08-001576GM Susan Woods And Karen Lynn Recio vs. Marion County And Department Of Community Affairs
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Wednesday, February 4, 2009.


View Dockets  
Summary: Petitioners and DCA proved beyond fair debate there was no need for FLUM change.

1STATE OF FLORIDA

4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

8SUSAN WOODS AND KAREN LYNN )

14RECIO, )

16)

17Petitioners, )

19)

20vs. ) Case No. 08-1576GM

25)

26MARION COUNTY and DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, )

34)

35)

36Respondents, )

38and )

40AUSTIN INTERNATIONAL REALTY, )

44LLC, CASTRO REALTY HOLDINGS, )

49LLC, and HALCYON HILLS, LLC, Intervenors. )

56)

57)

58)

59)

60)

61RECOMMENDED ORDER

63A final administrative hearing was held in this case in

73Ocala, Florida, on October 29 and 30, 2008, before J. Lawrence

84Johnston, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of

92Administrative Hearings (DOAH).

95APPEARANCES

96For Petitioners: Susan Woods, pro se

1027323 Northwest 90th Avenue

106Ocala, Florida 34482

109Karen Recio, pro se

1138650 Northwest 63rd Street

117Ocala, Florida 34482

120For Respondent Department of Community Affairs:

126Leslie E. Bryson, Esquire

130Department of Community Affairs

1342555 Shumard Oak Boulevard

138Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100

141For Respondent Marion County:

145Thomas L. Wright, Esquire

149Marion County Attorney

152601 Southeast 25th Avenue

156Ocala, Florida 34471-9109

159For Intervenors: Bryce W. Ackerman, Esquire

165Steven H. Gray, Esquire

169Gray, Ackerman & Haines, P.A.

174125 Northeast 1st Avenue, Suite 1

180Ocala, Florida 34470

183STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

187The issue in this case is whether comprehensive plan future

197land use map amendment (FLUMA) 07-L25, adopted by Marion County

207Ordinance 07-31 on November 20, 2007, which changed the FLUM

217designation on 378 acres of Urban Reserve and on 17.83 acres of

229Rural Land to Medium Density Residential, is "in compliance," as

239defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. 1

246PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

248The Department of Community Affairs (DCA, or Department)

256reviewed the FLUMA and published a notice of intent (NOI) to find

268the Amendment “in compliance.” On March 14, 2008, Susan Woods

278and Karen Lynn Recio filed a Petition for Administrative Hearing

288(Petition) challenging the FLUMA and the NOI. The Petition was

298referred to DOAH, and a final hearing was scheduled for

308October 29-31, 2008. On May 6, 2008, Austin International, LLC,

318Castro Realty Holdings, LLC, and Halcyon Hills, LLC, owners of

328the property subject to the FLUMA, were granted leave to

338intervene.

339At the outset of the final hearing, DCA announced that it

350had changed its position on the FLUMA and would join Petitioners

361in asserting that the FLUMA was not "in compliance" because of

372inconsistency with provisions of Marion County's Comprehensive

379Plan and the lack of an adequate demonstration of need. DCA

390stipulated that non-compliance would have to be proven beyond

399fair debate under Section 163.3184(9)(a), Florida Statutes.

406The parties then had Joint Exhibits 1-5 admitted into

415evidence. 2

417During their case-in-chief, Petitioners called:

422Tony Beresford, a resident of Marion County; Mike McDaniel, DCA's

432Chief of Comprehensive Planning; Robert Pennock, Ph.D., an expert

441in comprehensive planning employed by DCA; Susan Woods; and

450Fay Baird, a professional hydrologist. Petitioners' Exhibits 1-7

458were admitted in evidence. 3 DCA presented its case-in-chief by

468cross-examining Mr. McDaniel and Dr. Pennock and by calling

477Troy Kuphal, the County's Water Resources Manager. DCA Exhibits

4861, 3, and 4 were admitted in evidence. 4 Marion County presented

498no evidence. In their case-in-chief, Intervenors called:

505Jimmy Massey, Acting Director of the County's Planning

513Department; Stanley Geberer, an economist and director of the

522real estate research division of Fishkind & Associates, Inc.;

531J. Thomas Beck, Ph.D., an expert in comprehensive planning;

540Jonathan Thigpen, a traffic engineer employed by Kimley-Horn &

549Associates; Richard Busche, a surface water management engineer

557employed by Kimley-Horn & Associates; and Pete Lee, an expert in

568comprehensive planning. Intervenors' Exhibits 1-5 were admitted

575in evidence. 5 DCA re-called Mr. McDaniel and Dr. Pennock in

586rebuttal.

