msl on the ridge and from five to ten feet in the former sloughs. The area east of the Turnpike and south of Florida City is less than five feet mean sea level. The highest average groundwater levels are at or above the ground surface throughout most of the area east of the Turnpike Extension and south of Florida City. Saltwater intrusion in the Aquifer extends two to five miles inland in this low lying area. In the area west of the Turnpike and east of Levees-31N and 31W, the soils are rocklands except in the former sloughs where marls pre- dominate. East of the Turnpike and south of Florida City, marls are the dominant soil type except along the coast where peats occur. The Black Creek (C-1), C-102, Mowry (C-103), North Canal, Florida City and C-111 canal sys- tems drain much of the northern and eastern portion of this study area. The area east of the Turnpike has recurring flooding and drainage problems due to its low elevation and flat gradient. The western portions of the C-102, C-103 and much of the C-111 drainage basins have limited flood protection. There is no flood protection in the area south of the Florida City Canal east of US 1 or in most of the area west of US 1 and south of Ingraham Highway. . . . * * * This study area also includes most of the environmentally sensitive natural forest com- munities that remain in Dade County. Appli- cation 47 contains a 15-acre pineland which presently receives maximum protection because it is outside the UDB and zoned AU. At the most, 20 percent of the pineland could be re- moved under the provisions of Chapter 24-60 of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County. . . . Table 1I of the PR Report contained the following additional information regarding the specific environmental, physical and archaeological/historic characteristics of the Application 47 property: Soils- rockland; drainage characteristics of soils- good; elevation: eleven to twelve feet; drainage basin- C-103; wetlands permits required- none; native wetland communities- none; endangered species- none; within wellfield protection area?- no; archaeological/historic resources- none. The PR Report also provided general information regarding existing land uses within each study area and more detailed information regarding existing land uses within and adjacent to each application property. The following was said with respect to existing land use patterns within Study Areas G and I: Study Area G- About half of this study area is suburban in character while the other half is primarily agriculture or undeveloped. The study area also contains a special agricul- tural area known as "horse country" for eques- trian related activities. The urbanizing portion is primarily residential with support- ing commercial and industrial activities. Residential areas include a range of housing from detached, single dwelling units to attached, multiple dwelling units at medium density. The area also contains two major recreation facilities-- Metrozoo and a county park. The major concentration of commercial activities has occurred along major thoroughfares such as North Kendall Drive. Some industries and offices are clustered in the vicinity of Tamiami Airport, a major general aviation facility located in the study area. Study Area I- This study area includes var- ious types of agricultural activities and rural development as well as suburban develop- ment largely oriented to US 1. The suburban development is primarily residential with supporting commercial uses. Although most of the housing is detached, single dwelling units, residential areas also include attached, multiple dwelling units at medium density. There are also several districts for industries and offices, some of which are oriented to expressway and railway systems. More than half of this study area is used for agriculture or is undeveloped. Much of the area is floodplain and the eastern fringe is subject to coastal flooding. Some of these areas are used for parks, preserves and water management areas. The area also contains several wellfields for public water supply, which are located inland from the coast and a major military installation-- Homestead Air Force Base. The PR Report stated the following with respect to the existing land uses within and adjacent to Wellenhofer's property, the Application 40 property and the Application 47 property: Wellenhofer's Property: The area, which con- tains 25 acres, is being used for agricultural purposes. Land located in the vicinity to the south and west is also being used for agriculture while zoned IU-C. The land on the north side is being developed for residential purposes. Boys Town home is located immediately to the west. The site is located one quarter mile north of Tamiami Airport. . . . The Application 40 Property: The area, which contains 320 acres, is being used for agricul- tural purposes. . . . Land in the vicinity on all four sides is also being used for agriculture. Tamiami Airport is located to the northeast of this site. The Application 47 Property: Most of the land in this area is being used for agriculture. The remainder is being used for rural residences or is vacant. The vacant parcels are zoned for agriculture (AU). Land in the vicinity on all sides has the same character. It is primarily agriculture with scattered rural residences or vacant parcels. These vacant parcels are also zoned for agri- culture (AU). The PR Report examined not only existing land use patterns, but future development patterns as well. The future development pattern set forth in the 1988 CDMP for Study Areas G and I were described in the PR Report as follows: Study Area G- The future land use pattern adopted for this area provides primarily for continued residential uses at low, and low-medium densities, with industrial and office development bordering the Tamiami airport. Nodes of commercial uses are pro- vided for at certain major intersections cen- trally located to serve the resident popula- tion. The western portions of the Study Area are slated for continued agricultural produc- tion, while the extreme northwest corner of the Area is designated as Open Land to pro- tect the West Wellfield. Study Area I- The future development pattern established for this area provides for mixed residential infilling (primarily estate, low density and low-medium-density, with some medium-high density located along SW 200 Street east of US 1). Commercial infilling is provided for along both sides of US 1 and along SW 312 Street. Major industrial areas are established south of SW 312 Street and west of 142 Avenue, west of SW 177 Avenue in the Homestead-Florida City area, north and south of 248 Street west of US 1 and south of SW 184 Street between US 1 and the HEFT [Homestead Extension to the Florida Turnpike]. The areas outside of, but contiguous to, the year 2000 Urban Development Boundary (UDB) are, for the most part, designated Agriculture, with land to the south and east designated as Open Land graduating to Environmental Protec- tion designations further south. . . . The PR Report also contained an evaluation of the current and future condition of public services in each study area, including an analysis, where possible, of each application's impact on these services. The public services addressed were roadways, transit, schools, parks, water, sewer, solid waste, and fire and rescue. The projected impacts of Applications 39, 40 (in its original form) and 47 on roadways were described as follows in the PR Report: Application 39: [Application 39 will result] in reduced peak hour trips affecting the year 2010 network in this [study] area. None of the roads within the area of this application were projected to operate worse than LOS D in the year 2010. Application 40: Due to its proximity to SW 177 Avenue, the combined 1422 peak hour trips generated by this amendment primarily impact SW 177 Avenue, which is already projected to operate at LOS F. The long term adopted standard for this road is LOS C. Even without this application the road does not meet this adopted standard. Application 47: Application 47 . . . if de- veloped would generate approximately 171 residential based peak hour trips in 2010. . . . Generally, this application would have negligible impacts on the LOS traffic conditions in 2010. The projected impacts of Applications 39, 40 (in its original form) and 47 on transit were described as follows in the PR Report: Applications 39 and 40: In general, no signi- ficant amount of transit trips would be generated by the amendment applications in this Study Area [G], even though a number of the applications (i.e. . . . 39, 40, ) are located in areas projected to have service improvements by 2010. Therefore, no additional service improvements are warranted beyond those that will be required to serve the area in general for 2010. Application 47: [N]o significant amount of transit trips would be generated by Applica- tion . . . 47. The projected impacts of Applications 39, 40 (in its original form) and 47 on schools were described as follows in the PR Report: Applications 39 and 40: It is estimated that the applications [in Study Area G] would in- crease the student population by [a total of] 2,784 students. . . . Application 40 would generate 874 additional students; . . . The other applications for residential use [including Application 39] would generate less than a hundred new students each. Application 47: If Application 47 were ap- proved, it would generate an additional 239 students at all grade levels. The greatest impact would be felt at the elementary school level, where an additional 129 students would have to be accommodated. Redland Elementary, which is the elementary school that would pro- bably serve the subject Application Area, is operating at a utilization rate of 163 percent. Additional classrooms are planned for construc- tion at Redland Elementary over the next few years, raising this school's number of Exist- ing Satisfactory Student Stations (ESSS) from 523 to 901. In addition, a relief school for Redland Elementary is to be built in this area by mid-1993, providing an additional 885 SSS. The projected impacts of Applications 39, 40 (in its original form) and 47 on parks were described as follows in the PR Report: Applications 39 and 40: Study Area G cur- rently meets the park level of service stan- dard (LOS) and is expected to meet the LOS in the year 2000. . . Despite the rapid popula- tion growth in the area, the LOS has remained above standard in part because of recreational facilities and open space that are provided in the planned residential developments which characterize the Study Area. Approval of those applications requesting new residential uses in Study Area G could result in a lowering of the LOS for parks if new park land is not provided. Application 47: By the year 2000, MSA 7.2 is expected to fall below standard if no addi- tional parks are provided. * * * Application 47 lies within MSA 7.2 which is currently above the LOS standard but is expected to fall below standard if no addi- tional park land is provided. The PR Report indicated that the fire and rescue response times to Wellenhofer's property, the Application 40 property and the Application 47 property were four minutes, 13 minutes, and three to four minutes, respectively, and that roadway accessibility to all three sites was good. With respect to the Application 40 property, the PR Report further noted that it "would be serviced by the planned Richmond Station after its completion in 1992-93," which would reduce the response time to the site to no more than six minutes. Water and sewer service in Study Areas G and I was described as follows in the PR Report: Study Area G: Water and sewer service is provided to Study Area G by WASAD [Metro- politan Dade County Water and Sewer Authority Department]. The area is characterized by large residential developments which have been built over the past decade. Water and sewer service was constructed by area devel- opers in many cases, and most of the developed area is served. . . . . [T]he 'Horse Country' area west of the Turnpike is not connected to either water or sewer. Potable Water Supply Water is supplied to Study Area G by WASAD's Alexander Orr Water Treatment Facility. This facility's current design rating is 178 MGD, and the historical maximum day water demand has been 146 MGD. . . . The Orr facility currently produces water which meets all federal, state and county drinking water standards. WASAD has recently made improve- ments to the Alexander Orr facility and devel- oped a long term expansion program. By 1990, it is expected that the plant will attain a rated capacity of 220 MGD. A major improvement to the distribution system in this Study Area is the completion of the 36/48 inch main which extends along SW 137 Avenue from SW 122 Street to SW 184 Street. In conjunction with other improvements, the system in this area is being connected to the South Miami Heights and the Orr Treatment Plants, providing adequate capacity for the southern portion of Study Area G. Improvements that are scheduled for 1989-90 include the extension of the 36 inch water main along Kendall Drive to SW 157 Avenue, and continued construction of the 96 inch raw water main that will deliver water from the new West Wellfield to the Alexander Orr Treat- ment Plant. Sewer Study Area G is served by the South District Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Facility. This facility has a current design capacity of 75 MGD. Based on a 12-month running average daily flow for this plant was 75 MGD. . . . Expansions to the South District facility are programmed for completion in 1994 to increase the design capacity to 112.5 MGD. Sewage effluent produced by this plant also conforms to federal, state and county effluent standards and is disposed of via deep well injection. Study Area I: Most of Study Area I is in agri- cultural use and relies primarily on private wells and septic tanks. WASAD serves the devel- oped areas in unincorporated Dade County. Florida City provides water service within the city limits and sewer service is provided by WASAD. A portion of the study area is also served by the City of Homestead. Homestead's franchised service area extends a short dis- tance outside the City limits: it is bounded irregularly on the East, on the West by SW 192 Avenue, by the City limits on the South, and on the North by SW 296 Street. Water distri- bution and sewage collection systems are main- tained by the Air Force to serve Homestead Air Force Base. Potable Water Supply The northeast corner of the Study Area is con- nected to WASAD's regional water supply system and is served by the Alexander Orr Treatment Plant. . . . [T]he served area south of SW 248 Street is not yet connected to the regional system. This area is served by the former Rex Utility system, which is now owned by WASAD, and by the City of Homestead. The Rex system has a rated capacity of 16.2 mgd and a maximum water demand of 8.81 mgd. The Homestead plant has a rated capacity of 9.9 mgd and a maximum demand of 7.7 mgd. . . . Water produced by these treatment plants meets federal, state, and county drinking water standards. A major improvement scheduled for this area is a 48 inch main which will run south along SW 127 Avenue from 248 Street to SW 280 Street to connect the existing systems to the Alexander Orr Treatment Plant. Upon completion of this main in 1990 or 1991, the . . . treatment plants of the Rex system will be phased out. . . . Sewer Florida City and the unincorporated portion of Study Area I are served by the South District Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Facility, which has a current design capacity of 75 mgd and an average daily flow of 84.2% of rated capacity. Expansions to the South District facility, programmed for completion in 1994, will increase the design capacity to 112.5 mgd. Sewage effluent treated by this plant conforms to the federal, state and county effluent stan- dards and is disposed of via deep-well injection. . . . The only remaining sewage treatment plant in Dade County is operated by the City of Homestead. The plant is designed to treat 2.25 mgd and its capacity is in the process of being evaluated by the Florida Department of Environmental Regula- tion. The Homestead system currently operates under an agreement to divert a portion of its wastewater to WASAD for treatment and disposal. . . . The following was indicated in the PR Report concerning the water and sewer service available to Wellenhofer's property, the Application 40 property and the Application 47 Property: Wellenhofer's property: distance to nearest water main- 1320 feet; diameter of this main- 12 inches; location of this main- SW 112th Street and SW 142nd Avenue; distance to nearest sewer main- 4000 feet; location of this main- SW 112th Street and SW 137th Avenue. The Application 40 Property: distance to nearest water main- 0 feet; diameter of this main- 24 inches; location of this main; SW 152nd Street and SW 157th Avenue; distance to nearest sewer main- one mile; location of this main- SW 136th Street and SW 147th Avenue. The Application 47 Property: distance to near- est water main- 2640 feet; diameter of this main- 12 inches; location of this main- SW 157th Avenue and 280th Street; distance to nearest sewer main- 3960 feet; location of this main- SW 157th Avenue and SW 284th Street. 19/ The significance of the availability of water and sewer service to a particular application property was described as follows in the PR Report: Although specific requirements under Chapter 24 of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County vary with land use, most new development in Dade County is required to connect to the public water or sewer system, or to both. The timing of new development is heavily depen- dent on the availability of these services. Where water and sewer service does not exist and is not planned, the services may be pro- vided by the developer. When construction is completed, the facilities are donated to the utility. The proximity of an application area to exist- ing or programmed water and sewer lines is an important indicator of whether or not the area is likely to develop within the 2000 time frame of the Urban Development boundary. . . . The following observations were made in the PR report regarding solid waste services in the County: The Metro-Dade Department of Solid Waste Management provides both collection and dis- posal services for Dade County. The Department is responsible for the final dis- posal of solid waste generated anywhere in the County and for residential collection in the urbanized portions of unincorporated Dade County. Residents in sparsely developed areas of the County are responsible for delivering their waste to a proper disposal site. In general, industrial and commercial businesses often use private haulers who can provide customized service that is not available from the County. . . . Countywide, the solid waste disposal system has sufficient capacity to maintain the adopted level of service of 7 pounds per person per day through 1995. The Department's Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report (ORC) The Board of County Commissioners took preliminary action on the applications filed during the Amendment Cycle and transmitted to the Department its proposed amendment to the CDMP. Accompanying the proposed amendment was the PR Report. The Department issued its Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report (ORC) on February 2, 1990. A copy of the ORC, accompanied by a cover letter, was sent to the Mayor of Metropolitan Dade County, the Honorable Stephen P. Clark, that same day. The cover letter advised the Mayor that if he "would like the Department to participate in the public hearing for amendment adoption, such request should be received by the Department, certified mail, at least 14 days prior to the scheduled hearing date." The following were the statements made in the ORC that referenced Applications 39, 40 and 47: FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OBJECTIONS * * * Analysis 1. 9J-5.006(2)(b) The analysis of the character of the existing vacant or undeveloped land in order to deter- mine its suitability for use does not support the plan amendments that propose to extend the Urban Development Boundary (UDB) by 845 acres. The analysis demonstrates that the UDB as cur- rently delineated ensures an adequate supply of each land use will be available for the planning timeframe. In addition, the existing analysis identifies this region as environmen- tally sensitive and not suitable for urban uses. Recommendation Revise the plan amendments to retain the UDB as currently delineated in the adopted Metro-Dade Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP) or include analysis that would justify extension of the UDB for urban uses while not causing adverse impacts to the environmentally sensitive lands in the East Everglades Area. 2. 9J-5.006(2)(c)2. The analysis of the amount of land needed to accommodate the projected population, as re- vised in Amendment 62, does not support plan amendments 18, 37, 40, 41 and 47 which propose to extend the UDB by an additional 845 acres. The analysis demonstrates that there is ade- quate amount of land uses designated within the current UDB to accommodate the projected population within the planning timeframe. Therefore, the extension of the UDB into the East Everglades area would encourage urban sprawl. Recommendation Revise the plan amendments to be consistent with the analysis. The plan amendments must justify the proposed need for additional land outside of the current UDB to accommodate the projected population. 3. 9J-5.006(2)(e) The analysis of the proposed development of flood prone areas does not support plan amend- ments 18, 37, 40, 41 and 47 which would extend the UDB by 845 acres. The new growth would be directed into the flood prone areas on the eastern edge of the Everglades. . . . Recommendation Revise the plan amendments to not extend the UDB and to either retain the existing land uses or designate land uses that are compat- ible with the environmentally sensitive nature of . . . the Everglades region. Goals, Objectives and Policies 4. 9J-5.006(3)(b)1. Plan amendments 18, 37, 40, 41 and 47, which would extend the UDB by 845 acres, are incon- sistent with Objective 1, page I-1, which states that decisions regarding the location of future land use in Dade County will be based on the physical and financial feasibility for providing services as adopted in the CDMP. The analysis demonstrates that the County has not planned on providing services outside the existing UDB; therefore the extension of the UDB at this time would appear to be premature. Recommendation Revise the amendments to retain the UDB as currently delineated in the CDMP. * * * 8. 9J-5.006(3)(b)7. Plan amendments 18, 37, 40, 41 and 47, which would extend the UDB by 845 acres, are incon- sistent with Objective 3, page I-4, which states that the urban growth shall emphasize concentration around centers of activity rather than sprawl. The analysis of the land needed to accommodate the projected population demonstrates that there will be an adequate supply of vacant land within the UDB for the duration of the planning timeframe. Recommendation Revise the amendments to retain the UDB as currently delineated in the CDMP. * * * 12. 9J-5.006(3)(c)3. Plan amendments 18, 37, 40, 41 and 47, which would extend the UDB by 845 acres, are incon- sistent with Policy 1B, page I-1, which states that the County will first provide services for the area within the UDB. The amendments are located outside of the existing UDB and the analysis demonstrates that there is no need to extend the UDB for residential or industrial land uses. Recommendation Retain the UDB as currently delineated. * * * Future Land Use Map(s) 14. 9J-5.006(4)(a) Plan amendments 18, 37, 40, 41 and 47 which entail the extension of the Urban Development boundary are not supported by the data and analysis. The designation of residential uses is not supported by the analysis which shows an adequate supply of residential land for the planning timeframe. . . . These ex- tensions would be premature according to the data and analysis submitted with the plan amendments and would increase development pressure toward the Everglades. Recommendation Retain the Urban Development Boundary as cur- rently delineated. Encourage new residential development in the Urban Infill Area where the infrastructure already exists to support higher densities and where the CDMP has speci- fically made commitments to direct development in order to discourage urban sprawl and to pro- tect the environmental integrity of the Ever- glades. * * * PORTS, AVIATION AND RELATED FACILITIES A. OBJECTIONS * * * Goals, Objectives and Policies 1. 9J-5.009(3)(c)1. Plan amendments 38 and 39, which would change industrial/office land use to low density resi- dential, are inconsistent with Policy 4C, page IV-4, which supports zoning that would protect existing and proposed aviation flight paths. These amendments would promote the encroachment of residential land uses into the Tamiami Airport area guaranteeing a future conflict of land uses. Recommendation Retain the existing land uses or propose land uses that would be compatible with the existing airport and the surrounding supporting aviation industries. * * * SANITARY SEWER, SOLID WASTE, DRAINAGE, POTABLE WATER, AND NATURAL GROUNDWATER AQUIFER RECHARGE ELEMENT A. OBJECTIONS Goals, Objectives, and Policies 1. 9J-5.011(2)(b)3. Plan amendments 18, 37, 40, 41 and 47 which entail the extension of the Urban Development boundary are inconsistent with Objective 1 and Policy 1A, page VII-1, which state that the area within the UDB shall have first priority for urban services as a measure to discourage urban sprawl. The designation of residential uses is not supported by the analysis which shows an adequate supply of residential land for the planning timeframe. . . . These extensions would be premature according to the data and analysis submitted with the plan amendments and would increase development pressure toward the Everglades. Recommendation Retain the Urban Development boundary as cur- rently delineated. Encourage new residential development in the Urban Infill Area where the infrastructure already exists to support higher densities and where the CDMP has speci- fically made commitments to direct development in order to discourage urban sprawl and protect the environmental integrity of the Everglades. The ORC also addressed the proposed plan amendment's consistency with the State of Florida Comprehensive Plan (State Plan) and the Regional Plan for South Florida (Regional Plan), which was prepared and adopted by the South Florida Regional Planning Council. The following was alleged with respect to the proposed amendment's consistency with the State Plan: STATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONSISTENCY OBJECTIONS 1. 9J-5.021 The proposed Comprehensive Development Master Plan amendments are not consistent with and fail to address adequately the following sub- sections of s. 187.201, F.S. (1988 Supplement), State Comprehensive Plan policies: Housing (5)(b)3., which requires the supply of safe, affordable and sanitary housing for low and moderate income persons and the elderly, because the proposed amendments would change existing residential uses, that would be feasible for affordable housing, to non-residential uses; and Water Resources (8)(b)4., which requires the protection and use of natural water systems in lieu of struc- tural alternatives and restore modified sys- tems, because the proposed amendments would create land uses which would encroach upon wellfield protection areas; and Coastal and Marine Resources (9)(b)4., which requires the protection of coastal resources, marine resources, and dune systems from the adverse effects of develop- ment, because of the proposed amendment to change definitions which would give residen- tial densities to submerged marine lands; and Natural Systems and Recreational Lands (10)(b)7., which requires the County to pro- tect and restore the ecological functions of wetland systems to ensure their long-term environmental, economic and recreational value, because the proposed amendments would expand the UDB into the East Everglades Area and potentially permit noncompatible land uses within wetland study areas and wellfield pro- tection areas; and (10)(b)8., which requires promotion of res- toration of the Everglades system and of the hydrological and ecological functions of de- graded or substantially disrupted surface waters, because of the proposed amendment which would expand the UDB into the East Everglades Area; and Land Use (16)(b)2., which requires incentives and dis- incentives which encourage a separation of urban and rural land uses, because the pro- posed amendments would expand the UDB into the East Everglades Area which would encourage urban sprawl; and Public Facilities (18)(b)1., which requires incentive for devel- oping land in a way that maximizes the uses of existing public facilities, because the pro- posed amendments would remove residential uses along arterials and reduce the effectiveness of the mass transit system. The ORC contained the following recommendation concerning what needed to be done, in the Department's view, to cure these alleged inconsistencies: The proposed comprehensive plan amendments must be revised to include specific, measur- able objectives and implementing policies, supported by adequate data and analysis, that are consistent with the above-referenced poli- cies of the State Comprehensive Plan. The following was alleged in the ORC concerning the proposed amendment's consistency with the Regional Plan: REGIONAL POLICY PLAN CONSISTENCY OBJECTIONS 1. 