18-004203GM David Anderson, Keath Cuyler, Mitchell Goldberg, And Ronald Newmark vs. Ibis Road Investors, Llc; And Sarasota County, Florida
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Wednesday, February 20, 2019.


View Dockets  
Summary: The Petitioners did not prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance adopted by Sarasota County approving the Plan Amendment was not in compliance.

1STATE OF FLORIDA

4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

8DAVID ANDERSON, KEATH CUYLER,

12MITCHELL GOLDBERG, AND RONALD

16NEWMARK,

17Petitioners,

18vs. Case No. 18 - 4203GM

24IBIS ROAD INVESTORS, LLC; AND

29SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA,

32Respondents.

33_______________________________ /

35RECOMMENDED ORDER

37A duly - noticed final hearing was held in this matter on

49December 4 and 5, 2018, in Sarasota, Florida, before Francine M.

60Ffolkes, an Administrative Law Judge assigned by the Division of

70Administrative Heari ngs (DOAH).

74APPEARANCES

75For Petitioner s : Ralf Gunars Brookes, Esquire

83Ralf Brookes Attorney

861217 East Cape Coral Parkway, Suite 107

93Cape Coral, Florida 33904

97For Respondent Ibis Road Investors, LLC :

104Scott A. McLaren, Esquire

108Shane T. Costello, Esquire

112Hill Ward Henderson, P.A.

116Bank of America Plaza, Suite 3700

122101 East Kennedy Boulevard

126Tampa , Florida 33602

129For Respondent Sarasota County:

133Alan W. Roddy, Esquire

137Office of the County Attorney

142Second Floor

1441660 Ringling Boulevard

147Sarasota, Florida 34236

150STA TEMENT OF THE ISSUE

155Whether Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan Amendment

161Number 2017 - B (the Plan Amendment) adopted by Ordinance Number

1722018 - 006 (the Ordinance) is " in compliance , " as that term is

184defined under section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (201 8).

192PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

194On July 11, 2018, the Board of County Commissioners of

204Sarasota County (County) adopted the Ordinance. The Ordinance

212approved a privately initiated comprehensive plan amendment

219requested by the Respondent, Ibis Road Investors, LL C (Ibis

229Road). On August 8, 2018, the Petitioners, David Anderson, Keath

239Cuyler, Mitchell Goldberg, and Ronald Newmark, timely challenged

247the Ordinance under section 163.3184(5)(a) , alleging that the

255Ordinance violated two provisions of section 163.3184.

262The undersigned granted Ibis Road ' s Unopposed Motion to

272Intervene and granted it full party status as a r espondent on

284August 17, 2018. On October 15, 2018, the Petitioners filed a

295Notice of Striking Issue " II, " which limited the scope of their

306challenge t o whether the Ordinance violated section 163.3177(2).

315The parties filed a joint pre - hearing stipulation on November 28,

3272018. On December 4, 2018, the Petitioners filed Notice of

337Striking references to Policy VOS 2.5, which further limited the

347scope of t heir challenge.

352At the hearing, Petitioner David Anderson, through counsel,

360voluntarily dismissed himself as a p etitioner. Counsel for Ibis

370Road reserved the right to request attorneys ' fees. The

380dismissal was granted and later memorialized by Order date d

390December 7, 2018. Joint Exhibits 1 through 14 were admitted into

401evidence. The Petitioners presented the expert testimony of

409Thomas Hawkins, who was accepted as an expert in planning and

420comprehensive planning , as well as the fact testimony of Keath

430Cu yler , Mitchell Goldberg , and Ronald Newmark. Petitioners '

439Exhibits 1 and 17 were admitted into evidence. The County

449presented the testimony of Vivian Roe. Ms. Roe was not formally

460tendered or accepted as an expert but is an experienced

470professional plan ner , who testified as to her opinions on

480planning issues without objection. Roe , T r . pp. 182 - 83, 196 - 97.

495Ibis Road presented the testimony of David Anderson by videotape

505from his deposition; and Kelly Klepper, who was accepted as an

516expert in comprehensi ve planning. Ibis Road ' s Exhibits 2, 8, 17,

52926, 27, 28, 68, 69, 70, and 71 were admitted into evidence.

541The two - volume Transcript was filed with DOAH on

551December 19, 2018. On December 28, 2018, Ibis Road filed a

562motion for attorneys ' fees and costs, to w hich the Petitioners

574responded on January 2, 2019. The parties filed their proposed

584recommended orders January 2, 2019, which were considered in the

594preparation of this Recommended Order.

599FINDING S OF FACT

603The Parties and Standing

6071. Ibis Road is a limite d liability company that applied to

619the County for the comprehensive plan amendment adopted by the

629Ordinance, in conjunction with a Development of Critical Concern

638and a rezoning to Village Planned Development for a property it

649owns along Ibis Street in un incorporated Sarasota County. Ibis

659Road owns approximately 533 acres designated under the County ' s

670Village/Open Space (VOS) Resource Management Area (RMA) future

678land use overlay.