587After presenting the evidence, the parties had a Transcript

596of the final hearing prepared and were given 20 days from the

608filing of the Transcript to file proposed recommended orders

617(PROs). The Transcript (in four volumes) was filed on

626December 22, 2008. On January 8, 2009, the Department’s

635unopposed motion to extend the deadline for filing PROs to

645January 20, 2009, was granted. The timely-filed PROs have been

655considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order.

663FINDINGS OF FACT

6661. The parcel that is the subject of the FLUMA at issue

678(the Property) is approximately 395.83 acres in size. The

687existing FLUM designation for 378 acres of the Property is Urban

698Reserve, and the remaining 17.3 acres are designated as Rural

708Land. Both designations allow a maximum of 1 dwelling unit per

71910 acres. The FLUMA would change the designation of the entire

730parcel to Medium Density Residential (MDR). MDR generally

738allows up to four dwelling units per acre. However, Future Land

749Use Element (FLUE) Policy 12.5.k, which also was adopted as part

760of County Ordinance 07-31, limits the maximum density on the

770Property to two dwelling units per acre.

7772. FLUE Policy 12.5.k also requires: that development on

786the Property "be served by central potable water and central

796sanitary sewer services available concurrent with development"

803and be a Planned Unit Development "to address site design,

813buffering, and access issues"; and that NW 90th Avenue be

823reconstructed from U.S. Highway 27 north to the north-eastern

832corner of the Property and that all traffic facility

841improvements needed at the NW 90th Avenue/U.S. 27 intersection,

850including signalization if approved by the Florida Department of

859Transportation, be constructed prior to the issuance of any

868certificates of occupancy for the Property. Finally, with

876respect to the 17.3 acres formerly designated as Rural Land,

886FLUE Policy 12.5.k defers compliance with the County's Transfer

895of Development Rights (TDR) Program until application for

903assignment of a zoning classification for the land.

911Petitioners' Challenge

9133. Intervenors own the Property. Petitioners own property

921nearby in Marion County. Intervenors and Petitioners commented

929on the proposed FLUMA between transmittal to DCA and adoption by

940the County.

9424. Petitioners contend:

945a. The FLUMA is not consistent with the

953stormwater drainage, retention, and

957management policies contained in Policies

9621.1.a. and 1.1.d. of the Natural Groundwater

969Aquifer Recharge Sub-Element of the

974Infrastructure Element of the Comprehensive

979Plan.

980b. MDR is not suitable or compatible with

988existing and planned development in the

994immediate vicinity, as required by FLUE

1000Policy 12.3 of the Comprehensive Plan.

1006c. The Board of County Commissioners failed

1013to evaluate the FLUMA's impact on “the need

1021for the change” as provided in FLUE Policy

102912.3 of the Comprehensive Plan.

1034d. The FLUMA fails to take into account its

1043impact on “water quality and quantity, the

1050availability of land, water and other natural

1057resources to meet demands, and the potential

1064for flooding,” as required by Section

1071187.201(15)(b)6., Florida Statutes.

1074e. The FLUMA is not consistent with

1081Transportation Policy 1.0 of the

1086Comprehensive Plan, which states: "Marion

1091County shall create and maintain

1096transportation facilities that operate in a

1102safe and efficient manner within an

1108established level of service."

1112f. The FLUMA is not consistent with the

1120State's Comprehensive Plan in that it does

1127not "ensure that new development is

1133compatible with existing local and regional

1139water supplies," as required by Section

1145187.201(7)(b)5., Florida Statutes.

1148g. The FLUMA does not direct development

1155away from areas without sediment cover that

1162is adequate to protect the Floridan Aquifer

1169and does not prohibit non-residential uses

1175within 200 feet of a sinkhole, solution

1182channel, or other karst feature, in violation

1189of FLUE Policy 4.2 of the Comprehensive Plan.

1197h. The FLUMA does not comply with Section

1205187.201(7), Florida Statutes, concerning the

1210protection of surface and ground water

1216quality in the State.

1220Recharge Sub-Element Policy 1.1.a. and d.