9J-5.021(1) The proposed Comprehensive Development Master Plan amendments are not consistent with and fail to address adequately the following subsections of the Regional Plan for South Florida: Policy 57.1.2., which requires giving priority to development in areas within which adequate services are either programmed or available, because of the proposed amendments which would expand the UDB into the East Everglades Area; and Policy 64.2.1, which requires that land use around the airport be strictly controlled to prevent unnecessary social or economic con- flicts and costs, because of the proposed amendments which would place residential uses in close proximity to Tamiami Airport; and Policy 69.1.1., which encourages appropriate activities to ensure the continued viability of agriculture, because the proposed amend- ments which would expand the UDB into the East Everglades Area. The ORC contained the following recommendation concerning what needed to be done, in the Department's view, to cure these alleged inconsistencies: The proposed comprehensive plan amendments must be revised to include specific, measur- able objectives and policies, supported by adequate data and analysis, that are consis- tent with the policies of the Regional Plan for South Florida. Under the heading of "Internal Consistency" in the ORC, the following remarks were made: INTERNAL CONSISTENCY OBJECTIONS 1. 9J-5.005(5)(b) Each map depicting future conditions in the plan (including the future land use map) must reflect goals, objectives and policies in each element, as those goals, objectives and policies exist or are modified to meet the requirements of Chapter 9J-5, F.A.C., Chapter 163, F.S., the State Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 187, F.S.) and the comprehensive regional policy plan, as recommended in this report. Recommendation Ensure that future conditions maps are modi- fied to reflect goals, objectives and policies in each element. COMMENTS See individual elements. Those objections, recommendations and comments made in the ORC that are not recited above specifically referenced applications other than Applications 39, 40 and 47. The Planning Department's Response to the ORC On March 21, 1990, the Planning Department published a written response to the ORC (Response). In its Response, the Planning Department concurred with the position that Applications 39, 40 and 47 should not be approved, but it took issue with certain statements made in the ORC relating to these applications. The Planning Department pointed out that the "East Everglades was the area located west of the L-31 Everglades containment levee and south of the Tamiami Trail," and that "[A]pplications [18, 37, 40, 41 and 47 we]re no closer than two miles [to the east] of the East Everglades" and did not extend to any areas designated "environmental protection" on the FLUM. The Planning Department further noted that the Application 40 property and the Application 47 property were not subject to recurring flooding. With respect to the lone objection in the ORC which specifically mentioned Application 39, the Planning Department observed that it "incorrectly cite[d] Policy 4C [of the Port and Aviation Facilities Element of the CDMP]; it should be Policy 4D." The Planning Department added that, although the Department had not so indicated, Application 39 was "also inconsistent with Objective 8 of the Port and Aviation Element which seeks to maximize compatibility between airports and the surrounding communities." Combined Recommendations of the Planning Department and the PAB On February 27, 1990, and February 28, 1990, respectively, following a joint public hearing held on February 23, 1990, the Planning Department, acting in its capacity as the local planning agency, and the PAB adopted resolutions containing their recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners regarding the final action to be taken on the applications filed during the Amendment Cycle. Thereafter, prior to the final adoption hearing, the Planning Department published a document entitled "Combined Recommendations of the Metropolitan Dade County Planning Department (Local Planning Agency) and the Planning Advisory Board" (CR Report), which set forth these recommendations, and summarized the rationale upon which they were based. Both the Planning Department and PAB recommended that Application 39 be denied. According to the CR Report, these recommendations were based upon the following considerations: The south boundary of this site is located only two blocks from the Kendall-Tamiami Execu- tive Airport. The application area is within the area designated on County comprehensive plans as industrial/commercial since 1965 to insure airport/community compatibility. The continued non-residential designation of this area also conforms to the standard adopted in 1989 by the State Legislature (but vetoed by the Governor because of unrelated funding pro- visions) which provided that "residential construction should not be permitted within an area contiguous to an airport measuring one-half of the length of the longest runway on either side of each runway centerline." The Aviation Department estimates that the housing proposed in the application area would be subject to more than ten times ambient noise levels which would result in many complaints from occupants. For example, virtually all of the 5,200 petitioners concerned about perceived airport noise impacts of the recently rejected runway extension lived further from the airport than would the occupants of housing proposed within the area. Approval of this application would conflict with the need for the County to protect its airport, and with the need to retain opportunity sites for employment activities in west Kendall. The Planning Department recommended that Application 40 be denied. According to the CR Report, this recommendation was based upon the following considerations: This Application is located in the Agri- cultural area west of Black Creek Canal. The Agricultural Land Use Plan adopted by the Board of County Commissioners established that Canal as the Agricultural area boundary in this area of the County, to be amended for urban development only at such time as there is a documented need. The Planning Department believes that the need does not yet exist. 20/ Approval of this Application would be premature. The CDMP currently contains within the year 2000 Urban Development Boundary (UDB), enough land countywide to sustain projected industrial needs well beyond the year 2010, and residential needs to the year 2015. Within this Study Area there is also enough industrial land to accommodate projected residential growth beyond the year 2010 and to accommodate projected residential growth until the year 2005. While current projections indicate that the single family supply west of the Turnpike between Kendall Drive and Eureka Drive does not contain much surplus beyond the year 2000, the CDMP provides alternative loca- tions, including an abundance of supply in the Turnpike corridor south of Cutler Ridge. The Planning Department will closely monitor growth trends in the various subareas of the County and will recommend adjustments when warranted in the future. The PAB recommended that Application 40 be approved. The CR Report indicated that the PAB's reasoning with respect to this matter was as follows: Because this is the area where people want to live, sprawl is justified and the urban devel- opment boundary should be expanded. In re- sponse to DCA's objections, the PAB noted that services are available adjacent to this Appli- cation. Both the Planning Department and PAB recommended the denial of Application 47. The following reasons were given in the CR Report for their recommendations: The area is currently designated Agricul- ture on the Land Use Plan map, and is used for agricultural purposes. The Agricultural Land Use Plan adopted by the Board of County Commis- sioners recommends that the area designated Agriculture should not be redesignated for urban use until there is a documented need for more urban land. Approval of this Application would be very premature. The CDMP currently contains enough land within the year 2000 Urban Development Boundary in this Study Area to accommodate projected demand well beyond the year 2010. Similarly, in the area west of US 1 there is enough land for single-family type residences to accommodate projected demand through the year 2010. There is no current need to promote urban development of this Application area. This site contains fifteen acres of Dade County pine forest listed in Dade County's forest land inventory as having high environ- mental quality. It should not be prematurely urbanized. The Final Adoption Hearing: The Department's Participation On March 12, 1990, Mayor Clark mailed, by United States Express Mail, a letter to the Department requesting that it participate in the hearing at which final action would be taken by the Board of County Commissioners on the outstanding applications filed during the Amendment Cycle. The body of the letter read as follows: The Board of County Commissioners requests that the Florida Department of Community Affairs participate in its hearing to address biennial applications requesting amendments to the 2000-2010 Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP) for Metropolitan Dade County. This request is made pursuant to Section 9J-11.011(2) of the Florida Adminis- trative Code and Section 2-116.1(4) of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County. The public hearing will be held on Monday, March 26, 1990, at 9:00 AM in the Commission Chambers, 111 N.W. 1 Street, Miami. If neces- sary, this hearing will be continued on Tuesday, March 27, 1990, in the Commission Chambers. The purpose of this hearing is to afford the Board of County Commissioners an opportunity to hear the applicants explain their applica- tions and to receive public comments on the applications, on the "Objections, Recommenda- tions, and Comments" report submitted by the Florida Department of Community Affairs, and on the recommendations of the Planning Advi- sory Board and of the Local Planning Agency. At the conclusion of this hearing, the Board of County Commissioners will take final action to approve, approve with change, or deny each of the applications. Should you or your staff need any assistance or additional information regarding this hearing, please contact Mr. Robert Usherson, Chief, Metropolitan Planning Division, Metro-Dade Planning Department, at (305)375-2835, (Suncom) 445-2835. The Department, by letter, advised Mayor Clark that it would send a Department representative to "participate" in the hearing. The body of the letter read as follows: In response to your request of March 12, 1990, the Department of Community Affairs will send a representative to participate in the March 26, 1990, public hearing to adopt the proposed Metro Dade County comprehensive plan amendments. The Department's representative is authorized to restate our position as expressed in the Department's February 3, 1990 [sic] Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report, and to listen to all parties. It is the Department's position that the adoption public hearing is not the proper forum for modifying the Depart- ment's position or approving proposed revisions to the comprehensive plan. The Department's representative will be without authority to modify the Department's position or approve proposals discussed at the public hearing. The Department's representative will be authorized, however, to comment on proposals to resolve objections included in the report. Final approval of any proposal may only be granted by the Secretary of the Department of Community Affairs. The Department's role with respect to approv- ing proposed revisions will begin upon adop- tion and submittal of the comprehensive plan, pursuant to Chapter 9J-11.011, Florida Admin- istrative Code. If I may be of further assis- tance in this matter, please contact me at (904)488-9210. The Department representative selected to attend the final adoption hearing was Harry Schmertman, a Planner IV with the Department. Schmertman had not been involved in the preparation of the ORC. He reviewed the report, however, before attending the hearing. Schmertman arrived at the Commission Chambers on the morning of March 26, 1990, prior to the commencement of the hearing. Upon his arrival, he spoke with the County's Planning Director and requested that he be recognized at the outset of the hearing. The Planning Director responded that "the Mayor would take care of that." Following this conversation, Schmertman took a seat "[a]pproximately five or six rows back [from the front] in the center of the auditorium." Thereafter, the hearing formally convened. Shortly after the commencement of the hearing, before any applications were discussed, Mayor Clark introduced Schmertman and indicated that he was attending the hearing on behalf of the Department. Immediately following the Mayor's introduction of Schmertman, the Chairman of the PAB, Lester Goldstein, presented the PAB's recommendations to the Board. During his presentation, Goldstein expressed disappointment over the various factual inaccuracies in the Department's ORC. Schmertman did not respond to Goldstein's comments, nor did he at any time attempt to modify or explain any statement or position taken by the Department in the ORC. Indeed, he made no public remarks while in attendance at the hearing. While Schmertman did not address the Board of County Commissioners at the hearing, at no time during the hearing was he asked to do so. Furthermore, the members of the Board gave no indication that they did not understand, and therefore needed clarification of, the Department's position on the applications under consideration. At around 4:30 p.m., before the conclusion of the hearing on that day, Schmertman left the Commission Chambers to return to Tallahassee. Neither he, nor any other Department representative, was present for the remainder of the hearing on that day or for the continuation of the hearing on the following day, when public discussion and debate ended and a formal vote was taken on each of the pending applications. 21/ Schmertman did not tell anyone that he was leaving the Commission Chambers. He reasonably believed, however, that there was no need to announce his departure because he was "in a very obvious location . . . and was very visible leaving." No member of the Board, nor any other County representative, asked Schmertman, as he was leaving, to remain until the conclusion of the hearing. The Final Adoption Hearing: The Objectors' Participation The Redland Citizen Association, Inc. (RCA) is a nonprofit Florida corporation, which has as its stated purpose and primary activity the preservation and promotion of the agrarian character and lifestyle of the Redlands area of South Dade. The RCA engages in fundraising to obtain the financial resources necessary to accomplish this objective. The RCA has approximately 700 to 800 members, all of whom reside in or around the Redlands in Dade County. At all times material hereto, Martin Motes has been a member of the RCA, resided in a home that he owns in the Redlands, and owned and operated a wholesale orchid nursery business located on property adjacent to his residence, three quarters of a mile north of the Application 47 property. Motes appeared before the Board of County Commissioners at the final adoption hearing. On behalf of the RCA and its members, including himself, he expressed opposition to Application 47. He argued that the change sought through this application was "premature" and constituted an "unwarranted and unwanted" extension of urban development into a viable agricultural area. Neither Motes, nor any other representative of the RCA, objected to any application other than Application 47. 22/ The Sierra Club is a nonprofit national organization organized for the following purpose: To explore, enjoy and protect the wild places of the earth, to practice and promote the re- sponsible use of the earth's ecosystems and resources, to educate and enlist humanity to protect and restore the quality of the natural and human environment, and to use all lawful means to carry out these objectives. The Sierra Club, Miami Group, is a local division of the national organization specifically chartered to include residents of both Dade and Monroe Counties. It has a Dade County address. At all times material hereto Bruce Rohde has been a member of the Sierra Club and resided in a home that he owns in Dade County. Rohde appeared before the Board of County Commissioners at the final adoption hearing. On behalf of the Sierra Club and its members, including himself, he expressed opposition to Applications 40 and 47, among others. He contended that the extensions of the UDB requested through Applications 40 and 47 were "premature." Neither Rohde, nor any other representative of the Sierra Club, objected to Application 39. The League of Women Voters of the United States is a national organization. The League of Women Voters of Florida is a state organization. The League of Women Voters of Dade County, Inc. (League) is a nonprofit Florida corporation affiliated with the national and state organizations. The League's purpose, as stated in its Articles of Incorporation, is as follows: [T]o promote political responsibility through informed and active participation of citizens in government and to take action on govern- mental measures and policies in the public interest in conformity with the principles of The League of Women Voters of the United States and The League of Women Voters of Florida. It engages in fundraising to obtain the financial resources necessary to accomplish this objective. The League rents office space in Dade County out of which it conducts its operations. 23/ At all times material hereto, Carol Rist has been a member of the League, resided in a home that she owns in Dade County, and owned and operated a Dade County business. Rist appeared before the Board of County Commissioners at the final adoption hearing. On behalf of the League and its members, including herself, she expressed opposition to various applications, including Applications 39, 40 and 47. With respect to Applications 40 and 47, her arguments were similar to those advanced by Rohde at the hearing. As to Application 39, she contended that Wellenhofer's property was too close to the airport to be used for residential purposes and that it was a desirable site for the location of an office complex to which residents of the West Kendall area would be able to commute. 24/ At all times material hereto, Evelyn B. Sutton has resided in a home that she owns in the eastern half of the Application 47 property. Sutton appeared before the Board of County Commissioners at the final adoption hearing. She expressed her opposition to Application 47, contending that its approval would have an adverse impact upon the unique agrarian character and lifestyle of the Redlands. She did not object to any application other than Application 47. At all times material hereto, Frances L. Mitchell has resided in a home that she owns in the eastern half of the Application 47 property. Mitchell and some of her neighbors retained an attorney, who appeared before the Board of County Commissioners at the final adoption hearing and made a presentation on their behalf. The attorney advised the Board that his clients were in opposition to Application 47 because it was "premature" and represented unneeded "leapfrog residential development in the heart of the Redlands." Neither Mitchell, her attorney, nor any other representative acting on her behalf, objected to any application other than Application 47. At all times material hereto, Rod Jude has resided in a home that he owns in Dade County and owned and operated a Dade County wholesale nursery business. Jude appeared before the Board of County Commissioners at the final adoption hearing. He expressed his opposition to Application 40, arguing that there was no demonstrated need for the conversion of the Application 40 property to non-agricultural uses. Jude also objected to Applications 37, 41 and 42. He did not address either Application 39 or Application 47. The Final Adoption Hearing: The Applicants' Participation Jeffrey E. Lehrman, Esquire, appeared before the Board of County Commissioners at the final adoption hearing and made a presentation in support of Application 39 on behalf of Wellenhofer. In addition to making an oral presentation, Lehrman gave the members of the Board written materials. During his presentation, Lehrman stated, among other things, the following: Application 39 represented infill, not leapfrog, development; such development would not adversely impact upon, nor would it be adversely impacted by, the Tamiami Airport; there had been significant residential development in the area around Wellenhofer's property in recent years; the approval of Application 39 would not interfere with any existing flight patterns; Wellenhofer's property was not under an existing flight path, but rather was in a "hole-in-the-doughnut" and therefore was distinguishable from properties that were the subject of other applications; Tamiami's north runway was an auxiliary runway unequipped to handle operations at night and in bad weather; the applicable 65/75 LDN noise contour did not intrude upon Wellenhofer's property; the new statute that the Planning Department had referenced in recommending denial of Application 39 had been vetoed by the Governor and therefore was really no statute at all; helicopter training took place on the south, rather than the north, side of the airport; and if Application 39 was approved, a buffer of industrial land would still exist between Wellenhofer's property and the airport. Thomas Carlos, Esquire, appeared before the Board of County Commissioners at the final adoption hearing and made a presentation in support of Application 40 on behalf of the Suchmans. Carlos was assisted by James Holland, a professional planner with the firm of Post, Buckley, Shuh and Jernigan (Post Buckley), Jack Schnettler, a professional traffic engineer with Post Buckley, Richard Tobin, President of Strategy Research Corporation, Inc. (SRC), a national research firm with offices in Florida, and Richard Roth, Vice- President of SRC in charge of planning research studies. During his opening remarks, Carlos advised the County Commission that the Suchmans had executed a covenant obligating themselves to developing their property in accordance with the Traditional Neighborhood Development concept. He then introduced Holland to the Commission. During his presentation, Holland did, among other things, the following: summarized the contents of Table 1G of the PR Report relating to the environmental, physical and archaeological/historic conditions that existed on the Application 40 property; contrasted the Application 40 property with the undeveloped lands in MSA 6.1 already within the UDB which, he argued, had marginal development potential because of undesirable environmental constraints; opined that, as a consequence of these impediments to development in MSA 6.1, MSA 6.2 would experience an increase in demand; showed a graphic depicting land use patterns in and around the Application 40 property, including the amount of land available for residential development in the area; displayed another graphic showing future Urban Services Areas in unincorporated Dade County, including the Tamiami area; in conjunction with the these graphics, argued that the residential development of the Application 40 property was in furtherance of the Tamiami area's designation as an employment center; quoted from a Planning Department report that suggested that development around the Tamiami Airport would reduce metropolitan transportation needs; asserted that the use of the Application 40 property for residential purposes would comply with federal guidelines as well as those found in the CDMP; in support of this assertion, presented a graphic illustrating that no part of the proposed residential portion of the Application 40 property would be included in the 65/75 LDN contours which measure the noise generated by airport operations; and described the urban services which were available or programmed to serve the Application 40 property. Jack Schnettler's presentation addressed traffic and transit issues. He presented a graphic showing the existing and programmed transportation network in the vicinity of the Application 40 property and highlighted particular improvement projects that he considered worthy of note. In describing the this transportation network, he commented that it augmented the employment center character of the area. Schnettler expressed the view that the property would be adequately served by transit and roadways. In addition, he disagreed with the Planning Department's forecast that approval of Application 40 would adversely impact upon the level of service on Southwest 177th Avenue, which, he noted, was located one and half miles to the west of the application property. Tobin and Roth briefly summarized a written report that SRC had prepared for the Suchmans and other private applicants (SRC Report). The report analyzed housing demand in the West Kendall area. The SRC Report concluded that the supply of residential land in MSA 6.2 25/ would be depleted in the year 2004 under a low case scenario, in 1998 under a medium case scenario, and in 1996 under a high case scenario, which the report opined, without explanation or reasonable justification, was "the one most likely to occur." As noted above, in its PR Report, the Planning Department had projected a depletion year of 2006, which the SRC Report criticized as being "out of touch with reality." In making its projections, SRC compared the yearly average of new housing units built and sold in MSA 6.2 from 1980 to 1984, which was a down period for the housing industry in Dade County, to the yearly average of new housing units build and sold in MSA 6.2 from 1985 to 1988, which was a boom period for the housing industry in the County. The information used by SRC regarding the number of housing units constructed and sold during these years was obtained from the Dade County Tax Assessor's office. Under the low case scenario, SRC assumed that housing demand in MSA 6.2 would remain constant at its 1985 to 1988 yearly average of 1,780 units. Under the medium case scenario, SRC assumed that the rate of housing demand would increase by about 35% over the 1985 to 1988 experience (which was 70% above the 1980 to 1984 experience). Under the high case scenario, SRC assumed that the 70% increase in housing demand between 1980 to 1984 and 1985 to 1988 would continue unabated until the supply of residential land was depleted, an assumption that is even more unrealistic than the assumptions underlying low and medium case scenarios. SRC reached these conclusions without analyzing housing demand on a countywide basis. Neither did it rely upon any population projections, notwithstanding that housing demand is driven by population growth. Furthermore, it did not take into consideration the cyclical fluctuations that characterize the housing market, nor did it account for vacant units in its projections. A professionally accepted methodology is one that is replicable, transparent, documented, free of error and inaccuracies, based upon assumptions that are clearly stated and reasonable and designed to avoid improbable and unlikely outcomes given past trends. In projecting housing demand for MSA 6.2., SRC did not utilize a methodology meeting these requirements. In addition to the oral presentations made by Carlos, Holland, Schnettler, Tobin and Roth, the Suchmans also presented to the Board of County Commissioners a written memorandum authored by Carlos and David S. Goldwich, Esquire, with attachments, including a copy of the SRC Report, copies of excerpts from Planning Department publications, and a copy of a recent article appearing in "New Miami Magazine," which reported that "Dade farmers, mostly by shifting production to new areas to the west actually increased total acres under tillage from 78,263 in 1981 to 84,534 in 1987" and that "Dade agricultural acreage [was] not expected to shrink substantially, despite encroachments by developers." The memorandum made many of the same arguments that were advanced by those who spoke on behalf of the Suchmans at the final adoption hearing. Robert Traurig, Esquire, appeared before the Board of County Commissioners at the final adoption hearing and made a presentation in support of Application 47 on behalf of Alajuela N.V. During his presentation, Traurig stated, among other things, the