The Issue The issue in this case is whether a small scale amendment to the Cooper City comprehensive plan adopted pursuant to Section 163.3187(1)(c), Florida Statutes, is "in compliance."
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, The Sunshine Ranches Homeowners Association, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the “Homeowners Association ") is a not-for-profit corporation. The Homeowners Association has members who reside within the residential area known as Sunshine Ranches, located in Broward County. The address of the principal office of the Homeowners Association is 12400 Flamingo Road, Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida. (Stipulated Facts). The Homeowners Association was formed on or about December 4, 1968. The Homeowners Association is involved in working for the betterment of residents and land owners within Sunshine Ranches to secure political, social, and economic improvement within Sunshine Ranches. Petitioner, Charles F. Seip, resides at 4661 Southwest 128th Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Mr. Seip lives two blocks west of the parcel of property which is the subject of this proceeding. Mr. Seip has lived at his current location for 26.5 years. (Stipulated Facts). Petitioner, Anthony E. Coulson, resides at 4710 Southwest 126th Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Mr. Coulson lives approximately four blocks from the subject property. (Stipulated Facts). Petitioner, Jeffrey Price, resides at 5001 Southwest 126th Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Mr. Price lives approximately four blocks west of the subject property. (Stipulated Facts). Each Petitioner submitted oral and written objections to the City of Cooper City during the review and adoption proceedings conducted by the City of Cooper City on the adoption of the comprehensive plan amendment which is the subject of this proceeding. Petitioners submitted objections to the Cooper City Planning and Zoning Board and the City of Cooper City Commission. The parties stipulated that Petitioners are "affected persons." Respondent, the City of Cooper City (hereinafter referred to as the "City"), is a municipality of the State of Florida. The City is located in Broward County, Florida. The City is a "local government" as defined in Section 163.3164(13), Florida Statutes. The City's address is 9090 Southwest 50th Place, Cooper City, Broward County, Florida. (Stipulated Facts). Intervenor, George H. Lange, Trustee, is the representative of a trust that owns the property which is the subject of the amendment at issue in this proceeding. The Amendment. By Ordinance Number 96-10-3, the City adopted an amendment, L.L.U.P.A. 96-S-1 (hereinafter referred to as the "Plan Amendment") to the Cooper City Land Use Plan. (Stipulated Facts). The Plan Amendment was adopted on October 22, 1996. (Stipulated Facts). Also adopted with the Plan Amendment was a Development Agreement establishing conditions for the development of the property which is the subject of the Plan Amendment (hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property"). The Plan Amendment was also identified as Ordinance Number PS96-15 in some notices published by the City. (Stipulated Facts). The Plan Amendment changes the land use designation of approximately 8.45 acres of land from "Estate Residential" to "Commercial" for the eastern 3.82 acres and to "Community Facility" for the western 4 acres. (Stipulated Facts). The Plan Amendment is a "small scale amendment" pursuant to Section 163.3187(1(c), Florida Statutes. Therefore, the Plan Amendment was not reviewed by the Department of Community Affairs. (Stipulated Facts). The petition challenging the Plan Amendment was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings within 30 days of October 22, 1996, the date the Plan Amendment was adopted. (Stipulated Facts). The City and Its Comprehensive Plan. The City is a relatively small municipality located in southwestern Broward County. Geographically, the City consists of approximately six-and-a-quarter square miles. The City is located directly to the east of Sunshine Ranches. The City and Sunshine Ranches are bounded on the north and south by the same roads: Griffin Road and Orange Road in the north; and Sheridan Street in the South. The western boundary of the City either abuts Sunshine Ranches or is separated by Flamingo Road. The City is bounded on the north by the Town of Davie. It is bounded on the south by Pembroke Pines. The City adopted the Cooper City Comprehensive Plan in 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the "Plan"). It consists of Volumes I, II, and III. Volume I contains the text of the Plan. Volumes II and III contain the data and analysis for the Plan. Pursuant to a Compliance Agreement entered into between the City and the Department of Community Affairs, the Plan was found to be "in compliance" as defined in Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. The City's Evaluation and Appraisal Report. The City was required to submit an Evaluation and Appraisal Report to the Department of Community Affairs on or before March 11, 1996. At the time of the formal hearing of this case, the City had prepared a draft of its Evaluation and Appraisal Report. See Respondent's and Intervenor's Exhibit 5. The draft of the City's Evaluation and Appraisal Report had not, however, been filed with the Department of Community Affairs. Sunshine Ranches. Sunshine Ranches is an unincorporated area of Broward County. It is generally bounded by the following roads: On the north by Orange Road and Griffin Road; On the south by Sheridan Street; On the west by Volunteer Road (148th Avenue); and On the east by Flamingo Road. Griffin Road abuts the entire length of the northern boundary of Sunshine Ranches. Orange Road is located immediately to the north of Griffin Road. The two roads are separated by a canal which runs the entire length of the northern boundary of Sunshine Ranches. The area to the north of Orange Road and Griffin Road is largely undeveloped. Flamingo Road on the eastern boundary of Sunshine Ranches is a six-lane road with a wide right-of-way. There is also a canal that runs the length of Flamingo Road. The canal separates Flamingo Road from Sunshine Ranches and other parcels of property located west of Flamingo Road. The right- of-way and canal are approximately 270 feet wide. The roads along the north, south, and west of Sunshine Ranches are contiguous with Sunshine Ranches' boundaries. On the east, Flamingo road is contiguous with most of Sunshine Ranches' eastern boundary. There are, however, several parcels of property located west of Flamingo Road which are a part of the City. Sunshine Ranches consists of approximately four square miles of land, or approximately 2,500 acres. Sunshine Ranches is a rural community with a significant number of small and large horse farms. There are also large homesites, the majority of which are five acres or larger. Many homesites have barns on them. A substantial number of homes in Sunshine Acres have animals, such as horses, chickens, and cows. Most of the roads in Sunshine Ranches are dirt roads. There are no sidewalks or traffic lights. There are a few fire hydrants in Sunshine Ranches. Most areas, however, are served by fire wells. There is a volunteer fire department consisting of two vehicles. The vehicles are leased from Broward County. Sunshine Ranches is a unique community in Broward County, both in terms of the size of lots and its rural, equestrian and agricultural character. There are signs at each entrance road into Sunshine Ranches that include the following: "Welcome to Sunshine Ranches: A Rural Estate Community." Most commercial enterprises within Sunshine Ranches are involved in equestrian-related activities. These activities consist of providing boarding facilities, riding schools, and horse training facilities. There is also a plant nursery located in Sunshine Ranches. Horses owned by non-residents of Sunshine Ranches are boarded at facilities in Sunshine Ranches. Non-residents also ride horses at facilities located in Sunshine Ranches. The land use designations for Sunshine Ranches consist of the following: "Rural Ranches," which allows one residential unit per two and one-half acres; and "Rural Estate," which allows one residential unit per one acre. The designation of Sunshine Ranches as Rural Ranches and Rural Estate was accomplished by an amendment to the Broward County comprehensive plan. It was the first area in Broward County to receive these designations. The designations resulted from a study conducted by Broward County to identify, preserve, and protect rural lands from urban encroachment. Property designated Rural Ranches may be used for "Community Facilities" also. Community Facilities include schools, fire stations, churches, etc. Churches require five- acre lots. There are several parcels located along Flamingo Road in Sunshine Ranches which are used by Churches. There are also schools located within Sunshine Ranches. Approximately 90% of Sunshine Ranches is designated Rural Ranches. Approximately 10% of Sunshine Ranches is designated Rural Estate. The portion of Sunshine Ranches designated Rural Estate is located along Giffin Road. Commercial Activities Around Sunshine Ranches. There are only a few commercial sites located near the boundaries of Sunshine Ranches. One is located on the western boundary of Sunshine Ranches at Volunteer Road and Griffin Road. This site is located on the side of Volunteer Road opposite to Sunshine Ranches. The site is, therefore, separated from Sunshine Ranches by the road and a canal. The largest amount of commercial property in the vicinity of Sunshine Ranches is located near the eastern boundary of Sunshine Ranches and Flamingo Road. At the corner of Flamingo Road and Giffin Road, immediately across Flamingo Road from the Subject Property, is Wal-Mart Shopping Center. Abutting Flamingo Road is the parking lot for the shopping center. The shopping center is located to the east of the parking lot. The shopping center is currently separated from Sunshine Ranches by approximately 700 feet of parking lot, the six-lanes of Flamingo Road, the canal located on the west side of Flamingo Road and the Subject Property. Immediately to the south of the Wal-Mart parcel are properties designated "Low 5" and "Low-Medium 10." Both designations allow residential uses. Flamingo Road and the canal on the western side of Flamingo Road act as a buffer between the existing commercial activities on Flamingo Road and Sunshine Ranches. Flamingo Road has historically acted as a dividing line between commercial activities and Sunshine Ranches. Commercial activities have been limited to the eastern side of Flamingo Road. On the west side of Flamingo Road there are several parcels of land which have been annexed as part of the City. None of these parcels are currently approved for commercial uses, however. They are all currently designated for residential ("Estate Residential") or Community Facilities. Most remain undeveloped. The Estate Residential designation allows use of the property for Community Facilities. Immediately to the south of the Subject Property is a 16-acres parcel designated Estate Residential. The largest parcel of property in the City located on the western side of Flamingo Road has been developed under the name of County Glen. There are no commercial sites within County Glen. Steps were taken in developing County Glen to minimize the impact of its higher density on Sunshine Ranches. These steps included restricting the number of traffic lights within the development and a limitation on density of the lots directly abutting Sunshine Ranches to one residential unit per acre. Although County Glen is more urban than Sunshine Ranches, steps were taken to buffer Sunshine Ranches from the impact of the development, consistent with development allowed west of Flamingo Road. The Need for Commercial Property in the City. Volume II of the Plan contains an analysis of the amount of commercial acreage within the City necessary to support the residents of the City. The analysis