12265. Policy 1.1 of the Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge

1235Sub-Element of the Infrastructure Element of the Marion County

1244Comprehensive Plan provides in part:

1249The County’s land development regulations

1254shall implement the following guidelines for

1260stormwater management consistent with

1264accepted engineering practices by October 1,

12702007:

1271a. Stormwater retention/detention basin

1275depth will be consistent with the water

1282management district's storm water

1286requirements for Karst Sensitive Areas so

1292that sufficient filtration of bacteria and

1298other pollutants will occur. Avoidance of

1304basin collapse due to excessive hydrostatic

1310pressure in Karst Sensitive Areas shall be

1317given special consideration.

1320* * *

1323d. Require the use of swales and drainage

1331easements, particularly for single family

1336residential development in Karst Sensitive

1341Areas.

1342These are requirements for land development regulations (LDRs);

1350they do not apply to comprehensive plan amendments. In any

1360event, the evidence did not prove that the site is unsuitable for

1372the density allowed under the adopted FLUMA due to karst

1382features.

13836. The admissible evidence presented by Petitioners

1390regarding stormwater management in karst topography generally

1397related to flooding problems on the property contiguous to the

1407Property, and to a karst feature referred to as the “63rd

1418Street Sinkhole,” which is located in the general vicinity of

1429the Property.

14317. Fay Baird, an expert hydrologist called by Petitioners,

1440testified that the 63rd Street Sinkhole allows stormwater run-

1449off to enter the upper aquifer. Ms. Baird testified generally

1459of the problems and concerns regarding development and

1467stormwater management systems in karst topography. She

1474testified that the Property should be properly inventoried, that

1483specific karst features should be identified, and that any

1492stormwater system designed or developed should take into account

1501karst features to protect against groundwater contamination and

1509flooding. She testified that she had not been on the Property,

1520had not seen or reviewed core borings or other data to determine

1532the depth and nature of the sub-surface, and was not in a

1544position to provide opinions as to whether or not a particular

1555stormwater management system would or could adequately protect

1563against her concerns. Intervenors’ expert, Richard Busche,

1570testified that a stormwater management plan like the one

1579recommended by Ms. Baird was being developed.

1586Compatibility under FLUE Policy 12.3

15918. FLUE Policy 12.3 provides in pertinent part:

1599Before approval of a future land use

1606amendment, the applicant shall demonstrate

1611that the proposed future land use is

1618suitable, and the County will review, and

1625make a determination that the proposed land

1632use is compatible with existing and planned

1639development in the immediate vicinity . . . .

16489. Petitioners argued that the proposed MDR development of

1657the Property is incompatible with surrounding agricultural uses.

1665Actually, the Property is surrounded by a mixture of

1674agricultural and residential uses, including residential

1680subdivisions, a golf course, and scattered large-lot residential

1688and equestrian uses. The properties immediately to the south

1697and east of the Property are developed residential properties

1706and are designated MDR.

171010. Before the FLUMA, most of the Property was designated

1720Urban Reserve under the County's Comprehensive Plan. Such land

"1729provides for expansion of an Urban Area in a timely manner."

1740FLUE Policies 1.24.B and 2.18.

174511. "For an Urban Reserve Area to be designated an Urban

1756Area, it must be compact and contiguous to an existing Urban

1767Area, and central water and sewer must be provided concurrent

1777with development within the expanded area." FLUE Policy 2.18.

1786The Property is compact and is contiguous to existing Urban Area

1797designated MDR. This indicates that the County already has

1806planned for timely conversion of the Urban Reserve land on the

1817Property to urban uses, including MDR. It also means that the

1828County already has determined that at least certain urban uses,

1838including MDR, are compatible with adjacent agricultural uses.

184612. The Property is in the receiving area under the

1856County's Farmland Preservation Policy and TDR Program in FLUE

1865Objectives 13.0 and 13.01 and the policies under those

1874objectives. This means that the County already has determined

1883that residential density can be transferred to the Property from

1893the Farmland Preservation sending areas to increase residential

1901density up to one dwelling unit per acre. See FLUE Policy 13.6.

1913This would constitute Low Density Residential, which is an urban

1923use under the County's Comprehensive Plan. See FLUE Policy

19321.24.A. By establishing the Farmland Preservation Policy and

1940TDR Programs, the County already has determined that Low Density

1950Residential is compatible with adjacent Rural Land. In

1958addition, Low Density Residential clearly is compatible with

1966MDR.

