18-003295 In Re: Petition To Establish The Harmony Ranch Community Development District vs. * Status: Closed Recommended Order on Wednesday, November 28, 2018.

Summary: Based on the record evidence, the Petition to Establish The Harmony Ranch Community Development District satisfied all of the applicable statutory requirements. Therefore, the Commission should formally adopt a rule establishing the District.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

IN RE: PETITION TO ESTABLISH

THE HARMONY RANCH COMMUNITY Case No. 18 - 3295

DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT

_______________________________/

REPORT TO THE FLORID A

LAND AND WATER ADJUD ICATORY COMMISSION

Purs uant to notice, Francine M. Ffolkes, an Administrative

Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH),

conducted a local public hearing in this case on September 5,

2018, in Hobe Sound, Florida. The purpose of the local public

hearing was to take testimony, public comment, and receive

exhibits on the Petition to Establish the Harmony Ranch Community

Development District (District). This Report is prepared and

submitted to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission

(Commission) for con sideration of whether to adopt a rule

establishing the District as requested by Hobe Sound Ranch, Ltd.

(Petitioner).

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Jonathan T. Johnson, Esquire

Vinette D. Godelia, Esquire

Hopping, Green, and Sams, P.A.

119 South Monroe Street, Suite 300

Post Office Box 6526

Tallahassee, Florida 32314 - 6526

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue in this proceeding was whether the Petition to

Establish the Harmony Ranch Community Development District

(Petition) meets the applicable criteria in chapter 190, Florida

Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 42 - 1.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On June 13, 2018, the Petitioner filed the Petition with

the Secretary of th e Commission. Prior to this time, the

Petitioner delivered the Petition and its exhibits, along with

the requisite filing fee, to Martin County, Florida (County). On

June 25, 2018, the Secretary of the Commission certified that the

Petition contained all required elements and forwarded it to

DOAH to conduct the local public hearing required under

section 190.005(1)(d).

The Commission additionally notified the Florida Department

of Economic Opportunity (DEO), which reviews the Petition for

compliance with DEO programs and responsibilities. DEO responded

that their review did not identify any inconsistencies with

chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes , or the County

Comprehensive Growth Management Plan (County Plan) .

The land within the District is located entirely within the

unincorporated limits of the County. Section 190.005(1)(c)

provides that the County containing all or a portion of the lands

within the proposed District has the option to hold a public

hearing within 45 days of the filing of a petitio n. The County

held its optional public hearing and decided to take no action

regarding the Petition.

Notice of the local public hearing was published in

accordance with section 190.005(1)(d). At the local public

hearing, the Petitioner presented the test imony, live and

written, of Phillip Brandt, chief financial officer of DiVosta

Investments, LLC, authorized agent for the Petitioner; Melissa

Corbett, P.E., president of The MilCor Group, an expert in civil

engineering and land development; George Gentile, senior partner

of Gentile Glas Holloway O ' Mahoney & Associates, an expert in

land development projects and comprehensive planning; and Peter

Pimentel, vice president of special district services, an expert

in district management and financial analysis. T he Petitioner ' s

Exhibits A through M were received into evidence.

Members of the public attended the hearing , and ten

individuals provided testimony. The Town of Jupiter Island

offered correspondence and comprehensive plan documents which

were received in to evidence at the hearing as Public Testimony

Composite Exhibit 1. On September 14, 2018, post - hearing public

comments were filed by the Town of Jupiter Island, Glenn and

Beverly Halstead, Robert B. Montefusco, John F. Sedwitz, and a

group of multiple ci tizens . In response to the public comments,

the Petitioner filed rebuttal affidavits on September 24, 2018.

On October 26, 2018, a letter was filed by the Town of Jupiter

Island, which was struck as a late - filed public comment by Order

entered November 6 , 2018.