indicates that the City has one of the lowest ratios of commercial to residential acreage in Broward County. The ratio of commercial property to residential property was 7.2 percent. Although this ratio is lower than the ratio for Broward County, the City and the Department of Community Affairs agreed that the Plan, including the amount of acreage designated for commercial use, was "in compliance." The City has not amended its Plan to change this ratio. The City has adopted two Plan amendments reducing the amount of acreage in the City designated "Commercial" under the Plan. One amendment involved approximately 14.4 acres. The evidence failed to prove the size of the other parcel. Currently, there are a number of parcels of land designated Commercial under the Plan which are vacant. One is known as the Transflorida Bank Plaza. It is located to the east of the Subject Property at the corner of Griffin Road and 100th Avenue. The property was formerly a Winn Dixie Supermarket. Part of the property is still used for commercial uses. Another vacant commercial parcel is located on Pine Island Road across from David Poenick Community Center. This parcel is 6.5 acres. The City has approved use of this property for a 55,000 square-foot Albertson's. Another vacant commercial parcel is located on Stirling Road across from the Cooper City High School. On the east side of Flamingo Road, between Stirling Road and Giffin Road, there is a shopping center known as Countryside Shops. There are vacant parcels to the south and north of this property which could be used for commercial purposes. Finally, there are other vacant commercial parcels located in the central part of the City. The location of commercial property is an important factor in determining whether the property will actually be used. Therefore, the fact that there are vacant commercial properties located in the City fails to prove that there is not a need for the total amount of property designated Commercial under the Plan. Overall, the City has reduced the amount of property designated Commercial under the Plan. The amount of land being classified as Commercial pursuant to the Plan Amendment will not increase the amount of property originally designated Commercial pursuant to the Plan. The "Industrial" land use designation under the Plan allows some uses which may be considered commercial. This was true when the Plan was found to be in compliance, however, and the amount of land designated Commercial was still approved. The evidence failed to prove that the amount of property designated Commercial, including the portion of the property being designated Commercial pursuant to the Plan Amendment, is not supported by the data and analysis that supported the amount of commercial property found to be in compliance under the Plan when it was adopted. In light of the fact that the City has not submitted its Evaluation and Appraisal Report to the Department of Community Affairs for review as required by Section 163.3191, Florida Statutes, the amount of property designated Commercial in the originally approved Plan should not be relied upon to support the Plan Amendment. While the draft of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report prepared by the City indicates a need for additional commercial acreage in the City, the Department of Community Affairs has not reviewed the report. Nor has the City amended the Plan "based on the recommendations contained in the adopted evaluation and appraisal report " Section 163.3191 (4), Florida Statutes. The Subject Property and the Impact of the Plan Amendment. The Subject Property is currently classified as "Estate Residential" in the Plan. This classification allows the use of the Subject Property for residential purposes. The Subject Property is located at the southwestern corner of Flamingo Road and Griffin Road. It is located on the west of Flamingo Road. The Subject Property abuts the northeastern corner of Sunshine Ranches. Under the Plan Amendment, the eastern approximately four acres of the Subject Property will be designated Commercial (hereinafter referred to as the "Commercial Property"). This will be the first property on the west side of Flamingo Road designated for commercial uses. The Commercial Property will be separated from Sunshine Ranches by the remaining 3.82 acres of the Subject Property. This portion of the Subject Property will be designated Community Facilities (hereinafter referred to as the "Community Facilities Property"). The Subject Property abuts an area of Sunshine Ranches which consists of Rural Estate property. This designation makes up approximately 10 percent of the property in Sunshine Ranches. The Plan Amendment allows stormwater facilities required for the Commercial Property and the Community Facilities Property to be located on the Community Facilities Property. I. Compatibility of Land Classifications with Surrounding Classifications; The Impact of the Plan Amendment on Sunshine Ranches. Policy 1.1.3 of the Plan provides that the compatibility of a proposed land use with existing land uses is a primary consideration in determining whether a land use should be allowed. Residential and commercial land uses are not inherently compatible. Despite this fact, residential and commercial land uses often abut each other. Where this occurs, steps can be taken to minimize the negative impact of the commercial use of property on the residential use of adjoining property. Flamingo Road and the adjacent canal provide a good boundary and buffer between rural Sunshine Ranches and the urbanized area of the City. The Plan recognizes this fact by requiring that the City conduct a study of the application of an urban growth boundary line for areas of the City located west of Flamingo Road. Regardless of the size of the Commercial Property, the designation of the Commercial Property for commercial uses would be the first commercially authorized use of property west of Flamingo Road or inside any of the other boundary roads of Sunshine Ranches. Comparing the uses allowed on the Commercial Property with the uses of property in Sunshine Ranches, it is evident that the uses are not compatible. This conclusion, however, does not necessarily mean that the City's approval of the Commercial Property for commercial uses is not "in compliance." Although the uses allowed on the Commercial Property and in Sunshine Ranches are incompatible, there are steps which can be taken to minimize the negative impacts which occur when commercial activities approach residential activities. One of those steps was taken when the City approved the Plan Amendment with the Community Facilities Property located between the Commercial Property and Sunshine Ranches. The Community Facilities Property, in conjunction with other measures, can be an effective buffer between the Commercial Property and Sunshine Ranches. The Development Agreement adopted by the City was adopted, in part, to address compatibility concerns. The Development Agreement eliminates various uses of the Commercial Property which would otherwise be allowed by the City's zoning for commercial parcels. The Development Agreement also provides that the Community Facilities Property will be dedicated to community facilities uses once the development of the Commercial Property is approved. The Development Agreement also includes certain development standards and requirements intended to reduce the impact on Sunshine Ranches due to incompatibility, such as requiring berms and landscaping to buffer the Subject Property from Sunshine Ranches. Horse trails along the Subject Property are to be included in the development. Land development regulations will require that steps be taken in the development of the Subject Property to reduce the negative impact on adjoining property, including Sunshine Ranches. The designation of the Commercial Property for commercial uses could, however, have a "domino affect" on other property located west of Flamingo Road. Once one parcel is approved, it will be difficult for the City not to approve similarly situated parcels. The Plan Amendment will increase the expectation of others who own property west of Flamingo Road that the land- use designation of their property can be changed to Commercial. The evidence, however, failed to prove that there are other parcels of property located west of Flamingo Road which are sufficiently similar to the Subject Property that they would be allowed to be used for commercial purposes. The evidence also failed to prove that any parcels of property located west of Flamingo Road which may be considered in the future for commercial uses cannot have conditions imposed on their use for commercial purposes which will adequately protect Sunshine Ranches from an incompatible use. The Plan Amendment could also negatively impact the ability to use adjoining property for residential purposes. In particular, the sixteen-acre parcel located immediately to the south of the Subject Property will more difficult to develop as residential if the Plan Amendment is approved. The evidence failed to prove, however, that with effective buffering adjoining property cannot be used for residential purposes. The evidence failed to prove that, with proper measures to reduce the impacts of the development on the Subject Property on Sunshine Ranches, the development of the Subject Property allowed by the Plan Amendment would necessarily be incompatible with Sunshine Ranches. The evidence failed to prove that the uses allowed for the Community Facilities Property are incompatible with the uses allowed in Sunshine Ranches. The Availability of Infrastructure. The evidence failed to prove that the Plan Amendment is not in compliance due to the lack of available vehicle trips on roads that would be impacted by development of the Subject Property. This issue, which involves the question of whether development of the Subject Property is consistent with relevant transportation levels of service, is one that should be considered at the time a development order is sought. It is not an issue for consideration in determining whether a land use designation amendment is in compliance. The same conclusion applies to other services such as sewer and water, which currently are available for the Subject Property. Urban Sprawl, the State and Regional Plan, Internal Inconsistency, and Inconsistency with the Broward County Comprehensive Plan. The evidence failed to support allegations concerning urban sprawl, the state and regional plans, internal inconsistencies, and inconsistencies with the Broward County comprehensive plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Administration Commission finding the Plan Amendment is invalid because it was adopted in violation of Section 163.3187(6), Florida Statutes, and is not "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of July, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of July, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Grosso, General Counsel Scott SznitRen, Certified Law Intern ENVIRONEMENTAL and LAW USE LAW CENTER, INC. Civil Law Clinic Shepard Broad Law Center Nova Southeastern Center 3305 College Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33314 Alan Ruf, City Attorney City of Cooper City 9090 Southwest 50th Place Cooper City, Florida 33328 Richard G. Coker, Jr., Esquire BRADY and CORER 1318 Southeast 2nd Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Barbara Leighty, Clerk Administration Commission Growth Management and Strategic Planning 2105 Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Gregory Smith, Esquire Administration Commission 209 Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
The Issue The issue is whether the Petition to Establish the Southeastern Community Development District (Petition) meets the applicable criteria set forth in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes (2006),1 and Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 42-1. The purpose of the hearing was to gather information in anticipation of quasi-legislative rulemaking by the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (Commission).
