Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an existing special tax district, created on August 18, 1975, by Broward County Ordinance 75-22. (See Exhibit "A"). A legal description of the property which comprises the ITSMTD, and which would comprise the community development district, is contained within Section 1(a) of Ordinance 75-22 (Exhibit "A"). On December 22, 1980, the Board of Supervisors of the ITSMTD adopted a resolution (Exhibit "B") authorizing and directing the proper district officials to file a Petition with the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission to reestablish the district as a community development district pursuant to Chapter 190, Florida Statutes. The ITSMTD filed its Petition to reestablish the district as a community development district on January 22, 1981. The Petition named five (5) persons to serve as initial members of the Board of Supervisors of the proposed new district. These persons, who presently constitute the Board of Supervisors of the existing district, are Norman A. Cortese, Ellen Mills Gibbs, F. A. Mapleton, Robert E. Huebner and Edward F. Kosnick. The Petition recites that the proposed name of the new district will be the Indian Trace Community Development District, and that the District boundaries will remain the same as the existing special tax district. By letter dated January 29, 1981, the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission requested the assignment of a Hearing Officer form the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct the necessary public hearing. The ITSMTD has jurisdiction over approximately 13,000 contiguous acres which lie within the unincorporated area of Broward County, Florida. A map showing the particular location of the property within the jurisdiction of the ITSMTD was presented and received into evidence. (Exhibit "C"). Petitioner presented the following additional Exhibits which were received into evidence: Development orders adopted June 27, 1978 and August 17, 1979 by the Broward County Commission. (Exhibit "D"). The development orders were adopted by the Broward County Commission pursuant to the development of regional impact permitting processes established by Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. These development orders govern or affect development of all land within the ITSMTD. A map which designates the future general distribution, location, and extent of public and private uses of land proposed for the area within the district by the Future Land Use Element of the Broward County Comprehensive Plan. (Exhibit "E"). A proposed timetable for constructing district services and the estimated cost of constructing those services. (Exhibit "F"). An economic impact statement which, based upon available data, estimates the economic impact on all persons directly affected by the proposed action and which sets forth in detail the data and method used in making the estimate. (Exhibit "G"). Proof of publication that public notice of the hearing conducted on March 25, 1981 was published once a week for four (4) consecutive weeks immediately prior to the hearing in the Fort Lauderdale News. (Exhibit "H"). The Future Land Use Plan Element of the Broward County comprehensive Plan which has been adopted by Broward County in compliance with the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act of 1975. (Exhibit "I"). An agreement between ITSMTD, Arvida Corporation, and the City of Sunrise providing for the purchase of both water and sewer services by the ITSMTD from the City of Sunrise and committing the ITSMTD to make use of a Regional 201 Sewer Plan, when such plan is operational and capable of serving the district. ("Exhibit 'J'"). The ITSMTD was created by Broward County to provide certain services such as water, water management and control, sewers, and roads for an area of land consisting of approximately 13,000 acres. Included within this area of land is the 10,000 acre new community to be developed by Arvida Corporation known as Weston. The new community is a development of regional impact and is subject to two development orders adopted by Broward County (Exhibit "D"). The Weston development is a low density, residential new community which also includes industrial and commercial uses. It is presently planned to be developed over a 25-30 year period of time and will eventually contain 20,500 dwelling units and will have a population of 40,000. The two development orders grant master development approval to the Weston community and grant incremental development approval to the first two increments (approximately 7,000 acres). the third increment is designated for future incremental approval (approximately 3,000 acres presently planned for industrial, commercial, and airport uses). The 7,000 acres of land within Weston which comprise increments 1 and 2 pursuant to the aforementioned development orders have been zoned as a planned unit development. The zoning classification allows the construction of 18,000 dwelling units and the development of 500 acres of business-commercial land. To date, three (3) plats have been approved by Broward County within the Weston community. The Weston development and all proposed uses within the ITSMTD are consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan for the unincorporated areas of Broward County, Florida, including policies and requirements relating to trafficways, open space and parks, and provision for housing (Exhibits "E" and "I"). The area of land within the proposed district is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developed as one functional, interrelated community for the following reasons: The area of land within the ITSMTD is composed of approximately 13,000 acres. 10,000 of the 13,000 acres constitute a development of regional impact, the develop- ment which is subject to two development orders (Exhibit "D"). 7,000 acres of the development of regional impact have been zoned by Broward County as a Planned Unit Development. (Exhibit "D"). These land control devices plan and provide for the development of this area in great detail. The development orders require phasing of the development and provide for the provision of parks, civic sites, schools, roads, and major land uses within the area. (See specifically Article II, A, D, and E of 1978 development order and Sections 1 and 2 of the 1979 development order.) The area of land within the proposed district is subject to and within the jurisdiction of the ITSMTD. The ITSMTD presently has the responsibility for providing water management, water and sewer services, and the construction of trafficways and certain other improvements. the ITSMTD was created for the specific purpose of aiding in the development of the area of land within the proposed district. In adopting Ordinance 75-22, the Broward County Commission observed: "WHEREAS, it is found by the County Commission that to promote the economic, orderly, and planned development of certain land and to best serve the welfare and convenience of the public, a Special Municipal Tax District of Broward County, Florida, should be established pursuant to the Charter of Broward County, Florida." The very location of the area of land within the proposed district and the major boundaries of that area dictate that the area be developed as a self-contained, functional interrelated community. (See Exhibits "C" and "D"). The area within the proposed district is compact and sufficiently contiguous to be developable as an interrelated community, as evidenced by the existence of the ITSMTD, the development orders, and the planned unit development zoning classification. A community development district is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area of land that will be served by the district for the following reasons: The finding supporting creation of the ITSMTD by the Broward County Commission in 1975 that a tax district is necessary for the area to be developed in an economic, orderly, and planned way remains true today. A community development district functioning pursuant to Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, would have the following advantages over the ITSMTD: Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, provides a clear and comprehensive charter for operating the district. The reestablishment of the ITSMTD as a community development district will conform the district to uniform state policy regarding the formation and operation of independent develop- ment districts, and will promote a strengthened state new community policy. A community development district has broad, comprehensive, and flexible powers which will better serve the area of land within the proposed district during the period of its development. The area of land to be served by the district will develop over a 20 to 30 year period of time and the broad flexible powers contained within Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, will give the community development district the ability to meet the changing needs and desires of the new community. The special powers contained within Section 190.012, Florida Statutes, will enable the district to provide a broader range of services to meet the needs of the developing community. Specifically, the Indian Trace Community Development District will be authorized to provide parks and facilities for indoor and outdoor recreational, cultural, and educational uses; fire protection and control services, including fire stations, water mains, fire trucks, and other vehicles and equipment; and to construct security and school buildings and related structures for use in the security and educational system, when authorized by proper governmental authority. The economic impact statement (Exhibit "G") points out several reasons why a community development district would be the best alternative to deliver community development services. Among the important points contained within the economic impact statement are the following: The Environmental Land Management Study Committee recommended implementation of a new communities policy in order to encourage well planned quality developments. Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, has implemented the recommendations of the Committee and has established that new community policy. The State of Florida has determined that Community Development Districts are a better alternative to provide infrastructure improvements than are "paper cities" The reestablishment of the ITSMTD as a Community Development District would avoid municipal formation as a means of infrastructure development. The reestablishment of the ITSMTD as a Community Development District will serve to implement the goals of the Broward County Land Use Plan. The Broward County Land Use Plan contains the following goals: It encourages planned communities with mixed uses, both residential and nonresidential; It determines that growth should be phased with the provision of community services and finds that urban growth should not be permitted in areas where the basic minimum required community services and facilities have not been provided or scheduled for capital improvement either by public or private means; It establishes that the capital costs for the provision and extension of major services, facilities, and transportation networks to benefit new residential or commercial developments should be imposed primarily on those who benefit and not on the existing resident population. The community development services which would be provided to the area of land within the proposed district would not be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional development services and facilities for the following reasons: There are no existing regional services of facilities for the area of Broward County within the proposed district. Further, Broward County has neither the plans, nor the capability to provide services and facilities to the area. There are no major trunk water mains or sewer interceptors or outfalls in existence in the area of land within the proposed district. The ITSMTD was created by Broward county to provide services and facilities to service the area of land within the proposed district. In addition, the application for development orders are based, recognized that the ITSMTD would be used to provide infrastructure improvements within the area. The trafficways which have been designed to serve the area within the proposed district and which are required to be built in accordance with the development orders are in accordance with the Broward County Trafficways Plan, which is incorporated by reference in the county future land use element. The ITSMTD is making use of existing local water and sewer facilities. It has entered into a contract with the City of Sunrise to purchase both water and sewer services from the City of Sunrise. (Exhibit "J"). In addition, that agreement commits the ITSMTD to make use of a regional 201 sewer facility when such facility is operational and capable of serving the district. The testimony and documentary evidence establish the following: All statements contained in the Petition are true and correct. The creation of the district would not be inconsistent with any applicable element of the Broward County Comprehensive Plan. The area of land that will be served by the district is amenable to separate district government. On March 24, 1981, the Broward County Board of County Commissioners voted to support ITSMTD's petition to reestablish the district as a community development district.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law hereby submitted, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission grant the Petition of the ITSMTD and adopt a rule which will reestablish the ITSMTD as the Indian Trace Community Development District. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of April, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM E. WILLIAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings This 10th day of April, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert M. Rhodes, Esquire Messer, Rhodes, Vickers & Hart Post Office Box 1876 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 David W. Wilcox, Esquire Office of the Governor Room 209, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Philip Shailer, Esquire 540 N. W. Fourth Street Suite B Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Donald R. Hall, Esquire 540 N.W. Fourth Street Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether a certain development order (permit) issued by Monroe County to George and Judy Sands, as owners, and PG Construction, Inc., as contractor, for the construction of a single family dwelling unit is consistent with the Monroe County comprehensive plan and land development regulations.
