14-005657GM Alerts Of Pbc, Inc., Patricia D. Curry, Robert Schutzer, And Karen Schutzer vs. Palm Beach County Status: Closed Recommended Order on Friday, April 17, 2015.

Summary: Palm Beach County's determination that the proposed amendments to its comprehensive plan are in compliance is fairly debatable.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

ALERTS OF PBC, INC., PATRICIA D.

CURRY, ROBERT SCHUTZER, AND

KAREN SCHUTZER,

Petitioners,

vs. Case No. 14 - 5657GM

PALM BEACH COUNTY,

Respondent,

and

MINTO PBLH, LLC,

Intervenor.

____________________ ___________/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

The final hearing in this case was held on March 4 through

6, 2015, in West Palm Beach, Florida, before Bram D.E. Canter,

Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative

Hearings (ÐDO AHÑ).

APPEARANCES

For Petitioners: Ralf G. Brookes, Esquire

1217 E ast Cape Coral Parkway , Suite 107

Cape Coral, Florida 33904

For Respondent: Amy Taylor Petrick, Esquire

Palm Beach County Attorne y's Office

301 North Olive Avenue, Suite 601

West Palm Beach, Florida 33401

For Intervenor: Gary K. Hunter, Jr., Esquire

Vinette Godelia, Esquire

Hopping , Green & Sams, P.A.

Post Office Box 6526

Tallahassee, Florida 323 14

Tara W. Duhy, Esquire

Lewis Longman & Walker, P.A.

515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 1500

West Palm Beach, Flor ida 33401

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue to be determined in this case is whether the

amendments to the Palm Beach County Comprehensive Plan (Ðthe Comp

PlanÑ) adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Palm Beach

County by Ordinance No. 14 - 030 ( ÐProposed AmendmentsÑ) are Ðin

compliance,Ñ as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b),

Florida Statutes (2014).

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On October 29, 2014, Palm Beach County adopted Ordinance No.

14 - 030, which amended the Future Land Use Element ( ÐFLUEÑ), text,

and Map Series of the Comp Plan for a large tract of land in the

western part of the County. Petitioners Alerts of PBC, Inc.,

Patricia D. Curry, Robert Schutzer, and Karen Schutzer filed a

petition for hearing to challenge the Proposed Amen dments.

Later, they requested and were granted leave to amend their

petition.

At the final hearing, Petitioners presented the testimony of

Daryl Max Forgey, James Fleischmann, John Kim, and Jay Foy.

PetitionersÓ Exhibit 1 was admitted into evidence.

Palm Beach County presented the testimony of Bryan Davis and

George Webb. Palm Beach CountyÓs Exhibits 1, 3, and 7 were

admitted into evidence.

Intervenor Minto PBLH, LLC (ÐMintoÑ), presented the

testimony of John Carter, Donaldson Hearing, and Robert Pennock .

MintoÓs Exhibits 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 16, 17, 19, 21, 23, 24, and 27

were admitted into evidence.

Joint Exhibits 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 13, 21, 48, 51, and 55 were

admitted into evidence.

The five - volume Transcript of the final hearing was filed

with DOAH. The p arties filed proposed recommended orders that

were considered by the Administrative Law Judge in the

preparation of this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Parties

1. Petitioner Alerts of PBC, Inc. (ÐAlertsÑ) , is a Florida

not - for - profit corporatio n doing business in Palm Beach County.

Alerts made timely objections and comments to the County on the

Proposed Amendments.

2. Petitioner Patricia Curry is a resident and landowner in

Palm Beach County. Ms. Curry made timely objections and comments

to t he County on the Proposed Amendments.

3. Petitioner Robert Schutzer is a resident and landowner

in Palm Beach County. Mr. Schutzer made timely objections and

comments to the County on the Proposed Amendments.

4. Petitioner Karen Schutzer is a resident a nd landowner in

Palm Beach County. Ms. Schutzer made timely objections and

comments to the County on the Proposed Amendments.

5. Respondent Palm Beach County is a political subdivision

of the State of Florida and has adopted the Comp Plan, which it

amend s from time to time pursuant to section 163.3184.

6. Intervenor Minto is a Florida limited liability company

doing business in Palm Beach County. Minto is the owner of all

of the 3,788.6 acres (Ðthe PropertyÑ) which are the subject of

the Proposed Amendm ents, with the exception of two parcels

totaling 40.04 acres, which are owned by the Seminole Improvement

District. Minto appointed the board of supervisors of the

Seminole Improvement District pursuant to state law.