The Issue The issue before the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (FLWAC) in this proceeding is whether to grant the Petition to Establish the Tesoro Community Development District (Petition), dated December 22, 2003, as supplemented and corrected. The local public hearing was for purposes of gathering information in anticipation of quasi-legislative rulemaking by FLWAC.2
Findings Of Fact At all pertinent times, respondent Beach Landscaping, Inc. d/b/a Landscape Technologies or Landscape Technologies, Inc. or as Land Tech (Beach) operated as a dealer in agricultural products under license No. 2889 issued by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (DACS). On Beach's behalf, respondent Regency Insurance Company posted a surety bond with DACS, No. SF00356 in the amount of $3,000, effective September 24, 1988, through September 23, 1989, to secure payment for Florida agricultural products. Testimony of Brooks. On August 30, 1989, Beach took delivery from petitioners of seven live oak trees petitioners grew near Chiefland, Florida, agreeing to pay $125 for each which, with sales tax, aggregated $927.50. Petitioners's Exhibit No. 1, Inv. No. 716280. Testimony of Cochran. Having earlier made a deposit of $637.50, Beach took delivery from petitioners on September 18, 1989, of 15 Florida-grown live oak trees, agreeing to pay $170 for each. With sales tax (but less the deposit) Beach owed petitioners $2,065.50 on account of this transaction. Petitioners's Exhibit No. 1, Inv. No. 716788. Testimony of Cochran. The next day Beach took delivery from petitioners of 15 more Florida- grown trees again agreeing to pay $170 for each. Again with sales tax and less an earlier deposit, indebtedness on account of the transaction aggregated $2,065.50. Petitioners's Exhibit No. 1, Inv. No. 716790. Testimony of Cochran. Finally, on September 20, 1989, Beach took delivery from petitioners of 16 Florida-grown live oak trees, agreeing to pay $170 for each, which with sales tax and less an earlier deposit, amounted to $2,203.20. Petitioners's Exhibit No. 1, Inv. No. 716791. Testimony of Cochran. On March 3, 1990, Beach or Landscape Technologies, Inc. paid petitioners $1,000, thereby reducing indebtedness to petitioners on account of the foregoing transactions from $7,261.70 to $6,261.70. Petitioners applied a check in the amount of $1,500 to reduce the indebtedness to $4,761.70, even though the check purported to be in payment of another invoice. In the answer it filed with DACS, Landscape Technologies, Inc., admitted indebtedness of $4,661.10.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That DACS order Beach to pay petitioners four thousand seven hundred sixty-one dollars and seventy cents ($4,761.70) within fifteen (15) days of the final order. That, in the event Beach fails to pay petitioners four thousand seven hundred sixty-one dollars and seventy cents ($4,761.70) within fifteen (15) days of the final order, DACS order Regency Insurance Company to pay three thousand dollars ($3,000) or such lesser sum as satisfies the requirements of Section 604.21(8), Florida Statutes (1989), for disbursal to petitioners. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of April, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of April, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED TO: CHRISTOPHER B. PHILLIPS LANDSCAPE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 523 LAKEVIEW ROAD CLEARWATER, FL 34616 REGENCY INSURANCE COMPANY POST OFFICE BOX 190 HALLANDALE, FL 33009-0190 CLINTON H. COULTER, JR., ESQUIRE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-0800 J. COCHRAN & RUSSELL STRANGE C & S TREE FARM ROUTE 1, BOX 738 CHIEFLAND, FL 32626 HONORABLE BOB CRAWFORD COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL AND CONSUMER SERVICES THE CAPITOL, PL-10 TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-0810 RICHARD TRITSCHLER, GENERAL COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL AND CONSUMER SERVICES 515 MAYO BUILDING TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-0800
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether Amendment 10-01A to the Bay County Comprehensive Plan (“the Plan Amendment”), adopted by Ordinance 10-22, is “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.1
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Department is the state land planning agency and, at the time of the adoption of the Plan Amendment, was charged with the duty to review comprehensive plan amendments and to determine whether they are “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b). Bay County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and has adopted a comprehensive plan that it amends from time to time. Petitioner Diane Brown resides and owns property in Bay County, but not in the Sand Hills STZ. Petitioner submitted comments to Bay County during the time between the transmittal and adoption hearings for the Plan Amendment. Intervenor Cedar Creek is a Florida corporation that owns approximately 1,007 acres of land within the Sand Hills STZ. Intervenor submitted comments to Bay County during the time between the transmittal and adoption hearings for the Plan Amendment. The Sand Hills STZ The Sand Hills STZ is one of three Rural Community STZs in Bay County. The Sand Hills STZ has a number of platted and unplatted subdivisions that were created before the adoption of the Bay County Comprehensive Plan. Within the Sand Hills STZ is a police station, a fire station, and a public school for Pre- Kindergarten through 12th grade. Residences and businesses in the Sand Hills STZ are on private wells and septic tanks. The public school is on central sewer and water. Existing land uses within the Sand Hills STZ include Agriculture, Public/Institutional, Conservation/Preservation, General Commercial, and Rural Residential. Lands designated Agriculture can be developed at one dwelling unit on ten acres ("1 du/10 ac"). Lands designated Rural Residential can be developed at 1 du/3 ac on unpaved roads and 1 du/ac on paved roads. This leads to some semantic confusion. Densities of 1 du/10 ac and 1 du/3 ac are rural densities, but a density of 1 du/ac is a suburban density. That means the Rural Residential land use designation allows for densities that are suburban in character and the rural community STZs are not altogether rural. Abutting the Sand Hills STZ on the north is Washington County. To the south are areas designated Agriculture/ Timberland. The community of Southport is located about five miles to the south. West of the Sand Hills STZ is the Northwest Florida Beaches International Airport and other lands subject to the West Bay Area Sector Plan. East of the Sand Hills STZ is Deer Point Lake/Reservoir, the County’s primary source of drinking water. Also to the east are 8,500 acres of land owned by the Northwest Florida Water Management District that are designated Conservation/Recreation. The Sand Hills region is hydrogeologically sensitive because of significant recharge which occurs throughout the region via ground and surface waters to Deer Point Lake/Reservoir. The Plan Amendment The Plan Amendment creates a new Policy 3.4.10 to guide development in the Sand Hills STZ. The Policy begins: The Sand Hills Area is an established and continually evolving community with unique character and environmental assets that warrant a special planning approach to ensure the preservation and protection of its distinctive qualities. Due to its beautiful natural landscapes, picturesque areas, and its strategic location east of the West Bay Area Sector Plan (Centered around the Northwest Florida Beaches International Airport) and nearby transportation corridors--State Road 77, County Road 388, and State Road 20, development and growth will continue to occur in the Sand Hills Community. The Sand Hills Rural Community Special Treatment Zone is an overlay area that has been established to maintain the area's character while protecting its significant natural resources and advancing Bay County's Wide Open Spaces strategy (Map 3.7). The Sand Hills Rural Community Special Treatment Zone encourages efficient development and infill within an area that has the capacity to service future growth. Guiding principles for the Sand Hills STZ are set forth in new Policy 3.4.10: Protect important recharge areas from the effects of irresponsible development. Create a sense of place by implementing design and landscape standards. Promoting civic and community uses, and providing interconnection between uses, community parks, and open space that protect and enhance the character of the Sand Hills Community. Provide for sustainable development and environmentally responsible design. Maintain the character of the Sand Hills Rural Community while providing for neighborhood commercial, retail, office, and civic uses located within designated commercial area and corridors, appropriately scaled to meet the needs of the Sand Hills Community. Promote an integrated network of local streets, pedestrian paths, and bicycle and equestrian trails. Access management policies that promote development patterns which reduce automobile trip length. Provide for a range of housing types for all ages, incomes, and lifestyles. Provide centralized utilities for all new developments in a planned, coordinated and efficient manner. Policy 3.4.10.1 would allow properties designated Rural Residential to increase from 1 du/ac to 4 du/ac if central water and sewer are available and other conditions are met as set forth in Policy 3.4.10.4. Policy 3.4.10.2 has special conditions applicable to commercial development, such as a maximum floor area ratio of 30 percent. General Commercial land uses are only permitted in three designated "Commercial Nodes." Policy 3.4.10.3 creates special conditions applicable to agricultural uses in the Sand Hills STZ. Policy 3.4.10.4 establishes criteria for new development in the Sand Hills STZ, including the requirement for a site analysis by a licensed engineer or geologist. This requirement is imposed to protect karst features and aquifer recharge areas. This Policy also requires enhanced stormwater treatment and buffers around karst features, low impact design and landscaping standards, and open space requirements. Policy 3.4.10.5 requires the County to complete a plan by January 2012 for the expansion of water and sewer facilities into the Sand Hills STZ and to "retrofit" existing septic tanks by connecting properties to central sewer lines. New developments, regardless of density, are required to connect to central sewer lines if they are within 1,000 feet. Policy 3.4.10.6 addresses roadway access management to reduce reliance on State Road 77 and preserve levels of service. Internal Inconsistency Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with existing Policy 3.4.4 which states, in part, that rural community STZs are intended: to promote infill development into existing rural developed areas that will allow residents to work, shop, live, and recreate within one relatively compact area while preserving the rural and low density land uses in the designated and surrounding areas. Petitioner has a misunderstanding about Policy 3.4.4 that is the basis for several of her objections to the Plan Amendment. Petitioner focuses on the words "preserving the rural and low density land uses" and fails to see that the primary purpose of the policy is to enhance communities out in the rural areas of Bay County by encouraging the creation of a "nucleus" of mixed land uses in a compact development, while preserving the rural character of the surrounding area. Petitioner also asserts that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Policy 3.4.4 because the policy refers to "existing" developed areas, but the Plan Amendment allows residential density increases on some lands that are currently undeveloped. Petitioner's interpretation of the wording in the policy is not the only interpretation that can be given to the words and it is not the interpretation that Bay County gives to the words. Bay County interprets existing developed areas as a general reference to the areas that are currently recognizable as the core of village-like features, rather than a finite group of parcels. Policy 3.4.4 refers to the designation of rural community STZs "consistent with the Wide Open Spaces Strategy." A 7-page document entitled "Wide Open Spaces Strategy" was admitted into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 41. It is stated in the strategy that: This policy is an attempt by the Board of County Commissioners to focus its infrastructure planning and construction efforts. In no way should this policy be construed to discourage anyone choosing to live in the rural area. Rather, the Board is establishing the parameters and expectations that should be associated with that choice. The significance of the strategy to a compliance determination is not clear. It does not appear in the Comprehensive Plan and it may not have been properly adopted by reference. See § 163.3711(1)(b), Fla. Stat. Policy 3.4.4 states that a rural community STZ is to be "designated" consistent with the strategy, but this Plan Amendment does not designate the Sand Hills STZ. There are general statements in the strategy that fail to account for more specific policies of the comprehensive plan. For example, the strategy states that the County will limit residential development in rural communities to 1 du/3 ac, even though the Comprehensive Plan clearly allows 1 du/ac on Rural Residential lands if the lands are on paved roads. Statements in the policy regarding rural services do not reflect the existing public services and utility planning in the Sand Hills STZ. These disharmonies between the Wide Open Spaces Policy and the Comprehensive Plan suggest that the strategy is a collection of general statements that are not intended to have the same force and effect as the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The record evidence is insufficient to show the intended role of the strategy in Bay County's comprehensive planning. The record evidence is insufficient to show that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the strategy. Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Policy 6.10.5 of the Conservation Element, which states: "The County will maintain rural densities and intensities of development in identified high aquifer recharge areas." The existing rural densities in the Sand Hills STZ (1 du/10 ac and 1 du/3 ac) are not changed by the Plan Amendment. The existing suburban densities of 1 du/ac cannot be increased unless the parcels are connected to central water and sewer systems. Therefore, the purpose of Policy 6.10.5--to protect aquifer recharge areas--is achieved by the Plan Amendment. The stated "performance measure" for Policy 6.10.5 is the maintenance of rural designations on the FLUM. The Plan Amendment maintains rural designations on the FLUM. Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Policy 3.2.3 because it conflicts with the intent of the policy to limit the Sand Hills STZ to rural levels of service. However, Policy 3.2.3 does not prohibit the County from providing central services in the Rural STZs. The service area map for the Sand Hills STZ shows that central water and sewer services are already planned. The County already provides central sewer and water to the public school located in the Sand Hills STZ. Petitioner claims that the Plan Amendment, for the first time, allows general commercial uses within the Sand Hills STZ, but General Commercial uses were already allowed in the Sand Hills STZ. In summary, Petitioner failed to prove facts showing that the Plan Amendment causes the Comprehensive Plan to be internally inconsistent with any goal, objective, or policy of the Comprehensive Plan. Data and Analysis Petitioner asserts that there is insufficient data and analysis to support the need for increased residential density to meet population projections for the area. A local government can accommodate more than the projected population. See § 163.3177(6)(a)4., Fla. Stat. The Plan Amendment responds to growth pressures in the Sand Hills STZ, modifies antiquated subdivisions, and furthers numerous other general and specific goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan to promote well-designed, environmentally-protective, infrastructure-efficient, high- quality communities. Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendment is not supported by appropriate data and analysis regarding the protection of aquifer recharge areas. However, the evidence offered by Petitioner only established that she wants the Plan Amendment to be more protective. Petitioner's expert hydrogeologist, Dr. Kincaid, admitted that the County had taken "strong" and "aggressive" measures in the Plan Amendment to protect water quality, but said he wished the County had done more to address water withdrawals. There was no evidence presented indicating that there is insufficient water available to serve the Sand Hills STZ. The Northwest Florida Water Management District has exclusive authority to regulate water withdrawals in Bay County. See § 373.217(2), Fla. Stat. The Deer Point Lake Hydrologic Analysis is the principal data and analysis that the Plan Amendment is based upon. In addition, the Plan Amendment is supported by the analysis presented at the final hearing by Dr. Kincaid and Steve Peene. Petitioner did not present data and analysis showing that the Plan Amendment would be harmful to water resources. Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendment is not supported by data and analysis regarding impacts on species and habitats. Petitioner did not explain what additional data and analysis would be required regarding species and habitat when the lands affected by the Plan Amendment are already designated for residential and commercial development. Petitioner refers to comments made by the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, but those comments are also unexplained, and are hearsay. The Conservation Element of the Comprehensive Plan addresses the protection of natural resources, species, and habitat. The Plan Amendment does not remove any goal, objective, or policy of the Conservation Element. Petitioner did not show the Plan Amendment would be harmful to species and their habitat. A large area where septic tanks are used can be expected to be a source of groundwater contamination because a significant number of septic tanks will fail. The Plan Amendment includes a new map which depicts priority areas for retrofitting existing parcels that use private wells and septic tanks and connecting the parcels to central water and sewer lines. Petitioner contends that the mapping is not supported by data and analysis. The priority areas were selected based on development density and proximity to Deer Point Lake. Those data are sufficient to support the mapping of priority areas. Petitioner produced no contrary data and analysis. In summary, Petitioner failed to prove facts showing that the Plan Amendment is not supported by relevant and appropriate data and analysis. Urban Sprawl Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendment encourages urban sprawl, but her evidence was not persuasive. According to Petitioner's theory of sprawl, every rural town and village would be an example of sprawl because they all "leap frog" from urban areas over agricultural and rural lands. Leap frogging as an indicator of sprawl usually involves a leap from an urban area to an area of undeveloped rural lands which will be transformed into urban or suburban land uses. That is not the situation here. The Plan Amendment's application of modern planning principles to enhance the quality and functionality of an existing rural community does not indicate urban sprawl. Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendment triggers most of the 13 indicators of urban sprawl that are set forth in section 163.3177(6)(a)9., but she failed to prove the existence of any indicator. The Plan Amendment does not promote the development of a single use or multiple uses that are not functionally related. It does not promote the inefficient extension of public facilities and services. It does not fail to provide a clear separation between urban and rural uses. In summary, Petitioner failed to prove facts showing that the Plan Amendment constitutes a failure of Bay County to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. Other Compliance Issues Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendment's provisions regarding infrastructure were not shown to be financially feasible, but the record evidence shows otherwise. Bay County has water and sewer facilities with sufficient capacity to serve the Sand Hills STZ. Furthermore, the new law eliminated the financial feasibility provisions of section 163.3177. Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendment improperly changes the FLUM, but the Plan Amendment does not change the FLUM. The rural community STZs are overlays that do not change FLUM designations. Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendment does not address hurricane evacuation times, but did not show that there is any legal requirement for Bay County to address hurricane evacuation times for amendments affecting lands outside of areas of hurricane vulnerability. Petitioner alleges that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the requirements of section 163.3177 related to energy conservation and efficiency, but the law cited by Petitioner was eliminated by the new law. Petitioner stated at the final hearing that her real objection is that the Plan Amendment promotes subdivisions far away from employment centers. Growth in the Sand Hills STZ is likely to be affected by and run parallel to growth in the adjacent West Bay Sector Plan because it is a developing employment center. Furthermore, the Plan Amendment is designed to make the Sand Hills STZ more self-sustaining, which would reduce vehicle miles. Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendment does not include sufficient standards and measures for the implementation of its new policies. The Plan Amendment is primarily self- implementing, in that it sets forth specific conditions for development. In addition, the Plan Amendment includes guiding principles that can be used in the application of existing land development regulations (LDRs) or the adoption of new LDRs. There also are references in the Plan Amendment to other regulatory programs that will be used to implement the policies. Petitioner claims the Plan Amendment was not coordinated with Washington County, but she did not prove the claim. In summary, Petitioner failed to prove facts showing that the Plan Amendment is not in compliance.
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 is in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of October, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of October, 2011.
The Issue Whether the Petition to Establish the Dovera Community Development District meets the criteria established in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact A The property which is the subject of the Petition in this case consists of approximately 410 contiguous acres. All of the subject property is located in unincorporated Seminole County. Petitioner presented the testimony of John R. Maloy. Maloy is Corporate Vice President of A. Duda & Sons, Inc. and Executive Vice President of The Viera Company, positions he has held for approximately eight years. The Viera Company, the Petitioner, is a wholly owned subsidiary of A. Duda & Sons, Inc. Maloy is responsible for planning and disposition of real estate assets. He is also responsible for those projects which have reached the development phase. It was Maloy's responsibility in this matter to select and work with the team of professionals who prepared the Petition. He also reviewed the contents of the Petition and approved its filing. Maloy identified Petitioner's Composite Exhibit B, which is a copy of the Petition and its attached exhibits as filed with the Commission. Maloy stated that, for purposes of clarification, a sentence should be added to page 3 of the Petition indicating that the current version of the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan is dated September, 1991. Maloy then testified that, to the best of his knowledge, the statements in the Petition and its attached exhibits are true and correct. Other witnesses testifying on behalf of Petitioner similarly confirmed the accuracy of the Petition and its attached exhibits, as supplemented at hearing. The Viera Company, a Florida corporation, is owner of 100 percent of the real property to be included in the District. As required by statute, the owner has given its written consent to the establishment of the proposed District. Maloy was designated as the agent of The Viera Company to act on its behalf with regard to any matters relating to the Petition. No real property within the external boundaries of the District is to be excluded from the District. All of the land to be included in the District is the subject of a DRI Development Order which has been approved by the Commission. The five persons designated in the Petition to serve on the initial board of supervisors are: Jack Maloy 135 Highway A1A North Satellite Beach, FL 32937 Don Spotts 1113 Tuskawilla Road Winter Springs, FL 32708 David Duda 7979 Dunstable Circle Orlando, FL 32817 Tracy Duda 1601 Highland Road Winter Park, FL 32789 Donna Duda 2436 Mikler Road Oviedo, FL 32765 All of them are residents of the State of Florida and citizens of the United States. Existing residential communities are located on the north and west sides of the proposed District. To the south and east, the proposed District is generally bordered by the Seminole County Expressway and by a large undeveloped tract to the south. The land in the area to be included in the proposed District is currently undeveloped and is used for agricultural purposes, principally cattle grazing. All of the land to be included in the District has been planned as a single, mixed-use community to be developed pursuant to a development order for the DLI Properties Development of Regional Impact approved by the Commission on October 10, 1989, and issued to Duda Lands, Inc. Duda Lands, Inc. is now The Viera Company. Creation of the District will not constitute any change to the DRI development, its plan, its timing, its design, or anything else related to the DRI. The proposed District is a mechanism for financing infrastructure, and any change that might be made in the future would be subject to all requirements and conditions specified by statute. For example, establishment of the District will result in no change with respect to the present requirement that the District donate utility lines to the County. The proposed development of lands to be included in the District contemplates construction of significant commercial and office/showroom space, together with some residential units and hotel rooms over a twelve-year period. Creation of theproposed District will not constitute any change in the basic character of the development. With respect to the provision of infrastructure and services, it is presently anticipated that the CDD will construct or otherwise provide for a surface water management system, roads, street lighting, landscaping, culverts, and water and sewer facilities. With Seminole County's consent, the CDD will also exercise other special powers, as authorized under Section 190.012(2), Florida Statutes, for the purpose of providing facilities for parks and recreation, security, and mosquito control. Capital costs of these improvements are presently intended to be borne by the District. There is no intent to have the District apply for any of the private activity bond allocation monies available. Mr. Maloy testified that Petitioner has no intent to have the District exercise its ad valorem taxing authority. Mr. Maloy's unchallenged and unrefuted testimony in this regard is accepted. From the perspective of The Viera Company, creation of the proposed District is important for the construction, operation, long-term management and maintenance of major infrastructure for the development. Mr. Maloy testified that the CDD the best alternative for delivering the needed community development facilities and services and that the creation of the CDD will also help ensure that District residents pay for the costs of the necessary infrastructure that will be constructed