Findings Of Fact The parties Respondents, George and Judy Sands (Sands), are the owners of Lot 15, Tropical Coral Reef Estates, Plantation Key, Monroe County, Florida; a property located within that part of Monroe County designated as an area of critical state concern, and upon which they have received a development order (permit) from Monroe County to construct a single family dwelling unit. Respondent, PG Construction, Inc., is the contractor that applied for the permit on behalf of the Sands. Respondent, Monroe County (Monroe County), is a local government within the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern designated by Section 380.0552, Florida Statutes, and is responsible for the implementation of, and the issuance of development orders that are consistent with, the Monroe County comprehensive plan and land development regulations, as approved and adopted in Chapters 9J-14 and 28-20, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner, Department of Community Affairs (Department), is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility of administering and enforcing the provisions of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, and all rules promulgated there-under. Sections 380.031(18) and 380.032(1), Florida Statutes. Here, the Department has filed a timely appeal to the issuance of the subject permit, and contends that construction of the dwelling unit is inconsistent with the Monroe County comprehensive plan and land development regulations since it would exceed allowable density limitations. Background The subject property is approximately .45 acres, and was purchased by the Sands in January 1990. At the time of purchase, the property supported a concrete block residence, two bedrooms and one bath, of approximately 900 square feet and a wood-frame residence, two bedrooms and one bath, of approximately 625 square feet. Both buildings were constructed in 1948 and were, pertinent to this case, used by the Sands' predecessor in title as a principal residence prior to and as of the effective date of the Monroe County land development regulations (September 15, 1986). Following their acquisition of the property, the Sands undertook to upgrade both structures with the intention of offering use of the residences to employees of their business, which was located across the street from the property. 2/ Ultimately, however, the Sands decided to replace, rather than remodel, the wood-frame residence, and employed David de Haas-Grosseck (de Haas), a consultant and designer of residential properties, who was of the opinion that such replacement was permissible under the provisions of Section 9.5-268, Monroe County land development regulations (MCLDR), discussed infra, to attend the necessary details. 3/ On February 5, 1991, de Haas, on behalf of the Sands, filed an application with Monroe County for a building permit to construct a modular single family residence upon the property. Thereafter, the County advised de Haas that since the wood-frame structure was to be removed a demolition permit would also be required. Accordingly, on February 11, 1991, de Haas applied for a demolition permit to remove such structure. The demolition permit (permit number 9130002904) was issued by the County on February 11, 1991, and rendered to the Department on February 13, 1991. The building permit (permit number 9130002861) was issued by the County on February 25, 1991, and rendered to the Department on February 27, 1991. Under existing law, such permits were not effective until expiration of the time within which the Department was authorized to appeal their issuance, to-wit: 45 days after they were rendered to the Department. The Sands, having been expressly so advised by de Haas, were acutely aware of the limitations on their building permit. Consequently, the Sands requested a waiver of the Department's appeal period. By letter of March 21, 1991, the Department denied such request and stated: Dear Mr. Sands: Monroe County issued you permit number 913-2861 on February 25, 1991. The DCA received the permit on February 27, 1991. Therefore, the Department's 45-day appeal period expires on April 13, 1991. Subsequent to the issuance of the permit by the County, you requested a waiver of the DCA's appeal period. At this time, the Department declines to issue you the waiver. Changes or additional information may be needed to meet County Code requirements. Our concerns include that the proposed development exceeds the allowable density in a SS zoning district. DCA staff will continue to review your plans and the permit, which may warrant action by the Department . . . . Notwithstanding the Sands' express knowledge that their building permit was not effective, as well as express advice from the Department that it had concerns regarding the propriety of such development, the Sands, following the expiration of the Department's appeal period on their demolition permit, demolished the wood-frame structure on or about April 4, 1991. Thereafter, by petition filed with the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission on April 12, 1991, the Department timely challenged the propriety of Monroe County's decision to issue the building permit. 4/ The Sands, notwithstanding express knowledge that their building permit was not effective pending the Department's appeal, proceeded to construct the modular unit on the property. Such unit is approximately 650 square feet in size, excluding the two enclosed screen porches which measure 10' X 20' each, and complies with current building code requirements. The Sands' decision to construct such unit pending appeal was voluntary, and they proceeded with such construction at their own risk considering the nature of this proceeding. Consistency of the building permit with the Monroe County comprehensive plan and land development regulations The Sands property is located within what the Monroe County land development regulations (MCLDR) define as a sparsely settled residential land use district. The purpose of such district is stated in Section 9.5-209, MCLDR, to be as follows: . . . to establish areas of low density residential development where the predominate character is native or open space lands. Consistent with the purpose of such land use district, the Monroe County land development regulations permit, as of right, only the following uses: Detached residential dwellings; Beekeeping; Home occupations -- Special use permit requiring a public hearing; Accessory uses. Section 9.5-238(a), MCLDR. Moreover, consistent with the purpose of the district, the density or intensity of development is limited by Section 9.5-261, MCLDR. Pertinent to this case, 9.5-261, MCLDR, addresses the issue of land use intensity or density, and provides: No structure or land in Monroe County shall hereafter be developed, used or occupied at an intensity or density greater than the standards set out in this division. . . . And, Section 9.5-262, MCLDR, establishes the maximum residential density in a sparsely settled residential land use district at .5 dwelling units per acre. Accordingly, a minimum of two acres is required under the Monroe County land development regulations to permit, as of right, one detached residential dwelling. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 9.5-262, MCLDR, the Monroe County land development regulations provide an exception to the density limitations otherwise imposed by such section for certain dwelling units existent on the effective date of the regulations. Pertinent to this case, Section 9.5-268, MCLDR, provides: Notwithstanding the provisions of section 9.5-262 . . . the owners of land upon which a dwelling unit . . . used as a principal residence prior to the effective date of the plan was lawful on the effective date of this chapter shall be entitled to a density allocation of one (1) dwelling unit for each such unit in existence on the effective date of this chapter. Here, the Department and Monroe County disagree as to the proper interpretation of the foregoing provision. The Department interprets such provision to apply only to the owner of such residence on the effective date of the plan. Under such interpretation, the density benefits offered by Section 9.5-268, MCLDR, would be lost where, as here, such owner sold the property. In contrast, Monroe County interprets such provision to essentially establish an allowable density on the effective date of the plan, and to accord subsequent owners the benefit of such increased density allocation. 5/ Such interpretation, while not the only possible interpretation, is not inconsistent with the comprehensive plan or clearly erroneous, and therefore permissible. 6/ Accordingly, the subject permit is consistent with the Monroe County comprehensive plan and land development regulations. 7/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission enter a final order affirming Monroe County's decision to issue building permit number 9130002861, and dismissing the appeal filed by the Department of Community Affairs. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 12th day of June 1992. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of June 1992.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to a final order amending the development order for the Quadrangle DRI to authorize the replacement of office space with multifamily residential units.
Findings Of Fact The Roles of Residential Units and Residential Acreages in Quadrangle Development Orders Petitioner is a joint venture. Its partners are Weyerhauser Realty Company and RMDC Quadrangle Company. RMDC Quadrangle Company is a subsidiary of Reynolds Metal Development Company. (Tr., p. 320.) The partners have divided development rights between themselves, but legal title remains in Petitioner. (Tr., p. 321.) All references to "Petitioner" include Petitioner's predecessors in interest. On November 5, 1984, Respondent issued a development order (DO) approving the application for a development of regional impact (DRI) known as The Quadrangle (Quadrangle). (Resp. Ex. 3.) Quadrangle is located on 465 acres immediately west of the University of Central Florida in east Orange County. Quadrangle occupies about two-thirds of the area bounded by University Boulevard on the south, Alafaya Trail on the east, Rouse Road on the west, and McCulloch Road on the north. (Resp. Ex. 1.) At this location, McCulloch Road separates Orange and Seminole counties. (Tr., p. 87.) As originally proposed, Quadrangle was to have been a corporate business center with over two million square feet of office space and nearly one-half million square feet of supporting uses, including hotels and restaurants. (Resp. Ex. 1, pp. 10 and 13.) (All page references are to the actual number of pages starting with the first page of the exhibit and typically do not correspond to the page numbers shown on the exhibit.) The original DRI application identified 21 parcels: 13 for office, two for hotel, one for professional office/health center, one for retail, one for restaurant, one for bank/office, one for restaurant/recreation/park, and one for professional office. (Resp. Ex. 1, Table 1.) The original DRI application designated as office what is now known as Tract 7, which is the parcel at issue in this case. (Cf. Resp. Ex. 1, Land Use Plan, with Pet. Ex. 2A.) Ensuing requests for approvals of proposed land use changes addressed the requirements of local and state law governing, respectively, planned developments (PD) and DRIs. This case involves exclusively the DRI process. The documents initiating amendments to the DRI DO are contained in packages entitled "Notice of Change for the Quadrangle DRI" (NOPC). (The first such package bears a slightly different name.) The NOPCs contain the same information as that contained in the packages used to initiate PD amendments. (Each of these PD packages is called an "Amended Land Use Plan" (ALUP) and contains a map known by the same name. In December 1993, Petitioner filed an NOPC requesting a DO amendment approving residential development. (Pet. Ex. 3.) This was the first request to add any form of residential development, exclusive of hotels, to Quadrangle. The December 1993 NOPC explains the purpose of this request: The proposed amended development program has been designed to introduce multi-family housing into the project in an attempt to address a current deficiency in the marketplace as well as provide a more diverse mixture of land uses within The Quadrangle and the University Activity Center. As demonstrated in Table 1, the currently proposed changes include a reduction of office space by 