6812. The County is a political subdivision of the state. The

692County adopted the Ordinance that approved the Plan Amendment on

702July 11, 2018.

7053. Petitioner Keath Cuyler appeared and objected at the

714May 23, 2018, adoption hearing, and is a citizen of the County.

726Petitioner Cuyler resides at 8300 Ibis Street, Sarasota, Florida,

735lo cated in unincorporated Sarasota County, near and proximate to

745the lands that are subject to the Plan Amendment. Petitioner

755Cuyler testified he owns approximately 37 acres and shares his

765west and south property line with Ibis Road ' s property. He hunts

778on his property and likes its rural character. He i s concerned

790about traffic since the entrance to the Village Planned

799Development would be near his property, which now fronts on an

810infrequently used dirt road.

8144. Petitioners Mitchell Goldberg and Ronald N ewmark

822appeared and objected at the May 23, 2018, County adoption

832hearing and are citizens of Sarasota County. They co - own ten

844acres abutting Ibis Road ' s Village Planned Development. These

854Petitioners utilize their property for raising and riding horses.

863The entrance to Ibis Road ' s Village Planned Development is

874adjacent to their property and they are concerned that traffic

884and lights would disturb the horses and affect the rural nature

895of their property.

8985. Dismissed Petitioner David Anderson testified that he

906opposed Ibis Road ' s Village Planned Development because it would

917impact the rural character of his community, which was the reason

928he had moved fro m Washington, D.C. , to Florida.

9376. T he Petitioners and dismissed Petitioner Anderson

945deferred techn ical questions regarding the allegations of their

954chal lenge to their expert planner.

960The Comprehensive Plan

9637. The County ' s Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) adopted

973October 25, 2016, is the applicable version of the plan. The

984County ' s Comp Plan sets forth a listing of the material within

997it, entitled " The Components of the Plan. " This section outlines

1007seven categories of " Primary Components " of the Comp Plan and the

1018remainder of the document is classified as " support material, "

1027used to explain the Primary Components. The list of Primary

1037Components includes the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of each

1046chapter, and such other components as the Future Land Use Map

1057Series and the Future Thoroughfare Plan. The County ' s expert

1068witness testified that the Primary Components are used to

1077evaluate consistency with the County ' s Comp Plan. She also

1088testified that the support material is not used as criteria for

1099evaluating development proposals.

11028. The Future Land Use (FLU) Element of the County ' s Comp

1115Plan is divided into two chapters. Chapter 7 of the County's

1126Comp Plan contains the base or underlying FLU provisions and the

1137FLU Map. Under Chapter 7 of the County's Comp Plan , most of the

1150private land east of the County ' s Urban Service Area Boundary is

1163designated as e ither Rural with a maximum density of one dwelling

1175unit per five acres, or Semi - Rural with a maximum density of one

1189dwelling unit per two acres.

11949. Chapter 8 of the County's Comp Plan contains the

1204alternative FLU provisions called Sarasota 2050. Sarasota 2050

1212is a system designed to encourage preservation of open space by

1223allowing transfer of density into developments called Villages

1231and Hamlets. Sarasota 2050 allows owners of Rural or Semi - Rural

1243FLU designated property to develop at higher densities tha n

1253allowed under those FLU designations.

125810. Sarasota 2050 maps the unincorporated area of the

1267County as RMAs. Outside of the Urban Service Area, it shows RMAs

1279for " Publicly Owned Lands and Lands Protected for Preservation, "

1288the connecting environmental c orridors called " Greenways, " and

1296others. Map 8 - 3: RMA - 3 designates three large VOS RMAs outside

1310of the County ' s Urban Service Area Boundary for Village Land Use.

1323The three areas are referred to as the North Village Area,

1334Central Village Area, and South Village Area. Ibis Road ' s

1345property lies within the South Village Area.

135211. Within these Village Areas , there are multiple property

1361owners. Sarasota 2050 offers the property owners significant

1369density incentives , as well as opportunities for non - resident ial

1380development if they develop their properties according to the

1389Sarasota 2050 Village criteria.

139312. Approval of a Village requires rezoning to the Village

1403Plan Development zoning district and approval of a Village Master

1413Development Plan. Each Village must have at least one Village

1423Center. Villages have a minimum open space requirement of

143250 percent and the remainder of the Village is called the

1443Developed Area. The Developed Area is comprised of the Village

1453Center and the Neighborhoods. Each Neighbor hood has its own

1463Neighborhood Center.

146513. There may be several Villages within each Village Area.

1475The maximum size of a Village is 3,000 acres and the minimum size

1489is 1,000 acres. The long - range plan of the County, as reflected

1503in Sarasota 2050, is for all of the lands within each Village

1515Area to be developed as Villages.