to serve them. In the present economic climate, a developer's access to the money necessary for the provision of needed infrastructure is very limited. One of the few avenues available is the bond market. The CDD will permit access to this source of funds to provide capital to build the necessary infrastructure. To address issues related to planning, Petitioner presented the testimony of Brian C. Canin. Canin is President of Canin Associates Urban and Environmental Planners, a planning and consulting firm. He has held that position since the firm's inception in 1980. Canin has extensive experience with Developments of Regional Impact and in planning and development of other large-scale projects, as well as in reviewing comprehensive plans. Canin was qualified at the hearing as an expert in land use planning. Canin was coordinator for the consulting team which prepared the DLI Properties DRI. He prepared and submitted the application for development approval encompassing all of the property located within the external boundaries of the proposed district. He also participated in all of the hearings. With respect to the Dovera CDD petition, Canin worked as part of the project team, providing supporting materials for the Petition. Canin identified Exhibit 5 to the Petition as a map prepared by Canin Associates for the DRI which depicts the land use plan for the proposed District. He indicated that Canin Associates later provided the map to Gee & Jenson (Engineers, Architects and Planners) for use in compiling the Petition. Canin also identified an updated version of Exhibit 5 to the Petition. He indicated that the version contained as an attachment to the Petition was submitted with the DRI. In the course of the hearings held on the DRI and during the approval of the Master Plan, certain changes were made to the land uses. Petitioner's Exhibit E represents the land uses currently proposed and approved for the area encompassed by the proposed District. Canin noted that the updated version of the land use plan includes a revision of the typical roadway section. Petitioner had been informed by County staff that the typical roadway section initially submitted by the developer did not meet the standards for a County road. The roadway section, which meets the standards for a county-owned road, was drawn to show that the road could meet those specifications without changing the amount of buildable acreage within the proposed development. This means that the existing right-of-way can accommodate a change, if necessary, to meet County-owned road standards. There will be no change in the DRI requirements with respect to buildable acres. Encompassing approximately 410 acres, the proposed land uses for the area within the Dovera CDD comprise a Planned Unit Development consisting of 512 multi-family residential units and related commercial, institutional, recreational, and other uses. The proposed development includes over 247,000 square feet of commercial space and more than two million square feet devoted to office and office/showroom space. The plan also includes 250hotel rooms. The development is set within environmental open spaces that are integrated into stormwater facilities and roadways. A copy of the September, 1991 Seminole County Comprehensive Plan was admitted into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit F. Based on his review of the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan, Canin testified that the proposed district is consistent with the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan. In addition, project approval required numerous reviews in the course of the DRI process, as well as various hearings conducted by the County Land Planning Agency and Board of County Commissioners. Unless the project had been consistent with the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan at all these points in time, the developer would not have been allowed to proceed. Canin also testified that he had reviewed the State Comprehensive Plan found in Chapter 187, Florida Statutes, and that, in his opinion, the proposed District is consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan. He noted that Section 187.201(18), Florida Statutes, provides for the creation of partnerships among local governments and the private sector which would identify and build needed public facilities. Canin also identified Section 187.201(20) which encourages the coordination of transportation infrastructure to provide major travel corridors and enhance system efficiency. Coordination of the Red Bug Lake Road construction and the proposed District's involvement in its financing are examples of how the proposed district fulfills this policy. Canin further testified that Section 187.201(21) permits the creation of independent special taxing districts as a means of lessening the burden on local governments and their taxpayers, and also encourages the use of such districts in providing needed infrastructure. Based on his extensive experience with Developments of Regional Impact, Canin testified that creation of the proposed District will not constitute any change to the DRI development, its plan, its timing, its design, or anything else related to the DRI. The District's activities are subject to the regulatory and permitting authority of the county, including the DRI approval process. From a land use perspective, the proposed District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one functional interrelated community. Requiring DRI approval, the project was designed from the outset using an integrated land use plan, the purpose of which was to integrate diverse systems into one common plan. Canin testified that the proposed District is the best available alternative for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by the District. According to Mr. Canin, the proposed District will facilitate long-term financing of necessary infrastructure while providing a perpetual entity capable of operating and maintaining those systems and facilities. In Mr. Canin's opinion, private development would not be as advantageous because a private developer could not provide the same guarantees with respect to long-term operation and maintenance. Finally, based on his familiarity with the type and scope of development as well as the available services and facilities locate din the area of proposed development, Canin testified that the District's services and facilities will not be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. He noted that transportation services were taken into account in the DRI process and are thoroughly integrated into the local comprehensive plan. To address engineering-related matters, Petitioner offered the expert testimony of Fred A. Greene. Greene is President, Chairman, and Chief Executive Officer of Gee & Jenson Engineers-Architects-Planners, Inc., an engineering and planning firm. He has held these positions for a combination of sixteen years. Greene is a registered engineer in Florida and personally has been involved in a number of DRI-related projects. He has a wide range of experience in providing engineering services relating to the use and operation of special districts, including community development districts. He advises districts on construction matters, design and maintenance, beginning with permitting for major infrastructure. Greene was qualified at the hearing as an expert in civil engineering and in land development, specializing in special districts. Greene played an active role in preparation of the documents required to establish the Dovera CDD. He visited the site and reviewed designs prepared by others for the water management system, the roadway system, and the water and sewer facilities. He also assisted in the preparation of the cost estimates contained in the Petition. The land within the proposed District is not presently developed and is primarily used for cattle operations. The land uses adjacent to the proposed district include residential communities to the north and west. The Seminole County Expressway is east of the proposed District and the land to the south is vacant. The existing drainage basins and outfall canals, the existing major trunk water mains, sewer interceptors and lift stations are identified in Petitioner's Composite Exhibit B, attached Exhibit 6. The land presently is drained by a series of ditches installed for agricultural purposes, the water flowing from west to east before discharging through Bear Creek into Lake Jessup. The proposed District is currently expected to construct the water management system, water and sewer facilities, internal roadways, security, mosquito control, and parks and recreation facilities. Seminole County will provide potable water through the existing twelve-inch lines. The District will construct water mains along the internal roads and later transfer title to the County. There is no plan to have the District provide water service to the development. With respect to the provision of sewer service and facilities, Petitioner plans to have the District construct a collection system along with lift stations and force mains that will discharge to the County's Iron Bridge Treatment Plant. These facilities will also be dedicated to the County. There is no plan to have the District provide sewer service to the development. The Petitioner plans to have the District construct and/or maintain within its boundaries a system of lakes, dry retention areas, wet retention areas, wetlands, flowways, culverts and control structures to accommodate surplus stormwater. Discharge would be through control structures and flow north through a system of existing canals to Lake Jessup. The Petitioner also expects the District to be involved in the construction and maintenance of roads. The roads would be constructed to applicable Seminole County standards, and to the extent that the roads remain district roads, the District will maintain them. The Seminole County Expressway is a N/S roadway presently under construction along the eastern boundary of the District. Realigned Red Bug Lake Road is presently under construction by Seminole County pursuant to a joint infrastructure agreement with Duda Lands, Inc. The agreement requires cost participation on that part of realigned Red Bug Lake Road which runs through the District. The District is expected to assume the developer's responsibility for that portion of realigned Red Bug Lake Road which runs through the District. The proposed District expects to purchase a truck and sprayer to assist in mosquito control within its boundaries. The District will be responsible for this activity, either by contract or by using its own staff. The proposed District currently plans to construct, operate and maintain facilities for parks and recreation. These facilities may include passive parks, playgrounds, pedestrian systems, bike paths, boardwalks and nature trails. With respect to the proposed District's current plans for security, in addition to gates, fences and similar installations related to security, the District may supplement security with additional staff and, where practical, may install automatic security devices. Exhibit 7 to the Petition shows the estimated infrastructure construction schedule and costs for the proposed District based on 1991 dollars. The anticipated schedule is for work to be performed by the Dovera CDD over the next twelve years. Unlike the DRI which has phases triggered by trips, the CDD phasing is premised on financing and construction engineering. However, the anticipated timetable in Exhibit 7 to the Petition is consistent with the schedule for development of the land. Based on his experience with special districts and DRI-related projects, Greene testified that creation of the proposed District will not constitute any change to the DRI development, its plan, its timing, its design, or anything else related to the DRI. Mr. Greene's unrefuted testimony established that the proposed District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as a functional interrelated community. A large tract lying adjacent to a major expressway, having been planned as a DRI and approved subject to issuance of a development order, is developable as a functional interrelated community. In this instance, all of the infrastructure systems, including those serving nonresidential areas of the development, are interrelated and have been purposefully designed to function as a single system. Greene's unchallenged testimony established that the proposed District is the best available alternative for delivering the proposed services and facilities to the area that will be served by the District. Although property- owners' associations constitute one alternative for the delivery of community development services and facilities, they are unable to finance infrastructure. In addition, regional water management districts prefer to have CDDs provide services because of their stability and record for collection of assessments. Being units of special-purpose local government, CDDs are generally perceived as being more stable than informal associations. While private development is another alternative, it cannot provide the same guarantees as CDDs with respect to operation and long-term maintenance of community development services and facilities. It is Mr. Greene's opinion that the proposed District's community development services and facilities will not be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. The project infrastructure will be designed and constructed to state or county standards for the various items of work and would therefore be consistent with the local development regulations and plans. The District will also be subject to all permit requirements and conditions of the development order. Mr. Greene testified that the area to be served by the proposed District is amenable to separate special-district government because the area is large enough to support necessary staff to maintain and operate the proposed system. The District also has specific authority and a specific mission. Based on his experience with other districts of this size and larger that have been in existence for more than twenty years, Greene concluded that the proposed Dovera CDD will prove to be a successful operation. Dr. Henry