The Transcript of the local public hearing, with exhibits,

was filed with DOAH on October 23, 2018. The Petitioner also

filed a Proposed Report of Findings and Conclusions on October 8,

2018, which was considered in the preparation of this Report .

References to the Florida Statutes are to the 2018 version,

unless otherwise noted.

FINDINGS

1. The Petition is for adoption of a rule establishing

the District, as described in the Petition. The District is

located entirely in the County and will cont ain approximately

2,717.2 acres.

2. The lands within the District are presently owned by the

Petitioner. There are no parcels within the external boundaries

of the District that are to be excluded from the District. The

Petitioner has provided written c onsent to the establishment of

the District.

3. The purpose of this proceeding was to consider the

establishment of the District as proposed by the Petitioner.

This included consideration of information relating to the

managing and financing of the servi ce - delivery function of the

District. This Report summarizes the evidence relating to each

relevant statutory requirement in section 190.005 .

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD

A. Whether all statements contained within the Petition

have been found to be true and cor rect.

4. Exhibit K consists of the Petition and its exhibits as

filed with the Commission and amended at the public hearing.

Mr. Brandt testified that he was familiar with the Petition, as

amended, and the exhibits, and that the contents were true and

correct to the best of his knowledge. Mr. Brandt testified of

one correction to his pre - filed testimony, which was amended

accordingly. Ms. Corbett testified that she is familiar with the

Petition and that she prepared or supervised the preparation of

Pe tition Exhibits 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 to Hearing Exhibit K.

Mr. Pimentel testified that he is familiar with the Petition and

that he prepared or supervised the preparation of Exhibit 8

to Hearing Exhibit K, the Statement of Estimated Regulatory

Costs (SERC) .

5 . The Petitioner demonstrated that the Petition and its

exhibits are true and correct.

B. Whether the establishment of the District is

inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the State

Comprehensive Plan or of the effective local gover nment

comprehensive plan.

Petitioner ' s Case - in - Chief

6. Mr. Gentile ' s expert testimony reviewed the proposed

District establishment in light of the requirements of the State

Comprehensive Plan (State Plan) found in chapter 187, Florida

Statutes. The Sta te Plan provides long - range policy guidance for

the orderly social, economic , and physical growth of the State by

way of 25 subjects, goals , and policies. Mr. Gentile identified

Subject Nos. 15 - Land Use, 17 - Public Facilities, and 25 - Plan

Implementations, as particularly relevant.

7. Subject No. 15 of the State Plan recognizes the

importance of locating development in areas that have the

resources, fiscal abilities , and service capacity to accommodate

growth. Mr. Gentile testified that the District is not

inconsistent with this goal because it will continue to have the

fiscal capability to provide a wide range of services and

facilities to a population in a designated growth area.

8. Policy 1 under Subject No. 15 promotes efficient

development activities in areas which will have the capacity to

service new populations and commerce. The proposed District will

be a vehicle to provide a high quality of infrastructure

facilities and services in an efficient and focused manner at

sustained levels over the long term.

9. Subject No. 17 of the State Plan calls for protecting

investments in existing public facilities and the timely,

orderly, and efficient planning and financing of new facilities.

Policy 3 under Subject No. 17 states that the cost of new public

fa cilities should be allocated to existing and future residents

on the basis of the benefits received. Policy 6 under Subject

No. 17 encourages the identification and implementation of

innovative, but fiscally sound and cost - effective , techniques for

financ ing public facilities. Mr. Gentile testified that the

proposed District would further this goal and related policies.

10. Subject No. 25 of the State Plan provides that

systematic planning shall be integrated into all levels of

government, with emphasis on intergovernmental coordination and

maximizing citizen involvement.

11. Mr. Gentile testified that there are also several

relevant policies under Subject No. 25, including Policies 2, 3,

6 , and 8. Policy 2 seeks to ensure appropriate operational

author ity in each level of government for the implementation

of the policy directives in the State Plan. Chapter 190 provides

the proposed District with operational authority to deliver basic

community services and capital infrastructure without

overburdening o ther local governments and their taxpayers. The

proposed District would provide infrastructure systems and

facilities for the acreage within the District without burdening

the general body of taxpayers within the County.