152114. VOS Policy 1.3 provides that " Neighborhoods form the

1530basic building block for development within the [ VOS] RMA and are

1542characterized by a mix of residential housing types that are

1552distributed on a connected street system and the majority of

1562housing is within a walking distance or ¼ mile radius of a

1574Neighborhood Center. " Neighborhood Centers may have " a

1581combination of parks, schools, public type facilities such as

1590churches and or co mmunity centers and may contain Neighborhood

1600Oriented Commercial Uses that are no greater than 20,000 square

1611feet of gross floor area and internally designed to specifically

1621serve the needs of that Neighborhood . "

162815. Sarasota 2050 does not require that Ne ighborhood

1637Centers contain commercial or office development or that houses

1646in the Neighborhoods be within walking distance of commercial or

1656office uses.

165816. VOS Policy 1.2.A more specifically sets forth

1666requirements for Villages.

1669Villages

1670Villages are a collection of Neighborhoods

1676that have been designed so that a majority of

1685the housing units are within a walking

1692distance or ¼ mile radius of a Neighborhood

1700Center. Villages shall be supported by

1706internally designed, mixed - use Village

1712Centers (designed specifically to serve the

1718daily and weekly retail, office, civic, and

1725government use and services needs of Village

1732residents), and the Village shall be

1738surrounded by large expanses of Open Space

1745that are designed to protect the character of

1753the rural land scape and provide separation

1760between Villages and existing low density

1766rural development. The minimum size of a

1773Village is intended to be sufficient to

1780support a public elementary school.

1785There is no requirement that residential development within the

1794Vi llage be within walking distance of commercial or office uses.

180517. A table in VOS Policy 1.2.A sets forth the maximum and

1817minimum sizes , densities , and percentages of land uses within a

1827Village. Two asterisked footnotes allow deviations from the

1835table:

1836*Projects may be less than 1,000 acres of

1845Developed Area, if said project adheres to

1852the requirements found in Policy VOS2.1(a)1 ,

1858Developed Area Minimum Size.

1862**After an initial Village Master Development

1868Plan has been approved for a Village Area

1876(North, Central, South), the gross leasable

1882square footage may be reduced or eliminated

1889and the minimum land area percentages

1895adjusted for each additional contiguous

1900Village Master Development Plan within that

1906Village Area where it is demonstrated that

1913the non - re sidential needs of the Village will

1923be served within that Village Area in a

1931manner consistent with the purposes of this

1938chapter .

194018. Every Village must have a Village Center that includes

1950non - residential uses. In practice, not every Village Center was

1961r equired to include a commercial use, as described in the second

1973asterisked footnote to VOS Policy 1.2.A.

197919. The County ' s witness testified that an initial Village

1990in a Village Area was required to have a commercial component.

2001However, an exception could be made for reduction or elimination

2011of the commercial component for a new Village development in the

2022same Village Area. Each new Village subsequent to the initial

2032Village in a Village Area was evaluated to see if it could

2044support its own commercial use, or whether it could be supported

2055by the commercial component of other Villages in the Village

2065Area. In addition, the exception should be " consistent with the

2075purposes of [Chapter 8 of the County ' s Comp Plan ], " and the

2089subsequent Village was contiguous to the first Village .

209820. The Village Areas have multiple property owners. VOS

2107Policy 2.6 addresses the possibilities that the property owners

2116may apply for Village approval all together or in separate

2126Village Master Development Plans. When they apply for approval

2135separately, the policy provides that Village Master Development

2143Plans subsequent to the first one " may be considered as related

2154to the initial Village, " with no requirement for contiguity.

216321. The initial Village Master Development Plan sets a

2172f ramework for subsequent Villages in that particular Village

2181Area. This includes the location of the school, the commercial

2191center, and the primary road systems. The initial Village Center

2201is required to have a commercial component. When subsequent

2210Villa ges seek approval , the County evaluates how they would be

2221connected, so that they complement each other.

222822. LT Ranch Village was the initial Village approved

2237in the South Village Area, and it sets the framework for the

2249entire Village Area. It has a Vill age Center that includes

2260300,000 square feet of commercial retail development. A typical

2270Publix shopping center with a Publix and a few other in - line

2283restaurants and stores is approximately 60,000 to 80,000 square

2294feet. Subsequent Villages, such as that proposed by Ibis Road,

2304may be developed within the South Village Area. Where it is

2315shown that the commercial needs of subsequent Villages within the

2325South Village Area may be met by the LT Ranch Village Center,

2337subsequent Villages need not include a comme rcial component.

234623. The evidence established that Ibis Road provided a

2355market study to the County to show that the commercial needs of

2367its residents would be met by the LT Ranch Village Center. Thus,

2379except for contiguity, Ibis Road ' s Village developmen t is an

2391illustration of t he intent behind Sarasota 2050.

2399The Plan Amendment

240224. T he Plan Amendment would delete the word

" 2411contiguous " from the double - asterisked footnote exception in

2420VOS Policy 1.2.A. The Plan Amendment would apply to all

2430properties des ignated under the VOS RMA FLU overlay, i.e., in

2441each of the three Village Areas. The change would allow the

2452County to approve a reduction or elimination of commercial/office

2461uses within the Village Center of a Village subsequent to the

2472initial Village, wh ich is not contiguous with the initial

2482Village. To obtain this exception, the property owner would

2491still demonstrate that the initial Village already serves the

2500non - residential needs of the new Village, and the reduction is

2512otherwise consistent with the p urposes of C hapter 8 of the

2524County ' s Comp Plan.