following: the Application 47 property was contiguous to the 1988 UDB; the failure to include the property within the UDB was an oversight that should be corrected; there was significant residential development surrounding the property in all directions; the area in which the property is located was an area in transition; it was changing from an agricultural area to one that was predominantly residential in character; as demonstrated by the recent development in the area, there was a demand for housing in this part of the County; most of the people who wanted to live in this area could not afford the five-acre estates allowed on property designated for "agricultural" use under the CDMP; the redesignation of the Application 47 property sought by Alajuela N.V. would not have an adverse impact on the agricultural industry in the County; such redesignation was not premature nor would it result in leapfrog development; there were no environmental impediments to the development of the Application 47 property; the elevation of the property was 11 feet above sea level and drainage was good; there were no wetlands on the site; the tree colony on the eastern half of the property would be protected by County ordinance; and there were roadways, parks, fire service and other urban services available to serve the property. The Final Adoption Hearing: The Aviation Director's Comments At the request of Commissioner Hawkins, Rick Elder, the County's Aviation Director, commented on four application properties in Study Area G that were in close proximity to the Tamiami Airport, including Wellenhofer's property. Elder stated that there were no flight patterns over Wellenhofer's property. With respect to noise, he noted that Wellenhofer's property was not within the 65/75 LDN contour. Elder did not indicate that he had any safety concerns regarding Application 39. The Final Adoption Hearing: Debate and Vote by the Board Following the conclusion of that portion of the final adoption hearing devoted to public discussion and debate on March 27, 1990, the Board of County Commissioners considered and voted on each of the pending applications. At the request of Commissioner Hawkins, the first application to be considered and voted on by the Board was the TND application, Application 71. The Board voted to approve Application 71. The remaining applications were considered and voted on in sequential order. During the Commissioners' debate on Application 39 and other applications in the vicinity of Tamiami Airport, Commissioner Gersten expressed the view that, with respect to these applications, neither noise nor safety should be a concern. Commissioner Schreiber concurred. Commissioner Valdes remarked that, although he was opposed to the other applications under consideration, he was not opposed to Application 39 because the property that was the subject of the application was not, according to Aviation Director Elder, under a flight pattern. Commissioner Dusseau indicated his opposition to Application 39. He argued that there was no need for residential development on Wellenhofer's property and that it was preferable to retain its "industrial and office" land use designation to further the creation of an activity center around the airport. Application 39 was approved by a five to three vote. When Application 40 came up for consideration, Commissioner Hawkins recommended that the application be modified. While he did not object to the extension of the UDB to include the Application 40 property, he suggested that only the application property owned by the Suchmans be redesignated for residential use. He explained that, not only would this modification eliminate concerns generated by the application regarding compatibility with airport operations, it would set the stage for the development of a TND in the West Kendall area. Commissioner Hawkins noted that the County Commission had long wanted to have a TND in this area and that the Suchmans were willing to develop their property as a TND if it was redesignated for residential use. Commissioner Dusseau responded to these comments by indicating that he favored the TND concept, but that he did not believe that the Suchmans property was where such a TND should be located. Application 40, as modified pursuant to Commissioner Hawkins' recommendation, initially failed to win approval on a tie vote. On the motion of Commissioner Winn, Application 40, as so modified, was reconsidered. On reconsideration, it was approved by a six to two vote. Application 47 was also approved by a six to two vote. Application 58, which proposed to allow new commercial agricultural uses within the UDB, and Application 62, with its revised population estimates and projections, were among the other applications that were approved by the Board of County Commissioners at the final adoption hearing. Of the applications seeking an extension of the UDB, only Applications 40 and 47 were approved. A total of 49 applications, either in their original form or as modified, were approved by the Board. The majority of these applications, like Applications 39, 40 and 47, sought to change one or more land use designations on the FLUM. Other approved applications, in addition to Applications 39, 40 and 47, that sought to have the Board of County Commissioners change a non- residential land use to a residential land use were Applications 12, 13, 14, 26, 28 and 44. 26/ Approximately 410 acres of land were redesignated on the FLUM from non-residential to residential land uses as a result of the approval of Applications 12, 13, 14, 26, 28, 39, 40, 44 and 47. Assuming that the properties that were the subject of these applications will be able to develop at the maximum residential densities indicated on the FLUM, these redesignations will have increased the supply of residential land in the County by approximately 1930 dwelling units. 208. The approval of Applications 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 11, 14, 23, 27, 29, 45 and 46 resulted in the redesignation on the FLUM of approximately 115 acres of land from residential to non-residential land uses. Assuming that the properties that were the subject of these applications would have been able to develop at the maximum residential densities indicated on the FLUM, these redesignations may be said to have reduced the supply of residential land in the County by approximately 910 dwelling units. Applications 5, 6, 19, 22 and 24 sought to have land designated on the FLUM for "low density residential" use redesignated for "office/residential" use. Applications 8, 15 and 16 sought to have land designated on the FLUM "medium density residential" redesignated "office/residential." These eight applications were all approved. Approximately 105 acres of land were redesignated "office/residential" as a result of the approval of these eight applications. Assuming that the properties that were the subject of these applications would have been able to develop at their maximum pre-approval residential densities, as indicated on the FLUM, and further assuming that, after these redesignations, they will be developed as office sites exclusively, these redesignations may be said to have reduced the supply of residential land in the County by approximately 1960 dwelling units. If the assumption were made that these redesignated properties will experience both office and residential development 27/ and that the residential development will amount to one half the number of dwelling units that would have been constructed had the property not been redesignated, the reduction in the supply of residential land resulting from these redesignations instead would be 980 dwelling units. It is unlikely, however, that as many as 980 dwelling units will be built on these properties. There were other applications, in addition to those specifically mentioned above, that sought FLUM redesignations and were approved by the Board of County Commissioners, however, they involved a change from one non- residential land use to another non-residential land use and therefore did not have a direct impact on the supply of residential land in the County. When viewed collectively, the changes made by the Board of County Commissioners to the FLUM during the Amendment Cycle have not been shown to have resulted in any appreciable increase in the supply of residential land in the County as a whole. That is not to say, however, that the Board's actions did not serve to increase the supply of residential land in certain areas of the County. For instance, by virtue of its approval of Applications 40 and 47, the Board added to the supply of residential land on the urban fringe in Study Area G and Study Area I, respectively. Following its vote on each of the pending applications, the Board adopted Ordinance No. 90-28, which amended the CDMP in a manner consistent with Board's actions on these applications. (The CDMP, as so amended, will be referred to as the "1990 CDMP." Ordinance No. 90-28 will be referred to as the 1990 Plan Amendment.) The CDMP, as Amended by Ordinance No. 90-28: Key Provisions Statement of Legislative Intent The 1990 CDMP contains a Statement of Legislative Intent. It provides as follows: This Statement expresses the legislative in- tent of the Board of County Commissioners with regard to the Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP). This statement is applicable to the CDMP in its entirety and is declared to be incorporated by reference into each element thereof. Nothing in the CDMP shall be construed or applied to constitute a temporary or permanent taking of private property or the abrogation of vested rights as determined to exist by the Code of Metropolitan Dade County, Florida. The CDMP shall not be construed to preempt considerations of fundamental fairness that may arise from a strict application of the Plan. Accordingly, the Plan shall not be deemed to require any particular action where the Plan is incomplete or internally inconsistent, or that would constitute a taking of private property without due process or fair compensa- tion, or would deny equal protection of the laws. The CDMP is intended to set general guide- lines and principles concerning its purposes and contents. The CDMP is not a substitute for land development regulations. The CDMP contains long-range policies for Dade County. Numerous policies contained in the CDMP must be implemented through the County's land development regulations. Neces- sary revisions will be made to the County's land development regulations by the date required by Section 163.3202, FS. Other policies of the plan propose the establishment of new administrative programs, the modifica- tion of existing programs, or other administra- tive actions. It is the intent of Dade County that these actions and programs be initiated by the date that Dade County adopts its next Evaluation and Appraisal (EAR) report, unless another date is specifically established in the Plan. The CDMP is not intended to preempt the processes whereby applications may be filed for relief from land development regulations. Rather, it is the intent of the Board of County Commissioners that such applications be filed, considered and finally determined, and that administrative remedies exhausted, where a strict application of the CDMP would contravene the legislative intent as expressed herein. The Board recognizes that a particular application may bring into conflict, and neces- sitate a choice between, different goals, prior- ities, objectives, and provisions of the CDMP. While it is the intent of the Board that the land use element be afforded a high priority, other elements must be taken into consideration in light of the Board's responsibility to pro- vide for the multitude of needs of a large heavily populated and diverse community. This is especially true with regard to the siting of public facilities. Recognizing that County Boards and agencies will be required to balance competing policies and objectives of the CDMP, it is the intention of the County Commission that such boards and agencies consider the overall intention of the CDMP as well as portions particularly applicable to a matter under consideration in order to ensure that the CDMP, as applied, will protect the public health, safety and welfare. The term "shall" as used in the CDMP shall be construed as mandatory, subject, however, to this Statement of Legislative Intent. The term "should" shall be construed as directory. The FLUM The FLUM is an integral part of the 1990 CDMP's future land use element. It shows the proposed distribution, extent and location of permitted land uses for the entire land area of Dade County and, in so doing, reflects the CDMP's goals, policies and objectives, to the extent possible. In addition to a year 2000 UDB, the FLUM also has a year 2010 Urban Expansion Area Boundary. There are 18 land use categories represented on the FLUM: estate density residential communities; low density residential communities; low-medium density residential communities; medium density residential communities; medium-high density residential communities; high density residential communities; industrial and office; restricted industrial and office; business and office; office/residential; institutional and public facility; parks and recreation; agriculture; open lands; environmental protection; environmentally protected parks; transportation; and terminals. The FLUM also depicts activity centers, expressways, major and minor roadways, levees, canals and other bodies of water. The following advisement is set forth on the face of the FLUM: This plan map is not a zoning map! Within each map category on this plan map, numerous land uses, zoning districts and housing types may occur. This plan map may be interpreted only as provided in the plan text entitled "Inter- pretation of the Land Use Plan Map: Policy of the Land Use Element." That text provides necessary definitions and standards for allow- able land uses, densities or intensities of use for each map category and for interpretation and application of the plan as a whole. That text must be interpreted in its entirety in interpreting any one plan map category, and no provision shall be used in isolation from the remainder. The land use plan map (LUP), in conjunction with all other adopted components of the Com- prehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP), will govern all development-related actions taken or authorized by Metropolitan Dade County. The LUP Map reflects municipal land use policies adopted in municipal comprehen- sive plans. However, this plan does not supersede local land use authority of incor- porated municipal governments currently auth- orized in accordance with the Metro-Dade Charter. For further guidance on future land uses authorized within incorporated municipal- ities, consult the local comprehensive plan adopted by the pertinent municipality. The Interpretative Text That portion of the 1990 CDMP entitled "Interpretation of the Land Use Plan Map: Policy of the Land Use Element" (Interpretive Text) provides in pertinent part as follows with respect to the residential land use categories shown on the FLUM: Residential Communities The areas designated Residential Communities on the LUP map permit housing types ranging from detached single-family to attached multi- family structures including manufactured housing and mobile home parks. The residen- tial communities designations indicate the overall residential density for the area. Also permitted in residential communities, in keeping with the Plan's objectives and poli- cies, are secondary neighborhood and community serving uses such as schools, parks, and houses of worship. Some additional uses such as day care centers, foster care and group housing facilities and similar uses, and neighborhood serving institutional and utility uses may also be permitted in residential com- munities in keeping with the circumstances and conditions outlined in this section, and with the objectives and policies of this plan. * * * The Land Use Plan Map includes six residential density categories which are depicted on the Plan map by different symbols/colors. Each category is defined in terms of its maximum allowable gross residential density. Develop- ment at lower than maximum density is allowed and may be required where conditions warrant. For example, in instances where a large portion of the "gross residential acreage" is not a part of the "net" residential building area, the necessity to limit the height and scale of the buildings to that compatible with the sur- rounding area may limit the gross density. The categories do not have a bottom limit or min- imum required density; all categories include the full range of density from one dwelling unit per five acres up to the stated maximum for the category. . . . Estate Density. This density range is typi- cally characterized by detached estates which utilize only a small portion of the total par- cel. Clustering, and a variety of housing types may, however, be authorized. The maxi- mum density allowed in this category is 2.5 dwelling units per gross acre. Low Density. A larger number of units is allowed in this category than in the Estate density. The maximum density allowed is 6 dwelling units per gross acre. This density category is generally characterized by single family type housing, e.g., single family detached, cluster, zero lot line, and town- houses. It could possibly include low-rise apartments with extensive surrounding open space providing that the maximum gross den- sity is not exceeded. Low-Medium Density. This category allows up to 13 dwelling units per gross acre. The types of housing typically found in areas designated low-medium density include single family homes, townhomes, and low-rise apart- ments. Medium Density. This Density Category allows up to 25 dwelling units per gross acre. The type of housing structures typically permitted in this category include townhouses, low-rise and medium rise apartments. Medium-High Density. This category accommo- dates apartment buildings ranging up to 60 dwelling units per gross acre. In this cate- gory, the height of buildings, and therefore, the attainment of densities approaching the maximum, depends to a great extent on the dimensions of the site, conditions such as location and availability of services, ability to provide sufficient off-street parking, and the compatibility with, and impact of the development on surrounding areas. High Density. This category permits up to 125 dwelling units per gross acre. This den- sity is only found in a few areas located within certain municipalities where land costs are very high and where services will be able to meet the demands. * * * Traditional Neighborhood Developments (TNDs). Traditional neighborhood developments which incorporate a broad mixture of uses under specific design standards may also be ap- proved in Residential Communities in the manner specifically authorized in this sub- section. The purpose of the traditional neighborhood development is to enable the creation of new communities that offer social and architectural quality, characteristic of early American town planning. Many of these early models, developed prior to 1940, offer insight into the design of coherently planned communities. The concept is patterned after those inherent in these earlier developments and provides a design clarity through a hierarchy of streets, a focus towards pedes- trian activity, low scale community buildings and open squares as the focal point of the neighborhood. The County shall adopt land use regulations that incorporate the objectives of a traditional neighborhood development concept. . . 28/ Within areas designated on the LUP map as Res- idential Communities, a mixed use Traditional Neighborhood Development permitting business, office, industrial, artisanal, home occupa- tions, and other uses authorized by this subsection may be approved providing that the following criteria are met: The minimum contiguous land area is 40 acres and is not located within the Estate density category; and The site is under single-ownership at the time the master development plan or equivalent is approved; and Residential density does not exceed the density depicted on the Land Use Plan Map, except that a maximum density of ten dwelling units per acre may be approved in the Low Density category; and Public open spaces such as squares or parks comprise a minimum of five acres or five percent of the developed area, whichever is greater; and Civic uses, such as meeting halls, schools, day care centers and cultural facilities com- prise a minimum of two percent of the developed area; and Business, office and industrial uses, that are separate from residential mixed uses do not exceed seven percent of the gross land area; and Where the TND borders or is adjacent to land that is designated Estate, Low Density or Low-Medium Residential and land so designated is used for residences or is vacant, the sep- arate business, office, and industrial uses identified in item No. 6 above, and those business, office, and industrial uses mixed with other uses shall not be permitted within 175 feet of the TND boundary and all non-residential components of such uses shall be acoustically and visually screened from said bordering or adjacent land; and when a TND borders land designated Agriculture or Open Land said business, office or industrial uses shall not be permitted within 330 feet of said TND boundary; and Residential, and residential uses mixed with shop-front, artisanal and home occupation uses comprise the remainder of the developed area; and In calculating gross residential density uses listed in item No. 6 shall be excluded, all other uses may be used to determine the maximum permitted density. The Interpretive Text provides that, with respect to the "office/residential" land use category, "[u]ses allowed in this category include both professional and clerical offices and residential uses." The following is stated in the Interpretative Text in pertinent part with respect to the "agriculture" land use category: Agriculture The area designated as "Agriculture" contains the best agricultural land remaining in Dade County. 29/ The principal uses in this area should be agriculture, uses ancillary to and directly supportive of agriculture such as packing houses on compatible sites, and farm residences. Uses ancillary to, and necessary to support the rural residential community of the agricultural area may also be approved, including houses of worship and local schools. In order to protect the agricultural industry it is important that uses incompatible with agriculture, and uses and facilities that support or encourage urban development are not allowed in this area. Residential development that occurs in this area is allowed at a density of no more than one unit per five acres. 30/ Creation of new parcels smaller than five acres for residential use may be approved in the Agriculture area only if the immediate area surrounding the subject parcel on three or more sides is predominantly parcelized in a similar manner, and if a division of the sub- ject land would not precipitate additional land division in the area. No business or industrial use should be approved in the area designated Agriculture unless the use is directly supportive of local agricultural production, is located on an existing arterial roadway, and has adequate water supply and sewage disposal in accordance with Chapter 24 of the County Code, and the development order specifies the approved use(s). Other uses compatible with agriculture and with the rural residential character may be approved in the Agriculture area only if deemed to be a public necessity, or if deemed to be in the public interest and no suitable site for the use exists outside the Agriculture area. Existing quar- rying and ancillary uses in the Agriculture area may continue operation and be considered for approval of expansion. Also included in the Agriculture area are enclaves of estate density residential use approved and grandfathered by zoning, owner- ship patterns and platting activities which predate this Plan. The grandfather provisions of Sections 33-196, 33-280, and 33-280.1 of the Dade County Code shall continue to apply to this area except that lots smaller than 15,000 square feet in area are not grandfathered hereby. Moreover, all existing lawful uses and existing zoning are deemed to be consistent with this Plan unless such a use or zoning: (a) is found through a subsequent planning study, as provided in Land Use Policy 5D, to be inconsistent with the foregoing grandfather provisions or with the criteria set forth below; and (b) the implementation of such a finding will not result in a temporary or permanent taking or in the abrogation of vested rights as deter- mined by the Code of Metropolitan Dade County, Florida. . . . Also deemed to be consistent with this Plan are uses and zoning districts which have been approved by a final judicial decree which has declared this Plan to be invalid or unconstitutional as applied to a specific piece of property. This paragraph does not, however, authorize the approval or expansion of any use inconsistent with this plan. To the contrary it is the intent of this Plan to contain and prevent the expansion of inconsistent development in the Agriculture area. Activity centers are described in the Interpretative Text as "high- intensity design unified areas which will contain a concentration of different urban functions integrated both horizontally and vertically." The Interpretative Text contains the following discussion regarding the UDB: Urban Development Boundary The Urban Development Boundary (UDB) is in- cluded on the LUP map to distinguish the area where urban development may occur through the year 2000 from the areas where it should not occur. Development orders permitting urban development will generally be approved within the UDB at some time through the year 2000 provided that level-of-service standards for necessary public facilities will be met. Adequate countywide development capacity will be maintained within the UDB by expanding the UDB when the need for such expansion is deter- mined to be necessary through the Plan review and amendment process. The CDMP seeks to facilitate the necessary service improvements within the UDB to accom- modate the land uses indicated on the LUP map within the year 2000 time frame. Accordingly, public expenditures for urban service and infrastructure improvements shall be focused on the area within the UDB, and urban infra- structure is discouraged outside the UDB. In particular, the construction of new roads, or the extension, widening and paving of existing arterial or collector roadways to serve areas outside the UDB at public expense will be per- mitted only if such roadways are shown on the LUP map and in the Traffic Circulation Element. The entire unincorporated area within the UDB is eligible to receive and utilize Severable Use Rights (SURs) in accordance with provi- sions of chapter 33-B, Code of Metropolitan Dade County. Accordingly, certain developments as specified in Chapter 33-B may be entitled to density or floor area bonuses as authorized by Chapter 33-B. No new commercial agricultural use of property may be established within the Urban Development Boundary, except on property designated Agri- culture on the LUP map or zoned AU (agricultural) or GU (interim). 