15-000704DRI Department Of Economic Opportunity vs. Lake County And Rubin Groves Of Clermont, Llc Status: Closed Recommended Order on Friday, August 21, 2015.

Summary: DEO proved that Lake County's proposed development order was inconsistent with the Lake County Comprehensive Plan and land use regulations.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC

OPPORTUNITY,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 15 - 0704

LAKE COUNTY AND RUBIN GROVES OF

CLERMONT, LLC,

Respondents.

_______________________________/

RECOMMENDED ORD ER

The final hearing in this case was held May 20 and 21, 2015,

in Tavares, Florida, before Bram D. E. Canter, Administrative Law

Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings (ÐDOAHÑ).

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Aaron C. Dunlap, Esquire

Departme nt of Economic Opportunity

Office of the General Counsel

Caldwell Building, MSC 110

107 East Madison Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 4128

For Respondent Rubin Groves of Clermont, LLC:

Jimmy D. Crawford, Esquire

Merideth Nagel, PA

1201 We st Highway 50

Clermont, Florida 34711

Harry Hackney, Esquire

Campione & Hackney, P.A.

2750 Dora Avenue

Tavares, Florida 32778

For Respondent Lake County:

Erin Hartigan, Esquire

Office of the Lake County Attorney

315 West Main Stree t

Tavares, Florida 32778

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE S

The issues to be determined in this case are whether a

development order approved by Lake County is consistent with the

Lake County Comprehensive Plan, the Lake County land development

regulations, and the Principles for Guiding Development in the

Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On January 28, 2014, the Lake County Board of County

Commissioners adopted Ordinance 2014 - 7, which approved a

development order for property o wned by Respondent Rubin Groves

of Clermont, LLC (ÐRubin GrovesÑ). Petitioner Department of

Economic Opportunity (ÐDEOÑ) filed an appeal to the Florida Land

and Water Adjudicatory Commission, which then referred the matter

to DOAH to conduct an evidentiar y hearing and issue a recommended

order.

At the final hearing, DEO presented the testimony of Rebecca

Jetton, Administrator for Areas of Critical State Concern at DEO;

Rick Hartenstein, Senior Land Use Planner with Lake County;

Dr. Jonathan Arthur, State Geologist and Director of the Florida

Geological Survey, accepted as an expert in geology and

hydrogeology; Dr. Stuart Norton, Florida Geologic Survey

Environmental Consultant, accepted as an expert in geology and

hydrogeology; and Dr. Samuel Upchurch, Vic e President and Senior

Principle Geologist at SDII Global Corporation, accepted as an

expert in geology and hydrogeology. DEO Exhibits 1 through 24

were admitted into evidence.

Rubin Groves presented the testimony of Sheldon Rubin, the

owner of Rubin Gro ves; Kenneth Randall Wicks, accepted as an

expert in civil engineering and site development and design;

Nicholas Andreyev, accepted as an expert in groundwater modeling

as it relates to stormwater, and groundwater engineering; William

A. Ray, accepted as a n expert in planning, environmental studies,

and natural science; Fred Schneider, County Engineer; and Harvey

Harper, accepted as an expert in stormwater and water quality.

Rubin GrovesÓ Exhibits 1 through 3 and 5 through 18 were admitted

into evidence.

Lake County presented no witnesses and offered no exhibits.

The four - volume Transcript of the final hearing was filed

with DOAH. The parties filed P roposed R ecommended O rders which

were considered by the Administrative Law Judge in preparing this

Recomme nded Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Parties

1. Petitioner DEO is the state land planning agency with

the authority and responsibility to review development orders

issued in Areas of Critical State Concern.

2. Respondent Lake County is a political sub division of the

State with jurisdiction over the affected property.

3. Respondent Rubin Groves is a Florida limited liability

company doing business in Lake County. Rubin Groves is the owner

of the approximate 131 acres in Lake County (Ðthe PropertyÑ) o n

which development was approved by the Ordinance.

Background

4. The Property is located within the Green Swamp Area of

Critical State Concern and more particularly within the Lake

Wales Ridge. The PropertyÓs future land use designation under

the Lake County Comprehensive Plan is Green Swamp Ridge.