252925. County staff reviewed the Plan Amendment for

2537consistency with the remainder of the Comp Plan, and specifically

2547referenced the original adoption of the double - asterisked

2556footnote in 2014. The staff repor t stated that " [t]he analysis

2567for the 201[4] amendment recognized that smaller subsequent

2575Villages may not be of sufficient size to support their own non -

2588residential uses (Village Center), and that the initial, larger

2597Village could provide sufficient non - r esidential services to

2607support the entire Village Area. " Thus, County staff concluded

2616that removal of the word " contiguous " from the double - asterisked

2627footnote " would not impede on the intent of Policy VOS 1.2.A. "

263826. On February 15, 2018, the County ' s P lanning Commission

2650held a duly noticed public hearing and received public comments,

2660reviewed the Plan Amendment, and by Resolution unanimously

2668recommended approval.

267027. On March 14, 2018, the Board of County Commissioners

2680held a duly advertised transmitta l stage public hearing pursuant

2690to Section 163.3184(3) and (15) and by Resolution approved the

2700Plan Amendment for transmittal to the Florida Department of

2709Economic Opportunity (DEO).

271228. DEO, the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council,

2720the Florida De partment of Transportation, the Florida Department

2729of Environmental Protection, the Florida Department of

2736Agriculture and Consumer Services, and the Southwest Florida

2744Water Management District reviewed the Plan Amendment and had no

2754objection to or comments on the Plan Amendment. The DEO reviewed

2765the Plan Amendment and determined there was " no provision that

2775necessitates a challenge of the Ordinance adopting the

2783amendment. "

278429. On May 23, 2018, the Board of County Commissioners held

2795a duly - noticed public h earing and took public comment. The

2807hearing was continued to the duly - noticed hearing on July 11,

28192018, at which time the Plan Amendment was adopted by the

2830Ordinance.

2831Petitioners ' Objections

283430. The Petitioners contend that the Plan Amendment is

2843inconsis tent with the purpose, intent , and core principles of

2853Chapter 8 of the County ' s Comp Plan , including VOS Objective 1,

2866VOS Policy 1.1, VOS Policies 1.2.A and 1.4 (the first, fourth,

2877sixth, seventh, and eighth bullet points), and the definition of

2887urban spra wl.

289031. Central to the Petitioners ' claims of inconsistency are

2900the concepts of compactness, walkability, interconnectedness, and

2907development with a mix of uses. The Petitioners ' expert witness

2918testified that removing the term " contiguous " caused

2925inconsi stency with the County ' s Comp Plan because it was

2937inconsistent with the concepts of a compact development that is

2947walkable, interco nnected, and has a mix of uses.

295632. " Walkability " to the commercial component of a Village

2965Center was a contention of the Pe titioners. The Petitioners '

2976expert testified that the rule of thumb for " walkability " was how

2987far one can walk in 15 minutes. He did agree with the County and

3001Ibis Road ' s expert witnesses that there is no requirement for

3013Neighborhoods to be within any fi xed distance of a Village

3024Center, no requirement of walkability from residential

3031development to the Village Center, and no requirement of

3040walkability from a residence to any commercial/office use.

304833. VOS Policy 1.3 requires that the majority of the

3058housi ng within a Village be within walking distance or one -

3070quarter mile of a Neighborhood Center, but does not require that

3081the Village Center be within walking distance fro m the

3091Neighborhoods themselves.

309334. " Walkability " is used with respect to Neighborhoods and

3102Neighborhood Centers, only the term " pedestrian friendly " is used

3111with respect to Villages. " Pedestrian friendly " means that a

3120range of pedestrian options are provided such as

3128bicycle/pedestrian facilities, larger sidewalks, multimodal

3133trails, access ibility, and lighting, the things that make it more

3144comfortable for the pedes trian or the non - vehicle user.

315535. The Petitioners ' contend that a Village Center must be

3166walkable from all areas of a Village. However, the allowable

3176maximum size of 3,000 acre s for a Village would not accommodate

3189the walkability describ ed by the Petitioners ' expert.

319836. There is no requirement in the County ' s Comp Plan for a

3212specific location of a Village Center. The evidence established

3221that in the South Village Area, the in itially approved LT Ranch

3233Village covers an area three or four times the distance from

3244north to south as it does from east to west and its Village

3257Center is located at the northernmost point. Based on the

3267allowable size of a Village and the lack of any re quirement as to

3281the location of the Village Center, " walkability " to the Village

3291Center would not be possible. For example, the distance from the

3302southernmost Neighborhood of LT Ranch Village to its Village

3311Center is about th ree and one - half to four miles .

3324A. The Core Principles and the Introduction

333137. The " Core Principles " of the Sarasota 2050 RMA system

3341are set forth on the first page of C hapter 8 of the County ' s Comp

3358Plan . This page generally describes the objectives of Sarasota

33682050, but these are not Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the

3379Comp Plan, and are not Primary Components of the Comp Plan. The

3391County views the " Core Principles " as support material that it

3401does not use to evaluate the consistency of development proposals

3411with the Comp Plan. The Petitioners ' expert conceded that the

" 3422Core Principles " provide context but should not be relied on as

3433the sole basis for a finding of inconsistency.

