90-006264GM Friends Of Lloyd, Inc.; Robert B. Rackleff; And Jo Ellyn Rackleff vs. Department Of Community Affairs And Lake County Conservation Council Status: Closed Recommended Order on Wednesday, July 31, 1991.

Summary: Comprehensive plan in compliance; evidence insufficient to show plan is inconsistent with state plan or internal provisions.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

FRIENDS OF LLOYD, INC. )

ROBERT B. RACKLEFF and )

JO ELLYN RACKLEFF, )

)

Petitioners, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 90-6264GM

)

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS )

and JEFFERSON COUNTY, )

)

Respondents. )

_________________________________)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly

designated Hearing Officer, William F. Quattlebaum, held a formal hearing in the

above-styled case on February 20-21, 1991, in Monticello, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioners: William A. Friedlander, Esq.

424 East Call Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

For Respondent

Jefferson County: T. Buckingham Bird, Esq.

Post Office Box 247

Monticello, Florida 32344

For Respondent

Dept. of Community

Affairs: Kenneth D. Goldberg, Esq.

David J. Russ, Esq.

Department of Community Affairs

2740 Centerview Drive

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100

For Intervenor

Texaco: Lee Elzie, III, Esq.

215 South Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue in this case is whether the Comprehensive Plan adopted by

Jefferson County is not "in compliance" as such is defined at Section

163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Petition for Administrative

Hearing to Review the Comprehensive Plan Adopted by Jefferson County, filed by

the Petitioners in this case.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Pursuant to the requirements of the Local Government Comprehensive Planning

and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes,

Jefferson County, by ordinance of July 19, 1990, adopted the Jefferson County

Comprehensive Plan (hereinafter the plan), and thereafter transmitted the plan

to the Department of Community Affairs (hereinafter DCA) for review. On

September 7, 1990, the DCA published a Notice of Intent To Find The Jefferson

County Comprehensive Plan in Compliance.

By Petition for Administrative Hearing to Review the Comprehensive Plan

Adopted by Jefferson County, dated September 26, 1990 and filed with the DCA,

Friends of Lloyd, Inc., Robert B. Rackleff and Jo Ellyn Rackleff (hereafter

Petitioners) asserting that the plan is not in compliance. On October 2, 1990,

the DCA filed the Petition with the Division of Administrative Hearings for

further proceedings. By Notice of Hearing issued by the Hearing Officer on

November 5, 1990, the hearing was scheduled for February 20-22, 1991. In the

Order Establishing Prehearing Procedure, also issued on November 5th, the

Hearing Officer set deadlines for exchange of information between the parties,

completion of discovery, and filing of a prehearing stipulation.

Texaco Trading and Transportation, Inc. (hereinafter Texaco), filed a

Petition to Intervene in this case on January 24, 1991, and filed an Amended

Petition on January 31, 1991. The Amended Petition was granted on February 1,

1991. On February 19, 1991, eighteen days after Texaco was granted leave to

intervene and one day prior to the hearing, the Petitioners filed a Motion to

Continue or to Strike Texaco's Witness List, alleging that insufficient time

remained for the Petitioners to conduct discovery related to the intervenor. At

the time the Motion To Continue was filed, the Petitioners had not initiated

discovery related to Texaco. Rule 22I-6.017, Florida Administrative Code,

requires that a motion for continuance must be filed at least five days prior to

the date set for hearing except in cases of extreme emergency. The motion was

denied. Texaco ultimately offered no witnesses or exhibits at hearing.

The Order Establishing Prehearing Procedure required the parties to

exchange exhibits not later than February 8, 1991. Although Texaco and

Jefferson County filed exhibit lists, there is no record that the Petitioners or

the DCA did likewise.

The Order further required that a prehearing stipulation be filed not later

than February 15, 1991. The Respondents and the Intervenor conferred and timely

filed a prehearing stipulation as required by the order. On February 18, 1991,

the Petitioners filed a unilateral prehearing stipulation. The Petitioners

stipulation indicated, in part, that among the issues for consideration at

hearing were allegations of insufficient public participation in the preparation

and adoption of the plan. Such issues were not alleged in the Petition for

Hearing and are contradicted by the Petition wherein the Petitioners set forth

the manner of their participation during the drafting of the plan and the local

government review and adoption process. Accordingly, no evidence related to

insufficient public participation in the preparation and adoption of the plan

was admitted at hearing, and no Findings of Fact related to this issue are

contained herein.

On February 20, 1991, immediately prior to formal hearing, Respondent

Jefferson County moved to impose sanctions on the Petitioners for the failure to

comply with various requirements of the November 5th Order Establishing

Prehearing Procedure. The motion was denied.

At hearing, Petitioners presented the testimony of Robert B. Rackleff,

Patricia Dugan, Carmen Bishop, and Robert J. Livingston and had four exhibits

admitted into evidence. Respondent Jefferson County presented the testimony of

Gail Easley and had one exhibit admitted. Respondent Department of Community

Affairs and Intervenor Texaco presented no witnesses or exhibits. The Jefferson

County Comprehensive Plan was admitted as Hearing Officer's exhibit #1.

A transcript of the hearing was filed on March 14, 1991. All parties filed

proposed recommended orders. 1/ The proposed findings of fact are ruled upon

either directly or indirectly as reflected in this Recommended Order, and in the

Appendix which is attached and hereby made a part of this Recommended Order.

On March 28, 1991, the Petitioner's filed a "Request For Judicial Notice"

seeking to have a January 1991 United States General Accounting Office report

admitted into evidence. The Intervenor and Respondent Department of Community

Affairs filed responses in opposition to the request. For the reasons set forth

in the responses to the request, the "Request For Judicial Notice" is hereby

denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Robert B. Rackleff and Jo Ellyn Rackleff own property in Jefferson

County. The Rackleff's represent the "Friends of Lloyd, Inc.", an organization

opposed to a proposed siting of petroleum product terminal facilities near

Lloyd, a town within Jefferson County.

2. The Department of Community Affairs (DCA) is the state land planning

agency and administers the requirements of the "Local Government Comprehensive

Planning and Land Development Regulation Act", Chapter 163, Part II, Florida

Statutes.