196713. Although not raised in the Petition, Petitioners

1975argued that the Urban Reserve and Farmland Preservation eastern

1984boundary was improperly moved west to NW 90th Avenue. However,

1994that change was made prior to the adoption of Ordinance 07-31

2005and the FLUMA at issue in this case and is not a proper subject

2019of this proceeding.

2022Demonstration of Need under FLUE Policies 13.2 and 12.3

203114. FLUE Policy 13.2 provides:

2036The Transfer of Development Rights program

2042shall be the required method for increasing

2049density within receiving areas, unless,

2054through the normal Comprehensive Plan

2059Amendment cycle, an applicant can both

2065justify and demonstrate a need for a Future

2073Land Use Map (FLUM) amendment.

207815. FLUE Policy 12.3 provides:

2083Before approval of a future land use

2090amendment, . . . the County . . . shall

2100evaluate its impact on:

21041. The need for the change;

21102. The availability of facilities

2115and services;

21173. The future land use balance;

2123and

21244. The prevention of urban sprawl

2130as defined by Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g),

2135Florida Administrative Code.

213816. The evidence proved that the County interprets FLUE

2147Policy 12.3 to require need and future land use balance to be

2159assessed within the planning districts it has established.

2167There is no need for additional MDR in the County's Planning

2178District 5, where the Property is located. To accommodate the

2188projected population increase in Planning District 5 by 2010,

2197which is the planning horizon for the County’s Comprehensive

2206Plan, an additional 644 dwelling units are needed. There are

22161,893 vacant acres of MDR available in Planning District 5. At

2228four units per acre allowed in MDR, the County has an available

2240supply of 7,572 MDR dwelling units in Planning District 5.

225117. In the absence of a need in Planning District 5, the

2263County relied on a need demonstration prepared for the

2272Intervenors by Fishkind and Associates. 6 Besides being a

2281County-wide analysis instead of a planning district analysis,

2289the Fishkind analysis assumed a planning horizon of 2015, rather

2299than the 2010 horizon established in the Comprehensive Plan.

2308Finally, the Fishkind analysis applied an allocation factor to

2317the total projected need for residential use, most of which

2327already is supplied, resulting in a projection of residential

2336far in excess of the incremental need for additional residential

2346land by 2015, much less by 2010.

235318. The result of the Fishkind approach was to allocate

2363enough land for residential use to meet the County-wide

2372projected incremental need for additional residential land use

2380for approximately 45 years, which is five times the calculated

2390incremental need for 2015. Even assuming that a County-wide

2399demonstration of need complied with Marion County's

2406Comprehensive Plan, this is much too high an allocation ratio to

2417use to meet the incremental need projected for a 2015 plan, much

2429less for a 2010 plan.

243419. The expert for Intervenors, Stanley Geberer, defended

2442the Fishkind analysis in part by stating that it was comparable

2453to demonstrations of need accepted by DCA in other cases.

2463However, there was no evidence that the facts of those other

2474cases were comparable to the facts of this case.

248320. Mr. Geberer also asserted that holding the County to

2493its 2010 planning horizon would make it impossible for the

2503County to plan for the future. However, nothing prevents the

2513County from revising its Comprehensive Plan to plan

2521comprehensively for a longer timeframe.

252621. There was no evidence of any other circumstances that

2536would demonstrate a need for the FLUMA at issue in this case.

2548State Comprehensive Plan Policy 187.201(15)(b)6.

255322. Petitioners did not prove that the FLUMA fails to take

2564into account its impact on "water quality and quantity, the

2574availability of land, water and other natural resources to meet

2584demands, and the potential for flooding." To the contrary, the

2594evidence was that those items were taken into account as part of

2606the FLUMA. (However, as to the FLUMA's impact on the

2616availability of land to meet demands, see "Demonstration of Need

2626under FLUE Policies 13.2 and 12.3," supra .)

2634Transportation Element Objective 1.0

263823. Transportation Element Objective 1.0 provides:

2644Marion County shall create and maintain

2650transportation facilities that operate in an

2656efficient and safe manner within established

2662levels of service.