344138. Even if the Core Principles were a Primary Component of

3452the Com p Plan, they do not contain a re quirement regarding

3464commercial/office uses in the Village Center or proximity of

3473these uses to residences within the Village. Thus, the Plan

3483Amendment is not inconsistent with the Core Principles.

349139. The " Introduction " following the page of Core

3499Princip les is also viewed as support material rather than as a

3511Primary Component of the County ' s Comp Plan. It generally

3522describes Sarasota 2050 ' s purpose as an incentive system to

" 3533encourage[] a compact development form, " but does not address

3542commercial/office uses within Village Centers, or set forth any

3551standards that could be deemed inconsistent with the Plan

3560Amendment. Thus, the Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with

3569this support material.

3572B. VOS Objective 1 and VOS Policy 1.1

358040. VOS Objective 1 state s the objective of preventing

3590urban sprawl by guiding the development of lands outside the

3600Urban Service Area into compact, mixed - use, pedestrian friendly

3610Villages within a system of large areas of permanent open space.

362141. The Petitioners argued that t he Plan Amendment ' s

3632deletion of a contiguity requirement would be inconsistent with

3641VOS Objective 1. The Petitioners ' expert testified that

" 3650compact, mixed - use, and pedestrian friendly " to a layman meant

3661creating the ability to walk to a commercial use su ch as a

3674restaurant, as exemplified in a downtown or mixed - use area.

368542. However, VOS Objective 1 describes why Sarasota 2050

3694guides the development of land outside of the Urban Service Area

3705into " compact, mixed - use, pedestrian friendly Villages " and is

3715no t a categorical prohibition against urban sprawl.

372343. " Compact " is not defined in the County ' s Comp Plan.

3735The criteria for Sarasota 2050 Villages are that 50 percent of

3746the Village that is not open space is Developed Area broken up

3758into Neighborhoods wit h a majority of the housing within walking

3769distance of a Neighborhood Center, and at least one Village

3779Center. The Petitioners did not prove that excepting a second

3789Village from providing unnecessary commercial/office uses

3795violated the compactness of a Vi llage or the requirement for mix

3807uses.

380844. " Pedestrian friendly " is also not defined, but is more

3818a matter of pedestrian safety than proximity to particular uses.

3828The Plan Amendment does not prevent the Villages from being

3838compact, mixed - use, or pedestri an - friendly.

384745. VOS Policy 1.1 also requires a connected system of

3857roads encouraging alternative means of transportation such as

3865pedestrians, bicycles, and transit. Removal of the requirement

3873for one Village to be contiguous with another does not affect

3884achievement of this policy.

3888C. VOS Policy 1.2.A

389246. VOS Policy 1.2.A provides the general requirements for

3901Village development, including an internal, mixed - use Village

3910Center. As found above, the double - asterisked footnote was added

3921in 2014 to reduce or eliminate the requirement of a commercial

3932use within the Village Center where it is demonstrated that there

3943is already an existing Village Center within that Village Area

3953with a commercial component, and the commercial needs of the new

3964Village will be s erved by that existing Village Center " in a

3976manner consistent with the purposes of [Chapter 8 of the County ' s

3989Comp Plan ]. "

399247. The Petitioners ' expert admitted that the double -

4002asterisked footnote was an exception that allowed for greater

4011flexibility when approving Village developments without

4017undermining the other policies of the Comp Plan. The

4026Petitioners ' expert opined that removal of the word " contiguous "

4036from the double - asterisked footnote would be inconsistent with

4046VOS Policy 1.2.A because it would r esult in development of a new

4059Village without any non - residential land uses. However, the

4069double - asterisked footnote ' s exception would have that same

4080result whether or not the word " contiguous " was present.

408948. The County ' s expert witness testified that the

4099Plan Amendment did not result in an inconsistency with VOS

4109Policy 1.2.A, because the intent of the policy was that each

4120Village Area, not each Village, meet the daily and weekly non -

4132residential, including commercial , needs of the residents of the

4141Villa ge Area. Thus, deleting the word " contiguous " would no t

4152have a negative effect on this intent .

4160D. VOS Policy 1.4

416449. The Petitioners relied on bullet points within VOS

4173Policy 1.4. The Petitioners contended that the first bullet

4182point of VOS Policy 1.4 , which requires a mix of uses within a

4195Village, expressly mandated commercial development within every

4202Village. However, the Policy should be read in conjunction with

4212the double - asterisked footnote of VOS Policy 1.2.A. The double -

4224asterisked footnote pro vides for reduction or elimination of

4233commercial uses in a Village Center as described in the above

4244findings. The County ' s and Ibis Road ' s experts testified that

4257the Plan Amendment was not inconsistent with the first bullet

4267point of VOS Policy 1.4 because it only requires a mix of uses

4280within each Village, which can be achieved without having a

4290commercial use.