3. On or about July 19, 1991, The Board of County Commissioners of

Jefferson County adopted a comprehensive plan (plan). The plan was reviewed by

the DCA and determined to be "in compliance". 2/

4. Jefferson County, population 12,243, is located in the northern part of

Florida, bordered by the Aucilla River and Madison and Taylor Counties to the

east, the Gulf of Mexico to the south, Leon and Wakulla Counties to the west,

and the State of Georgia to the north. Jefferson County contains a land area of

approximately 392,192 acres. The bulk of the county's residents live in or near

Monticello (the county seat), Lloyd, Wacissa, Lamont, Drifton, Capps, Aucilla,

Waukeenah, Dills, Thomas City, and Nash.

5. Major transportation routes through Jefferson County include Interstate

10 running east-west through the county just south of Monticello, U.S. Highway

90 lying north of and parallel to I-10 and running through the center of

Monticello, U.S. Highway 27 lying south of I-10 and running east-west through

the county, and U.S. Highway 98 lying south of U.S. 27 and also running east-

west. U.S. Highway 19 enters north Jefferson County at the Georgia border and

runs south until it merges with U.S. 27. State Roads 257 and 59 also run north-

south. Both State Roads 257 and 59 intersect with I-10, as does U.S. Highway

90.

6. The plan designates land parcels surrounding the I-10/U.S. 90 and I-

10/S.R. 59 interchanges and land parcels on the north side of the I-10/S.R. 257

interchange as "Mixed Use Interchange Business". Future Land Use Element

Objective 1, Policy 1-3, of the plan defines the "Mixed Use Interchange

Business" designation as follows:

A mixed use category located at an interchange

with I-10, with a variety of primarily

commercial businesses. Because there are but

three such interchanges in Jefferson County,

the amount of land is necessarily limited;

uses in the category are, therefore, limited

to those activities requiring locations with

high vehicular traffic and easy access to I-10.

Appropriate uses include (1) tourist oriented

facilities, such as restaurants, automotive

service stations, truck stops, motels,

campgrounds, and the like; (2) region serving

retail complexes or office centers; (3) commerce

parks; (4) facilities for the storage and

distribution of foods and products including

wholesale activity; (5) light manufacture of

goods for distribution to other locations;

and (6) truck stops. Intensity of use, as

measured by impervious land coverage shall not

exceed 80%. More intense truck transport and

highway oriented activities, and regional

distribution centers may also be allowable,

subject to special exception approval by the

Board of County Commissioners in order to

ensure the closest possible scrutiny of such

uses. Activities subject to such special

exception approval include: uses exceeding

50,000 square feet impervious land coverage;

uses with a total land area of five or more

acres; uses which have storage capacity for

more than 500,000 gallons of petroleum

product; or uses on environmentally sensitive

lands as defined in the Conservation Element.

Performance standards shall be included in the

land development regulations for special

exceptions to insure that on-site and off-site

impacts are adequately planned for and

monitored. Impacts include trip generation,

transportation access, drainage, water quality,

visual appearance, avoidance of environmentally

sensitive lands and mitigation of impacts,

noise, signage, and air quality. Information

to support the application shall be provided by

the applicant at the applicant's expense.

Activities subject to special exception in this

district shall only be required to obtain

special exception approval for plan land use

changes, and shall not be required at the time

of application or receipt of a building permit.

(emphasis supplied)

Local governments are required to adopt and enforce, within one year following

submission of the comprehensive plan for review by the state land planning

agency, land development regulations (LDR's) which are consistent with and

implement the adopted comprehensive plan. Section 163.3202(1), Florida

Statutes.

7. According to the data in the plan, the interchange at I-10/S.R. 59

exists over a potential area of high groundwater recharge. The county's

groundwater system includes the upper and lower Floridan Aquifer. Support

documents to the Jefferson County plan note that aquifer recharge occurs through

sinkholes near Lake Miccosukee, along the Aucilla River, and through the

northeast area of the county. Water contamination can occur through drainage

from septic tanks, leaking underground storage tanks, hazardous waste, and

contaminated stormwater runoff.

8. The Petitioners generally assert that the plan is not in compliance

because the possible siting of a petroleum product facility over the potential

area of high groundwater recharge fails to adequately protect water quality and

the Floridan Aquifer.

9. Under the "mixed use interchange business" designation, land uses

permitted through a special exception process receive specific scrutiny by the

Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners. Uses including storage capacity

for more than 500,000 gallons of petroleum product or which lie on

environmentally sensitive lands as defined in the Conservation Element are

required to undergo the "special exception" process. Special exception uses are

governed by the performance standards which will be included in the county's

land development regulations. Such regulations must insure that on-site and

off-site impacts, including water quality, avoidance of environmentally

sensitive lands and mitigation of impacts, trip generation, transportation

access, drainage, visual appearance, noise, signage, and air quality are

adequately planned for and monitored.

10. Section 163.3177, Florida Statutes, identifies the elements of a local

government comprehensive plan. Some elements identified in this section may be

included in the plan at the local government's option; others are required. 3/

FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT

11. Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, requires the inclusion of a

Future Land Use Element, which "may designate areas for future planned

development use involving combinations of types of uses for which special

regulations may be necessary to ensure development in accord with the principles

and standards of the comprehensive plan and this act". Rule 9J-5.006(3)(c)(6),

Florida Administrative Code, states that a Future Land Use Element must contain

one or more policies addressing the implementation of protection of potable

water wellfields and environmentally sensitive land.

12. The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element

includes the information required by the statute and rules.

13. Jefferson County's Future Land Use Element Policy 1-5 states:

Existing, revised, and/or new land

development regulations shall ensure

protection of environmentally sensitive

lands. Such lands include areas designed 4/

as Conservation on the Future Land Use Map,

and may include other isolated areas

identified on a site-by-site basis shall be

included in the land development regulations.

All development is subject to site plan

review which is the primary means of ensuring

protection. Also refer to specific

objectives and policies of the Conservation

Element.

14. Future Land Use Element Policy 1-6 provides:

The LDR's 5/ shall require protection of all future potable water

well fields developed in the County with a design capacity of 100,000 gallons

per day or greater through development of locational criteria including a

minimum 200 ft. prohibited development zone around the well's perimeter and

consideration of distance from hazardous waste storage or generation (including

petroleum storage tanks). (This is the same as the G-1 rule from DER.)

15. Future Land Use Element Objective 3 provides:

Throughout the planning period, the County

shall require that the natural and historic

resources of the County be protected from the

negative impacts of development activities,

and shall require that future land uses are

coordinated with the appropriate topography

and soil conditions. This objective shall be

accomplished using Policies 3-1 through 3-3

16. Future Land Use Element Policy 3-1 provides:

Encourage development and allow growth only

in areas without steep slopes.