5. The topography of the Property is generally a hill,

bounded by U.S Highway 27 to the east, a wetland to the west, and

properties approved for mixed - use residential uses to the north.

6. Existing elevatio ns are approximately 130 feet NGVD at

the wetland on the western boundary of the Property, 140 feet

NGVD on eastern boundary at U.S. 27, with the top of the hill in

the center portion of the property at an elevation of about 180

feet NGVD.

7. In June 2010 , Rubin Groves filed a pre - submittal

application with Lake County that proposed a borrow pit (mining)

operation for the Property. The County informed Rubin Groves

that mining was prohibited in the Green Swamp Ridge and

Rubin Groves took no further action on the pre - submittal

application.

8. In February 2013, Lake County approved Rubin GrovesÓ

application to rezone the Property. Ordinance No. 2013 - 8 rezoned

the Property from Agricultural to Planned Unit Development

(ÐPUDÑ), allowing a mixed - use developme nt of 490 single - family

residential units and 24.54 acres of commercial uses.

9. Less than a year later, Rubin Groves applied to amend

the PUD to allow Ðmass gradingÑ of the Property to make it

relatively level to accommodate a residential development fo r the

elderly and disabled (mobility - impaired).

10. The Mass Grading Plan calls for removing 2.4 to 3.0

million cubic yards of sand from the Property. The average cut

or change in elevation would be 11 to 12 feet. The deepest cut,

near the center of the Property, would be about 30 feet.

11. The contractor that Rubin Groves would hire to extract

and remove the sand from the Property would sell the sand and the

income would be applied to offset the costs charged to Rubin

Groves for the work.

12. The Lake County Community Design staff recommended

denial of the application based upon the following: (1) the

activities proposed in the Mass Grading Plan constitute mining;

(2) mining is prohibited in the Green Swamp Ridge future land use

category in the Lake C ounty Comprehensive Plan (ÐComp PlanÑ); (3)

the Mass Grading would result in the property's elevation being

lowered more than the 10 - foot limit in the Lake County Code; (4)

the applicant failed to demonstrate that the Mass Grading Plan was

necessary to dev elop the site; and (5) the Mass Grading Plan did

not comply with the Green Swamp Principles for Guiding

Development, sections (1), (2) (7) and (10).

1 3 . On January 28, 2014, the Board of County Commissioners

of Lake County approved the rezoning applicatio n, including the

Mass Grading Plan, through the adoption of Ordinance No. 2014 - 7.

Whether Sand Mining is Allowed in the Green Swamp Ridge

1 4 . In the previous version of the Comp Plan, mining was

expressly prohibited in the Green Swamp Ridge future land use

category.

1 5 . In the current Comp Plan, there are four future land

use categories established within the Green Swamp: Green Swamp

Ridge, Green Swamp Rural, Green Swamp Rural/Conservation, and

Green Swamp Core/Conservation. For each category, the Com p Plan

lists ÐTypical UsesÑ and ÐTypical Uses Requiring a Conditional

Use Permit.Ñ

1 6 . Mining is not listed as a typical use in any category,

and it is not similar to any listed typical use.

1 7 . In all categories except Green Swamp Ridge, sand mining

is listed as a typical use requiring a conditional use permit.

1 8 . The format of these Comp Plan provisions, together with

the fact that sand mining was expressly prohibited in the

previous version of the Comp Plan, plainly indicates that sand

mining is not an allowed use in the Green Swamp Ridge future land

use category.

Whether the Proposed Mass Grading is Mining

19 . The Comp Plan defines ÐMining ActivitiesÑ as:

The mining of materials, ore or other

naturally occurring materials from the earth

by whatever method, including the removal of

overburden for the purpose of extracting and

removing from the site such underlying

deposits and all associated clearing, grading,

construction, processing, transportation and

reclamation on the property, and includes the

term pre - mining activities and lake creation

but shall not be deemed to include activities

associated with site surveying, environmental

monitoring, mineral exploration or the sinking

or operation of test wells and similar

activities.

2 0 . Section 6.06.0 1(F) of the Lake County Code creates

eight exemptions to the requirement to obtain a mining

conditional use permit and they are activities not commonly

considered to be mining. For example, excavating and removing

dirt to install a swimming pool does not require a mining

conditional use permit. Excavating and removing dirt to install

a swimming pool is not commonly considered to be a mining

activity.