825,000 square feet, the addition of 960 multi-family units and an increase of 250,000 square feet in the retail land use. The multi-family parcels will be developed with densities up to 18 dwelling units per acre. (Pet. Ex. 3, p. 3.) Explaining the flexibility that Petitioner sought for the Quadrangle DRI, the December 1993 NOPC adds: Exhibit 1--Development Plan (Revised) illustrates the proposed changes to the master development plan. The applicant requests approval to consider each remaining development parcel as a potential site for either commercial/retail, multi-family residential, or office land uses, thereby providing the flexibility needed to adequately incorporate the new land use proposed for the project. Table 1 of the December 1993 NOPC is a Substantial Deviation Determination Chart. This table provides Respondent and other reviewing agencies with information to help them determine, in the DRI process, if the proposed land use change is a substantial deviation from the development already approved by the DO, as previously amended. The Substantial Deviation Determination Chart contains six rows of land uses and four columns: land use, change category, proposed plan, and approved plan. (Pet. Ex. 3, Table 1.) Under Residential, Table 1 states, for the approved plan, "not applicable" because the then-current DO authorized no residential uses. For the proposed plan, Table 1 indicates 960 multifamily units and 56 acres. For "site locational changes," Table 1 refers to Exhibit 1. (Pet. Ex. 3, Table 1.) Exhibit 1, which is also mentioned in paragraph 7 of this recommended order, is the "Development Plan (revised)." The Development Plan comprises a color map, "land use legend," table entitled "Amended Development Program," and untitled table showing tracts, land uses, and acreages. (Pet. Ex. 3, Ex. 1.) Reflecting the proposal that was the subject of the December 1993 NOPC, the land use legend shows Tract 7 as "Office/M.F. [Multifamily] Residential." The Amended Development Program reports an introduction of 960 multifamily residential units, increase of 250,000 square feet of commercial retail/service, and decrease of 825,000 square feet of office/showroom. (Pet. Ex. 3, Ex. 1.) The untitled table on the Development Plan identifies specific, authorized land uses for each parcel. Also reflecting the proposal that was the subject of the December 1993 NOPC, the untitled table states: Tracts Land Use Acreage 1 Commercial/Office/Hotel 20.75 ac. 4A Office/M.F. Residential 23.87 ac. 4B Office/M.F. Residential 15.00 ac. 5 Office/M.F. Residential 18.13 ac. 7 Office/M.F. Residential 24.62 ac. 12 Office/M.F. Residential 12.63 ac. 17B Office/M.F. Residential 04.02 ac. 17C Office/M.F. Residential 07.70 ac. 21 Commercial/Office/Hotel 11.27 ac. 25B Commercial/Office 02.19 ac. 25C Commercial/Office/Hotel 03.89 ac. (Pet. Ex. 3, Ex. 1.) TOTAL 144.07 ac. Attachment B to the December 1993 NOPC is a traffic analysis prepared in November 1993 by Kimley-Horn Associates, Inc. The analysis explains adequately how no additional traffic impacts would result from the replacement of 825,000 square feet of office and office/showroom with 960 multifamily dwelling units and 250,000 square feet of retail. (Pet. Ex. 3, Attach. B.) Respondent is not challenging Petitioner's request for an amended DO on the basis of traffic impacts. (Tr., p. 283.) In any event, the single measure of the impact of Quadrangle was traffic trips. (Tr., pp. 120-21.). The November 1993 Kimley- Horn analysis established a formula by which Petitioner could and did demonstrate that all amendments to the DRI DO that Petitioner sought, including the subject amendment, did not generate offsite traffic impacts due to the decreases in Office that accompanied increases in Multifamily Residential. (Tr., pp. 279 et seq.) Each NOPC concludes with a proposed DO. The proposed DO attached to the December 1993 NOPC contains the Development Plan, which is described in paragraphs 10-12 of this recommended order. Although the hearing exhibit is incomplete, the proposed DO presumably incorporates by reference, in the same manner as described below for subsequent NOPCs, "the development quantities" set forth in the Development Plan. (Pet. Ex. 3, last two pages.) The DO actually approving the December 1993 NOPC is the Non-Substantial Deviation Amendment to Development Order for the Quadrangle Development of Regional Impact, dated May 10, 1994. The DO states that the "development quantities and land uses . . are . . . amended as described and stated in the attached Exhibits 'A' and 'B.'" (Stipulated Facts filed December 20, 1999 (Stip.), Ex. D, p. 2.) Exhibit A to the May 10, 1994, DO sets exchange ratios of one multifamily unit for 300 square feet of office and 1000 square feet of retail for 2400 square feet of office, in both cases up to the maximum measures of intensity approved by this DO. Exhibit A subjects these exchange ratios to the "following maximum result: Office--2,744,263 square feet[;] Commercial-- 397,000 square feet[;] Hotel--450 rooms[; and] Residential--960 units." (Stip., Ex. D, Ex. A.) Exhibit B to the May 10, 1994, DO is the Development Plan that is attached to the December 1993 NOPC. (Stip., Ex. D, Ex. B.) The ALUP accompanying the December 1993 NOPC is dated January 1994. (Pet. Ex. 4.) The January 1994 ALUP contains design standards for the newly added residential land use. (Pet. Ex. 4, p. 15.) For the most part, these standards involve buffers, setbacks, and net livable areas (Pet. Ex. 4, Ex. 3 (ALUM map)), although the PD approval presumably added other design standards to all residential development within Quadrangle. The first two issues, as stated in the Preliminary Statement above, involve the calculation and purpose of the acreage figures supplied by Petitioner for Multifamily Residential. Although over 100 acres bore the designation of Multifamily Residential after approval of the amendments sought by the December 1993 NOPC, the same acreage also bore the designation of Office. In calculating the 56 acres used in Table 1 of the December 1993 NOPC, Petitioner added the acreage of Tracts 4A, 4B, and 5. (Tr., p. 219.) (The total of these three parcels is actually 57 acres; all acreages in this case are approximations.) Although Tracts 7, 12, 17B, and 17C also bore an alternative Multifamily Residential designation, Petitioner chose to include in Multifamily Residential only the combined acreage of Tracts 4A, 4B, and 5, because Petitioner believed that these were the most likely parcels to be developed for residential, rather than office, uses. Also, Petitioner did not want to distort the Office designation by removing all of these parcels from Office when it was likely that some of them would develop as Office, not Multifamily Residential. Petitioner's acreage assignment is roughly consistent with the maximum allowable density; if each of these tracts developed at its maximum of 18 units per acre, these 56 acres would yield 1008 units, or 48 more units than authorized by the DO approving the December 1993 NOPC. In February 1997, Petitioner filed another NOPC seeking approval of 290 more residential units. The February 1997 NOPC states that the "approved program is shown on Table 1, Substantial Deviation Determination Chart." Explaining further, the February 1997 NOPC adds: "The proposed amended development program has been designed to expand multi-family housing to Tract #1 in an attempt to address a current deficiency in the marketplace and to specify some specific commercial uses so as to provide a more diverse mixture of land uses within The Quadrangle and the University Activity Center." The February 1997 NOPC notes that "Exhibit 1, Development Plan (Revised) illustrates the proposed changes to the master development plan." (Pet. Ex. 7, p. 3.) Exhibit 1 to the February 1997 NOPC is a Development Plan (revised February 10, 1997) featuring a color map. Tract 7 remains designated as Office/Multifamily Residential, as are Tracts 5, 12, 17B, and 17C. The Development Plan discloses that Tracts 4A, 4B, and 25B have been developed or sold. The table entitled "Amended Development Program" shows an increase of 290 multifamily residential units and a decrease of 72,000 square feet of commercial retail/service. (Pet. Ex. 7, Ex. 1.) Reflecting the sales of the three parcels and minor acreage recalculations, the untitled table included on the Development Plan provides the following information: Tracts Land Use Acreage 1 Commercial/Hotel/Office/ M.F. Residential 24.00 ac. 5 Office/M.F. Residential 15.95 ac. 7 Office/M.F. Residential 24.62 ac. 12 Office/M.F. Residential 12.63 ac. 17B Office/M.F. Residential 04.02 ac. 17C Office/M.F. Residential 07.70 ac. 21 Commercial/Office/Hotel 11.45 ac. 25C Commercial/Office/Hotel 04.13 ac. TOTAL 104.50 ac. (Pet. Ex. 7, Ex. 1.) Table 1 in the February 1997 NOPC is the Substantial Deviation Determination Chart. This chart indicates that the proposed plan is for an additional 290 multifamily residential units, to a new total of 1250 such units. Under the row for Residential, the chart shows the approved plan as 56 acres and the proposed plan as "Add Tract 1 77 acreage." (Pet. Ex. 7, Table 1.) The proposed DO attached to the February 1997 NOPC amends the "development quantities" to reflect the information contained in an exhibit that was omitted from the copy of the February 1997 NOPC admitted into evidence. Presumably, the attached document was the Development Plan. (Pet. Ex. 7, last two pages.) The DO actually approving the February 1997 NOPC is the Non-Substantial Deviation Amendment to Development Order for the Quadrangle Development of Regional Impact, dated June 24, 1997. The DO states that the "development quantities and land uses . . . are . . . amended as described and stated in the attached Exhibits 'A' and 'B.'" (Stip., Ex. E, p. 2.) Exhibit A to the June 24, 1997, DO is the Development Plan that is attached to the February 1997 NOPC. Exhibit B to the June 24, 1997, DO is the Substantial Deviation Determination Chart that is attached to the February 1997 NOPC. (Stip., Ex. E, Exs. A and B.) Petitioner calculated the 77 acres for Multifamily Residential by adding the acreage of Tract 1 to the 56 acres represented by Tracts 4A, 4B, and 5. (Tr., p. 222-23.) The reasoning was largely the same as that used when totaling the 56 acres in the December 1993 NOPC. Attempting to distinguish why Petitioner would add the acreage of Tract 1, but not Tract 7 at the time of the next NOPC for more residential units (discussed below), Petitioner explained that Tract 1 had not previously been designated Multifamily Residential. (Tr., p. 153.) By this time, Tracts 4A and 4B were under development as multifamily residential. (Cf. Pet. Ex. 3, Ex. 1 with Pet. Ex. 7, Ex. 1.) Occupying nearly all of the McCulloch Road frontage of Quadrangle, these parcels were, respectively, Phases I and II of a large apartment complex known as Knights Krossing. (Pet. Exs. 20, p. 20, and 47.) Tract 1 (except for less than two acres devoted to retail) became Phase III of Knights Krossing. (Pet. Ex. 20, p. 20.) In September 1997, Petitioner filed another NOPC seeking approval of additional residential units. The September 1997 NOPC requests the DO amendment that is the subject of this case. The September 1997 NOPC states that the "approved program is shown on Table 1, Substantial Deviation Determination Chart." Explaining further, the September 1997 NOPC adds: "The proposed amended development program has been designed to expand multi-family housing previously approved on Tract #7 and hotel rooms and restaurant in Tract #25C in an attempt to address an increasing deficiency in the marketplace, the project and the UCF Activity Center. Due to the tremendous growth of the University of Central Florida (currently 30,000 students), the need for these types of uses has increased." The September 1997 NOPC notes that "Exhibit A, Development Plan (Revised) . . . illustrates the proposed changes to the master development plan." (Pet. Ex. 11, p. 3.) Exhibit A to the September 1997 NOPC is the Development Plan (revised August 1997) featuring a black-and-white map. The Development Plan continues to designate Tract 7 as Office/Multifamily Residential, but shades the tract to show that it is an "amended area." The Development Plan also shades Tract 25C, which bears the underlying designation of Commercial/Office/Hotel. The only other tracts designated as Office/Multifamily Residential continue to be Tracts 5, 12, 17B, and 17C, and Tract 1 continues to bear its designation as Commercial/Hotel/Office/Multifamily Residential. The table entitled "Amended