17. Future Land Use Element Policy 3-2 provides:

Drainage improvement plans will be submitted

as part of the site plan and/or subdivision

review process. Standards will be included

in the land development regulations for

drainage improvements during development.

18. Future Land Use Element Policy 3-3 provides:

Existing regulations in the Jefferson County

Development Code shall be continued; the

regulations are designed to ensure protection

from flood damage, protection of the aquifer,

protection of lands adjacent to lakes,

streams, and within wetlands. Regulations

will be revised for consistency with the

objectives and policies of the Jefferson

County Comprehensive Plan.

CONSERVATION ELEMENT

19. Section 163.3177(6)(d), Florida Statutes, requires the plan to include

a Conservation Element for the conservation, use, and protection of natural

resources in the area, including water, water recharge areas, and waterwells.

Rule 9J-5.013(2)(c)(1), Florida Administrative Code, states that a Conservation

Element shall contain policies addressing the implementation activities for the

protection of water quality by restriction of activities known to adversely

affect the quality and quantity of identified water sources including existing

cones of influence, water recharge areas, and waterwells. Rule 9J-

5.013(2)(c)(6), Florida Administrative Code, states that a Conservation Element

shall contain policies addressing the implementation activities for the

protection and conservation of the natural functions of existing soils,

fisheries, wildlife habitats, rivers, bays, lakes, floodplains, harbors,

wetlands including estuarine marshes, freshwater beaches and shores, and marine

habitats. Rule 9J-5.013(2)(c)(9), Florida Administrative Code, states that a

Conservation Element shall contain policies addressing the implementation

activities for the designation of environmentally sensitive lands for protection

based upon locally determined criteria which further the goals and objectives of

the Conservation Element. Rule 9J-5.013(2)(c)(10), Florida Administrative Code,

states that a Conservation Element shall contain policies addressing the

implementation activities for the management of hazardous wastes to protect

natural resources.

20. The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Conservation Element includes

the information required by the statute and rules.

21. Conservation Element Objective 2 provides:

In order to protect water quality, the County

shall protect all its surface waters and

ground waters from the intrusion of

pollutants throughout the planning period

This shall be accomplished through:

continued implementation and enforcement of

the Jefferson County Land Development Code,

which requires a site plan review process for

all development; correction of drainage

deficiencies by 1992, and by the creation of

a stormwater drainage plan for Lake

Miccosukee and the Aucilla River

(north of US27/19) as soon as funding is

available. Upon completion of the drainage

plan, the County will amend the comprehensive

plan for consistency with the recommendations

of the drainage plan.

22. Conservation Element Policy 2-1 provides:

Throughout the planning period, the County

shall require that all new development

provide stormwater management systems

designed so that post development rates of

runoff do not exceed pre-development rates,

and to provide treatment of stormwater prior

to surface water discharge, consistent with

Chapter 17-25, F.A.C. This shall be

accomplished using the site plan review

process, mandatory for all development,

adopted as part of the land development

regulations by the statutory deadline.

23. Conservation Element Policy 2-2 provides:

The County shall coordinate with the

Department of Environmental Regulation,

Bureau of Waste Management to ensure that the

existing underground leaking tanks are

remediated by the owner expediently, and in a

manner which does not further threaten ground

water quality.

24. Conservation Element Policy 2-3 provides:

The County shall adopt a wellfield protection

ordinance (for protection of cones of

influence and waterwells) by the statutory

deadline, a hazardous waste management

ordinance by 1991, and a shoreline/waterfront

protection ordinance by 1992 to ensure

protection of ground and surface water.

25. Conservation Element Policy 2-4 requires the county to consult with

the DER and the water management districts to ensure that water withdrawal

within two named sites will not increase groundwater contamination from said

sites.

26. Conservation Element Policy 2-7 provides:

The County shall coordinate with the Suwanee

river and Northwest Florida Water Management

Districts in the protection of prime recharge

areas, once such areas have been designated

by the Districts.

27. Conservation Element Policy 2-8 provides:

The land development regulations shall limit

impervious surfaces, and require onsite

retention of stormwater runoff in the

County's high recharge areas.

28. Conservation Element Objective 3 provides:

Throughout the planning period, the County

shall protect all areas that fall within the

100-year floodplain. The County shall use

the Flood Insurance Rate map and the site

plan review process for all development, as

the tools for implementation.

29. Conservation Element Policy 3-1 provides:

The County shall continue to enforce the

existing floodplain ordinance restricting

development if (sic) floodprone areas. The

ordinance shall continue to prohibit the

following within the 100 year floodplain:

fill; structures (other than on stilts);

common water supplies or sewage treatment

facilities; and roads, except as infrequent

intervals as necessary to provide access to

private or public property. Permitted uses

in the 100 year floodplain shall include

agriculture; silviculture; residential

structures, only where fill is not required

and the first floor elevation is at least

one foot above the 100 year flood, and, only

at very low densities; recreation (such as

hiking trails); native vegetation and

wildlife habitat. The ordinance shall

continue to protect the functions of

floodprone areas through its requirement

that flood areas are to be treated as

positive visual open space, wildlife habitat,

and as water recharge and discharge

resources.

30. Conservation Element Policy 3-2 provides:

The floodplain ordinance shall protect the

water quality and wildlife habitat values of

shorelines and riverine floodplains by

establishment of a contiguous vegetative

buffer along the Wacissa and Aucilla Rivers,

of at least 50 foot in width, measured from

the wetlands jurisdictional line, within

which permanent structures will be

prohibited, and clearing of native vegetation

(other than areas designated for

silvicultural use) shall be limited to only

to (sic) provide reasonable access to the

shoreline. Shoreline buffers shall be

established for Lake Miccosukee.

31. Conservation Element Objective 4 provides:

Throughout the planning period, the County

shall conserve the water supply and protect

the quantity and quality of current water

source and any new water sources. This

objective shall be accomplished using

Policies 4-1 through 4-4.

32. Conservation Element Policy 4-1 provides:

The County shall enforce water conservation

during times of drought by enacting an

ordinance which prohibits irrigation between

10:00 AM to 6:00 PM, and shall keep the

public informed of these restrictions through

newspaper notices and posted notices.