31/ All property within the Urban Development Boundary not designated Agri- culture or zoned AU or GU shall not be permit- ted to be used for the establishment of any new commercial agricultural use. An additional exception is that land in utility easements or rights-of-way may be approved for new commercial agricultural uses where the use would be compat- ible with, and would have no unfavorable effect on, the surrounding area. Commercial agricultural uses include, without limitation, all uses of property associated with commercial horticulture; floriculture; viticulture; forestry; dairy; livestock; poultry; apiculture; pisciculture, when the property is used principally for the production of tropical fish; all forms of farm production; and all other such uses, except retail nurseries and retail greenhouses. Inci- dental agricultural use of property specifi- cally authorized by zoning which is otherwise consistent with the LUP map does not constitute commercial agriculture within the meaning of this provision. The Urban Expansion Area is described as follows in the Interpretative Text: The Land Use Map also contains a year 2010 Urban Expansion Area (UEA) Boundary. The UEA is comprised of that area located between the 2000 UDB and the 2010 UEA Boundary. The Urban Expansion Area is the area where cur- rent projections indicate that further urban development beyond the 2000 UDB is likely to be warranted some time between the year 2000 and 2010. Until these areas are brought within the year 2000 UDB through the Plan review and amendment process, they are allowed to be used in a manner consistent with the provisions set forth for lands designated as "Agriculture" or the applicable "Open Land" area. Urban infrastructure and services should be planned for eventual extension into the UEA, sometime between the years 2000 and 2010. However, if water or sewer lines or major roadway improvements are extended beyond the UEA in order to serve a necessary public facility that has been approved consistent with the Comprehensive Development Master Plan, these improvements should be sized or restric- ted to accommodate only the needs of the public facility. The significance of the UDB and UEA Boundary is explained in the Interpretative Text as follows: Critical in achieving the desired pattern of development is the adherence to the 2000 Urban Development Boundary (UDB) and 2010 Urban Expansion Area (UEA) Boundary. Given the fundamental influences of infrastructure and service availability on land markets and development activities, the CDMP has since its inception provided that the UDB serve as an envelope within which public expenditures for urban infrastructure will be confined. In this regard the UDB serves as an urban services boundary in addition to a land use boundary. Consistency with the CDMP will ensure that actions of one single-purpose agency does not foster development that could cause other agencies to respond in kind and provide facil- ities in unanticipated locations. Such uncoor- dinated single-purpose decision making can be fiscally damaging to government and can undermine other comprehensive plan objectives. The subject of plan amendments is also addressed in the Interpretative Text, which states the following on the subject: It is recognized that the development capacity of the area within the UDB and UEA will vary with time. Part of the supply will be util- ized and additional supply will be added from time-to-time through the approval of Plan Amendments. Some land will be built upon at densities which are higher than permitted by existing zoning because rezonings will occur in the future, and some development will occur at densities lower than that permitted by zoning. Moreover, impediments can arise to the utilization, at maximum potential densities, of all lands within the boundaries. In some urbanized areas, it may be difficult to acquire sufficiently large parcels of land. In other areas, neighborhood opposition to proposed developments could alter the assumed density or character of a particular area. Because the development capacity of the LUP map fluc- tuates with time, it will be reevaluated on a periodic basis as part of the Plan review and amendment process. The Interpretative Text enumerates the following as the "long- standing concepts embodied in Dade County's CDMP:" Control the extent and phasing of urban development in order to coordinate development with programmed provision of public services. Preserve and conserve land with valuable environmental characteristics, recreation uses, or scenic appeal. Encourage development in areas most suit- able due to soil conditions, water table level, vegetation type, and degree of flood hazard. Restrict development in particularly sensitive and unique natural areas. Maximize public ownership of beaches and shorelands within the Coastal Area to insure their preservation, conservation or public use. Minimize consumption of energy for trans- portation purposes and the amount of air pol- lution from transportation sources by encour- aging a more compact urban form. Shape the pattern of urban development to maximize the efficiency of existing public facilities and support the introduction of new public facilities or services such as improved mass transit systems. Preserve sound and stable residential neighborhoods. Rejuvenate decayed areas by promoting redevelopment, rehabilitation, infilling, and the development of activity centers containing a mixture of land uses. Promote development of concentrated activity centers of different sizes and char- acter to provide economies of scale and effi- ciencies of transportation and other services for both the public and private sectors. Redirect higher intensity development towards activity centers of areas of high countywide accessibility. Allocate suitable and sufficient sites for industrial and business districts to accommodate future employment needs. Prohibit new residential development and other noise sensitive activities from locations near airport noise impact zones. Avoid excessive scattering of industrial or commercial employment locations. Encourage agriculture as a viable economic use of suitable lands. The Goal and Selected Objectives and Policies of the Future Land Use Element The following is the goal of the future land use element (FLUE) of the 1990 CDMP: Provide the best possible distribution of land use, by type and density, to meet the physical, social, cultural and economic needs of the present and future resident and tourist popu- lation in a manner that will maintain or improve the quality of the natural and man-made environ- ment and amenities, and ensure the timely and efficient provision of services. The following are among the objectives and policies found in the 1990 CDMP's FLUE: Objective 1 Decisions regarding the location, extent and intensity of future land use in Dade County, and urban expansion in particular, will be based upon the physical and financial feasi- bility of providing, by the year 2000, all urbanized areas with services at Levels of Service (LOS) which meet or exceed the minimum adopted in the Capital Improvements Element. Policies 1A. All development orders authorizing new, or significant expansion of existing urban lands uses, shall be contingent upon the pro- vision of services at the Levels of Service (LOS) which meet or exceed the LOS standards specified in the Capital Improvements Element (CIE). Metro required by Chapter 163.3202, Florida Statutes (F.S.), implement the requirements of Section 163.3202(2)(g), F.S. 1B. Priority in the provision of services and facilities and the allocation of financial re- sources for services and facilities in Dade County shall be given first to serve the area within the Urban Development Boundary (UDB) of the Land Use Plan (LUP) map. Second priority in allocations for services and facilities shall support the staged development of the Urban Expansion Area (UEA). * * * Objective 3 The location and configuration of Dade County's urban growth from 1989 through the year 2010 shall emphasize concentration around centers of activity, renewal and rehabilitation of blighted areas, and contiguous urban expansion when warranted, rather than sprawl. Policies 3A. High intensity, well designed activity centers shall be facilitated by Metro-Dade County at locations having high countywide multimodal accessibility. * * * 3C. Metro-Dade shall approve infill devel- opment on vacant sites in currently urbanized areas, and redevelopment of substandard or underdeveloped environmentally suitable urban areas contiguous to existing urban development where all necessary urban services and facili- ties are projected to have capacity to accom- modate additional demand. 3D. Metro-Dade shall seek to prevent discon- tinuous, scattered development at the urban fringe particularly in the Agriculture Areas, through its biennial CDMP amendment process, regulatory and capital improvements programs and intergovernmental coordination activities. * * * 3H. Public facility and service providers shall give priority to eliminating any infra- structure deficiencies which would impede rehabilitation or renewal of blighted areas. 3I. In formulating or amending development regulations, Dade County shall avoid creating disincentives to redevelopment of blighted areas. Where redevelopment occurs within the urban area, requirements for contributions toward provision of public facilities may be moderated where underutilized facilities or surplus capacities exist, and credit toward required infrastructure contributions may be given for the increment of development replaced by redevelopment. * * * Objective 5 Dade County shall, by the year 2000, reduce the number of land uses which are inconsistent with the uses designated on the LUP map and interpretative text, or with the character of the surrounding community. Policies 5A. Uses designated on the LUP map and inter- pretative text, which generate or cause to generate significant noise, dust, odor, vibra- tion, or truck or rail traffic, shall be pro- tected from damaging encroachment by future approval of new incompatible uses such as residential uses. 5B. Residential neighborhoods shall be pro- tected from intrusion by uses that would disrupt or degrade the health, safety, tran- quility and overall welfare of the neighbor- hood by creating such impacts as excessive noise, light, glare, odor, vibration, dust, or traffic. 5C. Complementary, but potentially incompat- ible uses shall be permitted on sites with functional neighborhoods, communities or dis- tricts only where proper design solutions can and will be used to integrate the compatible and complementary elements and buffer any potentially incompatible elements. Objective 6 Upon the adoption of this plan, all public and private activity regarding the use, development and redevelopment of land and the provision of urban services and infrastructure shall be consistent with the goal, objectives and poli- cies of this Element, with the adopted Population Estimates and Projections, and with the future uses provided by the adopted Land Use Plan (LUP) map and accompanying text entitled "Interpreta- tion of the Land Use Plan Map," as balanced with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of all Ele- ments of the Comprehensive Plan. Policies 6A. The textual material entitled "Interpre- tation of the Land Use Plan Map" contained in this Element establishes standards for allowable land uses, and densities or intensities of use for each land use category identified on the adopted Land Use Plan (LUP) map, and is declared to be an extension of these adopted Land Use Policies. 6B. All development orders authorizing a new land use or development, or redevelopment, or significant expansion of an existing use shall be contingent upon an affirmative finding that the development or use conforms to, and is consistent with the goal, objectives and poli- cies of the CDMP including the adopted LUP map and accompanying "Interpretation of the Land Use Plan Map." 6C. All planning activities pertaining to development and redevelopment in Dade County shall be consistent with the "Population Esti- mates and Projections" contained in this Element, and with the locations and extent of future land uses as identified by the LUP map and its interpretative text. 6D. The area population projections shown on the map of "Population Estimates and Projec- tions" shall be used to guide public and private entities in planning for urban devel- opment and redevelopment and to guide the location, timing, and capacity of all urban services and facilities. Objective 7 Beginning in 1989 Dade County shall maintain a process for periodic amendment to the Land Use Plan map, consistent with the adopted Goals, Objectives and Policies of this Plan, which will provide that the Land Use Plan Map accommodates urban expansion at projected countywide rates. Policies 7A. Activity centers, industrial complexes, regional shopping centers, large-scale office centers and other concentrations of signifi- cant employment shall be recognized as poten- tial structuring elements of the Metropolitan area and shall be sited on the basis of metro- politan-scale considerations at locations with good countywide multi-modal accessibility. 7B. Distribution of neighborhood or community serving retail sales uses and personal and pro- fessional offices throughout the urban area shall reflect the spatial distribution of the residential population, among other salient social, economic and physical considerations. 7C. Residential development shall occur in locations that are suitable as reflected by such factors as the following: recent trends in location and design of residential units; projected availability of service and infra- structure capacity; proximity and accessi- bility to employment, commercial and cultural centers; avoidance of natural resource degra- dation; and maintenance or creation of amenities. 7D. In conducting its planning, regulatory, and capital improvements and intergovernmental coordination activities, Dade County shall seek to facilitate planning of residential areas as neighborhoods which include recrea- tional, educational and other public facilities, houses of worship, and safe and convenient cir- culation of automotive, pedestrian and bicycle traffic. 7E. Through its planning, regulatory, capital improvements and intergovernmental coordination activities, Dade County shall continue to pro- tect agriculture as a viable economic use of land in Dade County. * * * 7G. Necessary utility facilities may be lo- cated throughout Dade County in all land use categories as provided in the "Interpretation of the Land Use Plan Map" text. 7H. The maintenance of internal consistency among all Elements of the CDMP shall be a prime consideration in evaluating all requests for amendment to any Element of the Plan. Among other considerations, the LUP map shall not be amended to provide for additional urban expansion unless traffic circulation, mass transit, water, sewer, solid waste, drainage and park and recreation facilities necessary to serve the area are included in the plan and the associated funding programs are demonstra- ted to be viable. 7I. Applications requesting amendments to the CDMP Land Use Plan map shall be evaluated to consider consistency with the Goals, Ob- jectives and Policies of all Elements, other timely issues, and in particular the extent to which the proposal, if approved, would: Satisfy a deficiency in the Plan map to accommodate projected population or economic growth of the County; Enhance or impede provision of services at adopted LOS standards. Be compatible with abutting and nearby land uses; and Enhance or degrade environmental or histor- ical resources, features or systems of County significance. Objective 8 Dade County shall continue to maintain in the Code of Metropolitan Dade County and adminis- trative regulations, and shall enhance as nec- essary, by the date required by Section 163.3203, F.S., provisions which ensure that future land use and development in Dade County is consistent with the CDMP. * * * 8D. Dade County shall continue to investigate, maintain and enhance methods, standards and reg- ulatory approaches which facilitate sound com- patible mixing of uses in projects and communi- ties. 8E. Dade County shall enhance and formalize its standards for defining and ensuring compatibility among proximate uses, and requirements for buffer- ing. Factors that will continue to be considered in determining compatibility include, but are not limited to noise, lighting, shadows, access, traffic, parking, height, bulk, landscaping, hours of operation, buffering and safety. Objective 9 Energy efficient development shall be accom- plished through metropolitan land use patterns, site planning, landscaping, building design, and development of multimodal transportation systems. Policies 9A. Dade County shall facilitate contiguous urban development, infill, redevelopment of substandard or underdeveloped urban areas, high intensity activity centers, mass transit supportive development, and mixed use projects to promote energy conservation. Selected Goals, Objectives and Policies of Other Elements The following is the goal of the 1990 CDMP's traffic circulation element: Develop, operate and maintain a safe, efficient and economical traffic circulation system in Metropolitan Dade County that provides ease of mobility to all people and for all goods, is consistent with desired land use patterns, conserves energy, and protects the natural environment. Policy 4C. of the traffic circulation element provides as follows: Dade County's priority in construction, main- tenance, and reconstruction of roadways, and the allocation of financial resources, shall be given first to serve the area within the Urban Development Boundary of the Land Use Plan Map. Second priority in transportation allocations shall support the staged develop- ment of the urbanizing portions of the County within the Urban Expansion Area. Transporta- tion improvements which encourage development in Agriculture and Open Land areas shall be avoided, except for those improvements which are necessary for public safety and which serve the localized needs of these non-urban areas. The following are among the objectives and policies of the 1990 CDMP's aviation subelement: Objective 4 Minimize air space interactions and obstruc- tions to assure the safety of aviation users and operators and residents of Dade County. Policies * * * 4D. Support zoning that would protect exis- ting and proposed aviation flight paths con- sistent with federal agency guidelines. 4E. Seek federal agency cooperation in pro- tecting future air space from development obstructions. * * * Objective 8 Maximize compatibility between airports and the surrounding communities. Policies * * * 8B. Dade County shall implement Federal Aviation Administration FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Studies completed for appro- priate airports through the Land Use Element of the Dade County Comprehensive Master Plan, the Dade County Zoning Ordinance, and the South Florida Building Code to provide for land use compatibility in the vicinity of these air- ports. Objective 6 and Policy 6A. of the 1990 CDMP's housing element provide as follows: Objective 6 Increase residential accessibility to public facilities, services, and employment centers throughout the County to include parks and other recreational amenities. Policies 6A. Utilize existing planning and programming mechanisms to insure that new residential devel- opment occurs only if it is coordinated with plans for the provision of an adequate level of services and facilities. Policy 6C. of the 1990 CDMP's conservation, aquifer recharge and drainage element provides as follows: Areas in Dade County having soils with good potential for agricultural use without addi- tional drainage of wetlands shall be protected from premature urban encroachment until the need for such urban conversion is demonstrated. Objective 1 and Policy 1A. of the 1990 CDMP's water, sewer and solid waste element provide as follows: Objective 1 In order to serve those areas where growth is encouraged and discourage urban sprawl, the County shall plan and provide for potable water supply, sanitary sewage disposal, and solid waste disposal services on a countywide basis in concert and in conformance with the future land use element of the comprehensive plan. Policies 1A. The area within the Urban Development Boundary of the adopted Land Use Plan Map shall have the first priority in providing potable water supply, sanitary sewage disposal, and solid waste disposal services, and for commit- ting financial resources to these services. Future development in the designated Urban Expansion Area shall have second priority in planning or investments for these services. Investments in public water and sewer service shall be avoided in those areas designated for Agriculture, Open Space, or Environmental Protection on the Land Use Plan map, except where essential to eliminate or prevent a threat to the public health or safety. Objectives 3, 4 and 5 and Policies 3B., 4A., 4B. and 5A. of the 1990 CDMP's capital improvements element provide as follows: Objective 3 Upon adoption of this Plan land use decisions will be made in the context of available fiscal resources such that scheduling and providing capital facilities for new development will not degrade adopted service levels. Policies * * * 3B. Service and facility impacts of new de- velopment must be identified and quantified so that sufficient public facilities will be planned and programmed to be available when needed. All development orders authorizing new, or significant expansion of existing urban land uses, shall be contingent upon the provision of services at the Levels of Service (LOS) which meet or exceed the adopted LOS standards. * * * Objective 4 Levels of service standards for those services listed in the CIE will be upgraded and main- tained at adopted levels. Policies 4A. By the date set in Section 163.3202 F.S., Dade County shall formalize requirements that all new development regardless of size which benefits from the provision of public facili- ties and infrastructure will bear an equitable share of the costs of such facilities, make contribution in kind or transfer land, in amounts necessary to accommodate the impact of proposed development. 4B. Appropriate funding mechanisms will be adopted and applied by Dade County in order to assure the fiscal resources to maintain acceptable levels of service. Such funding mechanisms include special tax districts, municipal taxing service units, local option taxes, user fees, local gas taxes, general obligation bonds, impact fees, and special purpose authorities among others. * * * Objective 5 Upon the adoption of this plan development approvals will strictly adhere to all adopted growth management and land development regu- lations and will include specific reference to the means by which public facilities and infrastructure will be provided. Policies 5A. As a priority, previously approved de- velopment will be properly served prior to new development approvals under the provisions of this Plan. First priority will be to serve the area within the Urban Development Boundary (UDB) of the Land Use Plan (LUP) map. Second priority in investments for services and facilities shall support the staged development of the Urban Expansion Area (UEA). Urban ser- vices and facilities which support or encourage urban development in Agriculture and Open Land areas shall be avoided, except for those improvements necessary to protect public health and safety and which service localized needs. This element also includes a five-year schedule of capital improvements. Transmittal of Plan Amendment to the Department On or about April 3, 1990, the County Manager transmitted to the Department Ordinance No. 90-28, along with other documentation, including the written material that the Suchmans had submitted in support of their application, as well as a document prepared by the Planning Department which purported to provide "a synopsis of the information received by the Board of County Commissioners as bases for approving the applications subject to DCA objections." The Planning Department's synopsis stated the following with respect to Applications 39, 40 and 47: Application No. 39 The flight path for training flights around Tamiami-Kendall Airport circle around this application site but do not directly fly over this site. This application represents urban infill rather than leap frog development. Approval of residential use on this site will allow people to live in close proximity to the employment center around the Tamiami-Kendall Airport. Application No. 40 The site will be used for a Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND). A covenant was provided to ensure this. Services are available on sites immediately to the east. The area is not flood prone, or environmen- tally sensitive in any way. Extensive testimony and documentation was received which casts doubt on the accuracy of the Planning Department's estimates and pro- jections of growth in this area. (See enclosed exhibits). This site is nearby the industrial and office employment center which is developing around the Tamiami-Kendall Airport, therefore, urbanization of this site complements and supports the policy of promoting development around activity centers. The extension of the Coral Reef Drive corridor provides an alternative to the Kendall Drive corridor as a location for additional urban development. * * * Application 47 The site is bordered on the east and south by the year 2000 Urban Development Boundary (UDB). It is in the logical path of future urban development. To the south is the urban- izing area of Homestead. Pockets of estate residential homes and zoning exist in the area designated Agricul- ture to the north and west of this site. There are not level of service problems in the area. The area is not flood prone. The specific density of estate residences to be built on this site is not established by approving the CDMP amendment; that will be decided at a future zoning hearing. The transmittal package sent by the County Manager was received by the Department on April 6, 1990. Suchmans' Request to Receive Notice of the Department's Action By letter dated March 30, 1990, David Goldwich, Esquire, counsel for the Suchmans, requested that the Department send him a copy of the "notice of intent to find the CDMP Application No. 40 in compliance or not in compliance with Chapter 163." The Department responded to Goldwich's letter by sending him a letter, dated April 17, 1990, in which it promised to provide him with a copy of the notice of intent when it was issued. The Department's Compliance Determination: Notice and Statement of Intent In reviewing the County's 1990 Plan Amendment, the Department treated each approved application as a separate amendment to the CDMP. Following its review of these approved applications, the Department issued its notice of intent "to find the amendment(s) adopted by Ordinance 90- 28, Amendment Nos. 39, 40 and 47 NOT IN COMPLIANCE and Amendment Nos. 1 to 9, 11 to 16, 19, 22 to 24, 26 to 29, 44 to 46, 49, 51, 53 and 55 to 71 IN COMPLIANCE, pursuant to Sections 163.3184 and 163.3187, F.S." On or about May 15, 1990, the Department sent a copy of the notice of intent to the Miami Herald, along with a letter requesting that the notice be published in the May 21, 1990, edition of the Herald. Through no fault of the Department's, the notice was published in the May 24, 1990, edition of the Herald, instead of the May 21, 1990, edition as the Department had requested. The Department mailed a copy of the notice of intent to the Suchmans' counsel, 32/ although it was never received. By letter dated May 18, 1990, to Mayor Clark, the Department advised the County of its compliance determination. On May 21, 1990, the Department issued a statement of intent in which it explained the bases for its determination that "Amendment Nos. 39, 40 and 47 [were] NOT IN COMPLIANCE." In its statement of intent, the Department alleged that "Amendments 40 and 47 are not supported by an adequate suitability analysis of the vacant land to which they apply, or an adequate analysis documenting the need for the UDB expansion [in violation of] Rules 9J-5.005(2)(a), 9J- 5.006(2)(b) and 9J-5.006(2)(c), F.A.C.;" "Amendments 40 and 47 are inconsistent with other provisions in the plan (including but not limited to Objectives 1, 3 and 7, Policies 1A, 1B, 3D, and 7G and implementing procedures on p. 33 and 34 of the Future Land Use Element) concerning discouraging urban sprawl and prioritizing public facilities within the UDB [in violation of] Rules 9J- 5.005(5)(a), 9J-5.006(3)(b)7. and 9J-5.011(2)(b)3., F.A.C.;" "Amendments 40 and 47 are inconsistent with Objective 7, Policies 7E, H and I, and implementing procedures on p. 34 and 35 of the Future Land Use Element, and other provisions of the plan concerning future expansion of the UDB [in violation of] Rules 9J- 5.005(5)(a) and (b), F.A.C.;" "Amendments" 40 and 47 result in "an internal inconsistency because [they] negate the intended effect [of the settlement agreement between the Department and the County] of allowing roadway degradation in existing urban areas, which is to encourage development and redevelopment in such areas, promote public transportation and discourage urban sprawl" and, consequently, these amendments are in violation of "Rules 9J-5.006(3)(b)7. and 9J-5.011(3)(b)3., F.A.C.;" "[A]mendments 40 and 47 are not supported by data analysis which justifies changing the agricultural land use to industrial or residential land use [in violation of] Rules 9J-5.005(2)(a) and 9J-5.006(2)(c), F.A.C.;" "Amendment" 39 "inappropriately places a residential area within a proposed aviation flight path which is inconsistent with Objective 4 and Policy 4D in the Port and Aviation Element of the Dade Comprehensive Plan [in violation of] Rules 9J-5.005(5)(a) and (b), 9J-5.006(3)(b)3. and 9J- 5.006(3)(c)2., F.A.C.; "Amendments" 40 and 47 cause the CDMP to be inconsistent with Goal (16)(a) and Policies (16)(b)(2) and 18(b)(1) of the State Comprehensive Plan, as well as Policies 57.1.2 and 69.1.1 of the South Florida Regional Policy Plan; and "Amendment" 39 causes the CDMP to be inconsistent with Policy 69.1.1 of the South Florida Regional Policy Plan. Referral to the Division: The Department's Petition and Amended Petition On June 8, 1990, the Department filed a petition with the Division of Administrative Hearings. Appended to the petition were copies of the Department's notice of intent and its statement of intent. The Department alleged in the petition that the "plan amendments" made by the County through the adoption of Ordinance No. 90-28 were: not in compliance because they contain the "inconsistent provisions" described in the Statement of Intent and for the following additional reasons: Amendment 39 is inconsistent with Objec- tives 5, 6 and 7 and Policies 5B, 7C, 7D, and 7I-3 of the plan's Future Land Use Element. Rules 9J-5.005(5)(a) and (6), F.A.C. Amendment 40 is inconsistent with Objec- tives 5 and 6 and Policies 5B, 7A, 7B, 7C and 7D, of the plan's Future Land Use Element. Rule 9J-5.005(5)(a) and (b). Amendment 47 is inconsistent with Objectives 5 and 6 and Policies 5B, 7A, 7B, 7C and 7D of the plan's Future Land Use Element. On June 19, 1990, the Department filed an amended petition with the Division. That portion of the original petition excerpted above was modified to read as follows in the amended petition: The plan amendments are not in compliance because they contain the "inconsistent provisions" de- scribed in the Statement of Intent and for the following additional reasons: Amendment 40 is inconsistent with Objec- tives 5 and 6, and Policies 5B, 7A, 7B, 7C, and 7D, of the plan's Future Land Use Element. Rule 9J-5.005(5)(a) and (b). Amendment 47 is inconsistent with Objec- tives 5 and 6 and Policies 5B, 7C and 7D of the plan's Future Land Use Element. Rules 9J-5.005(5)(a) and (b). Amendments 40 and 47 are inconsistent with the following provisions of the State Comprehensive Plan: Land Use Goal (16)(a) and Policies (16)(b)1 and 2; Downtown Revitalization Goal (17)(a) and Policy (17)(b)1; Public Facilities Goal (18)(a) and Poli- cies (18)(b)1 and 2; Economy Policies (22)(b) 3 and 12; Agriculture Goal (23)(a). The Objectors' Petition for Leave to Intervene and Rist's Amended Petition On June 26, 1990, the Objectors filed with the Division a joint petition for leave to intervene in this matter. The petition incorporated the allegations that the Department had made in the original petition it had filed with the Division, as well as the recommendations that the Dade County Planning Department had made with respect to Applications 39, 40 and 47. In addition, the Objectors alleged the following in their petition regarding these approved applications: [S]aid amendments 39, 40, and 47 are inconsis- tent with the State Comprehensive Plan, Sec- tion 187.201, F.S., specifically subsections 16a, 16b1, 16b2, 17a, 17b1, 18a, 18b1, 18b2, 20a, 22b3, 22b12, and 23a. Briefly put, the amendments fail, inter alia, to preserve natural resources; fail to maintain and expand agriculture; fail to encourage the separation of rural and urban life; provide for incompatible neighboring uses; promote urban sprawl; waste public and private assets; and fail to aid in a state transpor- tation system. * * * The amendments are not supported by data showing a need for the uses approved [and] thus violate Rule 9J-5.006(2)(c), Florida Administrative Code. On December 10, 1990, at the outset of the final hearing in the instant case, Objector Rist requested permission to file an amended petition which contained the following additional allegations not found in the Objectors' joint petition for leave to intervene: Amendments 40 and 47 do not reflect and are inconsistent with "Interpretation of the Land Use Plan Map: Policy of the Land Use Element" pages I-35 through 39 and not pages 33 through 35 of the Future Land Use Element as erroneously cited in the original petition. It is alleged that amendment 40 and 47 do not reflect and are inconsistent with Policies 3A, 3H, 5A, and 7A of the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Amendments 39, 40 and 47 do not reflect and are inconsistent with Policy 6C of the Con- servation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Amendment 39 does not reflect and is incon- sistent with Objective 8 of the Ports and Avia- tion Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Amendments 40 and 47 are inconsistent with Policy 23(b)2 of the State Comprehensive Plan. Miscellaneous Findings: The State Comprehensive Plan The State Comprehensive Plan addresses issues of statewide importance. The following are among the more than 300 individual goals and policies which comprise the State Comprehensive Plan: LAND USE.