12. Policy 3 under Subject No. 25 seeks to provide

effective monitoring, incentive, and enforcement capabilities to

ensure that regulatory programs are met. Under section

189.08(2), Florida Statutes, the proposed District would submit

public facilities reports, including annual updates, with the

local general - purpose government. This facilitates an effective

monitoring program of the District by the County.

13. Policy 6 under Subject No. 25 encourages citizen

participation in all levels of policy development, planning , and

operations. Under chapter 190, the District would eventually

transition to a resident - elected Board of Supervisors, which must

hold its meetings in the sunshine under chapter 286, Florida

Statutes.

14. Policy 8 under Subject No. 25 encourages continual

cooperation am ong communities to bring the private and public

sectors together for establishing an orderly, environmentally,

and economically sound plan for future needs and growth.

15. Mr. Gentile testified that the District is not

inconsistent with any applicable pro visions of the State Plan.

16. Mr. Gentile also reviewed the District in light of the

requirements of the County Plan. Mr. Gentile testified that

chapter 190 prohibits a community development district from

acting in any manner inconsistent with the local government ' s

comprehensive plan. Mr. Gentile also testified that the District

would further some provisions of the County Plan, specifically

Goal 3.1 and Objective 3.1 of the Intergovernmental Coordination

Element that provide for coordination between th e County and

public entities and units of local government , a s well as Policy

14.1.B.2 of the Capital Improvement Element , which provides that

the County shall look to both existing and future developments to

provide public facilities through other levels of government and

independent districts. The proposed District would provide the

required infrastructure within its boundaries without reducing

the fiscal resources of the County. Financing for necessary

improvements would be paid for by the landowners a nd residents of

the District in the form of special assessments or non - ad valorem

assessments.

17. The proposed District would not be inconsistent with

any applicable element or portion of the County Plan.

Public Comments

18. Members of the public attend ed the hearing and filed

written comments in the record within ten days. These comments

addressed concerns that approval of the District would result in

increased densities and impacts to public facilities , such as

schools, emergency services , and roadway capacity in violation of

effective comprehensive plans.

19. Thomas Baird, Esquire, appeared on behalf of the Town

of Jupiter Island and testified that the property had previously

been the subject of two land use related applications which

sought increase d densities. Mr. Baird argued that while neither

application was approved, the Petition should be viewed as a

third attempt to increase density on the property and , further,

that the Petition could be an attempt to circumvent the County

Plan.

Petitioner ' s Rebuttal

20. Mr. Gentile introduced Petitioner ' s Exhibit M, the

approved master site plan for the property, which approves the

development of 126 single - family residential units. Mr. Gentile

testified that the impacts of the currently approved densities on

the master site plan were already contemplated by the existing

County Plan, which authorized a development density of 1 dwelling

unit per 20 acres (du/acre). Mr. Gentile also testified that

before actual development can take place on the property , the

applicant must petition the County for final site plan approval.

During that process, the County will evaluate concurrency issues ,

including those related to schools and emergency services.

21. Mr. Gentile testified that a community development

district is a unit of special - purpose government , and , under

chapter 190 , it has no authority to make zoning, land use,

density, or any development - permitting decisions that are

inconsistent with the comprehensive plan of a unit of general -

purpose government, such as the County.

22. Mr. Gentile testified that an elaborate process exists

under chapter 163 to accomplish changes to land use and zoning on

the property , and he was not aware of a circumstance where a

District was able to circumvent that process. See § 190.004(3),

Fla. Stat. ( " Community development districts do not have the

power of a local government to adopt a comprehensive plan,

building code, or land development code. " ).

23. DEO did not find any inconsistency with the County

Plan.

