STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

MARGARET H. CARR AND

FAYE L. WILLIAMS,
DOAH CASE NO: 22-3420GM
Petitioners,
v. Agency Case No.: 22-03ESR

CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA,

Respondent.
_____________________________________/

ALACHUA COUNTY’S MOTION TO INTERVENE

Alachua County, Florida, a charter county and political subdivision of the State of Florida

(the “County”), pursuant to Rules 28-106.204 and 28-106.205, files this Motion to Intervene in the

instant proceeding on the grounds that the County’s substantial interests are subject to determination

in, or will be affected by, the proceeding, and states the following in support:

1. On October 17, 2022, the City of Gainesville Commission (the “City”) adopted

Comprehensive Plan Amendment 22-03ESR (the “Amendment”). Any “affected person”

under section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes, may challenge a comprehensive plan

amendment by filing a petition with the Division of Administrative Hearings within 30 days

of the adoption of the amendment. The time to file a petition challenging the Amendment

runs on November 16, 2022.

2. An “affected person” is defined to include “adjoining local governments that can

demonstrate that the plan or plan amendment will produce substantial impacts on the

increased need for publicly funded infrastructure or substantial impacts on areas designated

for protection or special treatment within the jurisdiction.” Fla. Stat. §163.3184(1)(a).

Adjoining local governments are not required to have submitted oral or written comments

Filed November 16, 2022 4:29 PM Division of Administrative Hearings

 during the comprehensive plan amendment transmittal or adoption process in order to

qualify as an “affected person.” Id.

3. Despite not being required, the County submitted written comments to the City during the

transmittal and adoption process for the Amendment. Those comments, in part, identified

some of the County’s general concerns regarding compatibility. However, general land use

compatibility is not the full extent of the County’s concerns, and the Amendment creates

substantive impacts on the County’s publicly funded infrastructure, primarily the County’s

roadway network within the City.

4. The County owns and maintains 37 lane miles of County roadway within the City’s current

jurisdictional boundary. The roadways are multimodal collector and arterial facilities, which

provide a primary means of mobility to both County and City residents.

5. The Amendment at issue redesignates all “Single Family” areas within the City to the

“Residential-Low Density” Future Land Use Category. As a result, the Amendment

authorizes an increase in density to nearly double what is currently allowed under the “Single

Family” designation.

6. Impacts from the new development allowances and increased densities allowed by the

Amendment will necessitate capital improvements on the County’s roadway network. In

other words the Amendment “will produce substantial impacts on the increased need for

publicly funded infrastructure,” as anticipated by section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes.

7. However, the full extent of the impacts are currently unknown because the City did not

appropriately rely on or respond to relevant data and analysis regarding the impacts of the

Amendment on the County’s publicly funded transportation network.

2
8. One potential range of impacts was provided by the Florida Department of Transportation,

which provided comments on the Amendment that it will result in an additional 274,500

trips on the roadway network. This would undoubtedly affect the County’s need for publicly

funded infrastructure to accommodate such a substantial increase in trips.

9. The County is filing this Motion to Intervene within the 30-day window in which the County

would otherwise be entitled to file its own petition challenging the Amendment. Instead, the

County seeks to intervene in support of the Petitioner in order to streamline the process and

conserve the resources of the Division of Administrative Hearings, as well as the Parties.

10. To intervene in an administrative proceeding, the movant must sufficiently allege “that the

substantial interests of the intervenor are subject to determination or will be affected by the

proceeding.” Rule 28-106.205, Fla. Admin. Code.

11. As discussed above, the range of potential impacts caused by the Amendment will affect the

substantial interests of the County. The 37 lane miles of County roadway within the City

limits will likely be insufficient in their current form to accommodate the increased trips

logically created by nearly doubling the allowable density in large portions of land

throughout the City. As a result, the County would likely need to make capital improvements

on the County’s roadway network, including operational improvements for motor vehicles

and improvements to transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. This would have a negative

impact on the County, and require Intergovernmental Coordination between the County and

City for planning improvements to County roads within the City. Policy 7.1.6(b),

Intergovernmental Coordination Element, Alachua County Comprehensive Plan.