Development Program" shows an increase of 53 hotel rooms, 310 multifamily residential units, and 8000 square feet of commercial retail/service and a decrease of 234,863 square feet of office/showroom. (Pet. Ex. 11, Ex. A.) The untitled table on the Development Plan provides the following information: Tracts Land Use Acreage 1 Commercial/Hotel/Office/ 24.00 ac. M.F. Residential 5 Office/M.F. Residential 15.95 ac. 7 Office/M.F. Residential 24.62 ac. 12 Office/M.F. Residential 12.63 ac. 17B Office/M.F. Residential 04.02 ac. 17C Office/M.F. Residential 07.70 ac. 21 Commercial/Office/Hotel 11.45 ac. 25C Commercial/Office/Hotel 04.13 ac. (Pet. Ex. 11, Ex. A.) Table 1 in the September 1997 NOPC is the Substantial Deviation Determination Chart. This chart indicates that the proposed plan is for an additional 310 multifamily residential units, to raise the total for the Quadrangle DRI to 1560 such units. Under the row for Residential, the chart shows that the approved plan is still for 77 acres. (Pet. Ex. 11, Table 1.) The proposed DO attached to the September 1997 NOPC amends the "development quantities, land uses and acreage" to reflect "the attached schedules and master plans" as Exhibit A, which is the Development Plan. (Pet. Ex. 11, last three pages, and Stip., Ex. F, Attach. B, Ex. A.) The September 1997 NOPC marks the first time that Petitioner sought additional Multifamily Residential units without increasing the acreage assigned to residential uses in the Substantial Deviation Determination Chart. Petitioner admits that, in retrospect, it probably should have added the 24.62 acres represented by Tract 7. (Tr., p. 200.) As revealed by the shading of Tract 7 and the text quoted in paragraph 32 of this recommended order, Petitioner's purpose in increasing Multifamily Residential by 310 units was to allow residential development of Parcel 7. (Tr., p. 235.) However, Petitioner wanted its acreage figures to balance (Tr., p. 236), and Petitioner was concerned that adding the acreage of Tract 7 to Multifamily Residential would distort the Office acreage. (Tr., p. 233.) Only later did Petitioner discover, after discussions with a representative of the Department of Community Affairs, that Petitioner could have listed contingent acreages, so as to disclose that the actual use of parcels bearing multiple designations could not be ascertained until their sale or development. (Tr., p. 238.) The parties eventually bifurcated the requests contained in the September 1997 NOPC, and Respondent approved the exchange of 44,263 square feet of office space for 53 hotel rooms. (Stip., Paras. 8-12.) After discussion with nearby homeowners (Tr., p. 168), Petitioner reduced its request for 310 multifamily residential units to 240 such units. (Tr., p. 168 and Stip., Para. 13.) On March 23, 1999, Respondent conducted a public hearing on the residential aspect of the September 1997 NOPC and accompanying ALUP. (Stip., Para. 15.) Petitioner's present request for additional Multifamily Residential units is for a nonsubstantial deviation to the existing DO. (Stip., Para. 20.) No objection to this aspect of the September 1997 NOPC was lodged by the Department of Community Affairs (Stip., Para. 21), the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council (Stip., Para. 22), or Respondent's Development Review Committee, which found the amendment to be consistent with the Orange County Comprehensive Plan (Stip., Para. 23). In a DO, as defined by Section 380.031(3) and (4), Florida Statutes, Respondent denied the portion of the September 1997 NOPC seeking additional Multifamily Residential units. (Stip., Para. 17.) The only residential development in Quadrangle is Knights Krossing. (Stip., Para. 14.) Currently constructed and proposed units in Knights Crossing will use 965 of the already- approved 1250 Multifamily Residential units, leaving 285 such units available. (Stip., Para. 14.) Tract 4A has 241 units on 20 acres, Tract 4B has 217 units on 20 acres, and Tract 1 has 290 units on 19.4 acres, for a total of 748 units on about 60 acres. (Pet. Ex. 20, p. 20.) The additional 217 units are proposed for Phase IV of Knights Krossing. (Pet. Ex. 20, p. 27.) Phase IV will be developed on Tract 5, if the required land use approvals are obtained. (Tr., p. 191.) The prospective developer of Knights Krossing, Phase IV, is Mr. Davis. (Pet. Ex. 43, p. 1 and Pet. Ex. 19, p. 3.) The 217 units sought for Tract 5 plus the 748 units developed on Tracts 1, 4A, and 4B total the 965 units stated in the Stipulated Facts. The number of Multifamily Residential units requested by Petitioner in this case is dependent upon the resolution of the Davis proposal. The two obvious alternatives are if the Davis proposal were granted or if the Davis proposal were denied. However, if the Davis proposal were denied, there are two alternatives: if Tract 5 were developed residentially at its maximum density or if Tract 5 were not developed residentially (or, to the same effect, if the DO amendment sought in this case were to ignore subsequent residential development of Tract 5). Certain facts are common to all three alternatives. First, Petitioner (or its assignee) wishes to develop 420 Multifamily Residential units on Tract 7, regardless whether the Davis proposal were approved. (Tr., p. 327.) Second, Tracts 5 and 7 are the only unsold parcels bearing the Multifamily Residential designation. (Tr., p. 208.) Tract 17C was sold sometime ago (Pet. Ex. 23), Tract 12 has completed review by the Development Review Committee for office use, and Parcel 17B is under contract for hotel use (Tr., p. 208). (This recommended order shall ignore the possibility that Tracts 12 and 17B may return to the market undeveloped.) Third, at the maximum, per-tract density of 18 units per acre and ignoring any more restrictive effect of design standards, Tract 7 could accommodate a maximum of 450 Multifamily Residential units. In early Development Plans, Tract 5 was shown as 18 acres, so it could accommodate a maximum of 324 Multifamily Residential units. (See, e.g., Pet. Ex. 3, Exhibit 1.) However, in later Development Plans, Tract 5 was shown as 16 acres, due to the removal of two acres of open space from its northwest corner. (Pet. Ex. 23.) If the density is derived on a gross acreage basis, so as to include the excised open space, Tract 5 can still accommodate a maximum of 324 units. As for the first alternative, if the Davis proposal were approved, only 285 units of the currently approved 1250 units would remain for development. In this event, Petitioner would need an additional 135 units, so that 420 units could be developed on Tract 7. (Tr., p. 326.) Under this alternative, in which Petitioner needs an additional 135 Multifamily Residential units, Petitioner is seeking a DO amendment approving a total of 1385 Multifamily Residential units in Quadrangle. As for the second alternative, if the Davis proposal were denied and no proposal for the residential development of Tract 5 emerged (or, at least, were considered at this time), 502 units would remain for development. After subtracting the 420 units for Tract 7, 82 units would remain, unused. Under this alternative, Petitioner does not need a DO amendment to develop 420 Multifamily Residential units on Tract 7, except possibly to acknowledge Petitioner's right to develop 420 such units on Tract 7 for the reasons set forth with respect to the remaining three issues in this case. As for the third alternative, if the Davis proposal were denied and the DO amendment in this case were to take into account subsequent residential development of Tract 5 at the maximum density, Petitioner would need 242 additional Multifamily Residential units to accommodate 420 units on Tract 7 and 324 units on Tract 5. The calculations supporting these figures begin with the 748 units in Tracts 1, 4A, and 4B. This leaves 502 units of the presently approved 1250 units. If Petitioner effectively were to reserve the maximum number of units--324--for Tract 5, then 178 units would remain for Tract 7, and Petitioner would need another 242 units to reach 420 units. Under this alternative, in which Petitioner needs an additional 242 units, Petitioner is seeking a DO amendment approving a total of 1492 Multifamily Residential units in Quadrangle. In this case, Petitioner has chosen to pursue the first and third alternatives. (Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order, p. 8.) Petitioner's adoption of the third alternative is evidenced by the following statement: Because the number of units to develop Tract 5 might increase, however, if [Petitioner] loses the appeal of the County's denial of the current request (and the current contract for it expires, requiring the formulation of a new development plan for Tract 5), [Petitioner] has continued to request approval for 240 additional units (and a total of 1490 units for the whole development) . . .. (Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order, p. 8.) Petitioner's request for 240 units is contingent only upon the approval of 217 units for Tract 5; if this occurs, Petitioner would need only an additional 135 units. However, if the Davis proposal were denied, Petitioner would take all 240 units. After adding them to the 502 units remaining after the development of Tracts 1, 4A, and 4B, the resulting 742 units would provide the 420 units sought for Tract 7 and two units less than the maximum number of units allowable on Tract 5, assuming, again, that the density is calculated on the basis of gross acres (or that Petitioner has forgotten that two acres of open space have been taken from Tract 5). As Respondent contends, the third alternative is premature and excessively contingent. By seeking 240 units if the Davis proposal were denied, Petitioner is effectively trying to obtain residential units for Tracts 7 and 5 in this proceeding, without consideration of the specific compatibility issues pertinent to Tract 5, which is closer to the already- developed part of Knights Krossing and most of the residential development along McCulloch Road. By obtaining units now for the maximum development of Tract 5 through an as-yet identified development proposal, Petitioner would deny Respondent the opportunity of examining the proposal, as Respondent is examining Petitioner's proposal for Tract 7 in this case. Petitioner would also deny Respondent the opportunity of obtaining consistency concessions from the future developer of Tract 5 or its predecessor, as Respondent is doing in this case. The Davis proposal for Tract 5 has proceeded further in the land use approval process than has Petitioner's proposal for Tract 7. (Tr., p. 207.) Thus, the possibility of an approval of the Davis proposal is not unreasonably contingent, nor is the possibility of a denial. But the possibility of a denial followed by a hypothetical proposal at maximum density for Tract 5 is unreasonably contingent and prematurely presents land use issues, including compatibility, better left to future consideration by Respondent and the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission with full knowledge of all relevant facts surrounding a specific development proposal. The preceding analysis reveals an insubstantial contingency in Petitioner's requested number of additional units, if the Davis proposal were granted; an insubstantial contingency in Petitioner's requested number of additional units, if the Davis proposal were denied and no proposal of residential development for Tract 5 were considered in addressing, in this case, the number of Multifamily Residential units in Quadrangle; and an unreasonable contingency in Petitioner's requested number of additional units, if the Davis proposal were denied and an alternative, hypothetical proposal were considered in addressing, in this case, the number of Multifamily Residential units in Quadrangle. For these reasons, as to the first issue, Petitioner has shown that its request for additional Multifamily Residential units is not so contingent as to preclude informed consideration and approval, provided that, if the Davis proposal were approved, the amended DO approves an additional 135 Multifamily Residential Units and, if the Davis proposal were denied, the amended DO approves no additional Multifamily Residential units, but acknowledges that Petitioner may use the 420 units, subject to design standards, on Tract 7 and based on the favorable resolution of the following three issues. The second issue requires analysis of the means by which the Quadrangle DOs restrict land uses. Land use restrictions imposed on residential uses at Quadrangle express