Conclusions

24. T he Petitioner demonstrated that the District would not

be inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the

State Plan.

25. The Petitioner demonstrated that the District would not

be inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the

Coun ty Plan.

C. Whether the area of land within the District is of

sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently

contiguous to be developable as one functional interrelated

community.

Petitioner ' s Case - in - Chief

26. The District will include approximately 2,717.2 acres,

located entirely within the unincorporated limits of the County.

27. Ms. Corbett, Mr. Gentile, and Mr. Pimentel provided

expert testimony that from engineering, comprehensive planning,

economic, and management perspectives, t he area of land to be

included in the proposed District is of sufficient size, is

sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be

developed as a single functionally interrelated community.

Public Comment

28. On behalf of the Town of Jupiter Isl and, Mr. Baird

testified that it is unreasonable to propose a community

development district of 2,717 acres to provide 129 dwelling

units. Mr. Baird questioned why, given the County Plan

designation of 1 du/20 acres, it would be prudent or necessary to

de liver community development services and facilities to an area

that the County Plan has identified as unsuitable for urban

densities or intensities.

Petitioner ' s Rebuttal

29. Mr. Pimentel testified that the majority of community

development districts are established in unincorporated areas.

Mr. Pimentel further testified that community development

districts are most frequently established in non - urban, rural or

unincorporated areas. He also testified that community

development districts are often the pri mary means of providing

infrastructure and community facilities to rural and

unincorporated developing areas and that such lands are often

outside of urban service area boundaries established by local

comprehensive plans.

Conclusion

30. The Petitioner dem onstrated that the proposed District

will be of sufficient size, sufficiently compact, and

sufficiently contiguous to be developed as a single functionally

interrelated community. No evidence was submitted indicating

that the area of land to be included i n the proposed District is

not of sufficient size, is not sufficiently compact, and is not

sufficiently contiguous to be developed as a single functionally

interrelated community, which is the pertinent factor. The

objections focused instead on the densit y of development within

the proposed District. Testimony and evidence regarding the

permitting and planning of the development is not material or

relevant in this proceeding. See § 190.002(2)(d), Fl a. Stat.

D. Whether the District is the best alternati ve available

for delivering community development services and facilities to

the area that will be served by the proposed District.

Petitioner ' s Case - in - Chief

31. The Petition states that the District would construct

or provide certain infrastructure imp rovements, including

stormwater management, roadways , and lake plantings.

32. Ms. Corbett, Mr. Gentile, and Mr. Pimentel provided

expert testimony that from engineering, comprehensive planning,

economic, and management perspectives, the District is the be st

alternative for delivering community development services and

facilities.

33. Ms. Corbett testified that as a unit of special - purpose

government, the District is more effective than typical property

owner associations in working with local general - purp ose

governments to ensure that necessary public infrastructure

improvements are provided in a timely and efficient manner.

34. Mr. Gentile testified that from a planning perspective,

establishment of a community development district over these

lands prov ides a perpetual local government capable of not only

delivering the improvements to the future residents of the

District , but also providing long - term, high - quality maintenance

of those same improvements.

35. Mr. Pimentel testified that installation and

maintenance of infrastructure systems and services by the

proposed District would be paid by imposing special assessments.

Use of such assessments would ensure that the real property

benefiting from District services is the same property which pays

for th em.

36. Mr. Pimentel further testified that there are three

alternatives for providing the infrastructure for necessary

services and facilities besides the proposed District. The first

alternative is for the County to build the entire infrastructure

and assume a great deal of responsibility related to the

oversight of day - to - day construction, maintenance, and management

of the proposed services and facilities and landowners of these

lands. This would increase the burden on County staff, divert

resources from other County developments and projects, and

indirectly force the residents of the entire County to pay for

these improvements. The second alternative is for a developer to

provide the proposed improvements using private financing. This

alternative d oes not provide any guarantee of a long - term,

consistent entity to oversee construction, maintenance, and

management of the proposed services and facilities. Also, a

private landowner is not subject to the same statutory safeguards

that the proposed Distr ict, as a public entity, would be subject

to, including public bidding on contracts and public access to

meetings and documents. The third alternative is a property

owner ' s association (POA). A POA is a more long - term and stable

entity that may be capabl e of providing the necessary maintenance

of dedicated improvements. However, a POA is not subject to the

same statutory safeguards as the proposed District. Also, a POA

cannot impose and collect its assessments in the same manner as

property taxes or Dis trict assessments.