2 1 . The broad definition in the Comp Plan could allow for

absurd applications, contrary to its ordinary meaning, if the

term was interpreted to mean the removal of any amount of

material from the ground for any purpose. The definition of

Ðmining activitiesÑ must be read in conjunction with section

6.06.01(F) of the Lake County Code and the latter, along wit h

common sense, provide guidance for what is mining.

2 2 . It is not mining to excavate soil to install a swimming

pool because mining is commonly understood to involve more than

the excavation of a small amount of material in a small amount of

time. Mini ng is commonly understood to be an ongoing business of

extracting and selling a large volume of material.

2 3 . One of the exemptions from the requirement to obtain a

mining conditional use permit is excavation associated with

construction activities:

Exca vation in conjunction with bona fide

commercial, industrial or Subdivision

Construction provided a Construction approval

or Building Permit has been obtained from the

County and Excavation is completed and

Construction initiated within a reasonable

period of time from the date that Excavation

is initiated. Said time period shall be

determined by the County based upon the type

of Construction and shall be indicated on the

written exemption document. Excess Overburden

generated as a result of the bona fide

Construction may be Removed offsite only as

follows:

a. Excess overburden generated as a result of

the bona fide Construction may be removed

offsite so long as the County Manager or

designee is provided written notice during

Construction approval or Buil ding Permit

application process and so long as the total

amount of material removed offsite is not

greater than two hundred (200) percent of the

minimum stormwater retention/detention volume

required.

b. If the [200 percent limit] is exceeded or

excavati on is not storm water related, the

County Manager or designee may give approval

for removal of such excess Overburden if the

applicant shows that removal of such excess

Overburden is necessary for development of the

Site due to physical factors of the Land or

Permitting requirements from a governmental

agency. In making this decision, the County

Manager or designee shall consider the

following factors:

(1) Unique physical characteristics and

topography of the Land involved;

(2) Engineering and environm ental factors

requiring overburden removal;

(3) Whether excavation and removal of

Overburden is necessary for access to the

property;

(4) Permitting requirements of state, local

and federal governmental agencies; or

(5) Such other matters that may be deemed

appropriate by the County Manager or designee.

2 4 . Rubin Groves proposes to remove much more than 200

percent of the volume needed for stormwater retention/detention .

Rubin Grove says it intends to seek the approval of the County

Manager for exe mption from the requirement to obtain a mining

conditional use permit. However, a s noted above, Ordinance

2014 - 7 approves the Mass Grading Plan and, therefore, already

authorizes Rubin Groves to exceed the 200 percent criterion.

2 5 . Rubin Groves believes it qualifies for the exemption

for excavation associated with construction because of its need

to level the Property to make the subdivision suitable for

mobility - impaired residents. However, that explanation falls

short of demonstrating necessity becaus e it does not explain why

the Property could not be leveled by moving sand from higher

areas of the Property to lower areas. Rubin Groves did not

explain why so much sand has to be removed from the Property, but

there is some evidence indicating the reaso n is to allow the

residential development to be constructed upon the deeper soils

that are denser and more stable.

2 6 . The exemption for bona fide construction activities,

like the other activities exempted in Section 6.06.01(F) is not

intended to allow m ining. The Mass Grading Plan i s sand mining

because it involve s activities that are indistinguishable from

the business of sand mining.

2 7 . The estimated volume of sand to be removed, 2.4 to 3.0

million cubic yards, equates to 133,333 to 166,666 truckloa ds of

sand.

28 . One of Rubin Groves Ó experts stated that, if there was

a road construction project which needed the sand, Rubin Groves

might be able to extract and haul away the sand in nine or ten

months. However, even at the lower figure of 133,333 tru ckloads,

removal in 10 months would amount to about 444 truckloads per day

with no days off; an ambitious pace. It is more reasonable to

believe removal of the sand would take over a year to complete,

perhaps much longer if there are no suitable road proj ects.