33. Conservation Element Policy 4-2 provides:

The County shall continue to adhere to any

emergency water conservation measures imposed

by the Northwest Florida and Suwanee River

Water Management Districts.

34. Conservation Element Policy 4-3 provides that all new construction and

all remodeling activities utilize fixtures conforming to a specified schedule of

maximum water usage.

35. Conservation Element Policy 4-4 provides:

The County shall enact policies that allow

septic tanks only in areas where public sewer

is unavailable and only upon issuance of a

Jefferson County Health Department permit.

36. Conservation Element Policy 4-5 provides that the county will promote

and encourage agricultural land owners to incorporate specified water conserving

farming methods.

37. Conservation Element Policy 4-6 provides:

Future water demand for nonpotable water uses

should be met through the use of water of the

lowest acceptable quality for the purpose

intended. To this end, the County may

require that developers requiring large

amounts of water for use other than drinking

water utilize reclaimed water from stormwater

systems and treated wastewater.

38. Conservation Element Policy 5-1 provides:

By the statutory deadline for adoption of

land development regulations, the County

shall adopt regulations for the preservation

and conservation of those areas which are

known habitats for threatened and endangered

species, and species of special concern, and

those areas characterized by wetlands. By

1995, the County shall develop and complete

a program to identify, protect and enhance

those specific areas which contain unique

vegetative communities, springs, caves,

sinkholes, ravines, or are suitable for,

habitats for threatened and endangered

species, and species of special concern, and

those areas characterized by wetlands.

39. Conservation Element Policy 5-7 provides:

In order to carry out Policy 5-1, the County

shall:

a) establish a citizens or other committee

to initiate the vegetation and wildlife

habitat identification program, based upon

the initial data provided by the

Comprehensive Plan, and coordination with US

Fish and Wildlife and the Florida Game and

Freshwater Fish Commission.

b) use innovative techniques in the land

development regulations for preservation of

such areas, such as: designation and

regulations of conservation areas; site plan

review; on-site density transfers to allow

clustering of allowable units to protect

environmentally sensitive portions of a site;

and, overlay zoning whereby density

calculations and developable land

expectations area (sic) based on net

developable acreage after excluding the

environmentally sensitive portions.

40. Conservation Element Policy 5-8 provides:

The County shall promote the designation and

protection of natural reservations designated

within the County, through cooperation with

the federal government regarding St. Mark's

National Wildlife Refuge and the Aucilla

Wildlife Management Area, the State's CARL

program, the Water Management District's Save

Our Rivers and SWIM Program, and designation

of such areas on the Future Land Use Map as

conservation.

41. Conservation Element Policy 5-10 provides:

Natural resources, such as wetlands, water

bodies, springs, sinkholes, caves, and

habitat of endangered, threatened and species

of special concern are valuable resources

which need protection, and are therefore

designated as environmentally sensitive lands.

These lands which are threatened by urban

development, as well as any lands identified

during the County's vegetation and wildlife

habitat program to be of critical habitat for

designated species, shall be protected from

encroachment through the land development

regulations, adopted by the statutory deadline.

The Regulations shall establish performanc

standards for development in such environmen-

tally sensitive areas. Any environmentally

sensitive lands designated for Silviculture

shall be required to us (sic) the US Forest

Service Best Management Practices, and are

subject to the requirements of Policy 5-11.

Policy 5-11 prohibits development of land designated as "Agriculture I" on the

Future Land Use Map. To develop such land requires amendment of the

comprehensive plan, preceded by an inventory of all wetlands and other

environmentally sensitive lands as well as documentation that the proposed use

will not negatively impact the environmentally sensitive lands.

42. Conservation Element Policy 5-6 provides conservation-related criteria

for permitting commercial mining activities in the county, however, there are

currently no commercial mining activities in Jefferson County.

43. Conservation Element Policy 5-13 requires that the county continue its

efforts in reducing erosion in coordination with the Soil Conservation Service,

and continue to notify farmers of the opportunities available towards reducing

erosion.

44. Conservation Element Policy 5-14 requires that silvicultural lands be

managed to reduce erosion.

45. Conservation Element Policy 5-15 requires that best management

practices be utilized for soil conservation.

46. Conservation Element Objective 6 provides:

Throughout the planning period, the County

shall prohibit the disposal of hazardous

wastes into the public sewer system, canals

and ditches, wetlands, stormwater facilities,

unlined landfills and other unsafe areas.

The hazardous wastes which are prohibited

will be listed in the County's revised land

development regulations. The County shall

ensure that all hazardous waste is properly

handled, generated or stored during the site

plan review process, required for all

development.

47. Conservation Element Policy 6-1 provides:

Through intergovernmental coordination and

public education programs, beginning within

six months after plan adoption, the County

shall encourage that residents participate

with the City of Monticello in promoting and

participating in hazardous waste amnesty

days.

48. Conservation Element Policy 6-2 provides:

In order to protect natural resources and

public sewer systems, the County shall

prohibit the unsafe disposal of hazardous

wastes by enacting and enforcing an ordinance

by the statutory deadline for adoption of the

land development regulations. The ordinance

shall prohibit disposal into canals, ditches,

wetlands, stormwater facilities, unlined

landfills and other safe areas, as well as

require that any land use proposing to store,

generate, or handle hazardous waste; develop

an emergency response plan addressing

accidents; ensure that DER standards for

transfer and storage of hazardous waste are

implemented; and, ensure that the site will

not degrade quality of ground or surface

water or other natural resources.

INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENT

49. Section 163.3177(6)(c), Florida Statutes, requires that the plan

include a general sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, potable water, and

natural groundwater aquifer recharge element (commonly identified as the

"Infrastructure Element") as follows:

A general sanitary sewer, solid waste,

drainage, potable water, and natural

groundwater aquifer recharge element

correlated to principles and guidelines for

future land use, indicating ways to provide

for future potable water, drainage, sanitary

sewer, solid waste, and aquifer recharge

protection requirements for the area. The

element may be a detailed engineering plan

including a topographic map depicting areas

of prime groundwater recharge. The element

shall describe the problems and needs and

the general facilities that will be required

for solution of the problems and needs. The

element shall also include a topographic map

depicting any areas adopted by a regional

water management district as prime

groundwater recharge areas for the Floridan

or Biscayne aquifers, pursuant to s. 373.0395.