429250. The fourth bullet point of VOS Policy 1.4 expressly

4302provides that the Village Center must be conveniently served by

4312regional bus service. This language does not contemplate that

4321the Village Center must be a walkable distance from the

4331residences. The language does not require that every Village

4340Center have commercial uses.

434451. The Petitioners also relied on the sixth bullet point

4354of VOS Policy 1.4 referencing " compact design " of a Village

4364linking one Neighborhood to another. This language is specific

4373to the connections between Neighborhoods within a Village, not

4382the relationship of multiple Villages to one another. The

4391compact design within a Village is not related to contiguity

4401between Villages.

440352. The Petitioners relied on the seventh bullet point of

4413VOS Policy 1.4 to support their argument of internal

4422inconsistency. The language requires Villages to include

4429interconnected streets to balan ce the needs of all users. This

4440language is relevant to development within Villages, not the

4449relationship between one Village and another.

445553. Finally, the Petitioners relied on the eighth bullet

4464point of VOS Policy 1.4 to support their argument of inter nal

4476inconsistency. This provision calls for a Village to have

4485pedestrian - friendly components such as sidewalks, lighting, and

4494signage. This language addresses the development of the internal

4503components of a particular Village. The language is not releva nt

4514to the relationship between Villages.

4519Attorney s ' Fees

452354. Ibis Road did not prove by a preponderance of the

4534evidence that the Petitioners and dismissed Petitioner Anderson

4542participated in this proceeding for an improper purpose.

455055. Ibis Road did not prove by a preponderance of the

4561evidence that the Petitioners, dismissed Petitioner Anderson, or

4569the Petitioners ' attorney should be sanctioned for fil ing a

4580pleading, motion , or paper for an improper or frivolous purpose.

459056. There was an arguable basis f or the Petitioners ' claims

4602of inconsistency presented through the expert testimony of Thomas

4611Hawkins. Mr. Hawkins is a certified planner and was accepted as

4622an expert in comprehensive land use planning.

4629Summary

463057. The Petitioners did not prove beyond f air debate that

4641the Plan Amendment causes C hapter 8 , or any other portion , of the

4654County ' s Comp Plan to be internally inconsistent.

4663CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

4666Standing and Scope of Review

467158. To have standing to challenge a comprehensive plan

4680amendment, a person must be an " affected person " as defined in

4691section 163.3184(1)(a). The Petitioners are affected persons and

4699have standing to challenge the Ordinance.

470559. An affected person challenging a plan amendment must

4714show that the amendment is not " in compliance " as defined in

4725section 163.3184(1)(b). " In compliance " means consistent with

4732the requirements of sections 163.3177, 163.3178, 163.3180,

4739163.3191, 163.3245, and 163.3248.

4743Burden and Standard of Proof

474860. As the parties challenging the Ordinance, the

4756Peti tioners have the burden of proof.

476361. The County ' s determination that the Ordinance is " in

4774compliance " is presumed to be correct and must be sustained if

4785the County ' s determination of compliance is fairly debatable.

4795See § 163.3184(5)(c)1., Fla. Stat.

480062. The term " fairly debatable " is not defined in

4809chapter 163. In Martin County v. Yusem , 690 So. 2d 1288, 1295

4821(Fla. 1997), the Florida Supreme Court explained " [t]he fairly

4830debatable standard is a highly deferential standard requiring

4838approval of a planni ng action if a reasonable person could differ

4850as to its propriety. " The c ourt further explained, " [a]n

4860ordinance may be said to be fairly debatable when for any reason

4872it is open to dispute or controversy on grounds that make sense

4884or point to a logical d eduction that in no way involves its

4897constitutional validity. " Id. Put another way, where there is

" 4906evidence in support of both sides of a comprehensive plan

4916amendment, it is difficult to determine that the County ' s

4927decision was anything but ' fairly deba table. '" Martin Cnty. v.

4939Section 28 P ' ship, Ltd. , 772 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).

495363. Moreover, " a compliance determination is not a

4961determination of whether a comprehensive plan amendment is the

4970best approach available to the local government for ac hieving

4980its purpose. " Martin Cnty. Land Co. v. Martin Cnty . , Case

4991No. 15 - 0300GM , RO at 149 (Fla. DOAH Sept. 1, 2015; Fla. DEO

5005Dec. 30, 2015).

500864. The standard of proof for findings of fact is

5018preponderance of the evidence. See § 120.57(1)(j), Fla. Stat.

502765. Section 163.3177(2) requires the elements of a

5035comprehensive plan to be internally consistent. A plan amendment

5044creates an internal inconsistency when it conflicts with an

5053existing provision of the plan. " If the objectives do not

5063conflict, they are coordinated, related, and consistent. " Melzer

5071et al . v. Martin C n ty . et al. , Case Nos. 02 - 1014GM and 02 - 1015GM ,

5091RO at 194 (Fla. DOAH July 1, 2003; Fla. DCA Oct. 24, 2003). " If

5105an amendment expressly creates an exception or waiver to a

5115general rule set f orth in the plan, it does not create an

5128internal inconsistency. " Id. at 195.