37. Mr. Pimentel further testified that by comparison to

the three alternatives discussed above, the proposed District is

the best alternative available to provide for the management and

maintenance of various infrastructure improvement s. As a

special - purpose local government, the proposed District is a

stable, long - term public entity capable of maintaining, and

managing , the necessary infrastructure, facilities, and services.

38. The limited purpose and scope of the District, combined

with the statutory safeguards in place, such as notice of public

hearings and access to district records, would ensure that the

proposed District is responsive to the infrastructure needs of

the proposed District.

39. The proposed District would be able to impose non - ad

valorem assessments upon the property within the District to fund

maintenance of the infrastructure and related services.

Mr. Pimentel testified that the District allows for independent

financing, administration, operation , and maintenanc e of the land

within the District and allows District property owners to

completely control the District Board and, therefore, the timing

and extent of infrastructure development.

40. The District would construct certain infrastructure and

community faci lities needed by the property owners and residents

of the District. Expenses for the operations and maintenance of

the facilities the District retains are expected to be paid

through maintenance assessments. This ensures that the property

receiving the b enefit of the District services is the same

property paying for those services.

41. A community development district allows for independent

financing, administration, operations , and maintenance of the

land within the district and allows district resident s to

ultimately completely control the district.

42. Mr. Pimentel testified that the proposed District is

the best alternative to provide the proposed community

development services and facilities to the land included in the

proposed District. This is be cause it is a long - term, stable

entity capable of maintaining, and managing , the necessary

infrastructure, facilities, and services.

Public Comment

43. Mr. Baird testified that a community development

district is not the best alternative for delivering co mmunity

development and services and facilities to the " ruralest area of

western Hobe Sound . " Mr. Baird also stated in post - hearing

comments that the proposed District is not the best alternative

for the delivery of water and sewer services and that the

i mprovements proposed by the District would be priva te and not

public improvements.

Petitioner ' s Rebuttal

44. Ms. Corbett testified the District ' s necessary

infrastructure may be funded and constructed within an easement

granted to the proposed District an d that the provision of

stormwater ponds, landscaping, roads , and other improvements

within perpetual public easements owned by a community

development district is a common and usual method of providing

such improvements. Ms. Corbett and Mr. Pimentel test ified that

if a community development district provides these improvements,

the improvements are public since the districts are special

purpose units of local government and political subdivisions of

the S tate of Florida. As such, the districts are public entities

so that any improvements they provide are public improvements.

45. Mr. Pimentel testified that community development

districts are often utilized as an alternative means of providing

infrastructure to rural, unincorporated areas. Also, water an d

sewer improvements are not anticipated to be provided or funded

by the proposed District. The property is anticipated to be

serviced t hrough wells and septic tanks.

46. Mr. Pimentel also testified that the level of

improvements anticipated to be funded by the proposed District is

sufficient to justify the establishment of a community

development district and that districts have been established to

fund lesser amounts of improvements. In addition, the

establishment of the proposed District would not imp act any

existing utility service areas or territories.

Conclusion

47. The Petitioner demonstrated that the proposed District

remains the best alternative available for delivering community

development services and facilities to the area that will be

serve d by the District. Objections asserting that the Petition

failed to meet this factor relied upon arguments that the rural

location of the property, outside of an urban services zone, is

inconsistent with the customary location and use of community

develop ment districts. However, utility improvements and

services are not proposed in the Petition and are not relevant.