H. Fishkind, President of Fishkind & Associates, Inc., an economic and financial consulting firm, prepared and presented the economic impact statement which accompanied the Petition. In addition to providing economic forecasting services, Fishkind also provides financial advice to both public and private sector clients, including special districts. At the hearing, Fishkind was qualified as an expert in economics, financing and statistics, including infrastructure financing and the use of special taxing districts. In addition to preparing the economic impact statement (EIS), Fishkind has assisted The Viera Company in assessing the financial feasibility of the proposed District. Fishkind confirmed the accuracy of the information contained in the EIS. The EIS was prepared, in part, to meet the statutory requirements of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. At the hearing, Fishkind summarized the findings contained in the EIS. Seminole County and the State of Florida were identified as the two governmental entities which would be affected by the processing of this Petition and ongoing review and oversight of the District. Seminole County received the Petition for review and was paid a $15,000 filing fee to cover expenses related to processing the application. This fee is expected to adequately cover those costs. The County will have the option of reviewing the District's proposed budget each year. Dr. Fishkind does not anticipate that the County will incur any other direct costs by virtue of establishment of the District. Dr. Fishkind testified that Seminole County and its citizens will also receive some benefits by virtue of establishment of the District. The District will provide a mechanism to facilitate the financing and ongoing operation and maintenance of infrastructure for the project. In Dr. Fishkind's opinion, the District not only restricts the costs for needed facilities and services to those landowners who benefit from them, but, because it is an independent special-purpose government, also frees the County from any administrative burden related to management of these facilities and services. In addition, the District should help to assure compliance with the development order conditions as they relate to infrastructure. With respect to the State, the Bureau of Local Government Finance in the Office of the Comptroller will review certain financial reports that all special districts must file. The cost of processing one additional report will be minimal. In addition, the Department of Community Affairs ("DCA") also has certain reporting requirements with which the District must comply. The costs to the DCA are partially offset by a required annual fee imposed on all special districts. The EIS also analyzed the expected costs and benefits to the citizens of Florida and the state at large. According to Dr. Fishkind's testimony, Chapter 190 encourages planned large-scale communities such as that within the proposed District, and the Dovera CDD would satisfy this legislative intent. The District is also intended to serve as a way to ensure that growth pays for itself, and that those who receive the benefits absorb the costs. Dr. Fishkind testified that, in addition to providing an improved level of planning and coordination and ensuring long-term operation and maintenance of needed facilities and services, the District would also promote satisfaction of state and local requirements for concurrency. Dr. Fishkind's unchallenged and unrefuted testimony in this regard is accepted. Dr. Fishkind also analyzed costs and benefits to the Petitioner. The costs include preparation of the Petition and all of the underlying analysis devoted to the project by team members. Dr. Fishkind testified that, in addition, the Petitioner, as landowner, will be the largest single taxpayer for some time, and will bear the largest portion of the donation of certain rights- of-way and easements. The Petitioner is also expected to provide certain managerial and technical assistance to the District, particularly in the early years. Benefits to the Petitioner include the District's access to the tax exempt bond market and other capital markets which would otherwise be unavailable. Another benefit to the Petitioner flows from the assurance that concurrency requirements will be met and that a stable, long-term entity is in place to maintain necessary infrastructure. Because any other similarly-situated landowner could also petition for establishment of a CDD, the granting of the Petition does not give this developer an unfair competitive advantage. The anticipated costs and benefits to persons who ultimately buy land and/or housing or rent commercial space within the proposed District ("Consumers") were also analyzed. In addition to city, county, and school board taxes or assessments, Consumers will pay certain assessments for the construction and maintenance of necessary infrastructure. The consumers should, in turn, have access to first quality public facilities and high levels of public service in a development where the necessary infrastructure will be maintained even after the developer is no longer involved. Ultimately, the statute provides a mechanism where Consumers may control the board of supervisors and determine the type, quality and expense of essential district facilities and services, subject to County plans and land development regulations. The EIS analyzed the impact of the District on competition and the open market for employment. Although there may be a transitory competitive advantage because of lower cost financing and access to capital, any advantage is not exclusive to The Viera Company. Although the CDD itself will not have a measurable impact on the open market for employment in Seminole County, Dr. Fishkind believes that access to capital markets may nonetheless have some positive effect on the development of employment. According to Dr. Fishkind, the District's potential effect on the open market for employment will likely be enhanced when compared to private development because CDDs are subject to government-in-the-sunshine and public bidding laws. Similarly, while anticipating no measurable impact on small and minority businesses as a direct result of establishing the Dovera CDD, Dr. Fishkind testified that such businesses may be better able to compete in the development because the District must operate according to government-in-the- sunshine and public bidding laws. Data supplied by The Viera Company and Gee & Jenson was used by Dr. Fishkind in performing his economic and financial analysis. Based on the result of his financial studies and analyses, Fishkind concluded that the proposed District is expected to be financially sound and able to fulfill its economic obligations. The expected general financial structure of the proposed District is based on a system of special assessments to defray the costs of its infrastructure. These special assessments would be imposed pursuant to Chapter 190, using the procedures outlined under Chapter 170 or Chapter 197, and would be pledged to secure bonds issued for the necessary improvements. It is not anticipated that the District will use any ad valorem taxation. This proposed financial structure for the Dovera CDD is very similar to that used successfully in many other CDDs in Florida. Dr. Fishkind testified that the financial structure is significantly different from that employed by a Tax Increment Financing District or TIF. A TIF is a dependent district the financial structure of which is premised on a "frozen" tax base of a particular area. TIF bonds are then repaid by the increase in real estate value within that area. This structure usurps certain taxes that would otherwise accrue to the local general-purpose government at large. TIFs are sometimes used in community redevelopment areas. Unlike a TIF, a CDD is actually an independent district with limited powers set out in the statute. A CDD's assessments and taxes do not in any way impact the County's taxing or assessment powers. Although a CDD may borrow money, the debts of a CDD cannot become the debt of any other governmental entity without its consent. In addition to the proposed District, there are several other available alternatives for the provision of community infrastructure, including private development, homeowners' associations, county provision, and dependent districts such as MSTUs or MSBUs. Dr. Fishkind testified that, from a financial perspective, and based on an analysis of other options available, the proposed District is the best available alternative for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by the District. According to Dr. Fishkind, of these alternatives, only a CDD allows for the independent financing, administration, operation and maintenance of infrastructure while permitting residents to exercise increasing control over the District's governing board. Although independent of the county commission and enabling district residents to exercise control as a governing board, a homeowners' association would not be capable of undertaking the financial responsibility necessary to pay for the required infrastructure. Private developers do not have access to the tax-free bond market, and cannot provide the stability of long-term maintenance of infrastructure. Provision by the county or by a MSTU or MSBU would require the county to administer, operate and maintain the needed infrastructure. Dr. Fishkind testified that, from a financial perspective, and based on a review of the applicable plans, the CDD is consistent with the State and Seminole County Comprehensive Plans. Although CDDs are not directly mentioned in the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan, the proposed District is consistent with the plan's intent that growth should pay for itself. Based on his familiarity with the design of the proposed District and his experience with other districts of a similar size and configuration, Fishkind concluded that the area to be included in the District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one functional interrelated community. All the infrastructure for the proposed development has been planned as a unit and so should be expected to function as an interrelated system. It was also Fishkind's opinion, after reviewing the availability of the existing community development services and facilities in the area to be served by the proposed District, that the community development services and facilities expected to be provided by the District are not incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional services and facilities. The current assistance provided by the developer with respect to the development of Red Bug Lake Road and the Seminole County Expressway provides an example of infrastructure compatibility. Finally, taking into account the governing structure of the proposed District and the experience of other special districts in Florida, Fishkind concluded that the area that will be served by the proposed District is amenable to separate special-district government. It is Dr. Fishkind's opinion that an interrelated community created in compliance with a comprehensive master plan and specific infrastructure requirements represents an ideal circumstance within which to foster development of a CDD. Petitioner also presented the testimony of Gary L. Moyer. Moyer is President of Gary L. Moyer, P.A., a firm engaged in providing consulting and management services to special districts. He provides numerous services to approximately 33 special districts, 25 of which are CDDs. These services include planning of infrastructure, financing, implementation and the award and oversight of construction contracts. Upon completion of construction, he oversees the day-to-day operation and maintenance of the infrastructure. He has provided these services for approximately fifteen years. At the hearing, Moyer was qualified as an expert in special district governance and management. Moyer has been involved with CDDs ranging in size from only 28 acres to as many as 13,000 acres. Moyer testified that the proposed Dovera CDD would be an average size district among those providing primarily commercial and industrial land uses. CDDs operate pursuant to statute and must comply with requirements similar to those imposed upon general-purpose local governments. CDDs issue bonds to finance necessary infrastructure and typically repay this bonded indebtedness through imposition of non ad valorem assessments. The collection of these non ad valorem assessments has been accorded equal dignity with the collection of property taxes. Comparing other alternatives for the provision of community infrastructure, such as private development, property-owners' associations, and provision of services and facilities by local governments, Moyer testified that the proposed District is the best alternative for providing the contemplated services and facilities to the area that will be served by the District. The singular purpose of a CDD is to provide infrastructure to new communities. Although other entities may provide such facilities and services, none of them possess the focus which is characteristic of CDDs. Moyer also concluded, based on his familiarity with the land area that is to be included in the proposed District and his experience with several CDDs having similar land use characteristics, that the area is amenable to separate special district governance. Moyer also expressed the opinion, based on his experience as manager of other districts of similar size and configuration, that the area of land to be included in the proposed District is of a sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developed as one functional interrelated community. The District appears to have the ability to provide the necessary infrastructure in a cost-effective manner to the lands to be included within its boundaries. With respect to the proposed District's anticipated use of County services, agreements with the tax collector and property appraiser for the collection of special assessments under Chapter 197, Florida Statutes, may be used. Such agreements are commonly used by other special districts. To the extent these services are used, the County is compensated by the District for these expenses.