29 . A year - long or longer operation of extracting and

hauling away sand in 133,333 to 166,666 truckloads, and selling

it for roadbuilding and other construction projects, is

indistinguishable from the business of sand mining. It conform s

with the c ommon meaning of Ðmining.Ñ

3 0 . Rubin Groves argues that it does not matter how much

sand it wants to remove (even Ða zillionÑ cubic yards) because

Rubin GrovesÓ purpose is not sand mining. According to that

view, even if sand removal at the Rubin Groves site would

(otherwise) amount to the largest sand mine in Florida, it could

not be regulated as mining because Rubin Groves Ó purpose is to

build a residential subdivision afterward. However, the Mass

Grading Plan is indistinguishable from sand mining by a landowner

who has no plans to develop a residential subdivision afterward.

31. The reason there are special regulations in the Comp

Plan and Lake County Code (and elsewhere) for mining activities

is to address the impacts associated with mining. The

reg ulations are not concerned with the land use ambitions of

landowners or with the profitability of their enterprises. Rubin

GrovesÓ interpretation of the Lake County Code is inconsistent

with the plain intent of the Comp Plan and Lake County Code

because i ts interpretation would allow mining impacts, but not

make them subject to the mining prohibitions and regulations that

were adopted to address mining impacts.

32 . Rubin Groves Ó argument about purpose is unpersuasive.

Rubin Groves Ó purpose is to mine san d and then build a

subdivision.

3 3 . Rubin GrovesÓ argument that the Mass Grading Plan would

not be regulated as mining by the Department of Environmental

Protection (ÐDEPÑ) under Florida Administrative Code Rule 62C - 39

is also unpersuasive. First, whethe r the Mass Grading Plan is

subject to state regulation has not been determined by DEP. The

term ÐextractionÑ is defined in rule 62C - 39.002(7) to exclude

excavation ÐsolelyÑ in aid of on - site construction, but that begs

the question whether DEP would view the Mass Grading Plan as

solely for on - site construction.

3 4 . Second, rule 62C - 39 contains state reclamation

standards and implements chapter 378, Florida Statutes, entitled

ÐLand Reclamation.Ñ Under DEPÓs reclamation regulatory program,

there is no obvi ous state reclamation issue associated with sand

mining on lands approved for construction activities. That does

not foreclose a local interest in regulating the land use impacts

of mining activities.

The Exemption Procedure

3 5 . Pursuant to s ection 6.06. 01(F) of the Lake County Code,

approval to remove overburden that exceeds 200 percent of the

volume required for stormwater retention must be obtained from the

County Manager. However, the County Manager did not approve Rubin

GrovesÓ Mass Grading Plan. I t was approved by the Board of County

Commissioners in Ordinance 2014 - 7.

3 6 . Rubin Groves argues that it qualifies for an exemption

under Section 6.06.01(F), but the Board of County Commissioners

approved the Mass grading Plan without making any finding t hat

the Mass Grading Plan was not mining or that it qualified for

exemption from the requirement to obtain a mining conditional use

permit.

3 7 . Lake CountyÓs approval of the M ass G rading P lan is

inconsistent with Section 6.06.01 of the Lake County Code.

T en Percent Lot Grading Limitation

38 . The Mass Grading Plan would change the elevation of

the Property more than 10 feet.

39 . Section 9.07.00 of the Lake County Code addresses lot

grading and prohibits elevation changes that exceed 10 feet. The

parties disputed whether this section applies to the Property.

DEO contends it applies; Rubin Groves disagrees.

4 0 . Section 9.07.00 states that it applies to Ðdevelopment

that is wholly within or partially within any flood hazard area.Ñ

The Mass Grading Plan i s not within a flood hazard area.

4 1 . The Lake County Engineer testified that the County does

not interpret Section 9.07.14 as applicable to subdivision

grading, but only to the grading of individual residential lots.

4 2 . The preponderance of the evidenc e shows Section 9.07.00

is not applicable to the Mass Grading Plan.

Principles for Guiding Development

4 3 . The Green Swamp is one of the most significant sources

for water recharge to the Floridan Aquifer. It is centered along

the potentiometric high fo r the aquifer as well. The

potentiometric high is the level to which water would rise in an

open well and affects ground water flow because water flows from

high - pressure areas to low - pressure areas.

4 4 . The Principles for Guiding Development in the Gre en

Swamp Area of Critical State Concern adopted by the

Administration Commission are set forth in Florida Administrative

Code Rule 28 - 26.003. The Principles have also been adopted into

the Lake County Comp Plan.