266524. Petitioners presented no expert testimony or

2672admissible evidence that the FLUMA will change established

2680levels of service or result in transportation facilities

2688operating in an unsafe or inefficient manner. Intervenors

2696presented the testimony of Jonathan Thigpen, an expert traffic

2705engineer, who prepared and submitted to the County a Traffic

2715Impact Study and testified that the FLUMA would not change

2725established levels of service or result in transportation

2733facilities operating in an unsafe or inefficient manner. The

2742ultimate need for transportation improvement, such as turn lanes

2751and traffic lights to mitigate the impacts of development under

2761the FLUMA, will be determined at later stages of development.

277125. Petitioners suggested that the FLUMA will result in

2780delays caused by additional traffic, frustrate drivers waiting

2788to turn east on U.S. 27, and induce large numbers of them to

2801seek an alternative route to the north through agricultural

2810areas, some of which have inadequate slag roads. However,

2819Petitioners failed to prove that this result is likely.

2828State Comprehensive Plan Policy 187.201(7)(b)5

283326. Petitioners presented no evidence that the designation

2841of MDR on the Property is incompatible with existing local and

2852regional water supplies. The evidence was that adequate local

2861and regional water supplies exist. Even if they did not exist,

2872the consequence would be less development than the maximum

2881allowed by the FLUMA.

2885FLUE Policy 4.2

288827. FLUE Policy 4.2 provides in pertinent part:

2896In order to minimize the adverse impacts of

2904development on recharge quality and quantity

2910in high recharge Karst sensitive and springs

2917protection areas, design standards for all

2923development shall be required and defined in

2930the LDRs to address, at a minimum, the

2938following:

2939* * *

2942f. Directing development away from

2947areas with sediment cover that is

2953inadequate to protect the Floridian

2958[sic] Aquifer.

2960* * *

2963h. Prohibiting nonresidential uses

2967within 200 feet of a sinkhole,

2973solution channel, or other Karst

2978feature.

297928. This policy sets forth requirements for the content of

2989LDRs, not FLUMAs.

299229. Petitioners presented no evidence that sediment cover

3000on the Property is inadequate to protect the Floridan Aquifer or

3011that any non-residential uses would be constructed within 200

3020feet of a sinkhole, solution channel, or other karst feature

3030under the FLUMA.

303330. Marion County has adopted amendments to its

3041Comprehensive Plan to protect springs and karst features.

3049CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

305231. Petitioners and Intervenors have party standing as

"3060affected persons" under Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida

3066Statutes.

306732. Section 163.3184(9), Florida Statutes, provides that

3074when the Department has issued an NOI to find a comprehensive

3085plan amendment to be "in compliance," the amendment "shall be

3095determined to be in compliance if the local government's

3104decision is fairly debatable." In recognition of the local

3113nature of legislative land use decisions, and the Department's

3122expertise on the subject, the "fairly debatable" standard defers

3131not only to the local government's determination, but also to

3141the Department's determination in its NOI. In this case,

3150Petitioners and the Department bear the burden of proving beyond

3160fair debate that the FLUMA is not "in compliance." In addition,

3171to the extent that internal inconsistency is at issue, the

"3181fairly debatable" standard applies regardless of the

3188Department's NOI. See § 163.3184(10)(a), Fla. Stat.

319533. The Florida Supreme Court has held that, under the

"3205fairly debatable" standard, the local government's decision

3212must be upheld "if reasonable persons could differ as to its

3223propriety." Martin County v. Yusem , 690 So.2d 1288, 1295 (Fla.

32331997). See also B & H Travel Corp. v. Department of Community

3245Affairs , 602 So.2d 1362 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), appeal dismissed

3255and rev. denied , 613 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1992).

326334. Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, defines "in

3270compliance" to mean:

3273consistent with the requirements of ss.

3279163.3177, when a local government adopts an

3286educational facilities element [sic],

3290163.3178, 163.3180, 163.3191, and 163.3245,

3295with the state comprehensive plan, with the

3302appropriate strategic regional policy plan,

3307and with chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative

3313Code, where such rule is not inconsistent

3320with this part and with the principles for

3328guiding development in designated areas of

3334critical state concern and with part III of

3342chapter 369, where applicable.