Conclusions On March 12, 1992, a public hearing was held in this matter. The hearing was held in the Chambers of the Seminole County Commission, 1101 East First Street, Sanford, Florida, before James W. York, Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings.
The Issue Whether Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan Amendment Number 2017-B (the Plan Amendment) adopted by Ordinance Number 2018-006 (the Ordinance) is "in compliance," as that term is defined under section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2018).
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Standing Ibis Road is a limited liability company that applied to the County for the comprehensive plan amendment adopted by the Ordinance, in conjunction with a Development of Critical Concern and a rezoning to Village Planned Development for a property it owns along Ibis Street in unincorporated Sarasota County. Ibis Road owns approximately 533 acres designated under the County's Village/Open Space (VOS) Resource Management Area (RMA) future land use overlay. The County is a political subdivision of the state. The County adopted the Ordinance that approved the Plan Amendment on July 11, 2018. Petitioner Keath Cuyler appeared and objected at the May 23, 2018, adoption hearing, and is a citizen of the County. Petitioner Cuyler resides at 8300 Ibis Street, Sarasota, Florida, located in unincorporated Sarasota County, near and proximate to the lands that are subject to the Plan Amendment. Petitioner Cuyler testified he owns approximately 37 acres and shares his west and south property line with Ibis Road's property. He hunts on his property and likes its rural character. He is concerned about traffic since the entrance to the Village Planned Development would be near his property, which now fronts on an infrequently used dirt road. Petitioners Mitchell Goldberg and Ronald Newmark appeared and objected at the May 23, 2018, County adoption hearing and are citizens of Sarasota County. They co-own ten acres abutting Ibis Road's Village Planned Development. These Petitioners utilize their property for raising and riding horses. The entrance to Ibis Road's Village Planned Development is adjacent to their property and they are concerned that traffic and lights would disturb the horses and affect the rural nature of their property. Dismissed Petitioner David Anderson testified that he opposed Ibis Road's Village Planned Development because it would impact the rural character of his community, which was the reason he had moved from Washington, D.C., to Florida. The Petitioners and dismissed Petitioner Anderson deferred technical questions regarding the allegations of their challenge to their expert planner. The Comprehensive Plan The County's Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) adopted October 25, 2016, is the applicable version of the plan. The County's Comp Plan sets forth a listing of the material within it, entitled "The Components of the Plan." This section outlines seven categories of "Primary Components" of the Comp Plan and the remainder of the document is classified as "support material," used to explain the Primary Components. The list of Primary Components includes the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of each chapter, and such other components as the Future Land Use Map Series and the Future Thoroughfare Plan. The County's expert witness testified that the Primary Components are used to evaluate consistency with the County's Comp Plan. She also testified that the support material is not used as criteria for evaluating development proposals. The Future Land Use (FLU) Element of the County's Comp Plan is divided into two chapters. Chapter 7 of the County's Comp Plan contains the base or underlying FLU provisions and the FLU Map. Under Chapter 7 of the County's Comp Plan, most of the private land east of the County's Urban Service Area Boundary is designated as either Rural with a maximum density of one dwelling unit per five acres, or Semi-Rural with a maximum density of one dwelling unit per two acres. Chapter 8 of the County's Comp Plan contains the alternative FLU provisions called Sarasota 2050. Sarasota 2050 is a system designed to encourage preservation of open space by allowing transfer of density into developments called Villages and Hamlets. Sarasota 2050 allows owners of Rural or Semi-Rural FLU designated property to develop at higher densities than allowed under those FLU designations. Sarasota 2050 maps the unincorporated area of the County as RMAs. Outside of the Urban Service Area, it shows RMAs for "Publicly Owned Lands and Lands Protected for Preservation," the connecting environmental corridors called "Greenways," and others. Map 8-3: RMA-3 designates three large VOS RMAs outside of the County's Urban Service Area Boundary for Village Land Use. The three areas are referred to as the North Village Area, Central Village Area, and South Village Area. Ibis Road's property lies within the South Village Area. Within these Village Areas, there are multiple property owners. Sarasota 2050 offers the property owners significant density incentives, as well as opportunities for non-residential development if they develop their properties according to the Sarasota 2050 Village criteria. Approval of a Village requires rezoning to the Village Plan Development zoning district and approval of a Village Master Development Plan. Each Village must have at least one Village Center. Villages have a minimum open space requirement of 50 percent and the remainder of the Village is called the Developed Area. The Developed Area is comprised of the Village Center and the Neighborhoods. Each Neighborhood has its own Neighborhood Center. There may be several Villages within each Village Area. The maximum size of a Village is 3,000 acres and the minimum size is 1,000 acres. The long-range plan of the County, as reflected in Sarasota 2050, is for all of the lands within each Village Area to be developed as Villages. VOS Policy 1.3 provides that "Neighborhoods form the basic building block for development within the [VOS] RMA and are characterized by a mix of residential housing types that are distributed on a connected street system and the majority of housing is within a walking distance or ¼ mile radius of a Neighborhood Center." Neighborhood Centers may have "a combination of parks, schools, public type facilities such as churches and or community centers and may contain Neighborhood Oriented Commercial Uses that are no greater than 20,000 square feet of gross floor area and internally designed to specifically serve the needs of that Neighborhood." Sarasota 2050 does not require that Neighborhood Centers contain commercial or office development or that houses in the Neighborhoods be within walking distance of commercial or office uses. VOS Policy 1.2.A more specifically sets forth requirements for Villages. Villages Villages are a collection of Neighborhoods that have been designed so that a majority of the housing units are within a walking distance or ¼ mile radius of a Neighborhood Center. Villages shall be supported by internally designed, mixed-use Village Centers (designed specifically to serve the daily and weekly retail, office, civic, and government use and services needs of Village residents), and the Village shall be surrounded by large expanses of Open Space that are designed to protect the character of the rural landscape and provide separation between Villages and existing low density rural development. The minimum size of a Village is intended to be sufficient to support a public elementary school. There is no requirement that residential development within the Village be within walking distance of commercial or office uses. A table in VOS Policy 1.2.A sets forth the maximum and minimum sizes, densities, and percentages of land uses within a Village. Two asterisked footnotes allow deviations from the table: *Projects may be less than 1,000 acres of Developed Area, if said project adheres to the requirements found in Policy VOS2.1(a)1, Developed Area Minimum Size. **After an initial Village Master Development Plan has been approved for a Village Area (North, Central, South), the gross leasable square footage may be reduced or eliminated and the minimum land area percentages adjusted for each additional contiguous Village Master Development Plan within that Village Area where it is demonstrated that the non-residential needs of the Village will be served within that Village Area in a manner consistent with the purposes of this chapter. Every Village must have a Village Center that includes non-residential uses. In practice, not every Village Center was required to include a commercial use, as described in the second asterisked footnote to VOS Policy 1.2.A. The County's witness testified that an initial Village in a Village Area was required to have a commercial component. However, an exception could be made for reduction or elimination of the commercial component for a new Village development in the same Village Area. Each new Village subsequent to the initial Village in a Village Area was evaluated to see if it could support its own commercial use, or whether it could be supported by the commercial component of other Villages in the Village Area. In addition, the exception should be "consistent with the purposes of [Chapter 8 of the County's Comp Plan]," and the subsequent Village was contiguous to the first Village. The Village Areas have multiple property owners. VOS Policy 2.6 addresses the possibilities that the property owners may apply for Village approval all together or in separate Village Master Development Plans. When they apply for approval separately, the policy provides that Village Master Development Plans subsequent to the first one "may be considered as related to the initial Village," with no requirement for contiguity. The initial Village Master Development Plan sets a framework for subsequent Villages in that particular Village Area. This includes the location of the school, the commercial center, and the primary road systems. The initial Village Center is required to have a commercial component. When subsequent Villages seek approval, the County evaluates how they would be connected, so that they complement each other. LT Ranch Village was the initial Village approved in the South Village Area, and it sets the framework for the entire Village Area. It has a Village Center that includes 300,000 square feet of commercial retail development. A typical Publix shopping center with a Publix and a few other in-line restaurants and stores is approximately 60,000 to 80,000 square feet. Subsequent Villages, such as that proposed by Ibis Road, may be developed within the South Village Area. Where it is shown that the commercial needs of subsequent Villages within the South Village Area may be met by the LT Ranch Village Center, subsequent Villages need not include a commercial component. The evidence established that Ibis Road provided a market study to the County to show that the commercial needs of its residents would be met by the LT Ranch Village Center. Thus, except for contiguity, Ibis Road's Village development is an illustration of the intent behind Sarasota 2050. The Plan Amendment The Plan Amendment would delete the word "contiguous" from the double-asterisked footnote exception in VOS Policy 1.2.A. The Plan Amendment would apply to all properties designated under the VOS RMA FLU overlay, i.e., in each of the three Village Areas. The change would allow the County to approve a reduction or elimination of commercial/office uses within the Village Center of a Village subsequent to the initial Village, which is not contiguous with the initial Village. To obtain this exception, the property owner would still demonstrate that the initial Village already serves the non-residential needs of the new Village, and the reduction is otherwise consistent with the purposes of Chapter 8 of the County's Comp Plan. County staff reviewed the Plan Amendment for consistency with the remainder of the Comp Plan, and specifically referenced the original adoption of the double-asterisked footnote in 2014. The staff report stated that "[t]he analysis for the 201[4] amendment recognized that smaller subsequent Villages may not be of sufficient size to support their own non- residential uses (Village Center), and that the initial, larger Village could provide sufficient non-residential services to support the entire Village Area." Thus, County staff concluded that removal of the word "contiguous" from the double-asterisked footnote "would not impede on the intent of Policy VOS 1.2.A." On February 15, 2018, the