Background

7. FLUE Objective 1.1 esta blishes a unique Managed Growth

Tier System Ðto protect viable existing neighborhoods and

communities and direct the location and timing of future

development.Ñ The Property is located in the CountyÓs Rural Tier

and is bounded by Exurban Tier to the north and east.

8. North of the Property is a large subdivision known as

the Acreage, which was described by Respondents as ÐantiquatedÑ

because it was developed in a manner that was common decades ago

before modern community planning concepts and growth manag ement

laws. The Acreage is dominated by 1.25 - acre residential lots,

laid out in a grid pattern with few other uses.

9. Although the residents of the Acreage have a strong

sense of community, it is apparently a matter of aesthetics,

familiarity, and socia l intercourse, because the Acreage is not a

community in the modern planning sense of providing a mix of uses

where residents can live, shop, work, and play. It is a

development pattern that is now discouraged by state law and the

Comp Plan, because it is inefficient with respect to the

provision and use of public services.

10. The Property and the Acreage are within a 57,000 - acre

area known as the Central Western Communities (ÐCWC"). The CWC

has been the subject of extensive planning efforts by the Coun ty

for many years to address land use imbalances in the area. There

are many residential lots, but few non - residential uses to serve

the residents.

11. In 2008, the previous owner of the Property, Callery -

Judge Groves (ÐCalleryÑ), obtained an Agricultura l Enclave (AGE)

future land use designation for essentially the same area as the

Property. The Comp Plan was amended to establish an AGE future

land use designation, AGE policies, a conceptual plan of

development, and implementing principles (Ðthe 2008 Am endmentsÑ).

12. Under the 2008 Amendments, the site was limited to

2,996 residential units and 235,000 square feet of retail and

office uses. No development has been undertaken pursuant to the

2008 Amendments.

13. In 2013, the site was sold to Minto, wh ich submitted a

Comp Plan amendment application in November 2013 , and a revised

application in July 2014. On October 29, 2014, the County

adopted the Proposed Amendments.

14. The Proposed Amendments change the future land use

designation of 53.17 acres ( Ðthe outparcelsÑ) from RR - 10 to AGE,

and increase residential density to 4,546 units and increase

intensity to two million square feet of non - residential uses,

200,000 square feet of civic uses, a 150 - room hotel and a 3,000 -

student college, and revise the Conceptual Plan and Implementing

Principles.

15. The Proposed Amendments would also revise text in the

Introduction and Administration, Future Land Use, and

Transportation Elements. The Map Series would be amended to add

53.17 acres to the Limited Urban Service Area on Map LU 1.1 and

Map LU 2.1, and to identify new Rural Parkways on Map TE 14.1.

PetitionersÓ Challenge

16. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are not Ðin

complianceÑ because they fail to establish meaningful and

predictable standard s; do not comply with the agricultural

enclave provisions of section 163.3164(4); are not based upon

relevant and appropriate data and analysis; promote urban sprawl;

are incompatible with adjacent communities and land uses; and

create inconsistencies with in the Comp Plan.

17. Many of the issues raised and the arguments made by

Petitioners fail to acknowledge or distinguish the 2008

Amendments that address future development of the Property. In

several respects, as discussed below, the 2008 Amendments alr eady

authorize future development of the Property in a manner which

Petitioners object to. In several respects, the types of impacts

that Petitioners are concerned about are actually diminished by

the Proposed Amendments from what is currently allowed und er the

2008 Amendments.

Meaningful and Predictable Standards

18. Petitioners contend that proposed FLUE Policies

2.2.5 - d, 2.2.5 - e, and 2.2.5 - f, and Maps LU 1.1 and 2.1 fail to

establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and

development of l and and fail to provide meaningful guidelines for

the content of more detailed land development and use

regulations, in violation of section 163.3177(1).

19. The Proposed Amendments add more detail to the

standards that were adopted in the 2008 Amendments . The Proposed

Amendments establish substantially more direction for the future

development of the Property than simply a land use designation

and listing of allowed uses, which is typical in comprehensive

plans.

20. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amen dments lack

adequate standards because they refer to the use of Ðappropriate

new urbanism concepts,Ñ which Petitioners say is vague. New

urbanism refers to land use planning concepts such as clustering,

mixed - use development, rural villages, and city cent ers. See

§ 163.3162(4), Fla. Stat. (2014). In land use planning parlance,

new urbanism creates more ÐlivableÑ and ÐsustainableÑ

communities.