themselves in four ways: 1) the per-tract density limitation of 18 units per acre; 2) the design standards found in the ALUPs and PD restrictions; 3) the designation of only certain tracts as eligible for Multifamily Residential; and 4) the maximum number of Multifamily Residential units allowed on those tracts designated Multifamily Residential. Respondent contends that the acreages cited in the Substantial Deviation Determination Charts are a fifth restriction upon residential uses in the Quadrangle DOs. However, this is a misreading of these DOs, invited, perhaps, by Petitioner's inconsistent treatment of acreages. At no time did Petitioner add the acreages of all the tracts designated Multifamily Residential in any of its submittals to Respondent. To have done so would have understated--badly, at the start--the potential nonresidential uses in Quadrangle. In the first two residential DO amendments, Petitioner exercised reasonable judgment in deciding which acreages to include in the total acreage cited for Multifamily Residential. For these DO amendments, Petitioner rationally explained the bases for the totals of 56 and 77 acres, respectively, for Multifamily Residential. The explanation for omitting Tract 7 from the third requested DO amendment--initiated by the September 1997 NOPC--was unpersuasive. The purpose for again increasing the number of Multifamily Residential units was to allow residential development of Tract 7, and an increase in acreage would have better informed Respondent as to what was being proposed. However, Petitioner clearly revealed its intention to use the additional residential units on Tract 7 by shading the tract on the Development Plan and by the text quoted in paragraph 32 of this recommended order. In the final analysis, Respondent's contention that the Quadrangle DRI DOs restrict land uses by the acreages shown on a Substantial Deviation Determination Chart imposes an unreasonably simple restriction upon the way in which this DRI has operated from its inception. Multiple designations by parcel have preserved maximum flexibility for developers. Treating the acreages listed in the Substantial Deviation Determination Chart as restrictions on land uses frustrates the obvious purpose of multiple designations. Respondent was never misled by the listed acreages, given the numerous indicators of flexible land uses contained in the NOPCs. The limits upon residential land uses were always derived in this DRI from per-tract densities, design standards, tract designations, and maximum allowable units of Multifamily Residential. A single notation of projected acreage offered by way of background explanation does not defeat the clear purpose of multiple designations. The impossibility of misunderstanding by Respondent is also confirmed by the evolving nature of Quadrangle itself. The slightest familiarity with this DRI reveals that, in the course of 15 years, Quadrangle, launched as a relatively large office/research park without residential uses, had become a much more mixed-use project, or, perhaps more accurately, two projects--an office park/hotel complex in the south and a high- density residential development in the north. For these reasons, as to the second issue, Petitioner has shown that its request for additional Multifamily Residential units is not precluded by any acreage limitation anywhere in any of the NOPCs or the failure of Petitioner to increase the acreage listed in the Substantial Deviation Determination Chart contained in the September 1997 NOPC. Multifamily Residential on Tract 7 is Compatible with Adjacent and Nearby Residential Land Uses To the north of Knights Krossing is a single-family and multifamily residential development known as Hunter's Reserve. (Tr., 394.) Farther west on McCulloch Road are Riverwalk, on the north of the road, and Riversbend, on the south of the road. Both of these single-family residential developments are east of Rouse Road. Between Riversbend and Knights Krossing is Riverchase, formerly known as University Pines. (Pet. Ex. 47.) Riverwalk and Riverchase are predominantly owner-occupied developments. (Tr., p. 470.) Riverchase is a J-shaped parcel extending from McCulloch Road to the lake that separates Tract 7 from Tract 5. (Tr., p. 161 and Pet. Ex. 47.) The eastern half of the north boundary of Tract 7 abuts the south boundary of Riverchase. The western half of the north boundary of Tract 7 abuts undeveloped land outside of Quadrangle. Unlike Tracts 1, 4A, and 4B, which front on McCulloch Road, Tracts 7 and 5 lack such frontage. Although interior access across Tract 4B could permit residents of Tract 5 access to McCulloch Road, the lake on the east boundary of Tract 7 would prevent direct access for residents of Tract 7, who likely will access their property by way of an interior road that runs to Rouse Road, about 1200 feet north of University Boulevard. (Pet. Exs. 2C, 16, and 47.) The compatibility issue in this case involves the proximity of Tract 7 to nearby residential areas. Tract 7 will be medium density residential, as defined in the Orange County Comprehensive Plan (Resp. Ex. 24, Policy 1.1.11), and the nearby residential areas are mostly single-family residential, although not at exceptionally low densities. The added compatibility issue in this case is the expectation that, given its proximity to the University of Central Florida, Tract 7 will accommodate a large number of college students. The most serious problems are crime and fear of crime. During 1999, Knights Krossing generated 842 service calls. Over the same period of time, for example, Riversbend generated only 33 service calls. (Pet. Ex. 47 and Resp. Ex. 41.) However, the great disparity in these numbers is deceptive. The first three phases of Knights Krossing comprise 2624 bedrooms. (Pet. Ex. 20, p. 21.) Assuming no vacancy rate and only one person per bedroom, Knights Krossing would accommodate about 2500 persons. Riversbend has about 80 single- family homes. (Pet. Ex. 47.) Assuming three to four persons per home, Riversbend accommodates about 250-300 residents. Thus, adjusted for approximate population, Knights Krossing generated about two-and-one-half to three times the service calls than did Riversbend. Closer examination of the Knights Krossing service calls reduces the apparent disparity even further. Sixty-one of the 842 service calls are commercial in nature; for example, 26 service calls are for commercial alarms. These figures reflect the small amount of commercial/retail uses on Tract 1 and have no bearing on an exclusively residential development, such as that proposed for Tract 7. (Resp. Ex. 41, p. 2.) Of the remaining 781 service calls, 234 are for residential alarms, which are a separate category from residential burglary. (Resp. Ex. 41, p. 2.) Although serious nuisances to law enforcement due to the fact that they require responses, residential alarms, in themselves, do not represent a crime; presumably, alarms activated by an actual intruder, rather than a careless or intoxicated college student, would generate an entry under residential burglary, not residential alarms. To get a better idea of seriously disruptive, potentially criminal activity at Knights Krossing, it is therefore necessary to reduce the service calls by another 234 calls. The remaining 547 service calls at Knights Krossing compare more favorably to the service calls at Riversbend, whose data are not broken down, but, if like Riverwalk or Hunter's Reserve, represent only potentially serious matters. (Resp. Ex. 41, p. 1.) Knights Krossing generates one service call per four- and-one-half residents, and Riversbend generates one service call per seven-and-one-half to nine residents. Thus, the rate of serious service calls is not more than double at Knights Krossing than it is at Riversbend and possibly only fifty percent greater. Additionally, the nature of the service calls at Knights Krossing, as well as at nearby residential areas, reveals that the crime at Knights Krossing has not spilled over into surrounding areas. Only one nearby resident testified at the hearing. A resident of Riversbend (Tr. pp. 446-47), she reported that college students had used the playground reserved for residents of Riversbend, but she could not say if they were residents of Knights Krossing. (Tr., pp. 458-59.) Likewise, she could not link to Knights Krossing residents other disruptive behavior by young people, such as racing cars in the detention pond (Tr., p. 457), or menacingly following neighbors in their cars (Tr. p. 458). This resident admitted that she had never called the police herself due to disruptive behavior (Tr., p. 495) and that, on the two occasions that she was bothered by noise through a closed window, at least one of the times was due to the activities of a neighbor in her development. (Tr., p. 499.) Certain characteristics of Knights Krossing tend toward incompatibility with nearby residential areas. Of the 748 units available at Knights Krossing, 492 of them, or two-thirds, are four-bedroom units. (Pet. Ex. 20, p. 20.) Knights Krossing also offers individual, per-bedroom leases. (Tr., pp. 362 and 368.) Knights Krossing experiences considerable tenant turnover. (Tr., pp. 427-28.) However, Petitioner has attempted to eliminate these characteristics in its development proposal for Tract 7. As offered at the hearing, Petitioner has committed itself, and its successors and assigns, to develop no more bedrooms than were previously approved in an earlier proposal for Tract 7 by the Spanos Corporation; not to lease units by individual bedrooms or permit the subleasing or partial assignment of leases so as to achieve the same effect; to provide a single point of access to and from the development; to erect a landscaped fence or landscaped masonry wall around the perimeter of the development except on the borders of lakes; to erect lighting of not more than two foot-candles over all common areas and on poles of not more than 25 feet in height; to include in all leases a strict prohibition against loud noises after 10:00 p.m.; and to incorporate other substantive covenants and restrictions incorporated in a specific agreement among Petitioner, Spanos Corporation, and the Riverchase homeowners association (formerly known as the University Pines Property Owners Association, Inc., dated December 22, 1998. (Pet. Ex. 43.) Spanos Corporation had entered into a since-expired (Tr., p. 328) contract with Petitioner to purchase Tract 7 to build 420 Multifamily Residential units. The three-party agreement contains numerous substantive provisions governing the development of Tract 7. These provisions include a 100-foot natural buffer between Riverchase and Tract 7 with no improvement except a wrought-iron fence, additional wrought-iron fencing along other parts of the boundary of Tract 7, specific details concerning an eight-foot tall masonry wall, a front gate at the entrance to the development constructed on Tract 7, and the use of best efforts to direct street lighting in Tract 7 away from Riverchase homes. (Pet. Ex. 19.) Additionally, the agreement provides for only 804 bedrooms in the 420 units with no four- bedroom units and only 60 three-bedroom units. (Pet. Ex. 19.) In addition to Petitioner's efforts to harmonize the multifamily development with nearby residential developments, the compatibility determination is facilitated by the recognition of the intensification of land uses in the area surrounding Quadrangle. This area has experienced considerable development from 1994 to 1997. (Pet. Exs. 2A, 2B, and 2C and Tr., p. 90.) Agricultural tracts have been converted to other uses in response to the demands placed on this area by, among other things, its close proximity to the University of Central Florida. At the same time, it is undisputed that the proposed development of 420 units on Tract 7 would not adversely affect water and sewer services (Stip., Para. 28), stormwater management (Stip. Paras. 29 and 31), recreational facilities (Stip., Para. 29), schools (Stip., Para. 30), or traffic (Stip., Para. 33). Additionally, compatibility is facilitated by the design standards contained in Respondent's PD regulations. (Tr., pp. 187-89 and 372-74.) For these reasons, as to the third issue, Petitioner has shown that 420 Multifamily Residential units on Tract 7 would be compatible with all nearby residential development, provided the amended DO incorporates the provisions set forth in paragraphs 76 and 77 of this recommended order. Various provisions of the Respondent's 1990-2010 Comprehensive Policy Plan (Comprehensive Plan) apply to this case. (Resp. Ex. 42; all citations to provisions of the Comprehensive Plan are to this exhibit.) Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 1.1.12.1 authorizes specific land use designations, in addition to those generally used by the Comprehensive Plan, through PD review, which shall "ensure adjacent land use compatibility " FLUE Policy 1.1.14 describes the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) as the "proposed long-range general use of property for a designated target year." The Zoning Map indicates the "specific type of land use that the property is currently suited for based on existing conditions." FLUE Objective 1.6 is: to "alleviate the pressure of urban sprawl, reinforce a more efficient pattern of urban development, . . . reduce excessive travel demands," Respondent may reclassify lands as Traditional Neighborhood Development. FLUE Objective 3.1 is to promote "the physical and functional integration of a mixture of land uses." FLUE Policy 3.1.1 provides: "Continuous stretches of similar types and density of units shall be avoided. A diverse mix of land uses, housing types, and densities shall be promoted." Addressing PDs, FLUE Policy 3.1.20 provides: "A proposed change to an approved PD which would increase the land use intensity within the PD without a corresponding decrease in some other portion of the PD and result in greater off-site impacts, shall be reviewed to determine consistency with the comprehensive plan and whether a plan amendment is necessary." FLUE Policy 3.1.21 adds that the FLUM shall be amended to reflect PDs approved since the last FLUM amendment. FLUE Policy 3.2.25 provides that land use changes must be compatible with the existing development and development trend in an area. FLUE Policy 3.8.5 states that a proposed PD amendment shall be determined to be inconsistent with the FLUM if the amendment is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies ensuring land use compatibility and adequate public facilities or if the amendment results in an increase in the intensity of an existing approved land use, with additional offsite impacts, without a corresponding decrease in another approved land use. FLUE Objective 4.1 is for the enforcement of the FLUM and implementation of the PD regulations to "ensure the compatibility of adjacent land uses " The development of 420 Multifamily Residential units on Tract 7 is not inconsistent with any provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. If the Davis proposal were approved, the 135 additional Multifamily Residential units would be offset by a reduction of 40,500 square feet of Office, pursuant to the well- established exchange ratio. Additionally, as long as the previously described compatibility conditions are incorporated into the DO amendment, the addition of multifamily residential, in such close proximity to the employment and educational services provided by the University of Central Florida, heightens the mixture of uses that may lessen the burden placed on area roadways. For these reasons, as to the fourth issue, Petitioner has shown that an DO amendment authorizing the development of 420 Multifamily Residential units on Tract 7 would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, provided the amended DO incorporates the provisions set forth in paragraphs 76 and 77 of this recommended order.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission enter a final order approving Petitioner's request for a development order amendment allocating another 135 Multifamily Residential units to the Quadrangle DRI, subject to the limitation of these units to Tract 7, a maximum development of 420 such units on Tract 7, the reduction of 40,500 square feet of Office, applicable design standards, the applicable per-tract density restriction of 18 units per acre, the conditions stated in paragraphs 76 and 77 of this recommended order, and the approval of the current Davis proposal for Tract 5. It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission enter a final order denying Petitioner's request for additional Multifamily Residential units, in excess of 135, for the Quadrangle DRI. It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission enter a final order approving Petitioner's request for a development order amendment acknowledging the allocation of 420 of the already-approved 1250 Multifamily Residential units to Tract 7, subject to applicable design standards, the applicable per-tract density restriction of 18 units per acre, the conditions stated in paragraphs 76 and 77 of this recommended order, and the denial of the current Davis proposal for Tract 5. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of July, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th of July, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Barbara Leighty, Clerk Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Growth Management and Strategic Planning The Capitol, Suite 2105 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Carol Licko, General Counsel Office of the Governor Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Timothy A. Smith Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A. Post Office Box 231 Orlando, Florida 32802-0231 William D. Palmer Palmer & Palmer, P.A. 3117-B Edgewater Drive Orlando, Florida 32804
Findings Of Fact In April of 1977, Respondent contracted to purchase approximately four and one-half acres of land in Pinellas County, Florida on which it sought to develop a 120-bed nursing home. In May, 1977, Respondent filed an application for a Certificate of Need pursuant to the provisions of Section 381.494, Florida Statutes. The certificate was issued on August 8, 1977 by Petitioner to Respondent for the proposed 120-bed nursing home. The certificate provided on its face that it would terminate on August 8, 1978, " . . . with renewal possible only if applicant clearly demonstrates positive construction efforts." In addition, a cover letter forwarded to Respondent by Petitioner with the certificate indicated that the termination date " . . . is extendable provided you can demonstrate as of that date, positive action toward project accomplishment." Prior to receiving the certificate, Respondent retained an architect to prepare plans and specifications for the nursing home, and had made preliminary efforts to obtain financing for the construction of the facility. After issuance of the certificate, Respondent and his architect met with Petitioner's architect to submit schematic drawings for review. Respondent's schematic drawings were approved by Petitioner on August 31, 1977. When Respondent's initial efforts to obtain financing failed, further financing was sought unsuccessfully in Indiana and in Pinellas County, Florida. Respondent's efforts to obtain financing on its own continued to be unsuccessful. As a result, Respondent retained a mortgage broker to attempt to locate an institution to advance the money to construct the project. Public financing through the sale of municipal bonds was attempted, but failed when the City Commission of Safety Harbor, Florida voted against the bond proposal. Subsequently, in June of 1978, after some nine months of continuous attempts to locate an institution to finance construction of the facility, Respondent secured a loan commitment for the project at a cost to Respondent of $13,000. After obtaining the loan commitment, Respondent contacted its architect and requested that he proceed with preparation of plans and specifications for the preliminary and final stages of the project. The architect had ceased his efforts in this direction on Respondent's instructions after approval of the schematic drawings in August of 1977, because it was felt that further efforts in this regard would be imprudent in the absence of a commitment for financing construction of the project. When Respondent's architect attempted to contact the architect for Petitioner to set up a meeting on June 24, 1978, he discovered that Petitioner's architect would not be available for consultation until the following month. When a meeting was finally arranged for July 24, 1978, Petitioner's architect insisted on certain time-consuming changes in the schematic drawings. However, Respondent's architect indicated that had Petitioner's architect advised him on July 24, 1978 that the final plans were required to be filed by August 8, 1978, he could have accomplished the preparation of those plans and specifications by that date. In any event, the changes in the plans and specifications required by Petitioner's architect as a result of the July, 1978 meeting were completed and submitted to Petitioner on the day prior to hearing in this cause, well after the certificate expired on August 8, 1978. These plans contain much of the data customarily found in final construction plans, but Petitioner obviously had not had sufficient time to conduct an in-depth review of those plans prior to the hearing. In any event, Respondent's architect indicated that final construction plans could be completed in no more than two weeks, and that actual construction could begin within two to three days from Petitioner's approval of final construction plans. By letter dated August 4, 1978, Petitioner advised Respondent that its certificate would expire on August 8, 1978 and that a six-month extension might be granted if requested, and if the following four criteria had been met: "1. If applicable, has a site been firmly secured? Has firm financing been secured? Have final construction plans and speci- fications for the project been submitted for review by the Bureau of Health Facilities? Can it reasonably be expected that the project can be under construction within the requested additional time?" Respondent, through its President, testified that it had never been advised by Petitioner that all four of these criteria would have to be met in order to obtain a six-month extension of the certificate. In fact, Respondent apparently relied on the wording in the certificate itself that an extension would be possible " . . . only if applicant clearly demonstrates positive construction efforts . . .", and the language of the covering letter from the Administrator of the Office of Community Medical Facilities which indicated that the expiration date of the certificate would be extendable upon a showing of " . . . positive action toward project accomplishment." By letter dated August 4, 1978, to the Director of the Office of Community Medical Facilities, Respondent requested an extension of its certificate. As grounds for this extension, Respondent advised Petitioner that its earlier unsuccessful attempts to obtain financing had caused inordinate delay in preparing to begin construction of the facility. In fact, in Petitioner's six-month review of the status of Respondent's certificate, Respondent informed Petitioner on March 20, 1978, that it had been unable to procure permanent financing. Subsequently, on June 6, 1978, Respondent informed Petitioner that it had obtained the necessary financing, and furnished a copy of the commitment letter from the Community Bank of Seminole, Florida, to Petitioner. As further justification for an extension of its certificate, Respondent advised Petitioner that as a result of a change in criteria by the City of Clearwater, Florida, an impact study which it was required to submit to the city had to be revised, thereby causing a delay in rezoning the property which it had acquired for construction of the facility a Respondent further advised Petitioner in its August 4, 1978 letter that its working drawings for the facility were fifty percent complete, and that it expected to begin construction by November 1, 1978. Petitioner contends that Respondent's certificate should be revoked, and that the requested extension should not be granted because Respondent has not firmly secured a site for the facility; has not secured firm financing; has not submitted final construction plans and specifications for review; and that, as a result, it cannot reasonably be expected that the project can be under construction within the requested additional time. Respondent's contract to purchase the land on which the facility is to be constructed contains a provision that the purchase of the property must be concluded on or before October 15, 1977. This provision of the contract was not performed by October 15, 1977. However, testimony established that Respondent and the sellers of the property have continued through the present time a joint effort to obtain rezoning of the land to allow construction of the facility. Consequently, the parties have apparently, as between