- Goal.- In recognition of the importance of preserving the natural resources and enhanc- ing the quality of life of the state, develop- ment shall be directed to those areas which have in place, or have agreements to provide, the land and water resources, fiscal abilities, and service capacity to accommodate growth in an environmentally acceptable manner. Policies.- Promote state programs, investments, and development and redevelopment activities which encourage efficient development and occur in areas which will have the capacity to service new population and commerce. Develop a system of incentives, and disin- centives which encourages a separation or urban and rural land uses while protecting water supplies, resource development, and fish and wildlife habitats. * * * DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION.- Goal.- In recognition of the importance of Florida's developing and redeveloping down- towns to the state's ability to use existing infrastructure and to accommodate growth in an orderly, efficient and environmentally accept- able manner, Florida shall encourage the cen- tralization of commercial, governmental, retail, residential, and cultural activities within downtown areas. Policies.- 1. Provide incentives for developing land in a way that maximizes the uses of existing public facilities. * * * PUBLIC FACILITIES.- Goal.- Florida shall protect the sub- stantial investments in public facilities that already exist and shall plan for and finance new facilities to serve residents in a timely, orderly, and efficient manner. Policies.- Provide incentives for developing land in a way that maximizes the uses of existing pub- lic facilities. Promote rehabilitation and reuse of exis- ting facilities, structures, and buildings as an alternative to new construction. * * * (20) TRANSPORTATION.- (a) Goal.- Florida shall direct future trans- portation improvements to aid in the management of growth and shall have a state transportation system that integrates highway, air, mass tran- sit, and other transportation modes. * * * THE ECONOMY.- Goal.- Florida shall promote an economic climate which provides economic stability, max- imizes job opportunities, and increases per capita income for its residents. Policies.- * * * Maintain, as one of the state's primary economic assets, the environment, including clean air and water, beaches, forests, historic landmarks, and agricultural and natural resour- ces. * * * 12. Encourage the development of a business climate that provides opportunities for the growth and expansion of existing state indus- tries, particularly those industries which are compatible with Florida's environment. * * * AGRICULTURE.- Goal.- Florida shall maintain and strive to expand its food, agriculture, ornamental horticulture, aquaculture, forestry, and re- lated industries in order to be a healthy and competitive force in the national and inter- national marketplace. Policies. Ensure that goals and policies contained in state and regional plans are not interpreted to permanently restrict the conversion of agricultural lands to other uses. Encourage diversification within the agri- culture industry, especially to reduce the vulnerability of communities that are largely reliant upon agriculture for either income or employment. Miscellaneous Findings: The Regional Plan for South Florida The South Florida Regional Planning Council has adopted a Regional Plan for South Florida to guide future development in Broward, Dade and Monroe Counties. The following are among the more than 650 individual goals and policies found in the Regional Plan: Regional Goal: 57.1 New development will not be permitted in areas where public facilities do not already exist, are not programmed, or cannot economic- ally be provided. Regional Policies: * * * 57.1.2 Give priority to development in areas that are in need of redevelopment and in areas within which adequate support services are either programmed or available Regional Goal: 58.1 Beginning in 1987, all land use plans and development regulations shall consider the compatibility of adjacent land uses, and the impacts of land uses on the surrounding environment. Regional Policies: * * * 58.1.7 Encourage the compatibility of adja- cent land uses. * * * Regional Policies: 64.2.1 Land use in and around air- and sea-ports must be strictly controlled to allow future increased operations, to optimize volume, and to prevent unnecessary social or economic conflicts and costs. * * * Regional Goal: The 1990-1995 rate of loss of agricul- tural land to urban uses should be reduced by 10 percent from the 1980-1985 rate. Regional Policies: Encourage activities that maintain an economic/regulatory climate to ensure the con- tinued viability of agricultural interests when those interests are balanced against other concerns. The Regional Plan contains the following "background" information regarding the goal and policies pertaining to agriculture: Agriculture is one of Florida's most important industries. Traditional agriculture (citrus, vegetables and melons, livestock, poultry, greenhouse and nursery, field and other crops) contributed 27 billion dollars to Florida's economy in 1984. The agricultural vitality of South Florida stems from its climate which allows crops to be grown throughout the year, and the production of unique crops such as mangoes. In 1980, 126,785 acres of land, 4.7 percent of the total area in South Florida, was in cropland, pasture and range land, and forest land. This represents 0.5 percent of all such land in the State. Agricultural land is rapidly being lost. . . . When compared to Broward County, Dade County generates a significantly larger share of the economic activity due to agriculture in the Region. 33/ Current 1986 figures show 85,000 acres in agriculture, producing a large variety of crops. These include: tomatoes, snap beans, Irish potatoes, squash, tropical vegetables, sweet corn and fruits such as limes, mangoes and avocados. The markets for these fruits and vegetables are mainly in New York, Philadelphia, Boston, Atlanta, and Canada. Dade County is the largest producer of toma- toes, snap beans, and squash, of any county in the State of Florida. Over 90 percent of limes and mangoes produced in the United States are grown in Dade County. Dade County has the largest ornamental nursery industry of any county in the State of Florida. The main reason for Dade's success in agriculture is South Florida's climate. Vegetables are pro- duced in mid-winter when no other areas in the U.S. are producing. These crops provide fresh produce for the country's markets. It is significant to note that Dade County ranks last in the State for average farm size (59 acres) but is fifth in the State for market value of agricultural products. Agriculture is profitable on a per acre basis because the climate allows for double cropping. . . . In 1983, the agricultural industry produced less than 1 percent of total earnings in the South Florida region. The importance of this sector cannot be measured in dollar terms alone. The general public tends to view agriculture as a transitional land use. The benefits of maintaining the agricultural economy, however, are significant. Agricultural land can provide open space between areas with urban uses, it can serve as a watershed where water is collec- ted and later used in a farm or non-farm use, it can provide a habitat for wildlife, and it can provide unique beauty. New technology and agricultural practices are also providing new opportunities for disposing of sewage sludge on agricultural lands, benefitting both the rural and urban sectors. . . . Agricultural research activities have already yielded many benefits to South Florida agri- culture. Progress has been made in developing: more efficient irrigation systems, integrated pest management, improved strains of crops in production, as well as new crops to put into production. The findings of agricultural research can continue to improve the conser- vation, production, and marketing techniques available to South Florida farmers. South Florida farmers are experiencing many of the same problems that farmers in other high growth areas are facing. 34/ Land in South Florida that is suitable for agricul- tural use is also highly suitable for urban uses. Given the geographic configuration of the Florida Peninsula agricultural areas are never far removed from urban areas. Urban growth and the pressures of suburbanization are constantly felt by the Region's farmers. 35/ Many problems arise when agricultural and urban land uses interface. Non-farm residents complain because of farm noise, smells, and such practices as fertilizer and pesticide spraying. Nuisance suits and ordinances that prohibit certain farm practices create pressures that reduce the profitability and desirability to farm. 36/ Farm land conversion to urban uses is a serious problem in our Region. 37/ Analysis of prop- erty appraiser data shows the reduction in net agricultural acreage between 1980-1985 to be 18 percent for the Region. This figure applies mainly to agricultural land in Broward County. According to the Dade County Cooperative Exten- sion Service, net agricultural acreage has re- mained stable for the past 20 years. 38/ This is because land rezoned for urban uses has been replaced by other lands converted for agricul- tural use. This represents another problem. As agricultural land is converted to urban uses, agriculture may be pushed into wetlands, wild- life habitats, and other fragile ecosystems. Miscellaneous Findings: Urban Sprawl In November, 1989, the Department of Community Affairs published a Technical Memorandum (Volume IV, Number 4) which was designed "to help local governments and interested parties understand the requirements for discouraging urban sprawl that must be met to comply with Florida's planning requirements." The memorandum defines "urban sprawl" as "scattered, untimely, poorly planned urban development that occurs in urban fringe and rural areas and frequently invades lands important for environmental and natural resource protection." According to the memorandum, "urban sprawl typically manifests itself in one or more of the following inefficient land use patterns: (1) leapfrog development; (2) ribbon or strip development; and (3) large expanses of low-density, single-dimensional development." These land use patterns are described in the memorandum as follows: Leapfrog development occurs when new develop- ment is sited away from an existing urban area, bypassing vacant parcels located in or closer to the urban area that are suitable for development. It typically results in scattered, discontinuous growth patterns in rural areas which are frequently not appro- priate for urban development. * * * Leapfrog development is not usually mixed-use, multi-dimensional development. Consequently, it works against the creation of vibrant com- munities, creates much greater dependence on automobile transportation, and results in an inefficient use of land resources. Strip or ribbon development involves the loca- tion of high amounts of commercial, retail, office and often multi-family residential de- velopment in a linear pattern along both sides of major arterial roadways. * * * Low-density, single-dimensional development consists of single land uses, typically low-density residential, spread over large land areas. Frequently, the land is in rural, forestry, agricultural, or environmentally sensitive areas that should be protected from urban development. This land-intensive devel- opment pattern, stemming from uncontrolled, poorly planned, and premature development, tends to place an undue burden on external infrastructure and major transportation connectors by not providing a complementary mix of residential and nonresidential uses. Sprawling single-use development hinders the evolution of vibrant communities, reinforces dependence upon personal automobile use, generates higher public costs for facilities and services, promotes an inefficient and unattractive use of developable land, and frequently destroys significant environmental and natural resources. The memorandum's description of "urban sprawl" is consistent with the definition most commonly employed by professional planners. Indicators of sprawl mentioned in the memorandum include the following: The amount of residential land and densities depicted on the future land use map signifi- cantly exceed the projected need for residen- tial land use by type during the planning period. In discussing this indicator, the memorandum advised that "[a]ny plan in which the amount of land designated to receive development totals more than 125 percent of the amount needed to accommodate projected need will be closely scrutinized by the DCA." In order to ascertain whether development meets the definition of "urban sprawl" used by the Department, it may be necessary to determine whether the area involved is "rural" or on the "urban fringe." The memorandum suggests that such a determination may be based upon the area's population density. According to the memorandum, areas should be classified as follows based upon their population densities Density per square mile: Classification 0-200 Rural 201-500 Exurban 501-1000 Suburban 1001-2000 Medium [Urban] Density 2001-5000 High [Urban] Density 5000+ Highest Urban Density Among the specific techniques recommended in the memorandum to curb "urban sprawl" are establishing "urban service areas and urban growth boundaries," "[p]romoting urban infill development and redevelopment," and imposing "mixed-use and clustering requirements." With respect the latter technique, the memorandum states as follows: One of the most important and critical tech- niques for discouraging sprawl is strong mixed use policies which require residential and nonresidential uses to be located in reason- ably close proximity to each other. Such policies should promote an attractive, func- tionally and physically integrated mix of commercial, office, retail, residential (including affordable housing), and recrea- tional land uses. Development designed in this manner can even occur away from existing urban areas and not represent urban sprawl if it consists of a complementary mix of residen- tial and nonresidential land uses at medium to high densities, promotes high levels of inter- nal capture, does not rely on rural arterials for local traffic movements, and encourages pedestrian and bicycle traffic. The tradi- tional neighborhood development district code is an example of how this concept can be implemented.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby recommended that the Administration Commission enter a final order in Case No. 90-3599GM finding that Metropolitan Dade County's 1990 Plan Amendment is "in compliance," within the meaning of Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 26th day of December, 1991. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of December, 1991.
The Issue The issues are whether the City of Jacksonville's (City's) Ordinance No. 2008-628-E adopted on September 9, 2008, which remediates Ordinance No. 2007-383-E, is in compliance, and whether Chapter 2009-96, Laws of Florida, renders this proceeding moot, as alleged by Petitioner, Dunn Creek, LLC (Dunn or Petitioner).
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: The Parties Petitioner is the owner of a vacant 89.52-acre parcel of property in Council District 11, which is located in the northern reaches of the City. More specifically, the property lies around four or five miles east of the airport and Interstate 95, just south of Starratt Road between Dunn Creek Road and Saddlewood Parkway, and within a "couple of miles of Main Street," a major north-south State roadway. Dunn submitted oral and written comments to the City during the plan amendment process. As such, it is an affected person and has standing to participate in this proceeding. The City is a local government that is subject to the requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. It adopted the amendments being challenged by Dunn. Except for the challenged plan amendment, the City's current Plan is in compliance. Intervenor Britt owns property and resides within the City. The parties have stipulated to the facts necessary to establish that she is an affected person and therefore has standing to participate in this matter. The Department is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility for reviewing plan amendments of local governments, including the City. Background On May 14, 2007, the City adopted Ordinance No. 2007- 383-E, which amended the FLUM by changing the land use category on Dunn's property from LDR to RPI, which would allow an increase in the density and intensity of use on the property. (The LDR land use allows up to seven dwelling units per acre, while RPI is a mixed-use category that allows up to twenty dwelling units per acre if built to the maximum development potential.) On July 9, 2007, the Department issued its Notice and Statement of Intent finding that the Ordinance was not in compliance on the ground the map change was not supported by adequate data and analysis to demonstrate that the City would achieve and maintain the adopted LOS standards for the roadways within its jurisdiction. The Department further determined that the traffic study submitted by the City was not based on the maximum development allowed under the RPI category. On August 1, 2007, the Department initiated this case by filing a Petition, which tracked the objections described in its Notice and Statement of Intent. The City, Dunn, Department, and Britt later entered into settlement discussions. As part of the settlement discussions, Dunn submitted a revised traffic study and coordinated with other applicants for map changes to perform cumulative traffic impact studies. The parties eventually entered into a proposed settlement agreement which would limit development of the property to 672 condominiums/townhomes and 128,000 square feet of non-residential uses through an asterisk to the Plan. See Petitioner's Exhibit 1, p. 25. Also, the proposed settlement agreement noted that the data and analysis confirmed that certain future road improvements in the Capital Improvement Element (CIE) of the Plan would offset the traffic impacts of the new RPI land use. These were improvements to the East-West Connector (U.S. Highway 17 to New Berlin Road) and Starratt Road. Id. Finally, Dunn agreed to pay $4.3 million in "fair share money" to the City to offset the proportionate share of the development's traffic impacts. See Petitioner's Exhibit 6. The proportionate share agreement was intended to match the trip count anticipated from the RPI development. On September 3, 2008, the proposed settlement agreement and remedial amendment were presented to the City Council Land Use and Zoning Committee (Committee) for approval as Ordinance Nos. 2008-627 and 2008-628, respectively.3 At that meeting, the Committee heard comments from several members of the public who opposed the amendment, a Dunn attorney, and the City's Director of Planning and Development, William B. Killingsworth. The City Council member who represents District 11 and is a member of the Committee also spoke in opposition to the proposal. Based primarily upon data in a new traffic study prepared on August 28, 2008, by a member of Mr. Killingsworth's staff, and the opposition of the District 11 Council member, the Committee voted unanimously to revise the proposed settlement agreement and remedial amendment by changing the land use designation on the property back to LDR, its original classification. The revised settlement agreement was approved by Ordinance No. 2008- 627-E, while the remedial amendment changing the land use was approved by Ordinance No. 2008-628-E. The two Ordinances were then forwarded to the full City Council, which approved them on September 9, 2008. The revised settlement agreement was later executed by the City, Department, and Britt, but not by Dunn, and is known as the Sixteenth Partial Stipulated Settlement Agreement. See Petitioner's Exhibit 2. The essence of the revised agreement was that by changing the land use back to its original designation, the potential adverse impacts to transportation facilities would be resolved. Id. The remedial amendment package was transmitted by the City to the Department for its review. On December 18, 2008, the Department issued a Cumulative Notice of Intent to Find Ordinance Nos. 2007-383-E and 2008-628-E in compliance. On January 8, 2009, Dunn filed a Motion to Amend Petition to Intervene pursuant to Section 163.3184(16)(f)1., Florida Statutes. Because Dunn objected to the revised settlement agreement and challenged the remedial amendment, the parties were realigned, as reflected in the style of this case. On June 1, 2009, Senate Bill 360, engrossed as Chapter 2009-96, Laws of Florida, became effective. That legislation amends Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, in several respects. Among other things, it designates the City as a Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA).4 See § 163.3180(5), Fla. Stat. The new law also provides that plan amendments for land uses of a local government with a TCEA are deemed to meet the LOS standards for transportation. See § 163.3177(3)(f), Fla. Stat. Therefore, after a TCEA becomes effective, the Department no longer has the authority to review FLUM amendments in the TCEA for compliance with state-mandated transportation concurrency requirements. However, Senate Bill 360 contains a savings clause, which provides that "this subsection does not affect any contract or agreement entered into or development order rendered before the creation of the [TCEA] except as provided in s. 380.06(29)(e)." See § 163.3180(5)(f), Fla. Stat. The City, Department, and Britt contend that this provision "saves" the Sixteenth Partial Stipulated Settlement Agreement executed by them in November 2008, and that the Department still retains jurisdiction to consider the remedial amendment. Conversely, Dunn contends that the savings clause does not apply to the revised agreement, that the Department no longer has jurisdiction to review the challenged amendment, that the remedial amendment was not authorized, and that because the remedial amendment never became effective, the Department's Petition should be dismissed as moot. Objections to the Remedial Amendment Besides the contention that the proceeding is moot, Dunn raises three issues in its challenge to the amendment. First, it contends that the amendment is not supported by relevant and appropriate data and analysis related to traffic impacts and therefore is not in compliance. Second, Dunn contends that the amendment does not address the concerns raised in the Department's original Notice and Statement of Intent regarding the City's achieving and maintaining the adopted LOS of affected roadways. See § 163.3184(16)(f)2., Fla. Stat. Third, Dunn contends that due to procedural errors in the amendment adoption process, it was unduly prejudiced. Data and analysis Because almost all of the unresolved FLUM amendments in this case involved "traffic issues," on September 4, 2007, a Department employee, Melissa Hall, sent an email to counsel for a number of applicants, including Dunn, describing "what the department would be looking for in terms of traffic analysis." See Petitioner's Exhibit 12, p. 1. The email required those applicants to submit revised traffic studies. Id. Among other things, the applicants were advised that the revised traffic impact analysis for each amendment had to use "a professionally acceptable traffic impact methodology." Id. Dunn followed the requirements of the email in preparing its revised traffic study. At the time Ordinance No. 2007-383-E was adopted, based on total background traffic, which includes existing traffic plus reserve trips for approved but not-yet-built developments, eight road segments in the study area already failed to meet LOS standards. (LOS E is the adopted passing standard on those roadways.) The study area includes affected roadways within a two-mile radius of the boundaries of the proposed project site where project traffic consumes more than one percent of the service volume. If the Dunn project is built, six segments impacted by the development will continue to fail. According to the City's expert, as a general rule, an applicant for a land use amendment is not required to bring a failing segment back up to its adopted LOS. Rather, it is only required to pay its proportionate share of the improvements for bringing it up to compliance. The unique aspect of this case is that the City has simply reclassified the property back to what it was, LDR, when Ordinance No. 2007-383-E was adopted. At that time, the Plan was in compliance. In response to Dunn's contention that Ordinance No. 2008-628-E is not supported by relevant and appropriate data and analysis, the City, joined by the Department and Britt, first contends that, given the unique circumstances presented here, no data and analysis were required. Alternatively, it contends that there are sufficient relevant and appropriate data and analysis to support maintaining the LDR land use designation. The data and analysis include the traffic study prepared by Dunn's consultant in October 2007, the additional traffic analysis performed by the City staff just before the Committee meeting, and the testimony provided at the Committee meeting on September 3, 2008. At hearing, the City