334635. Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, provides in

3353part:

3354The future land use plan shall be based upon

3363surveys, studies, and data regarding the

3369area, including the amount of land required

3376to accommodate anticipated growth; the

3381projected population of the area; the

3387character of undeveloped land; the

3392availability of water supplies, public

3397facilities, and services; the need for

3403redevelopment, including the renewal of

3408blighted areas and the elimination of

3414nonconforming uses which are inconsistent

3419with the character of the community; the

3426compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to or

3434closely proximate to military installations;

3439the discouragement of urban sprawl; energy-

3445efficient land use patterns accounting for

3451existing and future electric power generation

3457and transmission systems; greenhouse gas

3462reduction strategies; and, in rural

3467communities, the need for job creation,

3473capital investment, and economic development

3478that will strengthen and diversify the

3484community's economy.

348636. Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(2)(c) 7

3493requires that the FLUE be based on an "analysis of the amount of

3506land needed to accommodate the projected population . . . ."

351737. Rule 9J-5.005(2) provides in pertinent part:

3524(a) All goals, objectives, policies,

3529standards, findings and conclusions within

3534the comprehensive plan and its support

3540documents, and within plan amendments and

3546their support documents, shall be based upon

3553relevant and appropriate data and the

3559analyses applicable to each element. To be

3566based on data means to react to it in an

3576appropriate way and to the extent necessary

3583indicated by the data available on that

3590particular subject at the time of adoption of

3598the plan or plan amendment at issue. Data or

3607summaries thereof shall not be subject to the

3615compliance review process. However, the

3620Department will review each comprehensive

3625plan for the purpose of determining whether

3632the plan is based on the data and analyses

3641described in this chapter and whether the

3648data were collected and applied in a

3655professionally acceptable manner.

3658* * *

3661(c) Data are to be taken from professionally

3669accepted existing sources, such as the United

3676States Census, State Data Center, State

3682University System of Florida, regional

3687planning councils, water management

3691districts, or existing technical studies.

3696The data used shall be the best available

3704existing data, unless the local government

3710desires original data or special studies.

3716Where data augmentation, updates, or special

3722studies or surveys are deemed necessary by

3729local government, appropriate methodologies

3733shall be clearly described or referenced and

3740shall meet professionally accepted standards

3745for such methodologies.

3748* * *

3751(e) The comprehensive plan shall be based on

3759resident and seasonal population estimates

3764and projections. Resident and seasonal

3769population estimates and projections shall be

3775either those provided by the University of

3782Florida, Bureau of Economic and Business

3788Research, those provided by the Executive

3794Office of the Governor, or shall be generated

3802by the local government. If the local

3809government chooses to base its plan on the

3817figures provided by the University of Florida

3824or the Executive Office of the Governor,

3831medium range projections should be utilized.

3837If the local government chooses to base its

3845plan on either low or high range projections

3853provided by the University of Florida or the

3861Executive Office of the Governor, a detailed

3868description of the rationale for such a

3875choice shall be included with such

3881projections.

38821. If the local government chooses to

3889prepare its own estimates and projections, it

3896shall submit estimates and projections and a

3903description of the methodologies utilized to

3909generate the projections and estimates to the

3916Department with its plan when the plan is due

3925for compliance review unless it has submitted

3932them for advance review. If a local

3939government chooses to prepare its own

3945resident and seasonal population estimates

3950and projections, it may submit them and a

3958description of the methodology utilized to

3964prepare them to the Department prior to the

3972time of compliance review. The Department may

3979request additional information regarding the

3984methodology utilized to prepare the estimates

3990and projections.

39922. The Department will evaluate the

3998application of the methodology utilized by a

4005local government in preparing its own

4011population estimates and projections and

4016determine whether the particular methodology

4021is professionally accepted. The Department

4026shall provide its findings to the local

4033government within sixty days. In addition,

4039the Department shall make available, upon

4045request, beginning on December 1, 1986,

4051examples of methodologies for resident and

4057seasonal population estimates and projections

4062that are deemed by the Department to be

4070professionally acceptable. The Department

4074shall be guided by the Executive Office of

4082the Governor, in particular the State Data

4089Center, in its review of any population

4096estimates, projections, or methodologies

4100proposed by local governments.

410438. Section 163.3177(2), Florida Statutes, provides in

4111part:

4112Coordination of the several elements of the

4119local comprehensive plan shall be a major

4126objective of the planning process. The

4132several elements of the comprehensive plan

4138shall be consistent . . . .

414539. Implementing Section 163.3177(2), Florida Statutes,

4151Rule 9J-5.005(5) requires "Internal Consistency" and

4157subparagraph (a) provides:

4160The required elements and any optional

4166elements shall be consistent with each other.