County's Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and received public comments, reviewed the Plan Amendment, and by Resolution unanimously recommended approval. On March 14, 2018, the Board of County Commissioners held a duly advertised transmittal stage public hearing pursuant to Section 163.3184(3) and (15) and by Resolution approved the Plan Amendment for transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO). DEO, the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council, the Florida Department of Transportation, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and the Southwest Florida Water Management District reviewed the Plan Amendment and had no objection to or comments on the Plan Amendment. The DEO reviewed the Plan Amendment and determined there was "no provision that necessitates a challenge of the Ordinance adopting the amendment." On May 23, 2018, the Board of County Commissioners held a duly-noticed public hearing and took public comment. The hearing was continued to the duly-noticed hearing on July 11, 2018, at which time the Plan Amendment was adopted by the Ordinance. Petitioners' Objections The Petitioners contend that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the purpose, intent, and core principles of Chapter 8 of the County's Comp Plan, including VOS Objective 1, VOS Policy 1.1, VOS Policies 1.2.A and 1.4 (the first, fourth, sixth, seventh, and eighth bullet points), and the definition of urban sprawl. Central to the Petitioners' claims of inconsistency are the concepts of compactness, walkability, interconnectedness, and development with a mix of uses. The Petitioners' expert witness testified that removing the term "contiguous" caused inconsistency with the County's Comp Plan because it was inconsistent with the concepts of a compact development that is walkable, interconnected, and has a mix of uses. "Walkability" to the commercial component of a Village Center was a contention of the Petitioners. The Petitioners' expert testified that the rule of thumb for "walkability" was how far one can walk in 15 minutes. He did agree with the County and Ibis Road's expert witnesses that there is no requirement for Neighborhoods to be within any fixed distance of a Village Center, no requirement of walkability from residential development to the Village Center, and no requirement of walkability from a residence to any commercial/office use. VOS Policy 1.3 requires that the majority of the housing within a Village be within walking distance or one- quarter mile of a Neighborhood Center, but does not require that the Village Center be within walking distance from the Neighborhoods themselves. "Walkability" is used with respect to Neighborhoods and Neighborhood Centers, only the term "pedestrian friendly" is used with respect to Villages. "Pedestrian friendly" means that a range of pedestrian options are provided such as bicycle/pedestrian facilities, larger sidewalks, multimodal trails, accessibility, and lighting, the things that make it more comfortable for the pedestrian or the non-vehicle user. The Petitioners' contend that a Village Center must be walkable from all areas of a Village. However, the allowable maximum size of 3,000 acres for a Village would not accommodate the walkability described by the Petitioners' expert. There is no requirement in the County's Comp Plan for a specific location of a Village Center. The evidence established that in the South Village Area, the initially approved LT Ranch Village covers an area three or four times the distance from north to south as it does from east to west and its Village Center is located at the northernmost point. Based on the allowable size of a Village and the lack of any requirement as to the location of the Village Center, "walkability" to the Village Center would not be possible. For example, the distance from the southernmost Neighborhood of LT Ranch Village to its Village Center is about three and one-half to four miles. The Core Principles and the Introduction The "Core Principles" of the Sarasota 2050 RMA system are set forth on the first page of Chapter 8 of the County's Comp Plan. This page generally describes the objectives of Sarasota 2050, but these are not Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Comp Plan, and are not Primary Components of the Comp Plan. The County views the "Core Principles" as support material that it does not use to evaluate the consistency of development proposals with the Comp Plan. The Petitioners' expert conceded that the "Core Principles" provide context but should not be relied on as the sole basis for a finding of inconsistency. Even if the Core Principles were a Primary Component of the Comp Plan, they do not contain a requirement regarding commercial/office uses in the Village Center or proximity of these uses to residences within the Village. Thus, the Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with the Core Principles. The "Introduction" following the page of Core Principles is also viewed as support material rather than as a Primary Component of the County's Comp Plan. It generally describes Sarasota 2050's purpose as an incentive system to "encourage[] a compact development form," but does not address commercial/office uses within Village Centers, or set forth any standards that could be deemed inconsistent with the Plan Amendment. Thus, the Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with this support material. VOS Objective 1 and VOS Policy 1.1 VOS Objective 1 states the objective of preventing urban sprawl by guiding the development of lands outside the Urban Service Area into compact, mixed-use, pedestrian friendly Villages within a system of large areas of permanent open space. The Petitioners argued that the Plan Amendment's deletion of a contiguity requirement would be inconsistent with VOS Objective 1. The Petitioners' expert testified that "compact, mixed-use, and pedestrian friendly" to a layman meant creating the ability to walk to a commercial use such as a restaurant, as exemplified in a downtown or mixed-use area. However, VOS Objective 1 describes why Sarasota 2050 guides the development of land outside of the Urban Service Area into "compact, mixed-use, pedestrian friendly Villages" and is not a categorical prohibition against urban sprawl. "Compact" is not defined in the County's Comp Plan. The criteria for Sarasota 2050 Villages are that 50 percent of the Village that is not open space is Developed Area broken up into Neighborhoods with a majority of the housing within walking distance of a Neighborhood Center, and at least one Village Center. The Petitioners did not prove that excepting a second Village from providing unnecessary commercial/office uses violated the compactness of a Village or the requirement for mix uses. "Pedestrian friendly" is also not defined, but is more a matter of pedestrian safety than proximity to particular uses. The Plan Amendment does not prevent the Villages from being compact, mixed-use, or pedestrian-friendly. VOS Policy 1.1 also requires a connected system of roads encouraging alternative means of transportation such as pedestrians, bicycles, and transit. Removal of the requirement for one Village to be contiguous with another does not affect achievement of this policy. VOS Policy 1.2.A VOS Policy 1.2.A provides the general requirements for Village development, including an internal, mixed-use Village Center. As found above, the double-asterisked footnote was added in 2014 to reduce or eliminate the requirement of a commercial use within the Village Center where it is demonstrated that there is already an existing Village Center within that Village Area with a commercial component, and the commercial needs of the new Village will be served by that existing Village Center "in a manner consistent with the purposes of [Chapter 8 of the County's Comp Plan]." The Petitioners' expert admitted that the double- asterisked footnote was an exception that allowed for greater flexibility when approving Village developments without undermining the other policies of the Comp Plan. The Petitioners' expert opined that removal of the word "contiguous" from the double-asterisked footnote would be inconsistent with VOS Policy 1.2.A because it would result in development of a new Village without any non-residential land uses. However, the double-asterisked footnote's exception would have that same result whether or not the word "contiguous" was present. The County's expert witness testified that the Plan Amendment did not result in an inconsistency with VOS Policy 1.2.A, because the intent of the policy was that each Village Area, not each Village, meet the daily and weekly non- residential, including commercial, needs of the residents of the Village Area. Thus, deleting the word "contiguous" would not have a negative effect on this intent. VOS Policy 1.4 The Petitioners relied on bullet points within VOS Policy 1.4. The Petitioners contended that the first bullet point of VOS Policy 1.4, which requires a mix of uses within a Village, expressly mandated commercial development within every Village. However, the Policy should be read in conjunction with the double-asterisked footnote of VOS Policy 1.2.A. The double- asterisked footnote provides for reduction or elimination of commercial uses in a Village Center as described in the above findings. The County's and Ibis Road's experts testified that the Plan Amendment was not inconsistent with the first bullet point of VOS Policy 1.4 because it only requires a mix of uses within each Village, which can be achieved without having a commercial use. The fourth bullet point of VOS Policy 1.4 expressly provides that the Village Center must be conveniently served by regional bus service. This language does not contemplate that the Village Center must be a walkable distance from the residences. The language does not require that every Village Center have commercial uses. The Petitioners also relied on the sixth bullet point of VOS Policy 1.4 referencing "compact design" of a Village linking one Neighborhood to another. This language is specific to the connections between Neighborhoods within a Village, not the relationship of multiple Villages to one another. The compact design within a Village is not related to contiguity between Villages. The Petitioners relied on the seventh bullet point of VOS Policy 1.4 to support their argument of internal inconsistency. The language requires Villages to include interconnected streets to balance the needs of all users. This language is relevant to development within Villages, not the relationship between one Village and another. Finally, the Petitioners relied on the eighth bullet point of VOS Policy 1.4 to support their argument of internal inconsistency. This provision calls for a Village to have pedestrian-friendly components such as sidewalks, lighting, and signage. This language addresses the development of the internal components of a particular Village. The language is not relevant to the relationship between Villages. Attorneys' Fees Ibis Road did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Petitioners and dismissed Petitioner Anderson participated in this proceeding for an improper purpose. Ibis Road did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Petitioners, dismissed Petitioner Anderson, or the Petitioners' attorney should be sanctioned for filing a pleading, motion, or paper for an improper or frivolous purpose. There was an arguable basis for the Petitioners' claims of inconsistency presented through the expert testimony of Thomas Hawkins. Mr. Hawkins is a certified planner and was accepted as an expert in comprehensive land use planning. Summary The Petitioners did not prove beyond fair debate that the Plan Amendment causes Chapter 8, or any other portion, of the County's Comp Plan to be internally inconsistent.
The Issue The issue is whether the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission should promulgate a rule establishing the Poinciana Community Development District.
The Issue The issue before the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (FLWAC) is whether to grant the Petition to Establish the Madeira Community Development District (Petition). The local public hearing was for the purpose of gathering information in anticipation of quasi-legislative rulemaking by FLWAC.
The Issue The issue before the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (FLWAC) in this proceeding is whether to grant the Petition for Establishment of the Split Pine Community Development District (Petition). The local public hearing was for the purpose of gathering information in anticipation of rulemaking by FLWAC.