first pointed out that the RPI designation was never determined to be in compliance, Ordinance No. 2007-383-E never became effective, and the property has remained LDR throughout this proceeding. See § 163.3189(2)(a), Fla. Stat. ("[p]lan amendments shall not become effective until the [Department] issues a final order determining the adopted amendment to be in compliance in accordance with s. 163.3184(9), or until the Administration Commission issues a final order determining the adopted amendment to be in compliance"). Therefore, the City takes the position that Ordinance No. 2008- 628-E did not need to be supported by data and analysis because the LDR category was the land use designation on the property at the time of the adoption of Ordinance No. 2008-628-E. In the same vein, it argues that the remedial amendment is the equivalent of a repeal of the prior ordinance (2007-383-E), which would not require any data and analysis support. While at first blush these arguments appear to be plausible, the City could not cite any provision in Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, or Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 9J-55 that relieves a local government from the requirement that a plan amendment be supported by data and analysis. The City also argues that even if Ordinance No. 2008- 628-E is deemed to be a change in the land use (from LDR to LDR), the net impact of the change would be zero. This argument is based on the accepted testimony of Mr. Killingsworth, who stated that the City, Department, and Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) agreed upon a methodology which entitled the City to give "credit" for uses permitted under the existing land use category.6 Under that methodology, the City subtracts the number of trips that the existing land use (LDR) generates from the additional trips generated by the proposed land use (LDR). Therefore, the net transportation impact of a change from LDR to LDR, in effect, would be zero. The methodology is described in Petitioner's Exhibit 15, a memorandum authored by Mr. Killingsworth and sent on October 4, 2007, to Dunn and other parties seeking map changes in this case. The memorandum stated that the methodology described therein was "developed in coordination [with] FDOT District 2" and "is the suggested methodology for use in determining traffic impacts of proposed land uses for the City." See Petitioner's Exhibit 15, p. 1. Mr. Killingsworth could not cite any provision in Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, or Chapter 9J-5 allowing for such a credit for traffic generated by a prior permitted land use in the data and analysis required for a FLUM amendment. At the same time, however, Petitioner could not cite any rule or statute that prohibits the Department from allowing this type of methodology when deemed to be appropriate. Even though it differed from the methodology described in Ms. Hall's earlier email by allowing credit for the existing land use, it was nonetheless "a professionally acceptable traffic impact methodology" approved by the Department and FDOT and could be used as data and analysis to support a change back to the property's original land use classification. Therefore, it constitutes relevant and appropriate data and analysis to demonstrate that the net traffic impact of the change in land use from LDR to LDR is zero. The City further argues that if it was required to provide other data and analysis, the traffic impacts of the new ordinance are offset by the two roadway improvements negotiated with the Department in the proposed settlement agreement for Ordinance No. 2008-627. See Finding 7, supra. Based upon the City staff's analysis, which is found in City Exhibit 3, the LDR land use generates less trips than the RPI land use. (This study was prepared a few days before the Committee meeting in response to an inquiry from a Committee member.) More specifically, page 3 of that exhibit reflects that there are 169 less afternoon peak hour trips for LDR than RPI with the development cap of 672 dwelling units and 128,000 square feet of non-residential uses. It is fair to infer, then, that if the proposed mitigation in the original settlement agreement offsets the impacts of the more intense RPI land use, the mitigation also offsets the impacts of the less intense LDR land use. City Exhibit 3 is a comparative calculation of the difference in vehicle trips generated by development of the property under the LDR category approved by Ordinance No. 2008- 628-E and the development of the property under the RPI category approved by Ordinance No. 2007-383-E. Dunn points out, however, that the exhibit does not show how the trips generated are distributed on affected roadways or how those trips, as they may be distributed, affect LOS of any roadways. Despite the fact that the data in Exhibit 3 are limited to trip generation data, and establish no facts relating to the LOS of affected roadways, they support a finding that more trips will be generated under the RPI designation than the existing LDR designation. Also, they provide further support for a finding that if the proposed road improvements offset the impacts of the RPI use, the mitigation will offset the impacts, if any, of the original LDR use. For data and analysis relating to the LOS of affected roadways, the City, joined by the Department and Britt, rely upon a traffic study performed by Dunn's traffic consultant, King Engineering Associates, Inc. (King). That firm prepared a transportation analysis dated November 19, 2007, for the purpose of supporting a mixed-use development on the property under the RPI category. See Petitioner's Exhibit 8. This study, however, does not apply to development of the property under the LDR category because it was based upon a mixed-use project which would allow for credit based upon the internal capture of some trips. (In other words, a portion of the new trips will be internal to the site, that is, trips between the residential and commercial land uses on the property.) Because of this, any reference to the King study and proposed mitigation therein was deleted from the revised settlement agreement. In this respect, the study does not support the amendment. The King study addresses impacted roadway segments, existing and background traffic, proposed traffic generated by the development, and LOS for the impacted roadways, as suggested by Ms. Hall in her email. Dunn's traffic engineer established that in the impacted study area, six out of eight roadway links will continue to fall below adopted LOS standards based upon existing traffic and that generated by the RPI development (segments 174, 372, 373, 374, 377, and 543). See Table 4, Petitioner's Exhibit 8. The study also identifies proposed roadway improvements in the vicinity of the project site that are intended to help cure or mitigate the failing standards. See Petitioner's Exhibit 8, p. 12. These improvements are listed in the CIE and will cost around $85 million. A "fair share" agreement has also been executed by the City and Dunn, which requires Dunn to pay more than $4.3 million to offset impacts of the RPI development. Those monies would be applied to improvements in Sector 6.1 (the North Planning District), which includes Starratt Road and the East-West Connector. The agreement notes that this contribution would offset the proportionate share of traffic impacts of the proposed RPI development. Notably, the City has already funded both the widening of Starratt Road and the improvements to the East-West Connector, U.S. Highway 17 to Berlin Road, through the Better Jacksonville Plan. Therefore, even if the Dunn fair share agreement is not implemented, the two improvements will still be made. According to Dunn's engineer, the completion of the four projects listed on page 12 of his traffic study, which are labeled as "mitigation," will not restore or cure any of the LOS failures that now exist on the six impacted segments in Table 4 of the study. However, two of the failing segments (373 and 543) may be "helped" by the projects listed on that page. Dunn's engineer also analyzed City Exhibit 3 and concluded that if the Dunn property is developed as LDR, rather than RPI, there would be potentially one less roadway segment (374) impacted by development, while five other segments would continue to fail. When the proposed mitigation in the King study is factored in, he opined that the East-West Connector may help two other failing segments. He further opined that if LDR development on the property occurs, probably three of the six impacted segments will continue to fail adopted LOS standards. Even so, the improvements identified in the CIE, including those already funded by the Better Jacksonville Plan, should offset the proportionate share of traffic impacts associated with any future LDR development.7 The foregoing data and analysis establish that the LDR land use category generates less traffic impacts than the originally-proposed RPI use; that a change from LDR to LDR should have zero effect in terms of traffic impacts; that even if there are impacts caused by a change back to LDR, the proposed mitigation in the CIE will offset the proportionate share of the impacts associated with any LDR use; that while it differed from other studies, a professionally acceptable traffic impact analysis was used by the City to support the remedial amendment; and that the proposed road improvements are fully funded without having to implement the fair share agreement. Finally, in adopting the amendment, the City has reacted to the data and analysis in an appropriate manner. Does the Remedial Amendment Resolve All Issues? Dunn also asserts that the amendment does not resolve the issues raised by the Department in its Notice and Statement of Intent dated July 9, 2007. Under Section 163.3184(16)(f)2., Florida Statutes, an affected party may assert that a compliance agreement does not resolve all issues raised by the Department in its original notice of intent. The statute allows an affected party to then address those unresolved issues in the realigned proceeding. In this case, Petitioner asserts that the Department's original objection that the change in land use would result in a lowering of the LOS in the study area was not addressed by the remedial amendment. In its Notice and Statement of Intent to find the amendment not in compliance, the Department cited the following rules and statutes as being contravened: Sections 163.3164(32) and 163.3177(3)(b),(6)(a), (8), and (10), Florida Statutes, and Rules 9J-5.005(2)(a) and (c), 9J-5.006(2)(a), (3)(b)1. and 3., 9J-5.016(4)(a)1. and 2., and 9J-5.019(3)(a) through (h) and (4)(b)2. Although these sources of authority were cited in a single generic notice of intent as a basis for objecting to all seventeen map changes, it is assumed that they have equal application to this proceeding. The cited statutes relate to funding of transportation projects and concurrency issues, while the rules relate to data and analysis requirements, concurrency issues, the capital improvement element, and required transportation analyses, all subjects addressed by Dunn at the final hearing. Assuming arguendo that the remedial amendment does not address all of the issues raised in the original notice of intent, Dunn was given the opportunity to fully litigate those matters in the realigned proceeding. Procedural Irregularities Rule 9J-5.004 requires that the City "adopt procedures to provide for and encourage public participation in the planning process." See also § 163.3181(1), Fla. Stat. ("it is the intent of the Legislature that the public participate in the comprehensive planning process to the fullest extent possible"). Dunn does not contend that the City failed to adopt the required procedures. Rather, it contends that the City did not follow those procedures during the adoption of the remedial amendment. More specifically, prior to the Committee meeting, Dunn says it spent "hundreds of thousands of dollars on top of the millions that [it] had spent previously, working for fourteen months in conjunction with the City and [Department]" so that the parties could resolve the Department's objections. Dunn argues that it was unduly prejudiced by the last-minute revisions made by the Committee and City Council, and that it did not have an adequate opportunity to respond. Dunn points out that a City Planning Commission meeting was conducted before the Committee meeting, and that body unanimously recommended that Ordinance Nos. 2008-627 and 628 be approved. It further points out that when the Committee met on September 3, 2008, the proposed revisions to the settlement agreement, the accompanying remedial amendment, and the new traffic data were not discussed until after the public comment portion of the meeting was closed. (The transcript of that meeting reflects, however, that after the new revisions and traffic study were raised, Dunn's counsel was briefly questioned about Dunn's traffic study and the density/intensity of the project. Also, according to Mr. Coe, a copy of the City's newly-prepared traffic study was given to a Dunn representative just before the Committee meeting.) For both public meetings, the City's published notices indicated that the purpose of the meetings was to consider the proposed revised settlement agreement and remedial amendment allowing a cap on the development of the RPI property through the use of an asterisk, as reflected in Ordinance Nos. 2008-627 and 2008-628. See Petitioner's Exhibits 16 and 17. Dunn contends that it had insufficient time between the Committee meeting on September 3, 2008, and the final City Council meeting on September 9, 2008, in which to review and evaluate the new traffic information and respond to the comments of the Committee member who supported the revisions. It also points out that, like other members of the public, Dunn's attorney was only given three minutes to present comments in opposition to the revised agreement at the City Council meeting on September 9, 2009. Notwithstanding any procedural errors that may have occurred during the City's adoption process, Dunn received notice and attended both the Committee and City Council meetings, it presented written and oral objections to the revised plan amendment prior to and at the City Council meeting on September 9, 2008, and it was given the opportunity to file a petition to challenge the City's decision and present evidence on the revisions at the hearing in this case. Savings Clause in Senate Bill 360 In support of its position that the matter is now moot, and that the savings clause in Senate Bill 360 does not "save" the revised settlement agreement executed by the City, Department, and Britt, on November 10, 2008, Dunn submitted extrinsic evidence to show the Legislature's intent in crafting a savings clause, which include four separate analyses by the Legislative staff (Appendices A-D); an article authored by the Bill's Senate sponsor (Senator Bennett) and published in the St. Petersburg Times on May 23, 2009 (Appendix E); a similar article authored by the same Senator and published in the Sarasota Harold-Tribune on June 11, 2009 (Appendix F); a seven-page letter from Secretary Pelham to Senator Bennett and Representative Murzin dated July 23, 2009, concerning the new law and a two and one-half page summary of the bill prepared by the Department (Appendix G); a power point presentation for the Senate Community Affairs Committee on October 6, 2009 (Appendix H); and an article published in the October 2009 edition of The Florida Bar Journal (Appendix I). The Florida Senate Bill Analysis and Fiscal Impact contained in Appendix A was prepared on February 17, 2009, and does not reference the relevant savings clause. A second Senate Bill Analysis and Fiscal Impact contained in Appendix B and prepared on March 19, 2009, merely acknowledges that the legislation includes a savings clause but provides no further explication. See App. B, p. 9. Appendix C is the Florida House of Representatives 2009 Session Summary prepared in May 2009, while Appendix D is a Summary of Passed Legislation prepared by the House of Representatives Economic Development and Community Affairs Policy Council on an undisclosed date. Neither document addresses the issue of what types of agreements were intended to be saved. Appendices E through I are guest newspaper columns, correspondence, a power point presentation, and an article in a professional journal. None are authoritative sources of legislative intent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2008-628-E, which remediates Ordinance No. 2007- 383-E, is in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of December, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of December, 2009.
The Issue The issue is whether the plan amendment adopted by Escambia County (County) by Ordinance No. 2017-53 on September 7, 2017, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Background Petitioner owns real property and resides in the County. She submitted written comments to the County during the adoption phase of the amendment. She is an affected person within the meaning of section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The County is a local government that is subject to the requirements of chapter 163, Florida Statutes. A sector plan is the process in which the local government engages in long-term planning for an area of at least 5,000 acres. §§ 163.3164(42) and 163.3245(1), Fla. Stat. It involves two levels of planning: a) a long-term master plan, and b) a Detailed Specific Area Plan (DSAP), which implements the master plan. A DSAP is created for an area that is at least 1,000 acres and identifies the distribution, extent, and location of future uses and public facilities. § 163.3245(3), Fla. Stat. While the DSAP is created by a local development order that is not subject to state compliance review, an amendment to an adopted sector plan is a plan amendment reviewed under the State Coordinated Review process. § 163.3184(2)(c), Fla. Stat. The development standards in the DSAP are separate and distinct from the development standards in non-sector plan properties. On June 3, 2010, the County approved Ordinance No. 2010-16, which adopted Evaluation and Appraisal Report-based amendments to the Plan, including a new Optional Sector Plan (OSP). The Ordinance was challenged by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) and assigned DOAH Case No. 10-6857GM. In response to the DCA challenge, on February 3, 2011, the County adopted Ordinance No. 2011-3 as a stipulated remedial amendment. The Ordinance establishes a long-term master plan for central Escambia County known as the Mid-West Escambia County Sector Plan (Sector Plan). The Sector Plan is comprised of approximately 15,000 acres, north of Interstate 10, west of Highway 29, and south of Highway 196. The area is depicted on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) as the OSP. The DCA determined the Ordinance to be in compliance. To implement the long-term master plan, on September 9, 2011, the County adopted Ordinance No. 2011-29, which establishes two DSAPs: Muskogee DSAP and Jacks Branch DSAP. Petitioner's residence and the subject property are located within the Jacks Branch DSAP. State compliance review of that action under section 163.3184(3) or (4) was not required. In 2011, the Legislature created the right to opt out or withdraw from a sector plan. See § 163.3245(8), Fla. Stat. This can be accomplished "only with the approval of the local government by plan amendment adopted and reviewed pursuant to s. 163.3184." Id. In response to the statutory amendment, the County adopted a plan amendment which provides that any additions to, or deletions from, a DSAP must follow the established procedures in the Plan. See Ex. 40, p. 14. In order to consolidate the County zoning districts, on April 16, 2015, the County adopted Ordinance No. 2015-12, which repealed the entire Land Development Code (LDC) and replaced it with a new LDC, which has a county-wide rezoning plan. After the first (and only) application to opt out of the Sector Plan was filed by a property owner, on March 16, 2017, the County amended the LDC through Ordinance No. 2017-14, which establishes seven criteria for evaluating this type of request. See LDC, § 2-7.4. The Ordinance was not challenged. According to the County, the criteria were actually drafted by the Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and require it to consider the following: All standard Comprehensive Plan map criteria; Comprehensive Plan requirement for changes to an existing DSAP; The size of the subject parcel in relation to the individual DSAP land use category and in relation to the overall Sector Plan, to specifically include the aggregate acreage of any previously granted opt-outs; The existing transportation infrastructure and any impact the proposed opt-out may have on the capacity of the infrastructure; The underlying existing zoning category and its compatibility with surrounding DSAP land use designations; The consistency of the requested future land use designation with the underlying zoning; and The previous future land use designation. Besides the foregoing criteria, subsection 2-7.4(b) provides that when the County reviews an opt-out application: [t]o the extent possible, the staff analysis and the reviewing bodies shall consider whether the applicant lost development rights or was effectively downzoned as part of the Sector Plan adoption. The Board may take into consideration any other relevant factors in making its determination related to the request. Once a parcel is removed from the County's Sector Plan, the underlying zoning that was in effect when the Sector Plan was created remains the same, but a new future land use (FLU) category must be assigned to the property by a plan amendment. § 163.3245(8), Fla. Stat. Withdrawing from a DSAP does not modify the DSAP because the DSAP is the development standard itself. The Property The parcel lies on the eastern edge of the DSAP about ten miles north of Interstate 10 on the northwest corner of Highway 29 and Neal Road. Highway 29 is a major four-lane arterial road running in a north-south direction with a median in the middle. The road is maintained by the state. Neal Road is a small, two-lane County road that intersects with Highway 29 from the west and provides access to a residential area where Petitioner resides. Existing commercial development is located on the east side of Highway 29. Most recently, a Family Dollar Store was developed directly across the street from the property. Currently, the parcel is vacant and lies in the Conservation Neighborhood District, which permits a maximum density of three dwelling units per gross acre and is the lowest density of residential development allowed in the Sector Plan. Only residential uses are allowed in the district, which is intended to treat stormwater and preserve open space and wildlife. Based on maps of the area, Petitioner's property appears to be no more than one-half mile west of the subject property. The character of the area in Petitioner's neighborhood is low-density residential development. Before the Sector Plan was adopted, the assigned land use on the parcel was MU-S. This use is intended for "a mix of residential and non-residential uses while promoting compatible infill development and the separation of urban and suburban land uses." Its express purpose is to serve as a mixed-use area. As described by a County witness, "the mixed-use aspect of it allows a non-residential component first, but, again, it's predominately residential, low-density residential." The range of allowable uses includes residential, retail services, professional office, recreational facilities, and public and civic, with a maximum intensity of a 1.0 floor area ratio. Until the Sector Plan was created, the parcel was zoned as Gateway Business District (GBD). Under the new rezoning plan established in 2015, all parcels outside the Sector Plan which were zoned GBD were consolidated with similar zoning categories into the new district of Heavy Commercial/ Light Industrial (HC/LI). Permitted uses under this district are residential, retail sales, retail services, public and civic, recreation and entertainment, industrial and related, agricultural and related, and "other uses," such as billboards, outdoor sales, trade shops, warehouses, and the like. Once a parcel is withdrawn from the Sector Plan, it retains the underlying zoning in effect when the DSAP was established. Because the new zoning scheme consolidates GBD into HC/LI, the parcel will revert to HC/LI. Therefore, the zoning and land use will be the same as they were before the Sector Plan was created. This combination is not unusual, as there are "multiple parcels" outside the DSAP that have this zoning/land use pairing. The Challenged Amendment In June 2016, the property owner filed an application with the County requesting that his parcel be removed from the Mid-West Sector Plan. At that time, neither the County nor the applicant realized that a new land use must be assigned. Consequently, no request for a new land use was made. Because this was the first time an opt-out application had been filed with any local government, the County had a series of meetings with DEO seeking guidance on how to proceed. It was told by DEO that the opt-out application and a FLU change should be processed in the same manner as a FLUM amendment and then reviewed under the State Coordinated Review process. DEO also provided suggested criteria that should be considered when processing such an application. These criteria were adopted as new LDC section 2-7.4. The County followed all steps suggested by DEO. DEO instructed the County to require a second application from the property owner, which included a request for a new land use category. After the second application was filed, the County began the process of determining whether the application satisfied the opt-out criteria in section 2-7.4 and relevant Plan requirements. The second application addressed the FLU requirement and contained the analysis required for each component of the Plan. A future land use of Mixed-Use Urban (MU-U) was initially requested by the owner. This category is consistent with HC/LI zoning, but is a much more intense land use category than MU-S. Because of concerns that the MU-U land use would not be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in the DSAP, the County changed the proposed new land use to MU-S, the use assigned to the property before the Sector Plan was adopted. MU-S is the same land use assigned to other non-Sector Plan parcels surrounding the subject property, and there are non- industrial uses within the HC/LI zoning district that are consistent with MU-S. If the application is approved, only 25 potential residential units will be removed from the total Sector Plan, and the reduction in total developable area will be de minimis. Except for a change to the DSAP map and the acreage table, no changes to the text of the DSAP are made. During the application process, the County addressed natural resources, wetlands, historically significant sites, and impacts on the environment. The County also evaluated the application in light of the criteria found in section 2-7.4 and determined that, as a whole, it satisfied those requirements. See Cnty. Ex. 34, pp. 28-39. Because a proposed use of the property was not submitted with the application, an analysis of a specific use was not made. When a site plan to develop the property is filed, the proposed use will be evaluated by the Development Review Committee, and then by the Board of County Commissioners. That review will ensure that the intended development will not be inconsistent with the zoning district and land use assigned to the parcel. The opt-out request was debated extensively during a series of ten public hearings that began in September 2016. Members of the public were allowed to speak for or against the proposal. On September 7, 2017, the County voted to amend the Plan by (a) allowing the parcel to withdraw from the OSP, removing the Sector Plan overlay on the parcel, and amending the FLUM by assigning the property a MU-S land use designation. No other changes were made. The amendment does not create a remnant area or fragmented DSAP. The amendment was transmitted to DEO for review under the State Coordinated Review process. DEO determined it met the requirements of chapter 163 for compliance purposes. The State Coordinated Review is more comprehensive than the Expedited Review process under section 163.3184(3). On November 8, 2017, a Notice of Intent to find the amendment in compliance was issued by DEO. See Cnty. Ex. 39. Petitioner filed her Petition within 30 days after the Ordinance was adopted, but before DEO issued its Notice of Intent. Therefore, it was timely. Besides DEO's review, the Department of Transportation and Department of Education reviewed the proposal for impacts on transportation and school concurrency, respectively. No further information was requested from the County by any agency. Petitioner's Objections In the parties' Pre-hearing Stipulation, Petitioner raises a procedural objection to the manner in which the withdrawal application was