4 5 . Rule 28 - 26.003(1) sets forth the obje ctives to be

achieved for the Green Swamp:

(a) Minimize the adverse impacts of

development on resources of the Floridan

Aquifer, wetlands, and flood - detention areas.

(b) Protect the normal quantity, quality and

flow of ground water and surface water whic h

are necessary for the protection of resources

of state and regional concern.

(c) Protect the water available for aquifer

recharge.

(d) Protect the functions of the Green Swamp

Potentiometric High of the Floridan Aquifer.

(e) Protect the normal supp ly of ground and

surface water.

(f) Prevent further salt - water intrusion

into the Floridan Aquifer.

(g) Protect or improve existing ground and

surface - water quality.

(h) Protect the water - retention capabilities

of wetlands.

(i) Protect the biologic al - filtering

capabilities of wetlands.

(j) Protect the natural flow regime of

drainage basins.

(k) Protect the design capacity of flood -

detention areas and the water - management

objectives of these areas through the

maintenance of hydrologic characteris tics of

drainage basins.

4 6 . DEO contends the Mass Grading Plan would violate the

Principles for Guiding Development for the Green Swamp Area of

Critical State Concern in rule 28 - 26.003(1)(a),(b), (c), (e),

(g), (j), and (k).

4 7 . DEO objects to so much of the vadose zone being removed

from the Property. The vadose zone is the layer of material

between the land surface and the top of the water table. The

vadose zone acts as a filter to remove contaminants as water

moves through it. It stores water, cr eating a buffer for water

recharge into the aquifer below it and regulates the rate at

which water recharges. It also affects evapotranspiration and

runoff.

48 . DEO contends the Mass Grading Plan would reduce storage

capacity and filtration, cause Ðsurge sÑ of groundwater which

would adversely affect the surrounding wetlands, reduce recharge

and change the potentiometric high, adversely affect the water

retention capabilities of wetlands, and alter the natural flow

regime of drainage basins.

49 . The evide nce presented by DEO was insufficient to prove

that the storage capacity of the Property would be reduced by the

Mass Grading Plan. In a scenario where the water table is near

the ground surface, removal of soil can substantially reduce

water storage, but DEOÓs theory for loss of storage was not

persuasively demonstrated in this situation where the vadose zone

would still be about 24 feet deep after the Mass grading Plan.

5 0 . DEOÓs evidence regarding the possibility of karst

features on the Property was n ot compelling because it was not

shown that the Mass Grading Plan would affect current water

movement associated with any karst features. The proper

placement of stormwater facilities to avoid karst features is a

matter for stormwater permitting.

5 1 . The preponderance of the record evidence supports DEOÓs

claim that the filtration capacity of the Property would be

reduced by the Mass Grading Plan. However, DEO did not rebut

Rubin GrovesÓ evidence that nutrient loading to groundwater from

the Property wou ld decrease. DEO did not show that the reduction

of filtration capacity would result in a measurable adverse

impact to groundwater.

5 2 . The evidence presented by DEO was insufficient to prove

that the Mass Grading Plan would cause ÐpulseÑ flow to the nea rby

wetlands. T he Mass Grading Plan does not involve soil removal

within four or five hundred feet of the wetlands. In a scenario

where the water table is near the ground surface, removal of soil

can affect water storage and the slow release of water to

wetlands, but DEOÓs theory for pulse flow was not persuasively

demonstrated in this situation where the vadose zone would still

be about 24 feet deep after the Mass Grading Plan.

5 3 . The evidence presented by DEO was insufficient to prove

that the Mass Gr ading Plan w ould reduce recharge to the Floridan

Aquifer.

5 4 . In summary, DEO did not prove that the Mass Grading

Plan would have a measurable or more than de minimis adverse

impact on the Floridan Aquifer and associated water resources

which the Principl es for Guiding Development are intended to

protect.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

5 5 . Ordinance No. 2014 - 7 authorizes development as defined

in section 380.04, Florida Statutes (2014), and is a Ðdevelopment

orderÑ as that term is defined in section 380.031(3).

5 6 . DEO is authorized to appeal local government

development orders located within Areas of Critical State Concern

to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission, pursuant

to section 380.07.

5 7 . Hearings under section 380.07 are de novo hearings.