21. The term Ðappropriate new urbanism conceptsÑ used in

the Proposed Amendments is the same term used in sectio n

163.3162(4), dealing with the development of agricultural

enclaves. There are many concepts that are part of new urbanism,

which can be used in combination. Which concepts are

ÐappropriateÑ depends on the unique opportunities and constraints

presented by the area to be developed.

22. Use of the term Ðappropriate new urbanism conceptsÑ in

the Proposed Amendments adds detail to the future development

standards applicable to the Property. It does not create

vagueness.

23. Petitioners contend the propose d amendments of Maps

LU 1.1 and 2.1 do not provide meaningful and predictable

standards and guidelines. However, the maps are only being

amended to show that 53.17 acres of outparcels within the

Property are being added to the existing Limited Urban Servi ce

Area. The map amendments do not diminish the meaningfulness or

predictability of any standards in the Comp Plan.

24. The preponderance of the evidence shows the Proposed

Amendments establish meaningful and predictable standards.

Agricultural Enclave

2 5. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments fail to

meet the requirements for an agricultural enclave in section

163.3164. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, consistency

with section 163.3164 is not a component of an Ðin complianceÑ

determination .

26. Furthermore, the Property is already designated

Agricultural Enclave in the Comp Plan.

Data and Analysis

27. Petitioners contend the amendment of the Limited Urban

Service Area is not supported by relevant and appropriate data

and analysis as requi red by section 163.3177(1)(f). The

inclusion of the outparcels is logical and reasonable. It is

consistent with the Comp Plan policies applicable to Limited

Urban Service Areas. It is supported by data and analysis.

28. Petitioners contend the increase s in density and

intensity allowed by the Proposed Amendments are not supported by

data and analysis showing a need for the increases. However, the

increases are supported by relevant and appropriate data and

analysis, including population projections and extensive analysis

of the need for non - residential uses in the CWC. Population

projections establish the minimum amount of land to be designated

for particular uses; not the maximum amount of land. See

§ 163.3177(1)(f)3., Fla. Stat (2014).

29. Petition ers make several claims related to the

availability of public utilities and other services to the

Property. The data and analysis show sufficient capacity for

roads, transportation, schools, water supply, wastewater

treatment, fire, emergency and police e ither already exists or is

contemplated in the Comp Plan to accommodate the development

authorized by the Proposed Amendments.

30. The preponderance of the evidence shows the Proposed

Amendments are supported by relevant data and analysis.

Urban Sprawl

31 . Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments do not

discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. Urban sprawl is

defined in section 163.3164(51) as Ða development pattern

characterized by low density, automobile - dependent development

with either a sing le use or multiple uses that are not

functionally related, requiring the extension of public

facilities and services in an inefficient manner, and failing to

provide a clear separation between urban and rural uses.Ñ

32. Petitioners contend the Property do es not qualify for

the presumption against urban sprawl under the criteria in

section 163.3162(4), but Minto did not rely on that statutory

presumption.

33. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments create five

of the 13 primary indicators of urban spra wl set forth in section

163.3177(6)(a)9.:

Promote s , allow s, or designate s for

development substantial areas of the

jurisdiction to develop as low - intensity,

low - density, or single - use development or

uses.

Promote s , allow s, or designate s significant

amount s of urban development to occur in

rural areas at substantial distances from

existing urban areas while not using

undeveloped lands that are available and

suitable for development.

Fail s to maximize use of existing public

facilities and services.

Allow s for land use patterns or timing which

disproportionately increase the cost in time,

money, and energy of providing and

maintaining facilities and services,

including roads, potable water, sanitary

sewer, stormwater management, law

enforcement, education, h ealth care, fire and

emergency response, and general government.

Fail s to provide a clear separation between

rural and urban uses.

34. The evidence presented on this issue by Petitioners was

inconsistent with generally accepted land use planning concept s

and principles. The Proposed Amendments do not promote urban

sprawl. They go far to rectify existing sprawl conditions in the

CWC.

35. Findings relevant to the five indicators have already

been made above. Compatibility with adjacent uses is discusse d

below.

36. There are ample data and analysis which show the

Proposed Amendments discourage urban sprawl. RespondentsÓ

characterization of the Proposed Amendments as the opposite of

urban sprawl is not unreasonable.

37. The preponderance of the evidenc e shows the Proposed

Amendments discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl.