These areas shall be given special

consideration when the local government is

engaged in zoning or considering future land

use for said designated areas. For areas

served by septic tanks, soil surveys shall be

provided which indicate the suitability of

soils for septic tanks. (emphasis supplied)

50. Section 373.0395, Florida Statutes, provides:

Each water management district shall develop

a ground water basin resource availability

inventory covering those areas deemed

appropriate by the governing board. This

inventory shall include, but not be limited

to, the following:

(1) A hydrogeologic study to define the

ground water basin and its associated

recharge areas.

(2) Site specific areas in the basin deemed

prone to contamination or overdraft resulting

from current or projected development.

(3) Prime ground water recharge areas.

(4) Criteria to establish minimum seasonal

surface and ground water levels.

(5) Areas suitable for future water resource

development within the ground water basin.

(6) Existing sources of wastewater discharge

suitable for reuse as well as the feasibility

of integrating coastal wellfields.

(7) Potential quantities of water available

for consumptive uses.

Upon completion, a copy of the ground water

basin availability inventory shall be

submitted to each affected municipality,

county, and regional planning agency. This

inventory shall be reviewed by the affected

municipalities, counties, and regional

planning agencies for consistency with the

local government comprehensive plan and shall

be considered in future revisions of such

plan. It is the intent of the Legislature

that future growth and development planning

reflect the limitations of the available

ground water or other available water

supplies. (emphasis suplied)

51. Although Jefferson County's groundwater system includes the upper and

lower Floridan Aquifer, the regional water management districts have not

completed their studies and have not designated areas of Jefferson County as

prime groundwater recharge areas for the Floridan or Biscayne aquifers, pursuant

to Section 373.0395. Accordingly, the plan does not designate areas of prime

groundwater recharge. Plan maps indicate where the potential for high recharge

exists. As stated in the "needs assessment" at page 57 of the support documents

to the Conservation Element:

[A]t the present time insufficient

information is available to allow the county

to institute a site specific comprehensive

aquifer recharge protection program. This

problem should be remedied with the

completion of the GWBRAI groundwater basin

study for Jefferson County by the NWFWMD

(Northwest Florida Water Management District)

and the SRWMD (Suwanee River Water Management

District). Until this GWBRAI becomes

available, the county should adopt interim

measures to promote protection of aquifer

recharge functions, based on the known

characteristics of development within the

County, and general knowledge of aquifer

recharge principles.

52. The interchange at I-10/S.R. 59 exists over a potential area of high

groundwater recharge. Pursuant to the special exception requirements set forth

in the "mixed use business interchange" designation, the area shall receive

special consideration in zoning or considering future land use for the area.

Until prime groundwater recharge areas are designated, in order to promote

protection of aquifer recharge functions, land use decisions will be based on

the known characteristics of development within the County, and general

knowledge of aquifer recharge principles.

53. Rule 9J-5.011(2)(c)(3), Florida Administrative Code, states that an

Infrastructure Element shall contain policies addressing the implementation

activities for establishing and utilizing potable water conservation strategies

and techniques. Rule 9J-5.011(2)(c)(4), Florida Administrative Code, states

that an Infrastructure Element shall contain policies addressing the

implementation activities for regulating land use and development to protect the

functions of natural drainage features and natural groundwater aquifer recharge

areas.

54. The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Infrastructure Element

includes the information required by the statute and rules.

55. Jefferson County's Infrastructure Element Goal 4 is to conserve and

preserve the values and functions of the County's natural groundwater aquifer

recharge areas. Infrastructure Element Goal 4, Objective 1 provides:

The County shall conserve and protect the

values and functions of natural groundwater

aquifer recharge areas from adverse impacts

through adoption of land development

regulations by the statutory deadline and

coordination with federal, state, and local

agencies throughout the planning period.

56. Infrastructure Element Goal 4, Policy 1-1 provides:

The County shall seek assistance from the

Northwest Florida and Suwanee River Water

Management Districts in the management of

prime aquifer recharge areas, once such

information is made available. The

comprehensive plan shall be amended at that

time as necessary to protect prime aquifer

recharge areas.

57. Infrastructure Element Goal 4, Policy 1-2 provides:

The land development regulations shall limit

impervious surface ratios for new development

and shall require management of stormwater to

ensure post development run-off does not

exceed predevelopment run-off rates.

58. Infrastructure Element Goal 4, Policy 1-3 provides:

The County shall allow the re-use of treated

effluent and stormwater for irrigation, and

shall encourage such re-use during the site

plan review process.

59. Infrastructure Element Goal 4, Policy 1-8 provides for closure of the

current landfill upon completion of the replacement landfill, such closure to be

handled in accordance with DER requirements.

60. Infrastructure Element Goal 2, Policy 2-1 sets forth limits on the use

of new on-site wastewater treatment systems in new development and provides that

such existing on-site systems may remain in service until central service is

available.

INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION

61. Petitioners allege that the Intergovernmental Coordination Element

contained within the plan is not in compliance, in that it allegedly fails to

provide a mechanism for coordinating protection of the Floridan Aquifer and

water quality in Leon and Jefferson Counties. Petitioners further allege that

the plan contains no coordination of common issues such as fire protection and

protection of drinking water.

62. The goals, objectives, and policies of the Intergovernmental

Coordination Element appropriately provide for formalized coordination of land

use decisions with surrounding counties in order to protect water quality and

quantity. The Intergovernmental Coordination Element does not specifically

address fire protection. However, the evidence fails to establish that

currently available fire protection is inadequate, or that, if additional

protection is required, the county is unable to provide such services.

INTERNAL INCONSISTENCY

63. Section 163.3177(2), Florida Statutes, provides:

Coordination of the several elements of the

local comprehensive plan shall be a major

objective of the planning process. The

several elements of the comprehensive plan

shall be consistent....

64. Rule 9J-5.005(5)(a), Florida Administrative Code, provides:

The required elements and any optional

elements shall be consistent with each other.

All elements of a particular comprehensive

plan shall follow the same general format.

Where data are relevant to several elements,

the same data shall be used, including

population estimates and projections.

65. Petitioners allege that the plan's Future Land Use Element, which

includes the "mixed use interchange business" designation, is inconsistent with

the policies and goals of the Conservation Element, which includes the policies

related to water quality protection. The evidence fails to support the

assertion that the plan is internally inconsistent. The "mixed use interchange

business" designation, including the enhanced scrutiny of the special exception

provisions for specified and more intensive uses, is not inconsistent with the

provisions of the plan related to protection of groundwater and aquifer recharge

areas. Further, the evidence does not establish that the plan is inconsistent

with Chapter 187, Florida Statutes, the state's comprehensive plan.