See Young v. Dep Ó t of Cmty Aff . , 625 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 1993).

58 . DEO, as the challenger of Ordinance 2014 - 07, has the

burden of proof.

59 . The standard of proof to establish a finding of fact is

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

(2 014).

6 0 . Section 380.05(16) prohibits development within any

Area of Critical State Concern except in accordance with Ðthis

chapter.Ñ Accordingly, development in the Green Swamp Area of

Critical State Concern must be consistent with the Lake County

Com prehensive Plan, the Lake County land development regulations,

and the Principles for Guiding Development for the Green Swamp

Area of Critical State Concern.

6 1 . Rubin Groves argues that DEOÓs objections to the Mass

Grading Plan are premature because Rubi n Groves has yet to seek an

exemption from the County Manager pursuant to s ection 6.06.01(F).

However, Ordinance 2014 - 7 expressly approves the Mass Grading

Plan, so it is ripe for review in this proceeding.

6 2 . The Mass Grading Plan would constitute min ing

activities as defined in the Comp Plan and consistent with the

ordinary meaning of mining .

6 3 . Sand mining is prohibited in the Green Swamp Ridge

future land use category. Therefore, Ordinance 2014 - 7, by

authorizing mining in the Green Swamp Ridge, i s inconsistent with

the Comp Plan.

64 . The evidence presented in this case suggests that a

blanket prohibition against sand mining in the Green Swamp Ridge

may not be appropriate because sand mining will not always cause

adverse impacts to the water resou rces of the Green Swamp Area of

Critical State Concern. However, until the Comp Plan is amended,

all sand mining is prohibited.

65 . The procedure in section 6.06.01(F) of the Lake County

Code for approving the removal of overburden in excess of the 200

percent criterion was not followed. The Board of County

Commissioners approved the Mass Grading Plan without making

findings necessary for the exemption from the requirement to

obtain a mining conditional use permit. Even under Rubin GrovesÓ

argument tha t the Mass Grading Plan is not mining, Ordinance

2014 - 7 is inconsistent with s ection 6.06.01(F).

6 6 . All development orders issued within the Green Swamp

Area of Critical State Concern must be consistent with each of

the Principles for Guiding Development . DEO did not meet its

burden to prove the Mass Grading Plan would have a measurable or

more than de minimus adverse impact on the Floridan Aquifer and

associated resources. The Mass Grading Plan was not shown to be

inconsistent with the Principles for G uiding Development.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is

RECOMMENDED that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory

Commission issue a final order determining that Ordinance 2014 - 7

is invalid because it is in consistent with the Lake County

Comprehensive Plan and land development regulations.

DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of August , 2015 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

BRAM D. E. CANTER

Administrative Law Judge

Divi sion 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

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 21st day of Augu st , 2015 .

COPIES FURNISHED:

Jimmy D. Crawford, Esquire

Merideth Nagel, P.A.

1201 West Highway 50

Clermont, Florida 34711

(eServed)

Sanford A. Minkoff, Esquire

Lake County Attorney`s Office

315 West Main Street, Suite 335

Post Office Box 7800

Tavares, Florida 32778 - 7800

Keith Austin, Esquire

Rubin Groves of Clermont, LLC

223 Peruvian Avenue

Palm Beach, Florida 33480

Barbara R. Leighty, Agency Clerk

Transportation and Economic

Development Policy Unit

Room 1801 , The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 323 99 - 0001

(eServed)

Aaron Charles Dunlap, Esquire

Department of Economic Opportunity

Caldwell Building, MSC110

107 East Madison Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

(eServed)

Erin Hartigan, Esquire

Office of the Lake County Attorney

315 West Main Street

Tava res, Florida 32778

(eServed)

Harry Thomas Hackney, Esquire

Campione & Hackney, P.A.

2750 Dora Avenue

Tavares, Florida 32778

(eServed)

Cynthia Kelly, Secretary

Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission

Room 1801, The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0001

John P. ÐJackÑ Heekin, General Counsel

Office of the Governor

Room 209, The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0001

(eServed)

James W. Poppell, General Counsel

Department of Economic Opportunity

107 East Madison Street

Caldwell Building, MSC1 10

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

(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 issue the Final Order in this case.