E. Whether the community development services and

facilities of the District will be incompatible with the capacity

and uses of existing lo cal and regional community development

services and facilities.

Petitioner ' s Case - in - Chief

48. Ms. Corbett, Mr. Gentile , and Mr. Pimentel testified

that the services and facilities proposed to be provided by the

District are not incompatible with the use s and existing local

and regional services or facilities.

49. Ms. Corbett, Mr. Gentile , and Mr. Pimentel further

testified that the services and facilities to be provided by the

proposed District are not currently being provided in the area by

the existin g local government.

Public Comment

50. Mr. Baird testified that the delivery of water and

sewer services by the proposed District is inconsistent and

contrary to the determination that South Martin Regional Utility

(SMRU), the Town of Jupiter Island ' s uti lity provider, is to be

the utility provider for the area within the proposed District.

Mr. Baird further testified that establishment of the proposed

District within SMRU ' s service area would authorize the District

to provide water and sewer services whi ch would not be compatible

with the capacity of water allocated to SMRU pursuant to its

Consumpt ive Use Permit.

Petitioner ' s Rebuttal

51. Mr. Pimentel testified that water and sewer

improvements are not anticipated to be provided or funded by the

District . Mr. Pimentel testified that arguments about the

availability of utility services and special assessment

mechanisms through the Town of Jupiter Island ' s utility service

territory are irrelevant to consideration of whether to establish

the proposed Distri ct. The proposed District is not expected to

fund or provide utility infrastructure or improvements as

outlined in the Petition.

52. Community development districts are routinely

established within the utility service territories of existing

public and p rivate utilities. Nothing about the creation of the

proposed District would alter the utility service territory of

the Town of Jupiter Island or its authority to continue to

provide such services.

Conclusion

53. The Petitioner demonstrated that the commu nity

development services and facilities of the District will not be

incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and

regional community development services and facilities. The

proposed incompatibility with the SMRU does not exist. The

land owner is not petitioning to provide utility infrastructure ,

and establishment of the District will not alter the SMRU service

territory.

F. Whether the area that will be served by the District is

amenable to separate special - district government.

Petitio ner ' s Case - in - Chief

54. As cited previously, from engineering, comprehensive

planning, economic, and special district management perspectives,

the area of land to be included in the proposed District is of

sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently

contiguous to be developed and become a functionally interrelated

community. Ms. Corbett testified that special - district

governance provides a mechanism whereby long - term maintenance

obligations can be satisfied by the persons primarily using the

facilities and services. Mr. Pimentel testified the proposed

District is a logical mechanism to oversee the installation of

capital infrastructure improvements necessary for community

development and that the land area is well suited for the

proposed services and facilities.

Public Comment

55. No public comments were received on this factor.

Conclusion

56. The Petitioner demonstrated that the area that will be

served by the District is amenable to separate special - district

government.

G. Other requ irements imposed by statute or rule.

57. Chapter 190 and chapter 42 - 1 impose specific

requirements regarding the P etition and other information to be

submitted to the Commission.

Elements of the Petition

58. The Commission certified that the Petition me t all of

the requirements of section 190.005(1)(a).

Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs (SERC)

59. Section 190.005(1)(a)8 . requires the Petition to

include a SERC which meets the requirements of section 120.541,

Florida Statutes. The Petition contai ned a SERC attached as

Exhibit 8.

60. Mr. Pimentel explained the purpose of the SERC, the

economic analysis presented, and the data and methodology to

prepare the SERC.

61. The SERC contains an estimate of the costs and benefits

to all persons directly a ffected by the proposed rule to

establish the District, the State of Florida and its citizens,

the County and its citizens, and property owners within the

District.

62. Mr. Pimentel testified that once the District is

established, the State of Florida and its citizens will incur

only modest administrative costs to review the periodic reports

required pursuant to chapters 189 and 190 and other law.