66. Petitioners asserted that the plan did not contain the best available

information in existence at the time the plan was adopted. Section

163.3177(10)(e), Florida Statutes, provides:

It is the Legislature's intent that support

data or summaries thereof shall not be

subject to the compliance review process, but

the Legislature intends that goals and

policies be clearly based on appropriate

data....Chapter 9J-5, F.A.C., shall not be

construed to require original data collection

by local governments....

67. The county did not, and is not required to, produce original data in

order to prepare and adopt a comprehensive plan.

68. Petitioners suggest that the DCA erred in not considering Department

of Environmental Regulation data identifying petroleum storage facilities which

experienced leaks or spills reported to the DER. However, the evidence offered

by Petitioners at hearing did not support the suggestion that such data was more

appropriately considered than the data set forth in the county's plan.

69. The inference suggested by Petitioner's evidence is that some

petroleum storage facilities pose a threat to groundwater supplies due to

leaking tanks and operational errors. However, the evidence does not indicate

whether such facilities were designed to the prevent such occurrences, the types

of safeguards installed, the types of maintenance required at such facilities

(and whether it was performed), or whether, and the extent to which, the

reported leaks or spills resulted in ground or surface water contamination.

70. The Petitioners further assert that the plan's data related to aquifer

recharge is unacceptable because it is not site specific. The general aquifer

recharge map in the plan is based upon U.S. Geological Survey data, and a U.S.

Bureau of Geology map. The plan also includes wetlands maps based on U.S.

government information and a National Wetlands Conservatory survey. Due to the

failure of the water management districts to complete the study of the county's

prime aquifer recharge areas, reliable site specific information is not yet

available. The plan maps adequately indicate the areas where the potential for

high groundwater recharge may exist.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

71. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the

parties to and subject matter of this proceeding. Sections 120.57(1) and

163.3184(9)(b), Florida Statutes.

72. The Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development

Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, (the "act") requires

that each county and municipality adopt a comprehensive plan. Section

163.3167(3), Florida Statutes, defines a comprehensive plan as a plan which

meets the requirements of Sections 163.3177 and 163.3178, Florida Statutes.

Pursuant to Section 163.3167, Florida Statutes, local government comprehensive

plans are submitted to the DCA. Each local government transmits the proposed

comprehensive plan to the DCA, which coordinates a review of the plan by various

government agencies, and thereafter transmits objections, recommendations and

comments the local government. The local government subsequently reviews such

objections, recommendations and comments, adopts a plan, and transmits the

adopted plan to the DCA. The DCA reviews the adopted plan and determines

whether the adopted plan is in compliance with the act. Section 163.3184,

Florida Statutes.

73. Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, defines "in compliance" to

mean "consistent with the requirements of ss. 163.3177, 163.3178, and 163.3191,

the state comprehensive plan, the appropriate regional policy plan, and rule 9J-

5, F.A.C., where such rule is not inconsistent with chapter 163, part II". The

DCA has determined the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan to be "in

compliance".

74. In this proceeding the local plan shall be determined to be in

compliance if the local government's determination of compliance is fairly

debatable. Section 163.3184(9)(a), Florida Statutes. The "fairly debatable"

test asks whether reasonable minds could differ as to the issue at hand.

Norwood-Norland Homeowners v. Dade County, 511 So.2d 1009 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1987).

The Petitioners burden of proof in this proceeding is to establish that the

determination of compliance is not fairly debatable. The Petitioners have

failed to meet the burden.

75. The evidence establishes that the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan

Future Land Use, Conservation, Infrastructure, and Intergovernmental

Coordination Elements are responsive to the requirements of relevant statutes

and rules. The evidence fails to establish that the plan is internally

inconsistent. The relevant evidence establishes that the plan is "in

compliance".

76. The Petitioners assert that the plan is not in compliance because the

possible siting of a petroleum product facility over the potential area of high

groundwater recharge fails to adequately protect water quality and the Floridan

Aquifer. Specifically, the plan's Future Land Use Element, which includes the

"mixed use interchange business" designation, is allegedly inconsistent with the

policies and goals of the Conservation Element, which includes the policies

related to water quality protection. However, the special exception process

requires that the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners enact

performance standards which provide that on-site and off-site impacts, including

water quality, avoidance of environmentally sensitive lands and mitigation of

impacts, trip generation, transportation access, drainage, visual appearance,

noise, signage, and air quality are adequately planned for and monitored.

77. The reliance on such as-yet-undeveloped LDR's and performance

standards is acceptable. Neither the act nor Chapter 9J-5, Florida

Administrative Code, setting forth the minimum criteria for review of

comprehensive plans and determination of compliance of such plans, require the

inclusion of implementing regulations in the comprehensive plan. A

comprehensive plan is intended to identify the programs, activities, and land

development regulations that will be a part of the strategy for implementing the

comprehensive plan. Rule 9J-5.005(6), Florida Administrative Code. The

Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan identifies the programs, activities, and

land development regulations which will be a part of the strategy for

implementing the plan.

78. Petitioners allege that the plan did not contain the best available

information in existence at the time the plan was adopted. Section

163.3177(10)(e), Florida Statutes, provides:

It is the Legislature's intent that support

data or summaries thereof shall not be

subject to the compliance review process, but

the Legislature intends that goals and

policies be clearly based on appropriate

data....Chapter 9J-5, F.A.C., shall not be

construed to require original data collection

by local governments....

79. The county did not, and is not required to, produce original data in

order to prepare and adopt a comprehensive plan. The data upon which the County

relies is appropriate.

80. The Petitioners suggest that the plan's data related to aquifer

recharge is unacceptable because it is not site specific. The general aquifer

recharge map in the plan is based upon U.S. Geological Survey data, and a U.S.

Bureau of Geology map. The plan also includes wetlands maps based on a National

Wetlands Conservatory survey and additional federal government data. Due to the

failure of the state water management districts to complete the study of the

county's prime aquifer recharge areas, reliable site specific information is not

yet available. The plan maps adequately indicate the areas where the potential

for high groundwater recharge may exist.