themselves, agreed not to consider the October 15, 1977, closing date binding. The land purchase contract also contains a contingency which would relieve Respondent from its obligation to purchase the property should it be unable to obtain a rezoning of the parcel to an RM-28 zoning classification. Although evidence introduced at the hearing indicates that the local government might not be agreeable to rezoning the property to RM-28, there is nothing in the record to indicate that the facility might not be constructed on the property should it be rezoned to a different classification. Further, the contingency in the contract for rezoning to RM-28 was obviously intended for the benefit of Respondent, and Respondent would, therefore, be free to waive that requirement should the facility be allowed to be constructed on the property in a different zoning classification. Although final construction plans have admittedly not been filed with Petitioner for review, the evidence is uncontradicted that this failure was due to a combination of the Respondent's inability to obtain financing, and Petitioner's architect's unavailability to consult with Respondent's architect following issuance of the loan commitment. In addition, evidence of record is also uncontradicted to the effect that final construction plans could be submitted within two weeks after granting of an extension of the certificate, and that construction on the project could commence within two to three days after approval of the final plans and specifications. Respondent's mortgage loan commitment contains requirements that necessary rezoning of the property be obtained by September 1, 1978, and that the commitment in its entirety expires on September 15, 1978. However, Respondent's Predisent testified that he had obtained a 60-day extension of this commitment. In any event it appears that the loan commitment was in existence and effective as of the date of the expiration of the certificate and the date on which Petitioner issued its Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, denying the relief sought in the Administrative Complaint against Respondent, Shive Nursing Centers of Florida, Inc., and that Respondent's certificate be extended by the Department for a period of 6 months from the date of final agency action in this cause. RECOMMENDED this 14th day of December, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM E. WILLIAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building MAILING ADDRESS: Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Huss, Esquire Building 1, Room 310 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John T. Blakeley, Esquire 911 Chestnut Street Post Office Box 1368 Clearwater, Florida 33517
The Issue Whether Respondent, while serving as an appointed member of the Ocoee Planning and Zoning Commission, violated section 112.313(7)(a), Florida Statutes (2015)1/ by having a contractual relationship that conflicted with his official responsibilities; and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the complaint, Respondent served as an appointed member of the Ocoee P & Z Commission. Respondent is subject to the requirements of part III, chapter 112, Florida Statutes, the Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees, for his acts and omissions during his tenure on the P & Z Commission. As a member of the P & Z Commission, Respondent is subject to the “Ocoee Florida Land Development Code, Section 3, Planning and Zoning Commission [Land Development Code].” Section 3-2 of Land Development Code provides in part as follows: Establishment and Membership The Planning and Zoning Commission shall consist of nine (9) members appointed by the City Commission and one member appointed by the School Board of Orange County as a non- voting member. The member appointed by the School Board of Orange County shall attend those meetings at which the Planning and Zoning Commission considers comprehensive plan amendments and rezonings that would, if approved, increase residential density on the property that is the subject of the application. No member shall be an employee of the City of Ocoee and all members, except the member appointed by the School Board of Orange County, shall be residents of the City of Ocoee. When selecting members to the Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Commission shall attempt to select persons from different geographical areas within the City so as to create geographical diversity and representation. * * * E. Compliance with Laws The Planning and Zoning Commission, and its individual members, shall comply with all applicable laws relative to public bodies, including disclosure of interests and procedure[s] for refraining from participation [when] a conflict of interest exists. * * * G. Duties and Responsibilities To act as the Local Planning Agency (LPA) of the City of Ocoee, pursuant to Section 163.3174, Florida Statutes, and to prepare on its own initiative recommendations for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Ocoee, including text and/or maps, and to forward such amendments to the City Commission for consideration. No such recommendation shall be made except after a public hearing held in accordance with State and local requirements. To review and make recommendations to the City Commission on applications for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. No such recommendation shall be made except after a public hearing held in accordance with State and local requirements. To prepare on its own initiative recommendations for amendments to this Code, text and/or maps, and to forward such amendments to the City Commission for consideration. No such recommendation shall be made except after a public hearing held in accordance with State and local requirements. To review and make recommendations to the City Commission on applications for amendments to this Code, including applications for annexation or change of zoning. Pursuant to Section 163.3174(4)(c), Florida Statutes, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall also have the responsibility to review and make a finding as to the consistency of the proposed land development regulation with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and to report such finding to the City Commission. No such recommendation shall be made except after a public hearing held in accordance with State and local requirements. To review and make recommendations to the City Commission on applications for various development approvals or permits as provided within this Code, including, but not limited to Planned Unit Developments (PUD), special exceptions, subdivisions, and any other application for which the City Commission requests a report and/or recommendation. Where a public hearing is required by the applicable procedural section, no such recommendation shall be made except after a public hearing held in accordance with State and local requirements. To act in an advisory capacity to the City Commission on land use and land development issues and to make such studies and to conduct such investigations as may be requested from time to time by the City Commission. To review zoning of newly annexed lands when it represents an increase in intensity of use or a conflict with the Comprehensive Plan pursuant to requirements of State law and City ordinance. In addition to serving on the P & Z Commission, Respondent buys and sells commercial real estate. Respondent is a manager and shareholder in W.O.R.Y. INVESTORS, LLC (WORY), an entity that is also in the business of buying and selling commercial real estate. Respondent, in his individual capacity, owned approximately four acres, which abutted six acres owned by WORY. Both properties have an address on West Road in Ocoee, Florida, and will be referred to collectively herein as the “West Road property.” The Contract On or about November 11, 2015, Respondent, in his individual capacity, and as manager for WORY, executed an “Agreement of Sale” wherein the West Road property was to be purchased by Charter Schools Development Group, LLC (buyer), for $1,890,540. According to the Agreement of Sale, the buyer wanted to “develop and construct on the Property a K-8 public charter school.” The Agreement of Sale contained a number of contingencies, referred to in the contract as “Buyer Required Approvals,” that Respondent was required to satisfy prior to finalization of the sale of the West Road property. Paragraph six of the Agreement to Sale sets forth a number of the pre-sale contingencies imposed on Respondent, and the same provides as follows: 6. Development The Buyer intends to develop and construct on the Property a K-8 public charter school and adjacent commercial development acceptable to Buyer consisting of buildings and other improvements including, but not limited to recreation fields, related landscaping, open space, storm water, and appropriate parking (the "Project"). Buyer's obligation to complete the purchase of the Property from Seller in accordance with the terms of this Agreement is contingent upon the satisfaction of each of the following conditions with regard to the Property (each of which may be waived in whole or in part in writing by Buyer): Buyer has obtained final, unappealed and unappealable approvals from all necessary governmental authorities (including governmental agencies), for zoning, utilities and any other approvals (including necessary parking requirements) Buyer deems necessary, in its sole discretion, permitting the construction and use of the improvements comprising the Project, including but not limited to any required special exception. Buyer has obtained final, unappealed and unappealable approvals and/or permits required by any and all governmental authorities (including governmental agencies) so that the Property shall have immediate and adequate access to water, sewer and all other utilities in accordance with the final approved site development plan. Buyer has obtained final, unappealed and unappealable approvals and/or permits required by any and all governmental authorities (including governmental agencies) for storm water management; including easements and agreements for constructing and maintaining storm water basins; all wetlands studies and approvals in such form that wetlands, if any, shall not preclude construction of roads, utilities, storm water management facilities, any other required improvements for erection of buildings on the Property. Buyer has obtained all permits and approvals, and all conditions thereof shall have been satisfied, so as to allow for recording of the final plan and issuance of building permits subject only to satisfaction of the following requirements by Buyer at or after Closing (i) submission of construction drawings in accordance with applicable law, (ii) execution by the Buyer of the necessary development agreements, (iii) execution and funding by Buyer of the necessary escrow agreements for municipal improvements, and sewer and water improvements, and (iv) payment by the Buyer of all municipal fees and charges associated therewith. Subject to Seller's obligation set forth in Section 6(f) below, Buyer has obtained any and all other easements, approvals and/or permits that may be necessary to construct and use the improvements comprising the Project. Buyer shall obtain, at no additional cost to Seller, all easements and roads that in Buyer's sole reasonable discretion are necessary for property access, utilities and signage to the Property in accordance with Buyer's final approved site development plan. The items referred to in subsections 6(a) through 6(f) hereof shall hereafter be referred to as the "Buyer Required Approvals." After the end of the Inspection Period, Buyer shall diligently proceed with the filing of all applications necessary for obtaining the Buyer Required Approvals. Seller agrees, at no expense to Seller, to cooperate with buyer in connection with the Buyer Required Approvals to the extent of signing all applications necessary for obtaining the buyer Required Approvals and appearing and testifying at the various hearings. Seller's cooperation as aforesaid shall not entitle Seller to any additional compensation. All permit fees, studies, deposit and investigation costs incurred in connection with the Buyer Required Approvals shall be the sole responsibility of buyer and buyer agrees to affirmatively use its good faith efforts to obtain all of the Buyer Required Approvals without delay and as expeditiously as reasonably possible. Seller hereby grants to Buyer a power of attorney to file, on Seller's behalf, all applications