Compatibility

38. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are

Ðincompatible with the lifestyle of the existing and surrounding

communities and adjacent agricultural and othe r land uses.Ñ

39. Protection of PetitionersÓ lifestyle cannot mean that

surrounding areas must remain undeveloped or must be developed in

a similar suburban sprawl pattern. Land use imbalances in the

CWC are rectified by the Proposed Amendments while pro viding

large buffers and a transition of land uses on the Property to

protect adjacent land uses.

40. The Acreage is more accurately characterized as

suburban rather than rural. Moreover, the Proposed Amendments

include a conceptual plan and development guidelines designed to

create a clear separation between urban uses on the Property and

less dense and intense external uses. Residential densities near

the perimeter of the Property would correspond to the density in

the Acreage.

41. The proposed distri bution of land uses and large open

space buffers would not establish merely an adequate transition.

They would provide substantial protection to adjacent

neighborhoods. A person at the periphery of the Property would

likely see only open space, parks, an d low - density residential

uses.

42. The distribution of land uses and natural buffers in

the Proposed Amendments provide more protection for external land

uses than the 2008 Amendments.

43. The more persuasive evidence presented indicates that

Petitioner s and other persons living near the Property would be

beneficiaries of the Proposed Amendments because they could use

and be served by the office, commercial, government, and

recreational uses that will be available nearby.

44. The preponderance of the ev idence shows the Proposed

Amendments are compatible with adjacent land uses.

Internal Consistency

45. The Comp PlanÓs Introduction and Administration Element

and FLUE contain statements of intent. They are not objectives

or policies. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are

inconsistent with some of the statements.

46. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are

inconsistent with the Introduction and Administration Element

statements discouraging growth to the west where services are not

adeq uate, do not provide for orderly growth or the provision of

facilities and services to maintain the existing quality of life

in an economical manner, and do not recognize countywide growth

management strategies or maintain the diversity of lifestyles.

Fin dings that refute this contention have been made above.

47. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are

inconsistent with several general statements in FLUE Sections

I A, I B, and I C. regarding respect for the character of the

area, protection of quality of life and integrity of

neighborhoods, prevention of ÐpiecemealÑ development, and

efficient provision of public services. Findings that refute

this contention have been made above.

48. Petitioners contend FLUE Policy 2.2.5 - d allows land

uses whi ch are inconsistent with the policies applicable to the

Rural Tier in which the Property is located. In the proposed

policy, the County exempts the Project from any conflicting Rural

Tier policies that would otherwise apply.

49. Under the CountyÓs Manage d Growth Tier System, the

tiers are the Ðfirst levelÑ land use consideration in the FLUE.

Therefore, it would have been helpful to amend the Rural Tier

section of the FLUE to indicate the exceptions to Rural Tier

policies for agricultural enclaves, in gen eral, or for the

Property, in particular. Instead, the Proposed Amendments place

the new wording about exceptions in the section of the FLUE

dealing with agricultural land uses. However, as stated in the

Conclusions of Law, where the exception is located in the

comprehensive plan is not a consistency issue.

50. The County has shown there are unique considerations

involved with the CWC that justify the exceptions. It also

demonstrated that the Proposed Amendments would accomplish

numerous objectives and policies of the Comp Plan that could not

be accomplished without creating exceptions to some Rural Tier

policies.

51. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are

inconsistent with FLUE Objective 1.1 - 3 because they encourage the

proliferation of urban sprawl. That contention has been rejected

above.

52. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are

inconsistent with FLUE Objective 1.1 - 6 because they do not

protect agricultural land and equestrian uses. The evidence

shows that agricultural and eques trian uses are enhanced by the

Proposed Amendments over the existing provisions of the Comp

Plan.

53. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are

inconsistent with FLUE Policy 1.1 - b, which addresses criteria re -

designating a tier. This policy is not applicable because the

Proposed Amendments do not re - designate a tier.

54. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are

inconsistent with FLUE Policy 1.1 - c, which requires the review of

the tier system as part of each Evaluation and Appraisal review.

Evaluation and Appraisal Reviews are no longer required by state

law.

55. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are

inconsistent with FLUE Policy 1.1 - d, which states a tier shall

not be re - designated if it would cause urban sprawl. This policy

is n ot applicable because the Proposed Amendments do not re -

designate a tier.

56. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are

inconsistent with FLUE Policy 1.4 - a, which requires the County to

protect and maintain the rural residential, equestrian , and

agr icultural areas within the Rural Tier. The Proposed

Amendments and Conceptual Plan increase the level of protection

for these uses over what is currently in the Comp Plan.

57. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are

inconsistent with FLUE Policy 1.4 - d, which generally prohibits

subdividing parcels of land within the Rural Tier unless certain

conditions are met. The Proposed Amendments do not subdivide any

parcels.

58. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are

inconsistent with FLUE Policy 1.4 - k, which addresses the

designation of Ðsending areasÑ for Transfer of Development Rights

(ÐTDRÑ). This policy only applies to parcels with a RR20 future

land use designation and there are no such parcels existing or

that would be created by the Propos ed Amendments.

59. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are

inconsistent with FLUE Policy 1.4 - l, which requires the County to

provide rural zoning regulations for areas designated Rural

Residential. The Property does not have any Rural Residential

designations.

60. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are

inconsistent with FLUE Policy 2.4 - b, which provides that the TDR

program is the required method for increasing density within the

County. The County applies this policy only to density in creases

in urban areas, because they are the only areas authorized to

receive TDRs.

61. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are

inconsistent with FLUE Objective 2.1 and some related policies,

which promote balanced growth. The preponderance of th e evidence

shows the Proposed Amendments will further this objective and its

policies because they correct the current imbalance of land uses

in the CWC and provide for a balanced mix of residential,

agricultural, commercial, light industrial, office, recr eation,

and civic uses.

62. Petitioners presented no evidence to support their

claim that Proposed Amendments would exceed the natural or

manmade constraints of the area.

63. Petitioners presented no credible evidence that

transportation infrastructure a nd other public services could not

be efficiently provided to the Property. The data and analysis

and other evidence presented show otherwise.

64. Petitioners contend there is no justification for the

increased density and intensity authorized by the Pro posed

Amendments. There was ample justification presented to show the

increases were needed to create a sustainable community where

people can live, work, shop, and play.

65. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are

inconsistent with FLUE Objectiv e 2.2 and some related policies,

which require development to be consistent with land use

designations in the Comp Plan. PetitionersÓ evidence failed to

show any inconsistencies. The Proposed Amendments are compatible

with and benefit adjacent land uses, as found above.

66. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments fail to

include Ðnew urbanismÑ concepts as required by section

163.3164(4) and Policy 2.2.5 - i. The evidence presented by

Respondents proved otherwise.

67. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are

inconsistent with FLUE Objective 3 and some related policies,

which address the provision of utilities and other public

services. Petitioners presented no credible evidence to support

this claim. The data and analysis and other evidence pr esented

show that public services are available or planned and can be

efficiently provided to the Property.

68. Petitioners argued the Proposed Amendments were

inconsistent with several other FLUE policies generally related

to compatibility with adjacent land uses and the provision of

public services, all of which Petitioners failed to prove as

explained above.

69. The preponderance of the evidence shows the Proposed

Amendments would not create internal inconsistency in the Comp

Plan.

CONCLUSIONS OF LA W

Standing

70. To have standing to challenge a comprehensive plan

amendment, a person must be an Ðaffected personÑ as defined in

section 163.3184(1)(a). Petitioners are affected persons and

have standing to challenge the Proposed Amendments.

71. Minto a lso qualifies as an affected person and has

standing to intervene in this proceeding.

Scope of Review

72. An affected person challenging a plan amendment must

show that the amendment is not Ðin complianceÑ as defined in

section 163.3184(1)(b):

ÐIn complia nceÑ means consistent with the

requirements of ss. 163.3177, 163.3178,

163.3180, 163.3191, 163.3245, and 163.3248,

with the appropriate strategic regional

policy plan, and with the principles for

guiding development in designated areas of

critical state co ncern and with part III of

chapter 369, where applicable.

73. The statutes listed in section 163.3184(1)(b) do not

include section 163.3162 or section 163.3164, which address

agricultural enclaves. Therefore, consistency with these

statutes is not relev ant to an Ðin complianceÑ determination.

74. Petitioners were allowed to proffer evidence in support

of their claim that the Proposed Amendments do not comply with

sections 163.3162 and 163.3164 for purposes of appeal. Their

evidence did not demonstrate non - compliance.

75. The 2008 Amendments are part of the existing Comp Plan

and are not subject to review or challenge in this proceeding.

See § 163.3184(9)(a), Fla. Stat. (2007) (providing third parties

21 days following publication of a notice of intent to find in

compliance to challenge plan amendments).