81. The evidence offered by the Petitioners to support the assertion that

the DCA should have considered Department of Environmental Regulation data

identifying petroleum storage facilities which experienced leaks or spills

reported to the DER is not persuasive. The DER data fails to indicate whether

such facilities were designed to the prevent such occurrences, the types of

safeguards installed, the types of maintenance required at such facilities (and

whether it was performed), or whether, and the extent to which, the reported

leaks or spills resulted in ground or surface water contamination. The fact

that such incidents have occurred does not establish beyond fair debate that the

comprehensive plan's special exception procedures set forth in the Future Land

Use Element fail to protect water quality.

82. The evidence fails to support the Petitioner's assertion that the plan

is internally inconsistent. The Future Land Use Element's "mixed use

interchange business" designation, which requires the enhanced scrutiny of the

special exception provisions for specified and more intensive uses, is not

inconsistent with the provisions of the plan related to protection of

groundwater and aquifer recharge areas. Further, the evidence does not

establish that the plan is inconsistent with Chapter 187, Florida Statutes, the

state's comprehensive plan.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is hereby recommended that the Department of

Community Affairs enter a Final Order dismissing the Petition of Friends of

Lloyd, Inc., Robert B. Rackleff and Jo Ellyn Rackleff and finding the Jefferson

County Comprehensive Plan to be "in compliance" as defined at Section

163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.

RECOMMENDED this 31st day of July, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida.

__________________________________

WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550

[phone]

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 31st day of July, 1991.

ENDNOTES

1/ The Department adopted the proposed recommended order submitted by Jefferson

County as it's own.

2/ "In compliance" means consistent with the requirements of ss. 163.3177,

163.3178, and 163.3191, the state comprehensive plan, the appropriate regional

policy plan, and rule 9J-5, F.A.C., where such rule is not inconsistent with

chapter 163, part II. Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Rule 9J-5,

F.A.C., sets forth the minimum criteria for review of comprehensive plans and

compliance determinations.

3/ Although the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan contains all elements

required by statute, this Recommended Order contains Findings of Fact related

only to the elements specifically challenged by Petitioner.

4/ The word "designed" was likely intended to be "designated".

5/ Land Development Regulations

APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-6264GM

The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by

the parties.

Petitioners

The Petitioners proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified in the

Recommended Order except as follows:

1. Second sentence is rejected. The greater weight of the evidence establishes

that the referenced interchange is located above an area where the potential for

high aquifer recharge exists.

2. Rejected. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that the

referenced interchange is located above an area where the potential for high

aquifer recharge exists.

3. Rejected, unnecessary.

4. Rejected, contrary to greater weight of evidence. The evidence related to

leaking tanks and operational errors at petroleum storage does not indicate

whether such facilities were designed to the prevent such occurrences, the types

of safeguards installed, the types of maintenance required at such facilities

(and whether it was performed), or whether and the extent to which the reported

leaks or spills resulted in ground or surface water contamination. Such data

was not more appropriate than the data set forth in the county's plan.

5. The area is one of potential high groundwater recharge.

6. Rejected, unnecessary.

8. Rejected as to assertion that the plan "makes no provision for the

protection of the Floridan Aquifer in connection with proposed petroleum tank

farm construction", contrary to greater weight of evidence.

9-11. Rejected, irrelevant. Support data is not subject to compliance review.

Additional data collection is not required. "Special consideration" is provided

through the special exception process and related performance standards.

12. Rejected, unnecessary.

14-15. Rejected, unnecessary. The evidence cited establishes that aromatic

hydrocarbon, a compound found in unleaded gasoline, poses a threat of harm to

living organisms which consume such substances. The special exception process

included in the "mixed use business interchange" designation requires that on-

site and off-site impacts (including water quality, air quality, and avoidance

of environmentally sensitive lands and mitigation of impacts) must be adequately

planned for and monitored.

Respondent Jefferson County and Department of Community Affairs

Respondent Department of Community Affairs' adopted the Proposed

Recommended Order filed by Respondent Jefferson County. Respondent Jefferson

County's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified in the Recommended

Order.

Intervenor

The Intervenor's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified in the

Recommended Order except as follows:

14. Rejected. The cited policy states only that the existing landfill be

closed consistent with DER regulations.

39. Rejected, unnecessary.

45. Rejected as to traffic circulation, irrelevant.

COPIES FURNISHED:

William E. Sadowski, Secretary

Department of Community Affairs

2740 Centerview Drive

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

G. Steven Pfeiffer, General Counsel

Department of Community Affairs

2740 Centerview Drive

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

William A. Friedlander, Esq.

424 East Call Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Kenneth D. Goldberg, Esq.

David J. Russ, Esq.

Department of Community Affairs

2740 Centerview Drive

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100

T. Buckingham Bird, Esq.

Post Office Box 247

Monticello, Florida 32344

Lee Elzie, III, Esq.

215 South Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS:

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this Recommended

Order. Pursuant to Section 163.3184(9)(b), Florida Statutes, the state land

planning agency shall allow 10 days for the filing of exceptions to this

recommended order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed

with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.

=================================================================

AGENCY FINAL ORDER

=================================================================

STATE OF FLORIDA

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS

FRIENDS OF LLOYD, INC.,

ROBERT B. RACKLEFF and

JO ELLEN RACKLEFF,

Petitioners,

DOAH CASE NO. 90-6264GM

vs.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS,

and JEFFERSON COUNTY,

Respondents.

________________________________/

FINAL ORDER

On July 31, 1991, a Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative

Hearings entered his Recommended Order in this proceeding. The Recommended

Order was received by the Department of Community Affairs ("Department"

hereafter) on August 7, 1991. A copy is attached to this Order as Exhibit A.

BACKGROUND

Petitioners have challenged the comprehensive plan adopted by Jefferson

County ("County" hereafter) in accordance with the Local Government

Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Ch. 163, Part II,

Florida Statutes ("Act" hereafter). The Department issued its Notice of Intent

to find the County's plan in compliance with the Act. Petitioners filed a

petition in accordance with Section 163.3184 (9), Florida Statutes, alleging

that the plan was not in compliance with the Act for reasons that are summarized

below. The Department forwarded the petition to the Division of Administrative

Hearings. A Hearing Officer was assigned, and the final hearing was conducted

on February 20 and 21, 1991, in Monticello, Jefferson County, Florida.

In his Recommended Order, the Hearing Officer made detailed findings of

fact and conclusions of law. He determined that the County's comprehensive plan

was in compliance with the Act, and recommended that the Department enter a

final order finding the plan in compliance. Petitioners have filed exceptions

to the Recommended Order.