4173All elements of a particular comprehensive

4179plan shall follow the same general format

4186(see "Format Requirements"). Where data are

4193relevant to several elements, the same data

4200shall be used, including population estimates

4206and projections.

420840. In this case, Petitioners and the Department proved

4217beyond fair debate that the FLUMA was not based on a

4228professionally acceptable demonstration of need as required by

4236Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, and Rules

42429J-5.006(2)(c) and 9J-5.005(2), or as required by Marion County

4251FLUE Policy 12.3, which makes the FLUMA internally inconsistent

4260with that Policy, as well as with the rest of the Marion County

4273Comprehensive Plan, which is based on a planning timeframe of

42832010.

4284RECOMMENDATION

4285Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

4295Law, it is

4298RECOMMENDED that the Department determine the FLUMA at issue

4307in this case to be not "in compliance" and take further action as

4320required by Section 163.3184(9)(b), Florida Statutes.

4326DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of February, 2009, in

4336Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

4340S

4341J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON

4344Administrative Law Judge

4347Division of Administrative Hearings

4351The DeSoto Building

43541230 Apalachee Parkway

4357Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

4360(850) 488-9675

4362Fax Filing (850) 921-6847

4366www.doah.state.fl.us

4367Filed with the Clerk of the

4373Division of Administrative Hearings

4377this 4th day of February, 2009.

4383ENDNOTES

43841/ Unless otherwise noted, all statutory references are to the

43942008 Florida Statutes.

43972/ The Joint Exhibits consisted of Marion County's Comprehensive

4406Plan, the Proposed FLUMA Package, DCA's Objections,

4413Recommendations, and Comments Report, agency comment letters, the

4421Adopted FLUMA Package, and the NOI.

44273/ Petitioners' Exhibits 1-6 were admitted in part subject to

4437valid hearsay objections, so their use is restricted by Section

4447120.57(1)(c), Florida Statutes.

44504/ DCA's exhibits were its staff memorandum on the adopted

4460FLUMA, the County's adopted springs protection remedial plan

4468amendment, and DCA's NOI on the County's adopted springs

4477protection remedial plan amendment.

44815/ Intervenors' Exhibits 2, 3, and 4 were admitted in part

4492subject to valid hearsay objections, so their use is restricted

4502by Section 120.57(1)(c), Florida Statutes. .

45086/ Dr. Beck also testified that need for the FLUMA was

4519demonstrated, but he did not explain the reason for his

4529testimony, other than the Fishkind analysis.

45357/ Unless otherwise indicated, all rule references are to the

4545version of the Florida Administrative Code in effect at the time

4556of the final hearing.

4560COPIES FURNISHED:

4562Thomas Pelham, Secretary

4565Department of Community Affairs

45692555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100

4575Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100

4578Shaw Stiller, General Counsel

4582Department of Community Affairs

45862555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325

4592Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100

4595Thomas D. MacNamara, Esquire

4599Marion County's Attorney's Office

4603601 Southeast 25th Avenue

4607Ocala, Florida 34471-2690

4610Leslie E. Bryson, Esquire

4614Department of Community Affairs

46182555 Shumard Oak Boulevard

4622Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100

4625Karen Lynn Recio

46288650 Northwest 63rd Street

4632Ocala, Florida 34482

4635Steven H. Gray, Esquire

4639Gray, Ackerman & Haines, P.A.