513366. The Petitioners did not prove beyond fair debate that

5143the Plan Amendment was inconsistent with the goals, objectives,

5152or policies of Sarasota 2050.

5157Attorneys ' Fees

516067. Ibis Road did not prove by a preponderance of the

5171evidence that the Petitioners and the dismissed Petitioner

5179Anderson participated in this proceeding for an improper purpose

5188as defined under section 120.595(1) , Florida Statutes .

519668. There was an arguable basi s for the Petitioners ' claims

5208of inconsistency that was presented through the expert testimony

5217of Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Hawkins is a certified planner and was

5228accepted as an expert in comprehensive land use planning.

523769. Ibis Road did not prove by a preponder ance of the

5249evidence that the Petitioners, the dismissed Petitioner Anderson,

5257or the Petitioners ' attorney filed a pleading, motion, or paper

5268in this proceeding for an improper purpose as defined under

5278sections 120.569(2)(e) and 163.3184(9). See Friends o f Nassau

5287Cnty. v. Nassau Cnty. , 792 So. 2d 42, 57 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)( " The

5301reasonableness of a lawyer ' s actions in filing an administrative

5312petition should not be determined by the outcome of the

5322proceeding . . . the determination must be based on an objec tive

5335evaluation of the circumstances existing at the time the petition

5345was filed. " ); see also Mercedes Lighting & Elec. Supply v. State ,

5357560 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).

5365Summary

536670. The County ' s determination that the Ordinance is in

5377compliance is fair ly debatable.

538271. The Petitioners did not prove beyond fair debate that

5392the Ordinance is not in compliance.

5398RECOMMENDATION AND CONCLUSIONS

5401Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

5411Law, it is:

5414RECOMMENDED that the Department of Economic O pportunity

5422issue a final order finding the Plan Amendment adopted by the

5433Ordinance in compliance.

5436It is ORDERED that:

5440A. Ibis Road ' s motion for attorneys ' fees and costs under

5453section 120.595(1) is denied.

5457B. Ibis Road ' s motion for attorneys ' fees and co sts under

5471sections 120.569(2)(e) and 163.3184(9) is denied.

5477DONE AND ENTERED this 20 th day of February , 2019 , in

5488Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

5492S

5493FRANCINE M. FFOLKES

5496Administrative Law Judge

5499Division of Administrativ e Hearings

5504The DeSoto Building

55071230 Apalachee Parkway

5510Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

5515(850) 488 - 9675

5519Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

5525www.doah.state.fl.us

5526Filed with the Clerk of the

5532Division of Administrative Hearings

5536this 20 th day of February , 2019 .

5544COPIES FURNISHED:

5546Ralf Gunars Brookes, Esquire

5550Ralf Brookes Attorney

55531217 East Cape Coral Parkway , Suite 107

5560Cape Coral, Florida 33904

5564(eServed)

5565Alan W. Roddy, Esquire

5569Office of the County Attorney

5574Second Floor

55761660 Ringling Boulevard

5579Sarasota, Florida 34236

5582(eServed)

5583Scott A. McLaren, Esquire

5587Shane T. Costello, Esquire

5591Hill Ward Henderson, P.A.

5595Bank of America Plaza, Suite 3700

5601101 East Kennedy Boulevard

5605Tampa, Florida 33602

5608(eServed)

5609William Chorba, General Counsel

5613Department of Economic Opportunity

5617C aldwell Building, MSC 110

5622107 East Madison Street

5626Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 4128

5631(eServed)

5632Ken Lawson, Executive Director

5636Department of Economic Opportunity

5640Caldwell Building

5642107 East Madison Street

5646Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 4128

5651(eServed)

5652Stephanie Webster, Agency Clerk

5656Department of Economic Opportunity

5660Caldwell Building

5662107 East Madison Street

5666Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 4128

5671(eServed)