Specifically, the State of Florida will review the annual

financial report, annual audit, and public financin g disclosures.

To offset these costs, the Florida Legislature has established a

maximum fee of $175.00 to the DEO per year to pay the costs

incurred by the Special District Information Program to

administer the reporting requirements.

63. It is not antic ipated that the County will incur costs

in reviewing the Petition, as the Petitioner remitted a

$15,000 .00 filing fee to the County to offset such costs.

Mr. Pimentel testified that although the County elected to hold

an optional public hearing relative t o the Petition, the related

costs of the public hearing should not have exceeded the

$15,000 .00 filing fee and that the Petition contains all of the

information necessary for review and should not require

additional staff or capital costs.

64. The Petitio ner demonstrated that the SERC met all

requirements of section 120.541.

Other Requirements

65. The Petitioner complied with the provisions of

s ection 190.005(1)(b) by providing the County with a copy of the

Petition and paying the requisite filing fee pri or to filing the

Petition with the Commission.

66. Section 190.005(1)(d) requires the Petitioner to

publish notice of the local public hearing in a newspaper of

general circulation in the County for four consecutive weeks

prior to the hearing. The notice was published in The Stuart

News on August 8, August 15, August 22 , and August 29, 2018.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Based upon the record of this proceeding, it is concluded

that:

67. This proceeding is governed by chapters 190 and 120 and

chapter 42 - 1.

68. Thi s proceeding was properly noticed by publication in

a newspaper of general paid circulation in the County and of

general interest and readership once each week for the four

consecutive weeks immediately prior to the hearing.

69. The Petitioner met the req uirements of section 190.005

regarding submission of the Petition and satisfaction of filing -

fee requirements.

70. The Petitioner bears the burden of establishing that

the Petition met the relevant statutory criteria set forth in

section 190.005(1)(e).

71 . All portions of the Petition and other submittals are

completed and filed as required by law. All statements contained

within the Petition as amended are true and correct.

72. The establishment of the District is not inconsistent

with any applicable e lement or portion of the State Plan or the

County Plan.

73. The area of land within the District is of sufficient

size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to

be developable as one functional interrelated community.

74. The District is the best alternative available for

delivering community development services and facilities to the

area that will be served by the District.

75. The community development services and facilities of

the District will not be incompatible with the capacit y and uses

of existing local and regional community development services and

facilities.

76. The area to be served by the District is amenable to

separate special district government.

77. Based on the record evidence, the Petition , as amended,

satisfies all of the applicable statutory requirements.

Therefore, the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Commission,

should formally adopt a rule to establish the District as

requested by the Petitioner.

DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of November , 201 8 , in

Tallah assee, Leon County, Florida.

S

FRANCINE M. FFOLKES

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

File d with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 28th day of November , 2018 .

COPIES FURNISHED:

Cynthia Kelly , Secretary

Florida Land and Water

Adjudicatory Commission

The Capitol , Suite 1802

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0001

Jonathan T. Johnson, Esquire

Vinette D. Godelia, Esquire

Hopping, Green, and Sams, P.A.

119 South Monroe Street, Suite 300

Post Office Box 6526

Tallahassee, Florida 32314 - 6526

(eServed)

Nicholas Primrose, Esquire

(Attorney for the Commission )

Office of the Genera l Counsel

Executive Office of the Governor

The Capitol, Suite 209

400 South Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0001

(eServed)

Molly Weller , Agency Clerk

Transportation and Economic

Development Policy Unit

The Capitol , Suite 180 2

Tallahassee, Flor ida 32399 - 0001

(eServed)

Whitney D. Pidot, Mayor

Town of Jupiter Island

2 Bridge Road

Hobe Sound, Florida 33455

Peter Penrod, General Counsel

Department of Economic Opportunity

Caldwell B ui ld ing , MSC 110

107 East Madison Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32 399 - 4128

(eServed)