related to the Buyer Required Approvals; provided, however, that the Land shall not be rezoned prior to the expiration of the Inspection Period. Seller acknowledges that buyer will likely contact, meet with and/or obtain consents for the Project from neighboring property owners during the Inspection Period and in the process of obtaining the Buyer Required Approvals. (emphasis added). None of the provisions of paragraph six of the Agreement of Sale were waived by either party. Paragraph 15(b) of the Agreement of Sale provides as follows: (b) If Seller shall violate or fail (in breach of its obligations hereunder) to fulfill or perform any of the terms, conditions or undertaking set forth in this Agreement within ten (10) days written notice from Buyer or (five (5) days written notice in the event of a monetary default), Buyer shall be entitled to: (i) terminate this Agreement and receive the return of the Deposit and reimbursement of Buyer's documented out-of-pocket due diligence expenses up to $15,000.00, and, thereupon, the parties hereto will be released and relieved from all provisions of this Agreement, or (ii) pursue specific performance. Paragraph 17 of the Agreement of Sale states that “[b]uyer and Seller agree to cooperate with each other and to take such further actions as may be requested by the other in order to facilitate the timely purchase and sale of the Property.” Paragraphs 6, 15(b) and 17 of the Agreement of Sale obligated Respondent to take all steps necessary, including “appearing and testifying at the various hearings,” for ensuring that the “Buyer Required Approvals” were satisfied, which in turn would allow Respondent to receive his share of the purchase price for the West Road property. Section 112.311(1), provides in part that “[i]t is essential to the proper conduct and operation of government that public officials be independent and impartial and that public office not be used for private gain other than the remuneration provided by law.” Rezoning and Respondent’s Role In order for a charter school to be built on the West Road property, it was necessary to rezone the existing planned unit development land use plan covering the property. Ocoee City Planner Michael Rumer testified that there are two types of rezoning. There is a straight rezoning to a zoning category listed in the land development code and there is rezoning to a planned unit development (PUD). Both types of zoning use the following process: an application is filed; then there is a review process by a development review committee, which is a staff level review; that review is forwarded to the P & Z Commission for a recommendation; and then it goes to the Ocoee City Commission for two readings of an ordinance for rezoning if the rezoning is approved. This is the process that was followed for the West Road property PUD. On February 9, 2016, the issue of whether to recommend rezoning of the West Road property to allow for the charter school referenced in the Agreement of Sale came before the P & Z Commission. Respondent was present for the meeting. During the meeting, Respondent spoke in favor of the rezoning request for the West Road property. When a fellow commissioner made a request for more time to review the rezoning issue, Respondent opposed the delay by stating “[i]f you don't give them a go now, you basically kill the deal because it's a time sensitive thing that they want the kids in there in August.” During the meeting, the commissioners struggled with whether to recommend denial of the West Road property zoning request, recommend approval of the request without conditions, or recommend approval of the request with conditions. After two previous motions regarding the zoning request died for lack of a “second,” a third motion was made wherein approval was recommended “with the condition that we’re all going to look at the traffic movement with the final site plan design.” When it appeared as though this motion was also likely to fail for lack of a “second,” Respondent encouraged the chairman of the P & Z Commission to voice a “second” for the motion since Respondent was unable to do so.2/ Respondent’s actions during the meeting of February 9, 2016, were consistent with his obligations under the Agreement of Sale to assist the buyer of the West Road property with securing the “Buyer Required Approvals.”
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a civil penalty of $10,000.00 be imposed against Respondent due to his violation of section 112.313(7)(a) and that Respondent also be publicly censured and reprimanded. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of April, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of April, 2017.
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 Arborwood Community Development District (Petition), dated November 17, 2003. The local public hearing was conducted for the purpose of gathering information in anticipation of rulemaking by FLWAC.
Conclusions Having considered the entire record in this cause, it is concluded that petitioner has satisfied all requirements in Subsection 190.005(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1989). More specifically, it is concluded that all statements contained within the petition have been found to be true and correct, the creation of a district is consistent with applicable elements or portions of the state comprehensive plan and the Lee County comprehensive plan currently in force, the area of land within the proposed district is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one functional interrelated community, the district is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by the district, the community development services and facilities of the district will be compatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities, and the land that will be served by the district is amenable to separate special- district government. Respectively submitted this 7th day of May, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of May, 1991. Appendix A (Names and Address of Witnesses) Bryon R. Koste, 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 500, Naples, Florida 33963 Thomas R. Peek, 3200 Bailey Lane at Airport Road North, Naples, Florida 33942 Gary L. Moyer, 10300 N.W. 11th Manor, Coral Springs, Florida 33071 Dr. Lance deHaven-Smith, Florida Atlantic University, 220 S.E. 2nd Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Samuel R. Crouch, 9200 Bonita Beach Road, Suite 101, Bonita Springs, Florida 33923 David E. Crawford, 9200 Bonita Beach Road, Suite 101, Bonita Springs, Florida 33923 Dr. James E. Pitts, College of Business, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida 32306 William Spikowski, Lee County Community Development Department, 1831 Hendry Street, Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Gary L. Beardsley, 2396 13th Street North, Naples, Florida Richard Huxtable, 4741 Spring Creek Road, Bonita Springs, Florida 33923 Larry Sullivan, 4778 Tahiti Village, 4501 Spring Creek Road, Bonita Springs, Florida 33923 Lee Menzies, Business Development Corporation of Southwest Florida, corner of Summerlin and College Parkway, Fort Myers, Florida Donna Buhl, 4501 Spring Creek Road, Box 91, Bonita Springs, Florida 33923 Ruth Norman, 24578 Redfish Street, S.W., Bonita Springs, Florida 33923 James Pepper, P. O. Box 1260, Bonita Springs, Florida 33923 (Names and addresses of persons filing written statements) Eugene S. Boyd, 5225 Serenity Cove, Bokeelia, Florida 33922 Edward S. Zajchowski, 4501 Spring Creek Road, Box 178, Bonita Springs, Florida 33923 Winifred M. Wheeler, 24593 Dolphin Street, S.W., Bonita Springs, Florida 33923 James W. Campbell, 4501 Spring Creek Road, Box 131, Bonita Springs, Florida 33923 Dorothy Jean Kendrick, 300 Haral Street, Sturgis, Michigan 49091 Exhibit A Appendix B (List of Documentary Evidence) Location map Local boundary map outlining district Map of district and surrounding areas Collier County Comprehensive Future Land Use Map Exhibit B Pelican's Nest PUD 1b Ridgewood RPD 1c Palmetto Bay RPD 1d Pelican's Nest RPD 1e Summary of status of permits Proposed development agreement Statement by Crawford concerning DRI Exhibit C Petition filed by Westinghouse Bayside Communities, Inc. Location map Metes and bounds legal description of district Consent to establishment of district Map of existing major trunk water mains, sewer interceptors or outfalls Proposed time tables and cost estimates Future land use portion of Lee County Comprehensive plan Economic impact statement Exhibit D Supplement to metes and bounds description in petition Specific description of all real property within district Exhibit E Photocopy of $15,000 processing check sent to County Letter transmitting petition to Commission Secretary Exhibit F Letter transmitting petition to Division of Administrative Hearings Exhibit G Notice of Publication in Florida Administrative Weekly on March 8, 1991 Affidavit for Fort Myers News-Press publication, March 11, 1991 Affidavit for Fort Myers News-Press publication, March 18, 1991 Affidavit for Fort Myers News-Press publication, March 25, 1991 Affidavit for Fort Myers News-Press publication, April 1, 1991 Exhibit H Lee County Comprehensive Plan Documentation of plan status Exhibit I Chapter 187, Florida Statutes Exhibit J Letter of March 14, 1991 from Secretary of Department Community Affairs to Commission Secretary Exhibit K White Paper by Dr. Lance deHaven-Smith Supplemental Exhibits Prefiled testimony of Bryon G. Koste Prefiled testimony of Samuel R. Crouch 3A Letter from Samuel R. Crouch to Jim Pepper 3B Letter from Samuel R. Crouch to Lloyd Read Prefiled testimony of Gary L. Moyer Prefiled testimony of David E. Crawford Prefiled testimony of Thomas R. Peek Prefiled testimony of Dr. Lance deHaven-Smith Intevenors Exhibit 1 - Letter of Edward S. Zajchowski COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas M. Cook, Secretary Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Office of the Governor The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001 Kenza Van Assenderp, Esquire P. O. Box 1833 Tallahassee, FL 32302-1833 Judith A. Workman, Esquire 408 Old Trail Road Sanibel, FL 33957 Marianne Kantor, Esquire Asst. County Attorney Lee County Courthouse 1700 Monroe Street Fort Myers, FL 33901 David M. Maloney, Esquire Office of the Governor The Capitol, Room 309 Tallahassee, FL 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 Whether Respondent Pierson should be granted variances to permit construction of a triplex on a lot 95 feet wide and 87 feet deep. To do so the three variances required are (1) of 5 feet in width, (2) of 13 feet in depth, and (3) 753 square feet in area (10,000 square feet required).
Findings Of Fact Don Curtis Pierson owns the north one-half of Lot 2 and all of Lot 3, Block 6, Revised Map of Clearwater Beach, and has owned this property for some 28 years. The property is zoned RM-20 and is high density residential developed. Pierson's lot is approximately 95 feet by 87 feet (approximately 82,500 square feet). The property is currently occupied by a duplex which was constructed according to Code, except for variances of zero setback from the coastal construction control zone and a 6 foot height variance to permit the construction of a building 31 feet in height. Appellant is the owner of a multifamily building adjacent to Pierson's property which was constructed before various code provisions became effective and was constructed to the lot lines without any setbacks. When Pierson applied for variances in 1983 to construct a triplex on his property, the Board of Adjustment Appeal granted setback variances of 10 feet in rear and front setback lines to permit the construction of a triplex on this property. Vasilaros appealed that grant, and on July 12, 1983 the undersigned heard that appeal. On August 31, 1983, an order was entered denying the setbacks, but approving the construction of a triplex on the lot less than 10,000 square feet in area. That approval was predicated upon then Section 131.020 of the Land Development Code which waived the area requirement for a lot of record. This Section was removed in the 1985 rewrite of the Land Development Code. Specific code provisions respecting the size of the lot on which a three family structure may be erected are in Section 135.044 which requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet, and minimum lot width and depth of 100 feet each. The applicant's only hardship upon which the requested variance can be granted is the uniqueness of the property becoming nonconforming solely by reason of zoning changes.