4644125 Northeast 1st Avenue, Suite 1

4650Ocala, Florida 34470-6675

4653Susan Woods

46557323 Northwest 90th Avenue

4659Ocala, Florida 34482

4662NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

4668All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15

4679days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to

4690this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will

4701issue the final order in this case.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 02/22/2010
Proceedings: Second Agency FO
PDF:
Date: 02/22/2010
Proceedings: Agency Final Order Closing File filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/22/2009
Proceedings: Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/17/2009
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 09/04/2009
Proceedings: Notice of Meeting filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/26/2009
Proceedings: Letters to R. Goodson from C. Patterson regarding Judge's Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/03/2009
Proceedings: Order Granting Motion to Continue Final Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/16/2009
Proceedings: Notice of Meeting filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/02/2009
Proceedings: (Proposed) Order Granting Motion to Continue Final Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/08/2009
Proceedings: Notice of Prohibited Parties filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/27/2009
Proceedings: Determination of Non-compliance filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/09/2009
Proceedings: Letter to Judge Johnston from B. Frisby regarding Judge`s ruling at hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/27/2009
Proceedings: Petitioners` Response to Exceptions Regarding Preliminary Statement, Paragraph 1 (incomplete; no signature) filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/26/2009
Proceedings: Response to Department of Community Affairs` Exception to Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/19/2009
Proceedings: Exceptions to Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/04/2009
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 02/04/2009
Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
PDF:
Date: 02/04/2009
Proceedings: Recommended Order (hearing held October 29 and 30, 2008). CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 01/21/2009
Proceedings: (Petitioner`s) Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/20/2009
Proceedings: (Respondent`s) Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/20/2009
Proceedings: (Intervenor`s) Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/08/2009
Proceedings: Order Granting Extension of Time (proposed recommended orders to be filed by January 20, 2009).
PDF:
Date: 01/07/2009
Proceedings: Unopposed Motion to Extend the Deadline for Filing Proposed Recommended Orders filed.
Date: 12/22/2008
Proceedings: Transcript (Volumes 1-4) filed.
Date: 10/29/2008
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 10/27/2008
Proceedings: Amended Exhibits List filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/24/2008
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Hearing (hearing set for October 29 through 31, 2008; 9:00 a.m.; Ocala, FL; amended as to start time of hearing).
PDF:
Date: 10/24/2008
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Witness List (signed) filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/24/2008
Proceedings: (Amended) Petitioners` Exhibit List filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/24/2008
Proceedings: Petitioners` Exhibit List filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/23/2008
Proceedings: Petitioners` Witness List (unsigned) filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/17/2008
Proceedings: Protective Order.
PDF:
Date: 10/15/2008
Proceedings: (Proposed) Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/15/2008
Proceedings: Unopposed Motion for Protective Order and and Striking Witnesses from Petitioners` Witness List filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/15/2008
Proceedings: Subpoena Duces Tecum (T. Kuphal) filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/15/2008
Proceedings: Subpoena Duces Tecum (J. Massey) filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/14/2008
Proceedings: Intervenors` Amended Witness List filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/10/2008
Proceedings: Intervenors` Witness List filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/09/2008
Proceedings: Witness List filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/10/2008
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition (F. Baird, MS) filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/04/2008
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Depositions filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/04/2008
Proceedings: Notice of Service of Intervenors` Request to Produce Petitioners filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/04/2008
Proceedings: Notice of Service of Intervenors` Expert Interrogatories to Petitioners filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/04/2008
Proceedings: Notice of Service of Intervenors` Interrogatories to Petitioners filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/04/2008
Proceedings: Certificate of Service filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/03/2008
Proceedings: Notice of Service of Intervenors` Request to Produce to Petitioners filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/03/2008
Proceedings: Notice of Service of Intervenors` Interrogatories to Petitioners filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/03/2008
Proceedings: Notice of Service of Intervenors` Expert Interrogatories to Petitioners filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/28/2008
Proceedings: Order Denying Motion to Dismiss.
PDF:
Date: 05/12/2008
Proceedings: Petitioners` Motion to Dismiss filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/06/2008
Proceedings: Order Granting Leave to Intervene (Austin International Realty, LLC., Castro Realty Holdings, LLC and Halcyon Hills, LLC).
PDF:
Date: 05/05/2008
Proceedings: Petition to Intervene of Austin International Realty, LLC., Castro Realty Holdings, LLC and Halcyon Hills, LLC filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/30/2008
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
PDF:
Date: 04/30/2008
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for October 29 through 31, 2008; 10:00 a.m.; Ocala, FL).
PDF:
Date: 04/04/2008
Proceedings: Response to Initial Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/28/2008
Proceedings: Initial Order.
PDF:
Date: 03/28/2008
Proceedings: Petition for Administrative Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/28/2008
Proceedings: Notice of Intent to Find the Marion County Comprehensive Plan Amendment in Compliance filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/28/2008
Proceedings: Agency referral filed.

Case Information

Judge:
J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON
Date Filed:
03/28/2008
Date Assignment:
03/28/2008
Last Docket Entry:
02/22/2010
Location:
Ocala, Florida
District:
Northern
Agency:
ADOPTED IN TOTO
Suffix:
GM
 

Counsels

Related DOAH Cases(s) (1):

Related Florida Statute(s) (7):

Related Florida Rule(s) (2):