adopted. She also alleges generally that the amendment creates inconsistent and incompatible zoning and future land use pairing in violation of sections 163.3177(2) and 163.3194(1); is inconsistent with the FLU Element; conflicts with statutory provisions regarding compatibility of adjacent land uses; and lacks sufficient data and analysis required by section 163.3177(1)(f). These contentions, and others not directly related to a compliance challenge, are addressed below. Petitioner first contends an opt-out application must be adopted by a local development order, rather than by a plan amendment. She argues the County erred by not providing her the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses at the adoption hearing and failing to subject the proposal to more "intense review and analysis." The quasi-judicial process requires strict scrutiny of a local government's action, rather than a fairly debatable standard of review, and provides third parties the right to challenge the local government's decision in circuit court, rather than in a section 163.3184 proceeding. This contention has been rejected and is addressed in the Conclusions of Law. Petitioner contends approval of the application will lead to further requests by other property owners to opt out of the Sector Plan. Currently, there are over 1,000 property owners in the Sector Plan. During the County hearings, staff identified 24 or 25 other properties that might choose to file an opt-out application in the future. Whether those owners will do so is no more than speculation at this point. The County responds that it will evaluate each application on a case-by- case basis. A case-by-case analysis is necessary because an application involving a large parcel of property would clearly have a different analysis than one which involves only 8.67 acres. More importantly, because the opt-out process is a statutory right created by the Legislature, the County is obligated to consider every opt-out application filed, and if it satisfies the applicable criteria, it must be approved. In any event, there is nothing in sections 163.3184 or 163.3245 which requires the local government to deny an application merely because another property owner might file a similar application at some point in the future. Petitioner contends the County acted "unreasonably" because it did not establish opt-out criteria until after the application was filed. The County's action was reasonable under the circumstances because it had no standards or precedent for reviewing this type of application; at the direction of DEO, the criteria were adopted before final action on the application was taken; and the criteria were considered by the County. Petitioner contends the criteria in section 2-7.4 are vague and lack specific, objective evaluation standards. However, Ordinance No. 2017-14 was never challenged and is presumed to be valid. Petitioner contends HC/LI zoning is inconsistent with the MU-S land use and violates sections 163.3177(2) and 163.3194(1)(b).1/ Those provisions require generally that zoning regulations and land uses be consistent with one another and the elements of the Plan. The zoning and land use will be the same as existed before the Sector Plan was adopted. They correlate with the zoning and land use on numerous other non-Sector Plan parcels in the immediate area and throughout the County. MU-S contemplates a mixed-use area, while HC/LI contains a variety of residential, commercial, and industrial uses. Although industrial uses are inconsistent with the land use, see Endnote 1, there are many other uses within the zoning district that are compatible with MU-S. It is fairly debatable that the zoning and land use designation are compatible. FLU Objective 1.3 provides that future land use designations should "discourage urban sprawl, promote mixed use, compact development in urban areas, and support development compatible with the protection and preservation of rural areas." By allowing more intensive development next to the Conservation Neighborhood District, Petitioner contends the plan amendment is inconsistent with this directive because it encourages urban sprawl. "Sprawl" is defined in chapter 3 of the Plan as [h]aphazard growth of dispersed, leap- frog and strip development in suburbs and rural areas and along highways; typically, sprawl is automobile-dependent, single use, resource-consuming, and low-density development in previously rural areas and disconnected from existing development and infrastructure. The parcels on the east side of Highway 29 have similar zoning and land uses as the subject property and are interspersed with commercial development. Therefore, future development on the subject property would not be "disconnected from existing development and infrastructure," and it would not leap-frog into non-developed areas. It is fairly debatable that the plan amendment does not encourage urban sprawl. Petitioner contends the underlying zoning on the parcel is incompatible with the land use in her neighborhood. Although the County considered this issue, it points out that the Sector Plan and Comprehensive Plan have different development standards, and therefore there is no requirement that it consider the compatibility of non-Sector Plan property with property in the DSAP. Moreover, to restore the property rights that an owner once had, when the withdrawal application is approved, the property should revert to the underlying zoning in existence when the Sector Plan was established. Notwithstanding the foregoing, LDC section 2-7.4(a)5. requires that when reviewing an opt-out application, the County must consider "[t]he underlying existing zoning category and its compatibility with surrounding DSAP land use designations." To this end, the County addressed this factor by assigning a less intense MU-S land use to the parcel so that more intense uses allowed by HC/LI would be prohibited or minimized. It is fairly datable that the underlying zoning will be compatible with the neighboring area. Petitioner contends the amendment is not supported by data and analysis, as required by section 163.3177(1)(f). Prior to adopting the amendment, the County staff made a qualitative and quantitative analysis of impacts on natural resources, wetlands, historically significant sites, the environment, and adjacent lands. Because Highway 29 is a state road, the County has limited planning responsibilities for traffic impacts. Even so, a limited analysis of traffic impacts is found in County Exhibit 17. In addition, the Department of Transportation performed a more complete analysis of traffic impacts attributable to the amendment. Because the parcel is currently vacant, traffic impacts on Neal Road cannot be fully analyzed until a site plan is filed. A review of school concurrency issues was performed by the Department of Education and no adverse comments were submitted. The County verified that Emerald Coast Utility Authority had available water, sewer, and garbage capacity to serve the parcel. Finally, the County took into account the fact that removal of such a small parcel from the edge of the eastern side of the Sector Plan would have minimal, if any, effect on the Sector Plan goals and objectives. It is fairly debatable that the amendment is supported by relevant and appropriate data and analysis. All other contentions not specifically discussed have been considered and rejected.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Economic Opportunity enter a final order determining that the plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2017-53 is in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of May, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of May, 2018.
The Issue Whether the amendment to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Putnam County Comprehensive Plan (Plan) adopted by Ordinance No. 2001-33 on December 11, 2001, which changes the future land use designation on the FLUM of an approximately 29-acre site from "Rural Residential" to "Commercial," is "in compliance" as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, for the reasons set forth in the Petition for Administrative Hearing.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Frances Z. Parsons, lives at 215 Woodbury Trail, Satsuma, Putnam County, Florida, which is approximately one mile from the racetrack (on the site subject to the Amendment, see Findings of Fact 14 and 15) and has resided there for over seven years. Dr. Parsons understood at the time she purchased the house that a racetrack had been in existence, but was not operational and that no evidence of a racetrack could be seen from the road. A couple of years ago, Dr. Parsons noticed construction-type activity (e.g., earth-moving machines and erection of stadium-type bleachers and lights) occurring on the Property (racetrack site). Trees along the road were "bulldozed down," the site cleared, and a fence erected, after which, Dr. Parsons could see the racetrack from the road and racing commenced. Dr. Parsons also stated that the racetrack is operational and the noise level bothers her at her home. Dr. Parsons described Satsuma as "about a half a mile wide" and "fairly settled for a rural areas, but not for -- it's certainly not downtown." Dr. Parsons stated that the community character has not changed in the last five years. Dr. Parsons submitted oral or written comments and objections regarding the disputed Amendment during the period of time beginning with the transmittal hearing for the amendment and ending with the adoption of the amendment. Respondent, Putnam County, is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. Section 7.54, Florida Statutes. The County is the local government that adopted the Amendment. Respondent, Department of Community Affairs, is the state land planning agency and has the authority to administer and enforce the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, which includes a determination of whether comprehensive plan amendments are "in compliance." Intervenor, Florida Racing, is a private corporation and is the owner of the approximately 29 acres that are the subject of the challenged Amendment. Oral or written comments and regarding the disputed Amendment were submitted on behalf of Florida Racing during the period of time beginning with the transmittal hearing for the Amendment and ending with the adoption of the Amendment. Robert Joseph Potter is the Vice- President and Comptroller for Florida Racing. The Amendment In April 2001, Florida Racing submitted to the County an "Application for Amendment to the Putnam County Future Land Use Map" (Application). This Application requested that the land use designation for an approximately 29-acre site, consisting of five contiguous parcels under the same ownership, be changed from "Rural Residential" to "Commercial" on the FLUM. The Amendment was approved and transmitted to the Department for review under Section 163.3184(6)(a), Florida Statutes. The Department conducted this review, and raised no objections to the proposed FLUM change. On December 11, 2001, the Putnam County Board of County Commissioners (Board) adopted the proposed Amendment by Ordinance No. 2001-33. The Department timely caused to be published a Notice of Intent to find the Amendment "in compliance." On or about February 28, 2002, Petitioner filed a Petition for Administrative Hearing regarding the Department's Notice of Intent. This Petition alleges that the Amendment should be found not "in compliance" on several grounds. This challenge involves an existing development, a racetrack, on the Property. However, the Amendment would allow commercial development on the approximately 29 acres, subject to compliance with applicable Plan and Putnam County Zoning Ordinance (Zoning Ordnance) provisions. (In the Application, Florida Racing advised that proposed uses included a raceway, mobile home park, restaurant, and related amenities.) The Putnam County Speedway, the Surrounding Area, and the Review Process The approximately 29-acre site (five parcels total (Property)) subject to the Amendment is the site of an existing dirt automobile racetrack with bleachers, a press box, associated structures, and a masonry building/house. A commercial mini-warehouse building (personal storage) is located on the westernmost parcel. The racetrack is currently known as the "Putnam County Speedway" (Speedway). The Property is located on the west side of U.S. Highway 17 South between the Dunn's Creek Bridge and Buffalo Bluff Road (County Road 309B). The land surrounding the Property on the west, south, and east are designated as "Rural Residential" on the FLUM, the same as the Property prior to the proposed FLUM change. The land to the north is designated as "Conservation" on the FLUM and designated as vacant and wetlands as existing land uses. The zoning is "A." See Endnote 8. The land to the east is zoned "A" and is vacant as the existing land use. The land to the north and east of the Property is part of the 1,707-acre Murphy Creek Conservation area owned and managed by the St. Johns River Water Management District. The land to the west is zoned "C-2; A" and has an existing land use of commercial, but a future land use designation on the FLUM of Rural Residential. There is also additional land to the west of the Property within the Murphy Creek Conservation Area, a couple of residences and a vacant subdivision that has been determined not to be vested for development. There is a parcel of land to the west that is also owned by Florida Racing. The land to the south is zoned "C-4, C-1, C-2, [and] A" and is designated as vacant and commercial residential as existing land uses, and has a Rural Residential future land use designation on the FLUM. See Endnote 8. The land south of the Property across U.S. 17 includes an existing commercial establishment that includes a mini-warehouse building with outside storage of equipment and semi-trailers. (The mini- warehouse was rezoned in 1986.) Also, further south and west along U.S. 17, there are two or three additional commercial businesses. Mr. Spofford referred to this area as "a commercial cluster." However, most of the uses are nonconforming uses as to the existing Rural Residential future land use, and they would not be able to change to anything more intensive or that would have more adverse impacts on the surrounding residential uses. 1 Behind the mini-warehouse building are two residential neighborhoods with two subdivisions, one with 22 lots of approximately one acre in size and the other with 19 lots, with most of the lots being significantly larger than those in the former subdivision. Another residential area further west than the two subdivisions consists of approximately 40 parcels of land which have been subdivided over time and never platted. About four of these parcels on U.S. 17 are zoned for commercial use. There is also an existing aluminum business west with a C-4 zoning. It appears that almost all of these residential lots and parcels were created after the racetrack was established. The racetrack was in operation prior to the adoption of the Plan and zoning regulations. There is evidence that a racetrack existed before 1975, but has not remained in continuous use throughout that time. The record does not detail the history of the racetrack from its initial approval some time prior to 1975 to the date of the adoption of the Amendment. There is inference that the racetrack was not actively or frequently used in the mid-1990s. (It is noted in the County Staff Report that "[a]n aerial from the Florida Department of Transportation dated February 1972 shows the subject property cleared with what appears to be an oval dirt track. A 1964 aerial photograph did not show a racetrack on the subject property. A review of property appraisal data indicate the racetrack was established around the 1970 to 1972 period.") At some point after approximately 1995, and prior to the adoption of the Amendment, racing returned to the Speedway. An automobile racetrack is not an allowable or conforming use on land designated "Rural Residential." According to the Plan's Future Land Use Element (FLUE), "[t]he Rural Residential land use category depicted on the [FLUM] consists of water front development and developed areas interspersed within the active agricultural areas. These areas are somewhat isolated from the urban areas and rural centers. The development is situated primarily on large lots in the one to five-acre range and is either a homestead or a second home for people who seek the quiet enjoyment of living in a rural environment." As a nonconforming use, the Speedway (racetrack) is subject to County land use and zoning provisions that limit or restrict the ability to undertake improvements. For example, according to the Putnam County Zoning Ordinance 88-1, as amended by Ordinance 91-31 (collectively referred to as County Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Ordinance), the racetrack, as a nonconforming use, is restricted from being extended or enlarged, and repair of its structures is limited. For example, work may be done in any 12-consecutive month period on ordinary repairs, or on repair or replacement of 15 percent of the current assessed value of the particular structure if a nonconforming structure is involved, provided the cubic content of the structure as it existed on the date it became nonconforming shall not be increased in size.2 The intent of these nonconforming use restrictions is to "permit these nonconformities to continue until they are removed, but not to encourage their survival," and it is intended that such uses would become extinguished over time as a result of being prevented from expanding or extensively renovating their structures. See, e.g., County Zoning Ordinance, Sections 2-701-2-708. On March 20, 1998, John Salmons, the Putnam County Planner, advised Tim Keyser, Attorney, that the nonconforming status of the Speedway was still in effect. Mr. Keyser was also informed, in part, that the "Putnam County Speedway may continue to operate under the provisions of the nonconforming use section of the Zoning Ordinance." At the time Florida Racing purchased the racetrack in the 1990's (the specific date is uncertain), some of the existing structures had deteriorated and were in need of repair and/or replacement. To accommodate the renewed activity in racing and the need to upgrade the racetrack, seating at the racetrack was rearranged, new seating was added for children, and a second access driveway was installed north of the existing driveway. In 2000, in a series of letters to Mr. Potter, County staff raised concerns regarding plans to significantly upgrade the racetrack. On September 26, 2000, Mr. Salmons advised Mr. Potter "that the current zoning status for the [S]atsuma racetrack is Nonconforming. As a nonconforming use, the zoning ordinance acknowledges their existence, but does not encourage their survival. As such, there are very strict rules for repairing or maintaining a nonconforming use." Mr. Salmons also informed Mr. Potter that the Property had been designated "Rural Residential" on the County's FLUM at some point subsequent to the racetrack's initial operation. (The racetrack on the Property pre-dates the Plan, including the FLUM land use categories, including "Rural Residential.") Mr. Salmons understood at the time that Mr. Potter had plans to "significantly upgrade the racetrack" and advised Mr. Potter that he "would not be able to proceed with [his] plans." In order to upgrade, Mr. Salmons advised Mr. Potter that he would need to have the Property rezoned and given the current land use designation for the Property, Mr. Potter would need to obtain an amendment to the FLUM to change the Property's land use designation from "Rural Residential" to "Commercial." However, Mr. Salmons further advised that without doing an analysis of the proposed change, he suspected that "it would be difficult for staff to support such a change" "based upon what Future Land Use patterns surround the property." Finally, Mr. Potter was told that he could continue operations "as they were in the past." But, he could not "add seating, restaurants, structures, pave the track or do much more than do some minor maintenance at this time." On December 27, 2000, Mr. Salmons sent Mr. Potter another letter similar in content to the September 26, 2000, letter. Apparently, Mr. Salmons was advised by Mr. Potter that he had already spent in excess of the 15 percent allowed in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Potter was advised to stop making improvements until the land use designation was changed and rezoning approved. (There have not been any legal proceedings initiated to determine whether the 15 percent threshold was crossed.) On April 16, 2001, Florida Racing submitted the Amendment Application and requested the FLUM change suggested by County staff for the Property.3 (Florida Racing also requested rezoning of the Property which is not the subject of this proceeding.) Deficiencies in the applications were noted and additional information requested. The County's FLUE of the Plan was adopted on December 12, 1991, and amended on August 24, 1993. Policy A.1.9.3.A.5. of the FLUE describes the "Commercial" land use category and provides in part: The Commercial land use areas depicted on the [FLUM] are current locations of commercial development in the County with expansion areas provided and are intended to serve as the primary commercial locations for the next 10 years. Secondary commercial locations are provided for in the policies for development in the urban service, urban reserve and rural center land use categories. Commercial land uses include activities that are predominantly associated with the sale, rental, and distribution of products or performance of service. Future development shall be allowed as follows: The maximum permitted floor area for a site shall be 1:1. The maximum permitted impervious surface shall be 70 percent of the site.4 The Staff Report dated July 11, 2001, was prepared by Mr. Spofford, A.I.C.P., a senior planner with Putnam County. As noted in the Staff Report, the purpose of the land use "change is to bring a non-conforming automobile racetrack into compliance with the" Plan. Mr. Spofford testified that the scope of the Staff Report was broader than examining the racetrack. However, the primary focus of the Staff Report is the Property being used as a racetrack and not another commercial use. It was determined that the automobile racetrack is a commercial attraction because it attracts spectators for a fee and further noted: As such, the use is not appropriate for the Agriculture I and II and Rural Residential future land use categories. The site and surrounding area do not meet the intent and description of an Urban Service or Urban Reserve future land use category because urban type infrastructure does not currently exist and is not likely within the next 10 years. This means that the use is most appropriate for a Commercial future land use category. The subject site meets the intent of the Commercial category because it is a current location of a commercial- recreational-entertainment type use. Mr. Spofford explained that the data to support the FLUM change is set forth in the Staff Report. (Mr. Salmons, Mr. Spofford's superior, believed the data in the Staff Report was adequate to support the FLUM change.) The Application was reviewed for consistency with the Plan and various provisions of Rule 9J-5. Staff made the following recommendation: The existing automobile racetrack must go through a two step process to become compliant with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. First, this proposed map amendment must be approved and adopted by the County, and found to be in compliance by the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA). The purpose of this public hearing is to determine whether or not the proposed map amendment should be transmitted for state agency review. Therefore, the Planning Commission must recommend to either transmit the map amendment as proposed, transmit the amendment with recommended changes or not to transmit the map amendment. If the proposed map amendment is transmitted, then state agencies will review the proposed map amendment and return comments to the County in October. The County would then likely hold public hearing[s] to consider actual adoption of the map amendment in November and December. When these public hearings are held to consider the map amendment, a rezoning application would simultaneously be reviewed. A rezoning to Planned Unit Development is a negotiable process where the County can gain greater control of the use. If the proposed map amendment is not transmitted, the a rezoning will not be necessary and the automobile racetrack will continue to be a non-conforming use. As a non-conforming use, code enforcement action will be taken to have the improvements removed that consist of an expenditure greater than 15 percent of the assessed value of the structure(s), with the exception of the permitted work that includes the press box and new lighting. All other improvements could be subject to removal. However, as a non-conforming use, the racetrack would be allowed to continue operation so long as it does not expand. This means that the County would not have much control over the days and hours of operation and other critical site design issues. Although this is not the ideal location for a racetrack, the fact is it has existed on the subject property and has been determined to be a bona fide non- conforming use. Research of County records and other known available sources of information indicates that the racetrack was established prior to the residential development in close proximity south of the subject site. The request for a large-scale comprehensive plan map amendment from Rural Residential to Commercial appears to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, staff recommends that the proposed map amendment be transmitted to the Florida Department of Community Affairs with a request for their review. On July 11, 2001, the Putnam County Planning Commission unanimously approved the FLUM change after receiving comments. On July 24, 2001, the Board held a public hearing to consider the Amendment and approved same. The FLUM Amendment was transmitted to the Department. Pursuant to the Department's review of the Amendment, a Memorandum dated October 4, 2001, was prepared by Russell Paul Darst, a planner with the Department, and routed to James Stansbury and Mike Sherman, the section administrator, and ultimately to Charles Gauthier, A.I.C.P., and Bureau Chief, who issued the Department's Notice of Intent. Mr. Darst, as well as others at the Department, had no objections to the Amendment. In the Memorandum, Mr. Darst concluded: "The proposed FLUM change for this 29-acre property is from Rural Residential to Commercial. The property has been used for a race track since about 1970. The amendment would change the FLUM designation for the property to reflect the actual and long-standing use of the property. This use is not allowed in the Rural Residential FLUM category." This was the crux of the data and analysis relied on by Mr. Stansbury of the Department. The Memorandum also reflected the Northeast Florida Regional Planning Council comment: "Since the raceway already exists, the land use change will not create any additional impacts to regional resources. The proposed land use change may even protect regional resources in the future by granting the County the ability to regulate the property under the most appropriate zoning classification." Dr. Darst stated that in reviewing a FLUM amendment for the Department, it would be typical to examine the existing use of the land before making his recommendation. In reviewing the County's proposed FLUM change, Mr. Darst believed, based on his discussions with County staff, that the racetrack was not expected to expand (and not that it could not) and that the change in the FLUM would give the County "part of a means of gaining effective control over [the operation of the racetrack]." He reiterated that the FLUM change would reflect the actual and long-standing use of the Property as a racetrack. On December 11, 2001, during the public hearing, the Board approved the FLUM Amendment and transmitted the approval package to the Department. On February 13, 2002, the Department had published its Notice of Intent to find the Amendment "in compliance." The Challenges Petitioner alleges that the Amendment is not "in compliance" on several grounds: first, there is no "need" for additional land to be designated for a commercial use in Putnam County; second, the Amendment and proposed land use is not compatible with the community character and surrounding land uses; and, third, the Amendment is inconsistent with provisions of the Plan, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. Need The term "need" as used in growth management refers to the amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth. Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes. Local governments are to analyze by acreage how much land within each land use category5 they need to accommodate projected growth through the planning timeframe, and then base their comprehensive plan on this estimate. Rule 9J-5.006(2)(c), Florida Administrative Code. The calculus of need is rather simple and, for that reason, inexact. The calculation of how much land is needed to accommodate the projected population involves comparing what is available for development under the comprehensive plan with the projected population over the same planning timeframe applicable to the plan. An "allocation ratio" to express this need can be derived by dividing the development potential by the projected population. For example, if a comprehensive plan allocated 100 residential dwelling units over the planning timeframe and the jurisdiction's population was projected to increase by 100 over the same time, there would be an allocation ratio of 1:1. This ratio would express an exact match between supply and demand. A ratio of 2:1, on the other hand, would demonstrate that the jurisdiction had twice as much land as designated for use as the projected population is expected to need. There is no allocation ratio adopted by statute or rule by which all comprehensive plans and plan amendments are judged. There is evidence that the County has more vacant land designated "Commercial" than is needed to accommodate its projected population.6 There is data and analysis which indicates an excess of vacant commercially-designation land on a County-wide basis. For example, Florida Racing Exhibit 1 is a copy of data and analysis in support of the FLUE. This data and analysis indicates that at least as of 1991, and projected to 2001, the County has an over-allocation of need for commercial land of about two times or, stated otherwise, the County has a 2:1 allocation ratio for commercial. This data is reflected in Petitioner's Exhibit P. Mr. Spofford explained that the population data was compiled prior to 1991, has not been updated, is not meant to provide a "detailed analysis," and it is only useful for providing the acreage for each planning district. The population for each planning district is then compared to the acreage to determine the allocation of commercial to service that population. From a very general standpoint, Mr. Spofford analyzed the FLUM Amendment application in light of whether more commercial acreage was needed. Mr. Spofford explained that because the Property was so close to the edge of the planning district, it was difficult to compare the commercial and population need. However, Mr. Spofford opined that the Planning District 1 (which includes the Property) and the one to the northeast are not over-allocated for commercial use. He also opined that, generally, "more is needed, if -- especially if you're looking out 20, ten or twenty years." Petitioner did not come forward with any independent or up-to-date analysis to demonstrate the County is in fact over-allocated for commercial land use. On the other hand, Fred Goodrow, A.I.C.P., opined that the County was over-allocated regarding the need for more commercial in light of the data previously mentioned. The existence and extent of any commercial over- allocation in Putnam County is, at best, fairly debatable. Nonconforming Use, Inconsistency, and Incompatibility Petitioner asserts that the Amendment is not "in compliance" because it fails to eliminate or reduce a nonconforming use in violation of Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5.006(3)(b)3. and (3)(c)2., Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner also argues that the Commercial land use designation which would attach to the Property is incompatible with the character of the community and adjacent land uses. Petitioner also contends that the Amendment is inconsistent with several Plan provisions. Section 163.3177(2), Florida Statutes; Rule 9J-5.005(5), Florida Administrative Code. Objective A.1.3 of the FLUE requires that "[u]pon plan adoption, Putnam County shall act to eliminate or reduce uses inconsistent with the uses identified on the [FLUM] and associated adopted Goals, Objectives and Policies through implementing the following policies." Policy A.1.3.1 of the FLUE requires revision of the County's Land Development Regulations, specifically the County Zoning Code, "to reinforce its current provisions regarding the elimination of nonconforming land uses by expanding the definition of nonconforming land uses to include all uses which are inconsistent with the Future Land Use Map 2001 or cannot be made compatible with adjacent land uses. The requirements of this provision shall be enforced upon application for building permits to repair or improve such structures."7 The nonconforming use provisions of the Zoning Ordinance apply to and implement the FLUM. An automobile racetrack is not an appropriate use to put in a Rural Residential future land use category. In theory, one purpose of this land use designation is to protect residents from the intrusion of noisy racetracks which can impact an adjacent residential user. The dispute in this case is clearly framed. Petitioner contends that because the Property was designated "Rural Residential" when the County's Plan was adopted, the Speedway (racetrack) is a nonconforming use which must be restricted and eventually eliminated. Petitioner argues that the County lacks the authority to amend its FLUM to make the Speedway a conforming use under the Plan. Respondents and Florida Racing contend that the County has the authority to amend the FLUM, and acted properly in this instance in adopting the Amendment. The County has the authority to amend its FLUM, including the designations of properties as long as the designations are consistent with other provisions of the Plan and applicable provisions of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. The persuasive evidence indicates that an automobile racetrack is an allowable use in the Commercial future land use category as opposed to the Rural Residential category. If the Amendment is approved, the raceway would no longer be considered a nonconforming use for Plan purposes, and could undertake improvements without the restrictions that accompany such a use, subject to compliance with applicable zoning requirements. Stated otherwise, the racetrack could expand without complying with the nonconforming use restrictions, subject to compliance with the nonconforming standards in the Zoning Ordinance because the Property would remain a nonconforming use under the Zoning Ordinance. (Of course, a zoning change for the Property, as contemplated in the County's Staff Report, would create different considerations as noted below.) The Property is currently zoned C-2 and A, with the bulk of the property zoned agriculture.8 If the Amendment is approved, the next step would be for the Property owner to apply for a zoning change, e.g., special exception, or pursue a planned unit development. Under either scenario, the County could impose conditions on the use of the Property such as the amelioration of off-site impacts. On the other hand, if the racetrack continued as a nonconforming use, the persuasive evidence indicates that the County would be limited in establishing any further limitation on the use of the Property, such as duration and frequency of use, e.g., hours of operation and other site design issues. There is no persuasive support for the proposition that all subsequent Boards of County Commissioners are bound in every instance by the decision of one Board regarding the land use of a particular parcel. There is some evidence that leads to at least a fair inference that the designation of the racetrack site as "Rural Residential" may have been in error. The data and analysis that was used to support the original designation indicates the area including the racetrack as being "woodlands." The County planner involved in the preparation of the Plan, including the FLUM, testified that he did not know there was a racetrack on the land designated "woodlands." The FLUM was based "to a great extent" on this data, and very well may have designated the Property as "Rural Residential" by "oversight" based on the incorrect representation of the area as woodlands. Several other commercial uses exist within the immediate vicinity of the site of the Property, are similarly depicted as "woodlands" by the referenced data, and are designated "Rural Residential" on the FLUM. These parcels, too, may be nonconforming by error, and not by some deliberate choice. Whether the original designation of the Property as nonconforming was erroneous or not, the true question is what is the proper standard by which to weigh a FLUM amendment when it affects a site on which there exists a nonconforming use. Neither Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, nor Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, directs the Department to review a FLUM amendment involving a nonconforming use under some specific provisions. Such an amendment must be subjected to the same standards applicable to any FLUM amendment. The Property has been used intermittently as a racetrack for approximately 30 years. A racetrack has operated on the Property as a nonconforming use, and has the right to continue do so under applicable County land use and zoning regulations. The racetrack is, in fact, eligible to expand by 15 percent under these regulations. The County would not have some absolute right to cease racetrack operations if it remained nonconforming, and would not have unlimited authority to address noise and traffic concerns. The uncontradicted testimony is that it is likely that the racetrack would continue to operate even if it remained a nonconforming use. The County does not lose any authority to address noise and traffic by virtue of the Amendment. Credible evidence in the record indicates that the County may actually have a better ability to address these concerns should the racetrack be made a conforming use. Nevertheless, the fact that the racetrack, operated as the Speedway, currently exists in the area as a nonconforming use does not mean that the use is automatically compatible with the adjacent land uses and surrounding area or is otherwise consistent with the character of the community. The nonconforming use designation only means that the racetrack can continue to operate, not that the racetrack can achieve a potentially more useful and elevated land use status by virtue of being an existing raceway and commercial use. Otherwise, an existing nonconforming use would have greater rights to a new and more permissive land use designation than a new entrant into the marketplace. Stated otherwise, the FLUM Amendment, if approved, will further and encourage the nonconforming use rather than its eventual elimination as contemplated by the Plan and Zoning Ordinance. In this case, it is beyond fair debate that if a new automobile racetrack were proposed on the Property today, it would be inconsistent with the existing residential and conservation areas surrounding the property, notwithstanding the existence of several commercial properties in the vicinity. The only reasonable conclusion to be reached is that that the Amendment is not "in compliance."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued concluding that the Amendment adopted by Putnam County in Ordinance No. 2001- 33 is not "in compliance" as defined in Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of May, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ CHARLES A. STAMPELOS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of May, 2003.
The Issue The issue is whether Citrus County's (County's) small-scale development amendment CPA-09-16 adopted by Ordinance No. 2009- A07 on May 26, 2009, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background Petitioner resides and owns property at 10662 West Halls River Road, Homasassa, Florida, in the southwestern part of the County. According to a County aerial map, the property appears to be 0.68 acres in size and is rectangular-shaped, with the eastern side fronting on the Homasassa River (River), while the western side adjoins West Halls River Road (also known as County Road 490A), a two-lane designated collector roadway for the County. See Intervenor's Exhibit 8. That road dead-ends a mile or so farther to the southwest in a subdivision known as Riverhaven. Petitioner has owned the property since April 1992. Intervenor, a limited liability corporation, acquired ownership of a 47.5-acre parcel in May 2007, which lies directly west-northwest of Petitioner's property and across West Halls River Road. In early 2009, it filed an application with the County seeking a change in the land use on 9.9 acres of the larger parcel from CL to RVP. The smaller parcel's address is 10565 West Halls River Road and is a short distance north of Petitioner's lot. The change in land use was requested because Intervenor intends to place a recreational vehicle (RV) park on the 9.9-acre parcel. On page 10-103 of the Plan's Future Land Use Element (FLUE), the CL land use is described in relevant part as follows: This land use category designates those areas having environmental characteristics that are sensitive to development and therefore should be protected. Residential development in this district is limited to a maximum of one dwelling unit per 20 acres and one unit per 40 acres in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's V-zone. On page 10-112 of the FLUE, the RVP land use is described in relevant part as follows: This category is intended to recognize existing Recreational Vehicle (RV) Parks and Campgrounds, as well as to provide for the location and development of new parks for recreational vehicles. Such parks are intended specifically to allow for temporary living accommodation for recreation, camping, or travel use. After the application was filed and reviewed by the County staff, a report was prepared by the then County Senior Planner, Dr. Pitts, on April 14, 2009, recommending that the application be approved. See Petitioner's Exhibit 5. The report noted that "this site is appropriate for some type of RV Park development subject to an appropriately designed master plan." Id. Although forty-nine RV units could potentially be placed on the parcel, the report noted that due to significant "environmental limitations of the area," the site "may not be able to be designed at maximum intensity for this land use district." Id. The "environmental limitations" are approximately 1.64 acres of wetlands that are located on four parts of the property, wetlands on neighboring properties, and "karst sensitivity." The report noted that these environmental issues would have to be addressed in a master plan to be submitted by the applicant before development. The matter was then favorably considered by the County's Planning and Development Review Board by a 4-1 vote on May 7, 2009. On May 26, 2009, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) conducted a public hearing on the application. By a 3-2 vote, the Board adopted Ordinance 2009-A07, which approved the change on the GFLUM. See Petitioner's Exhibit 2. Petitioner and Intervenor appeared at the hearing and submitted comments regarding the amendment. See County Exhibit 3. Accordingly, both are affected persons and have standing to participate in this matter. Because the size of the parcel was less than ten acres, the map change was not reviewed by the Department of Community Affairs. See § 163.3187(1)(c)1. and (3)(a), Fla. Stat. On June 24, 2009, Petitioner filed with DOAH his Petition challenging the small-scale development amendment. As summarized in the parties' Joint Prehearing Stipulation, Petitioner contends that the map change "is not consistent with [the County's] adopted comprehensive plan because such is incompatible with the character of the properties surrounding the subject property and because such is incompatible with [the] environmentally sensitive nature of the subject property and the properties surrounding the subject property." See Joint Prehearing Stipulation, pages 1-2. More specifically, Petitioner contends the map change is internally inconsistent with FLUE Policies 17.2.7, 17.2.11, and 17.2.8. The Subject Property Although its precise dimensions are not of record, from around 1952 until 1985, a golf course was located on a large tract of land west of West Halls River Road, where Intervenor's larger parcel of property is located. Currently, the larger parcel is vacant and undeveloped. The subject property (as well as the entire larger parcel) is classified as CL (Low Intensity Coastal and Lakes), which allows one dwelling unit per twenty acres. Because the property is in the coastal high hazard area (CHHA), the amendment allows five RV units per acre, or a total of forty-nine. In all likelihood, however, the number would be somewhat smaller due to "severe" environmental constraints discussed above. See Finding 5, supra. The new land use also allows a small amount of retail development to serve the RV customers. The 9.9-acre parcel surrounds a one-acre parcel that adjoins West Halls River Road, also owned by Intervenor, and carries a CLC (Coastal and Lakes Commercial) land use designation. A vested eighteen-unit RV park (Sunrise RV Park) has been located on the one-acre parcel since the late 1980s. Except for the small one-acre enclave, the property is bordered on three sides by vacant, unimproved property, all designated as CL. According to Petitioner, Sunrise RV Park has a small number of "dilapidated" trailers and "a bunch of junk stored on the front lawn." This was not disputed. The vacant lot directly south of the larger parcel, comprised mainly of wetlands, is owned by Glen Black, who objects to the map change. Across the roadway, the area north and south of Petitioner's property along the River is classified as CL and is "predominately residential." Besides the residential uses on the River side of the road, Intervenor identified around six non-conforming businesses (mainly former fish camps) that were vested prior to the adoption of the current Plan and that are interspersed with the residential lots. (Under current Plan provisions, they would not be allowed.) Around one-quarter mile or so south of the subject property is the Magic Manatee Marina (Marina) located on a two-acre parcel facing the River.2 A small fish camp with six "rental cottages" lies a few lots north of the Marina. There are also four small condominium buildings with dock facilities (known as Cory's Landing) just north of the fish camp. The aerial map reflects that all other lots south of Petitioner's property are used for residential purposes. Besides the other residential lots north of Petitioner's property, there are nine rental units at a vested "fishing resort" on a parcel slightly less than two acres in size located at 10606 West Halls River Road. Around one-half mile further north at the confluence of the Halls and Homasassa Rivers is a vested restaurant, Margarita Grill. Except for these vested non-conforming uses, all other lots are used for residential purposes, and the entire strip of land adjoining the River is classified as CL. North of Intervenor's 47.5-acre parcel, but not directly adjoining it, and on the western side of West Halls River Road, is a large unevenly-shaped tract of land classified as RVP, on which the Nature's Resort RV Park is located. That facility is authorized to accommodate around three hundred RVs. The entrance to that park from West Halls River Road appears to be at least one-quarter mile or more north of the subject property. Petitioner's Objections Petitioner contends that the amendment is not in compliance because it is internally inconsistent with FLUE Policies 17.2.7, 17.2.11, and 17.2.8, which concern environmental and compatibility requirements. These provisions are discussed separately below. Policy 17.2.7 Policy 17.2.7 provides as follows: The County shall guide future development to the most appropriate areas, as depicted on the GFLUM, specifically those with minimal environmental limitations and the availability of necessary services. Petitioner argues that the subject property is in an extremely sensitive environmental area due to extensive wetlands and a karst sensitive landscape. (Karst is a limestone underground rock structure that is very porous and through which pollutants can easily travel.) He further points out that the property is located within the CHHA. Given these environmental constraints, and the proposed increase in density, Petitioner contends the map change will run counter to the above policy. There are no provisions within the Plan that prohibit the location of an RV park within the CHHA. Policy 17.6.12 imposes numerous requirements for RV parks, including a thirty percent open space requirement, restrictions on densities, wetland protection, upland preservation, clustering, and connection to regional central water and sewer service. These policy restrictions have been implemented by more specific land development regulations (LDRs) that limit the density and intensity of RVs and the types of RVs (e.g., park models) that can be placed in an RV park located within a CHHA. In this case, because the property is in a CHHA, the LDRs impose a five- RV per acre limitation, as opposed to the normal fourteen RVs per acre in non-CHHA areas, and for evacuation purposes, park models are prohibited. Further, the RV park must be served by regional central water and sewer services. All land in the County west of U.S. Highway 19, including the subject property, is karst sensitive. As such, any development west of U.S. Highway 19 must meet certain design standards to ensure that the water supply is not threatened. The County says that these concerns must be addressed during the site approval (development) process. The record shows that there are four jurisdictional wetland sites on the parcel totaling 1.64 acres. There are also wetlands on the surrounding property. Because of these environmental constraints, Dr. Pitts (the former County Senior Planner) stated that it is "highly unlikely" that Intervenor "can develop at 49 units." He further pointed out that while it is "certainly possible to do it at a smaller number," there would be one hundred percent wetland protection through setbacks both to wetlands on the subject parcel, as well as the surrounding area, a thirty percent open space requirement on the site, a ten percent area dedicated to recreational uses, and minimum buffers on the side of the property facing West Halls River Road. For RV parks, pertinent LDRs adopted to implement the Plan require that the developer avoid all wetlands. Policy 17.2.7 expresses a County planning decision that future development be directed to "the most appropriate areas, as depicted on the GFLUM, specifically those with minimal environmental limitations." (Emphasis added) According to Dr. Pitts, the subject property has "severe" environmental limitations, and that "it will be difficult to design the site [in a way] that meets the standards of the comprehensive plan and the land development code." Notwithstanding the other provisions within the Plan and LDRs that place limitations on RV park development in an effort to satisfy environmental constraints, see Finding 18, supra, the subject property is clearly not "the most appropriate area, as depicted on the GFLUM" for new development, nor is it an area "with minimal environmental limitations." In fact, the amendment does just the opposite -- it directs new commercial development to an area with severe environmental limitations. Therefore, the greater weight of evidence supports a finding that the map change is internally inconsistent with Policy 17.2.7. Policy 17.2.11 Petitioner next contends that the plan amendment is contrary to the Plan's basic strategy of protecting environmentally sensitive areas, as set forth in FLUE Policy 17.2.11, which reads as follows: Consistent with the Plan's basic strategy for protection of environmentally sensitive areas, the following guidelines shall apply to all development in the Coastal, Lakes, and Rivers Region: No increase in residential density should be approved except for Planned Development standards already contained in the Plan. No additional high intensity non-residential land uses shall be approved for this region. Specifically new GNC [General Commercial] and IND [Industrial] districts shall be avoided. The subject property is within the Coastal Region and therefore subject to these guidelines. See Intervenor's Exhibit 3, page 10-3. On page 10-150 of the FLUE, the narrative text states in part that "with increasing development activity and growth in the coming years, existing restrictions on the density/intensity of land use should be maintained and enhanced to provide additional protection to this sensitive region." According to the Plan, a "GNC district allows potentially high density/intensity development" and "should not be located in areas of the County deemed to be environmentally sensitive areas." See Intervenor's Exhibit 3, page 10-110. It further provides that "[n]o new GNC shall be allowed in the coastal, lakes and river region." Id. Therefore, new GNC development should not be allowed in the Coastal Region. Although an RV park is a commercial use, it is not a GNC use. Further, the five-units per acre limitation is not considered a high-intensity non-residential use. Therefore, while the policy serves a laudable purpose, it does not prohibit RVP development within the Coastal Region. Therefore, the map change is not internally inconsistent with Policy 17.2.11. Policy 17.2.8 Petitioner's final objection is that an RV park is not compatible with the surrounding area. He goes on to contend that by placing an RVP designation adjacent to a large tract of CL land, the County has contravened FLUE Policy 17.2.8. That policy reads as follows: The County shall utilize land use techniques and development standards to achieve a functional and compatible land use framework which reduces incompatible land uses. Because compatibility is not defined in the Plan, Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.003(23) is helpful in resolving this issue.3 That rule defines the term "compatibility" as follows: (23) "Compatibility" means a condition in which land uses or conditions can coexist in relative proximity to each other in a stable fashion over time such that no use or condition is unduly negatively impacted directly or indirectly by another use or condition. In its Proposed Recommended Order, Intervenor also suggests that the definition of "suitability" is relevant to this issue. That term is defined in Rule 9J-5.003(128) as follows: (128) "Suitability" means the degree to which the existing characteristics and limitations of land and water are compatible with a proposed use or development. Petitioner characterized the area around his home as quiet, peaceful, and "all residential." He noted that except for a few vested, non-conforming businesses, such as the Sunrise RV Park, Marina, fish camp, and restaurant, the remainder of the area along the River, as well as Intervenor's larger parcel across the street, is either residential or vacant. Petitioner fears that an RV park will result in increased noise, park lighting during nighttime hours, trash being left by the roadside, more traffic on the two-lane road, and a decrease in the value of his property. He also believes that the developer intends to place the southern entrance to the RV park almost directly across the street from his home. The greater weight of evidence supports a finding that the proposed new land use designation is not compatible with the surrounding land. Intervenor argues that an RV park and the surrounding residential properties are compatible (and suitable) because there are already non-conforming uses along the River that have not unduly negatively impacted the area. These uses, however, number only six along that stretch of the River, and they have existed for decades due to vested rights. It is fair to infer that the insertion of an RV park in the middle of a large tract of vacant CL land would logically lead to further requests for reclassifying CL land to expand the new RV park or to allow other non-residential uses. The stated purpose of Policy 17.2.8 is to reduce "incompatible land uses." At the same time, Rule 9J-5.003(23) discourages land uses which are in relative proximity to each other and can unduly negatively impact the other uses or conditions. The commercial RV park, with a yet-to-be determined number of spaces for temporary RVs, tenants, and associated commercial development, will be in close proximity to a predominately residential neighborhood. A reasonable inference from the evidence is that these commercial uses will have a direct or indirect negative impact on the nearby residential properties and should not coexist in close proximity to one another. This is contrary to Policy 17.2.8, which encourages a reduction in "incompatible land uses," and the amendment is therefore internally inconsistent with the policy.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a final order determining that small-scale development amendment CPA-09-16 adopted by the County by Ordinance No. 2009-A07 on May 26, 2009, is not in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of October, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of October, 2009.