5672NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

5678All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

568815 days fro m the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

5700to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

5711will issue the Final Order in this case.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 04/16/2019
Proceedings: Agency Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/15/2019
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 02/20/2019
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 02/20/2019
Proceedings: Recommended Order (hearing held December 4 and 5, 2018). CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 02/20/2019
Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
PDF:
Date: 01/04/2019
Proceedings: Respondent Ibis Road Investors, LLC's Objection to Petitioners' Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/02/2019
Proceedings: Response to Ibis Motion for Attorneys Fees filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/02/2019
Proceedings: Respondent Sarasota County's Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/02/2019
Proceedings: Respondent Ibis Road Investors, LLC's Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/02/2019
Proceedings: Petitioners' Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/02/2019
Proceedings: Notice of DOAH Holiday Affecting Stipulated Filing Deadline (now January 2, 2019) filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/28/2018
Proceedings: Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/27/2018
Proceedings: Stipulation as to Correct Date of Filing of Proposed Recommended Orders filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/27/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Compliance with Order of Referral to Mediation filed (FILED IN ERROR)
PDF:
Date: 12/19/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Transcript.
PDF:
Date: 12/18/2018
Proceedings: Ibis Road Investors, LLCs Amended Notice of Filing (Trial Transcripts) filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/17/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Transcript.
PDF:
Date: 12/17/2018
Proceedings: Ibis Road Investors, LLC's Notice of Filing (Trial Transcripts) filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/10/2018
Proceedings: Objection to Ibis Notice of Filing Ibis's Accompanying Materials filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/10/2018
Proceedings: Ibis Road Investors, LLC's Notice of Filing (amended Pre-hearing Brief and Accompanying Materials) filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/07/2018
Proceedings: Order Dismissing Petitioner David Anderson.
Date: 12/04/2018
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 12/04/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Striking References to Policy VOS 2.5 filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/03/2018
Proceedings: Response to IBIS Amended Initial Brief/Initial Brief filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/03/2018
Proceedings: Amended Pre-hearing Brief filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/03/2018
Proceedings: Pre-hearing Brief filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/28/2018
Proceedings: Pre-hearing Stipulation filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/19/2018
Proceedings: Report of Pre-hearing Conference filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/14/2018
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Hearing (hearing set for December 4 and 5, 2018; 9:00 a.m.; Sarasota, FL; amended as to hearing location).
PDF:
Date: 11/06/2018
Proceedings: Respondent, Ibis Road Investors, LLC's Responses and Objections to Petitioners' Request for Production filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/05/2018
Proceedings: Sarasota County's Response to Petitioners' Request for Production filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/01/2018
Proceedings: Respondent Ibis Road Investors, LLC's Notice of Service of Amended Responses and Objections to Petitioners' First Set of Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/22/2018
Proceedings: Sarasota County's Notice of Filing Answers to Petitioners' First Set of Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/19/2018
Proceedings: Respondent, Ibis Road Investors, LLC's, Notice of Serving Responses and Objections to Petitioners' First Set of Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/15/2018
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Taking Videotaped Deposition Duces Tecum of W. Thomas Hawkins, Esq. filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/15/2018
Proceedings: (Petitioners) Notice of Striking Issue "II" filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/05/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Service: Petitioners', Rrequest for Production to Respondent, IBIS Road Investors, LLC and Petitioners' Request for Production to Respondent, Sarasota County filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/02/2018
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Taking Videotaped Depositions of Petitioners filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/28/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Service: Petitioner's Responses to Respondent's Interrogatories and Request for Production filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/26/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Videotaped Deposition Duces Tecum of W. Thomas Hawkins, Esq. filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/18/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Service: Petitioners' First Set of Interrogatories to Respondent, Ibis Road Investors, LLC and Petitioners' First Set of Interrogatories to Respondent, Sarasota County filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/12/2018
Proceedings: Order Denying Motion for Expedited Discovery.
PDF:
Date: 09/10/2018
Proceedings: Respondent Ibis Road Investors, LLC's Motion to Expedite Discovery filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/07/2018
Proceedings: Respondent Ibis Road Investors, LLC's Answer and Defenses to Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/31/2018
Proceedings: Respondent, Ibis Road Investors, LLC's, Notice of Service of First Sets of Interrogatories to Petitioners filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/31/2018
Proceedings: Respondent, Ibis Road Investors, LLC's, First Request for Production to Petitioner, Ronald Newmark filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/31/2018
Proceedings: Respondent, Ibis Road Investors, LLC's, First Request for Production to Petitioner, Mitchell Goldberg filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/31/2018
Proceedings: Respondent, Ibis Road Investors, LLC's, First Request for Production to Petitioner, Keath Cuyler filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/31/2018
Proceedings: Respondent, Ibis Road Investors, LLC's, First Request for Production to Petitioner, David Anderson filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/31/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Depositions of Petitioners filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/29/2018
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
PDF:
Date: 08/29/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for December 4 and 5, 2018; 9:00 a.m.; Sarasota, FL).
PDF:
Date: 08/24/2018
Proceedings: Parties' Collective Response to Initial Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/21/2018
Proceedings: Petitioner's Response to Initial Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/20/2018
Proceedings: Proposed Order Granting Unopposed Motion for Leave to Intervene filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/20/2018
Proceedings: Order Granting Party Status and Amending Caption.
PDF:
Date: 08/17/2018
Proceedings: Unopposed Motion for Leave to Intervene (Corrected to add attorney's signature only) (filed by Ibis Road Investors, LLC.) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/17/2018
Proceedings: Unopposed Motion for Leave to Intervene (filed by Ibis Road Investors, LLC.) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/16/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Alan Roddy) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/13/2018
Proceedings: Initial Order.
PDF:
Date: 08/10/2018
Proceedings: Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing filed.

Case Information

Judge:
FRANCINE M. FFOLKES
Date Filed:
08/10/2018
Date Assignment:
08/13/2018
Last Docket Entry:
04/16/2019
Location:
Sarasota, Florida
District:
Middle
Agency:
ADOPTED IN TOTO
Suffix:
GM
 

Counsels

Related Florida Statute(s) (8):