12. The County does not collect fees for transportation impacts caused by developments within

the City and has no way to mitigate or offset those impacts. Therefore, the development

3
 allowances and increased density authorized by the Amendment will affect the County’s

substantial interests in its publicly funded roadway network by necessitating unfunded

improvements to add the necessary capacity. Policy 1.1.7 of the Transportation Mobility

Element of the Alachua County Comprehensive Plan provides for a Mobility Fee for new

development to mitigate its impacts to the transportation system, but that only applies to

developments in the unincorporated areas of the County. Neither the County nor the City

have a mobility fee system that will mitigate the impacts of increased density allowed by the

Amendment and the burden will be suffered by the County and the public.

13. Additionally, the County also has a substantial interest in ensuring compatibility between

adjacent land uses. The City is centrally located within Alachua County and is nearly

surrounded by unincorporated land that has either been developed in accordance with the

County’s Comprehensive Plan or will be developed in accordance with the County’s

Comprehensive Plan.

14. While the County encourages dense development in the urban cluster surrounding the City,

the County has specific mechanisms in place throughout its Comprehensive Plan and land

development regulations to ensure that more dense or intense developments are compatible

with neighboring uses that are less dense and intense.

15. Neither the Amendment, nor the City’s Comprehensive Plan and land development

regulations, have comparable mechanisms in place to achieve compatibility between uses.

This will affect the County’s substantial interest of land use planning within the County’s

Urban Cluster.

16. Section 163.3177(1)(f), Florida Statutes, requires that comprehensive plan amendments be

based upon relevant and appropriate data and an analysis by the local government. The City

4
 has not relied on data and analysis regarding the full extent of potential impacts of the

proposed amendment. Additionally, the City has not appropriately responded to relevant

data and analysis provided by residents of the City during the transmittal and adoption

hearings. Specifically, data and analysis has not been provided regarding how the proposed

amendment would impact land use compatibility with surrounding existing and future land

uses, and particularly for those areas that are within unincorporated Alachua County. Also,

no data and analysis has been provided on the need for publicly funded infrastructure,

facilities, and services, some of which are owned, operated and maintained by Alachua

County within or adjacent to some of the areas affected by the Amendment. In the absence

of appropriate data and analysis, the specific impacts of the proposed amendment on Alachua

County cannot be determined, but the range of potential impacts shows that the substantial

interests of the County will be affected by the outcome of this proceeding.

17. Alachua County is opposed to the City’s adoption of Comprehensive Plan Amendment 22-

03ESR.

18. Pursuant to Rule 28-106.204(3), Fla. Admin. Code, the undersigned has conferred with

Counsel for Petitioners, Margaret H. Carr and Faye L. Williams, and counsel for

Respondent, City of Gainesville. Both counsel for Petitioners and Respondent consent to

the County’s Intervention in this matter based on the substantial interests of the County, but

Respondent City does not admit or consent to any additional allegations contained in this

Motion.

19. Granting the Motion to Intervene will neither prejudice Petitioner or Respondent, nor cause

a delay or hardship to any party since the Motion is filed within the statutory window for

filing a petition and no final hearing has been scheduled. In contrast, denying the Motion

5
 will prejudice Alachua County, as it will be unable to participate despite its substantial

interests being affected.

WHEREFORE, Alachua County respectfully requests that this Motion be GRANTED,

authorizing Alachua County to intervene on behalf of the Petitioner in the above-styled proceeding,

with all applicable rights.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 16th day of November 2022.

ALACHUA COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

/s/ Corbin F. Hanson

Corbin F. Hanson
Senior Assistant County Attorney
Florida Bar No. 99435
- and-
Sylvia E. Torres
County Attorney
Florida Bar. No. 57706
12 SE 1st Street
Gainesville, Florida 32643
Phone: (352) 374-5218/Fax: 374-5216
cfhanson@alachuacounty.us
storres@alachuacounty.us
cao@alachuacounty.us

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was electronically filed
with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings, and served electronically to the following
this 16th day of November, 2022:
Sean M. McDermott, B.C.S., Esquire Ralf Gunars Brookes, Esquire
Daniel M. Nee, B.C.S., Esquire Counsel for Petitioners
Office of the City Attorney ralf@ralfbrookesattorney.com
Counsel for Respondent
mcdermottsm@cityofgainesville.org
needm@cityofgainesville.org
swaniganac@cityofgainesville.org
whitecg@cityofgainesville.org
/s/ Corbin F. Hanson
Corbin F. Hanson
Senior Assistant County Attorney