Burden and Standard of Proof

76. As the parties challenging the Proposed Amendments,

Petitioners have the burden of proof.

77. Palm Beach CountyÓs determination that the Proposed

Amendments are in com pliance is presumed to be correct and must

be sustained if the CountyÓs determination of compliance is

fairly debatable. See § 163.3184(5)(c) 1. , Fla. Stat. (2014).

78. The term Ðfairly debatableÑ is not defined in chapter

163. In Martin County v. Yusem , 690 So. 2d 1288, 1295 (Fla.

1997), the Supreme Court of Florida explained Ð [t] he fairly

debatable standard is a highly deferential standard requiring

approval of a planning action if a reasonable person could differ

as to its propriety.Ñ

79. The standard of proof for findings of fact is

preponderance of the evidence. § 120.57(1)(j), Fla. Stat.

(2014).

Meaningful and Predictable Standards

80. Comprehensive plans must provide "meaningful and

predictable standards for the use and development of land and

p rovide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed

land development and use regulations." § 163.3177(1), Fla. Stat.

(2014). Petitioners failed to prove the Proposed Amendments

violate this requirement.

Data and Analysis

81 . Section 163.3177(1 )(f) requires that all plan

amendments be based on relevant and appropriate data and an

analysis by the local government. The statute explains: ÐTo be

based on data means to react to it in an appropriate way and to

the extent necessary indicated by the d ata available on that

particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan

amendment at issue.Ñ £ 163.3177(1)(f), Fla. Stat. (2014).

82. Petitioners failed to prove the Proposed Amendments

violate this requirement.

Urban Sprawl

83. Section 163 .3177(6)(a)9. requires comprehensive plan

amendments to Ðdiscourage the proliferation of urban sprawl" and

sets forth 13 primary indicators of urban sprawl to be

considered. Petitioners failed to prove the Proposed Amendments

violate this requirement.

In ternal Consistency

84. Section 163.3177(2) requires the elements of a

comprehensive plan to be internally consistent.

85. It is not uncommon for laws, whether in the form of

statutes, rules, or policies of a comprehensive plan, to identify

circumstances which are excepted from the application of the law.

Creating an exception does not mean the law is in conflict with

itself. The exceptions from some Rural Tier policies created by

the Proposed Amendments for future development within an

agricultural encl ave do not create an internal inconsistency.

The location of the exceptions in the section of the FLUE dealing

with agricultural land uses does not change this conclusion

because the Comp Plan must be considered and applied as a whole.

86. The Legislatur e has expressed its recognition of the

need for innovative planning and development strategies to

promote a diverse economy and vibrant rural and urban

communities. See § 163.3168(1), Fla. Stat. (2014). The Proposed

Amendments would effectively address t his need.

Summary

87. Palm Beach CountyÓs determination that the Proposed

Amendments are in compliance is fairly debatable.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is

RECOMMENDED that the Department of Economic Opportunity

issue a final order determining the Proposed Amendments adopted

by Palm Beach County Ordinance No. 2014 - 030 are in compliance.

DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of April , 2015 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

BRAM D. E. CANTER

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675

Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Divi sion of Administrative Hearings

this 17th day of April , 2015 .

COPIES FURNISHED:

Ralf G. Brookes, Esquire

1217 East Coral Parkway , Suite 107

Cape Coral, Florida 33904

(eServed)

Gary K. Hunter, Jr., Esquire

Hopping, Green and Sams , P.A.

Post Office Box 6526

Tallahassee, Florida 32314

(eServed)

Tara W. Duhy, Esquire

Lewis Longman and Walker, P.A.

515 North Flagler Drive , Suite 1500

West Palm Beach, Florida 33401

(eServed)

Amy Taylor Petrick, Esquire

Palm Beach County Attorney ' s Office

301 North Olive Avenue, Suite 601

West Palm Beach, Florida 33401

(eServed)

Jesse Panuccio, Executive Director

Department of Economic Opportunity

Caldwell Building

107 East Madison Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 4128

(eServed)

Robert N. Sechen, General Counsel

Depa rtment of Economic Opportunity

Caldwell Building , MSC 110

107 East Madison Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 4128

(eServed)

Katie Zimmer, Agency Clerk

Department of Economic Opportunity

Caldwell Building

107 East Madison Street

Tallahassee, Florida 3239 9 - 4128

(eServed)

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

15 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

will iss ue the Final Order in this case.