The issues raised in this proceeding relate to a land use designated in the

plan as "mixed use interchange business," which, through a special exception

process, can allow storage facilities for petroleum products. Petitioners

contend that allowing that use in locations where it is permitted in the plan

would threaten aquifers that serve as important sources for potable water.

RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS

PETITIONERS' EXCEPTIONS

Petitioners' Exception 1

Petitioners take exception to the findings of fact set out in paragraphs

68, 69, and 70 of the Recommended Order. These paragraphs include findings

relating to the availability of data and analysis to support provisions of the

County's plan, and to the probabilities of risk that petroleum storage

facilities might pose if they are established at locations where they would be

permissible under the plan.

Petitioners did offer evidence that data was available to support their

position, and evidence that petroleum storage facilities have been associated

with environmental damage in other places. On the other hand, there is evidence

in the record that supports a finding that the County used the best available

data, and there is a lack of evidence tying prospects for leaks from storage

facilities to any likelihood of damage from such events in Jefferson County.

The Hearing Officer's findings are supported by competent substantial evidence

in the record. The Department cannot reject findings of fact that are supported

by competent substantial evidence. Section 120.57 (1) (1:b) 10, Florida

Statutes.

Petitioners' first exception is rejected.

Petitioners' Exception 2

Petitioners contend that the Hearing Officer's conclusions of law are

inconsistent with provisions of the Act. The exception does not specify which

conclusions are inconsistent with the Act, nor why. The Hearing Officer

determined that evidence offered by Petitioners fails to establish that the

County's plan is inconsistent with the Act to the exclusion of fair debate. His

conclusions, except as set out below, are supported by the findings of fact,

which are supported by competent substantial evidence. His conclusions are also

supported by the Act. Section 163.3184(9), Florida Statutes. Petitioners'

second exception is rejected.

DEPARTMENT EXCEPTION

The Department filed an exception to the Recommended Order, and later filed

"Amended Exceptions to Recommended Order." The amended exceptions were not

filed within the time limits set at Rule 9J-11.012(8)(g), Florida Administrative

Code. Accordingly, they are rejected.

In its timely objection, the Department addresses the Hearing Officer's

conclusion of law relating to references in the County plan to reliance on land

development regulatiqns that have not yet been adopted. The Department asserts

that the conclusion is contrary to provisions of the Act.

It is correct, as the Hearing Officer concluded, that a comprehensive plan

is intended to identify programs, activities, and land development regulations

that will be a part of the strategy for implementing the plan. Rule 9J-5.005

(E), Florida Administratiye Code. It is an oversimplification, however, to

conclude that reliance upon ordinances that will be adopted in the future

satisfies the requirements of the Act and-the Department' s rules.

The Act requires that plan elements include measurable standards to assure

that plan provisions are Section 163.3177 (6), Florida Statutes. The Act dircts

the Department to adopt rules that inplude criteria to er,sure that plan

elements include mechanisms and procedures for "monitoring, evaluating, and

appraising implementation of the plan." Section 163.3177 (9) (e), Florida

Statutes. As mandated, the Department's rules include such requirements. Rule

Ch. 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code.

The Department's exception is granted, and the Conclusions of Law set out

in the Recommended Order will be modified as set out below.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Findings of Fact set out in the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order

are hereby adopted, and are incorporated herein by reference.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The conclusions of law set out in Paragraphs 1-6 and 8- 11 of the

Conclusions of Law in the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order are hereby

adopted, and are incorporated herein, by reference.

2. The conclusion of law set out in Paragraph 7 of the Conclusions of Law

in the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order is hereby rejected. The following

conclusions are substituted:

The Act requires that the mechanisms and procedures for

monitoring, evaluating, and appraising implementation of a

local government comprehensive plan be included in the plan.

Specific measurable objectives and policies designed to meet

the objectives also are required. Section 163.177 (9) (e),

Florida Statutes; Rule 9J-5.005, Florida Administrative

Code. A local government plan that fails to identify, how

the plan will be implemented, or that fails to include

measurable objectives and implementing policies, would not

be in compliance with the Act or the Department's rules. A

statement in the plan that implementing objectives and

policies will be addressed later, through land development

regulation ordinances, would not render the plan in

compliance.

The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan includes

measurable objectives and standards to govern implementation

of the plan. Leaving the specific performance standards

relating to a single use, available only through a special

exception process, within one land use category does not

necessarily render a plan not in compliance. In this case,

the County has set general performance standard that will

govern the land use. Deferral of specific standards for

petroleum storage facilities does not render th plan out of

compliance because provisions of the Conservation Element

include goals, objectives and policies that will govern the

nature of land development regulations that will need to be

adopted to implement the plan. In addition, there was a

lack of data available to the County to demonstrate that

more stringent criteria than is specified in the plan is

necessary. The aquifer recharge area for the locations

where petroleum storage facilities may be located has not

been identified as a prime aquifer recharge area by the

water management district.

ORDER

The Comprehensive Plan adopted by Jefferson County is determined to be in

compliance with the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development

Regulation Act.

NOTICE OF RIGHTS

The parties to this proceeding are hereby advised of their right to seek

judicial review of this Final Order pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida

Statutes, and Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.030 (1)c and 9.110. To

initiate an appeal, a Notice of Appeal must be filed with the Department's Clerk

of Agency Proceedings, Rhyne Building, 2740 Centerview Drive, Tallahassee,

Florida, 32399-2100, and with the appropriate. District Court of Appeal within

30 days of the filing of this Final Order with the Department's Clerk of Agency

Proceedings. A Notice of Appeal filed with the District Court of Appeal should

be accompanied by the filing fee specified in Section 35.22, Florida Statutes.

DONE and ORDERED this __6__ day of September, 1991.

________________________________

WILLIAM E. SADOWSKI, Secretary

Department of Community Affairs

2740 Centerview Drive

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100

Copies Furnished:

William F. Quattlebaum

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building, 1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550

William A. Friedlander, Esquire

424 East Call Street

Tallahassee, FL 32301

T. Buckingham Bird, Esquire

Post Office Box 247

Monticello, FL 32344

Lee Elzie, III, Esquire

215 South Monroe Street

Tallahassee, FL 32301

Kenneth D. Goldberg, Esquire

David J. Russ, Esquire

Department of Community Affairs

2740 Centerview Drive

Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100