98-002331GM Janet Bollum, Glenn Brewer, And Mary Brewer vs. Department Of Community Affairs And City Of Deland Status: Closed Recommended Order on Monday, November 20, 2000.

Summary: Plan amendment in compliance; remedial amendment not always required before realigning parties after settlement agreement; special transportation area is not equivalent of transportation concurrency management area under Section 163.3180(5), F.S.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

JANET BOLLUM, GLENN BREWER, )

and MARY BREWER, )

)

Petitioners, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 98-2331GM

)

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY )

AFFAIRS and CITY OF DELAND, )

)

Respondents, )

)

and )

)

WAL-MART STORES, EAST, INC., )

and MARCIA BERMAN, TRUSTEE, )

)

Intervenors. )

________________________________)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was held in this

case on August 23, 2000, in Deland, Florida, before Donald R.

Alexander, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of

Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioners: C. Allen Watts, Esquire

Cobb, Cole & Bell

Post Office Box 2491

Daytona Beach, Florida 32115-2491

For Respondent: Shaw P. Stiller, Esquire

(DCA) Department of Community Affairs

2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 315

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100

For Respondent: Mark A. Zimmerman, Esquire

(City) James, Zimmerman, Paul & Huddleston

Post Office Drawer 2087

Deland, Florida 32721-2087

For Intervenor: David L. Powell, Esquire

(Berman) Hopping, Green, Sams & Smith, P.A.

Post Office Box 6526

Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6526

For Intervenor: F. Alex Ford, Jr., Esquire

(Wal-Mart) Landis, Graham, French, Husfeld,

Sherman & Ford, P.A.

Post Office Box 48

Deland, Florida 32721-0048

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue is whether that portion of Plan Amendment 98-1ER

known as LU-97-02 is in compliance.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This matter began on March 11, 1998, when Respondent, City

of Deland, adopted Plan Amendment 98-1ER by Ordinance No. 96-17.

Among other things, the ordinance assigned a Highway Commercial

land use classification to approximately 40 acres of land owned

by Intervenor, Marcia Berman, Trustee. The property is under

contract to be sold to Intervenor, Wal-Mart Stores East, Inc.,

who plans to construct a store on a part of the property.

On May 7, 1998, Respondent, Department of Community Affairs,

published its Notice of Intent to find the plan amendment not in

compliance on various grounds. The agency then filed a Petition

in support of its Notice, and the matter was forwarded to the

Division of Administrative Hearings on May 15, 1998, with a

request that an Administrative Law Judge be assigned to conduct a

hearing.

On May 28, 1998, Petitioners, Janet Bollum, Glenn Brewer,

and Mary Brewer, and 82 other persons, filed a Petition for

Administrative Hearing and Petition to Intervene in opposition to

the plan amendment. The Petition to Intervene was later granted

by Order dated December 18, 1998.

By Notice of Hearing dated June 2, 1998, a final hearing was

scheduled on September 16-18, 1998, in Deland, Florida. At the

request of the parties, the case was temporarily abated pending

efforts to reach a settlement. Thereafter, all parties except

Petitioners executed a Stipulated Settlement Agreement in

February and March 2000, which resolved all issues originally

raised by the agency.

An Amended Notice of Intent to find the amendment in

compliance was then published on April 3, 2000. By Order dated

April 28, 2000, the parties were realigned consistent with their

new positions as required by Section 163.3184(16)(f)1., Florida

Statutes (1999). The matter was also rescheduled for hearing on

August 23 and 24, 2000, in Deland, Florida.

On July 19, 2000, Petitioners filed their Motion for Leave

to Amend Petition. The motion was granted on August 7, 2000, and

all Petitioners except Bollum and the Brewers were dismissed as

parties in this action. In addition, the factual issues to be

tried were narrowed to two.

At the final hearing, Petitioners presented the testimony of

Gary Schindler, former planning director for the City of Deland;

Janet Bollum; Gary Huttman, a transportation consultant; Richard

Holmes, former planning director for the City of Deland; Jim

McCroskey, director of community development for the City of

Deland; and Thomas L. Brooks, a planner with Volusia County and

accepted as an expert in planning demographics and population and

employment projections. Also, they offered Petitioners' Exhibits

1, 3-5, and 7, which were received in evidence. The Department

of Community Affairs presented the testimony of Charles Gauthier,

chief of the bureau of local planning and accepted as an expert

in comprehensive planning and compliance review. Also, it

offered Department Exhibit 1, which was received in evidence.

The City of Deland offered City Exhibits 1-4, which were received

in evidence. Exhibit 3 is the deposition of Wayne N. Sanborn,

former city manager of the City of Deland. Finally, the parties

offered Joint Exhibits 1-9, which were received in evidence.

The Transcript of the hearing (two volumes) was filed on

September 20, 2000. Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law were filed by the parties on October 10, 2000, and they have

been considered by the undersigned in the preparation of this

Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Based upon all of the evidence, including the stipulation of

counsel, the following findings of fact have been determined:

a. Background

1. In this land use dispute, Petitioners, Janet Bollum

( Bollum) and Glenn and Mary Brewer (the Brewers), who are

property owners within or near the City of Deland, contend that a

portion of Plan Amendment 98-1ER adopted by Respondent, City of

Deland (City), is not in compliance. The portion of the

amendment under challenge, known as Plan Amendment LU-97-02,

changes the land use on 39.56 acres of land owned by Intervenor,

Marcia Berman, Trustee (Berman), to Highway Commercial. The

property is currently under contract to be sold to Intervenor,

Wal-Mart Stores East, Inc. (Wal-Mart), who intends to construct a

Wal-Mart super store on a part of the site. Respondent,

Department of Community Affairs (Department), is the state agency

charged with the responsibility of reviewing comprehensive land

use plans and amendments.

2. Until 1997, the Berman property was located in the

unincorporated area of Volusia County (County). Prior to 1994,

it carried an Urban Medium Intensity land use designation. That

year, the County redesignated the property as Industrial. In

1997, the City annexed the Berman property and revised its Future

Land Use Map the following year to change the land use to Highway

Commercial. This change was accomplished through the plan

amendment under challenge.

3. On May 1, 1998, the Department issued its Statement of

Intent to Find Portions of Plan Amendment Not in Compliance.

More specifically, it found that the new land use designation

would "generate traffic which causes the projected operating

conditions of roadways to fall below adopted level of service

standards and exacerbates projected roadway deficiencies." The

Department also found that the amendment was "not supported by or

based on, and does not react in an appropriate way to, the best

available data and analyses." In making these findings, the

Department relied in part upon a traffic study prepared by "TEI"

in 1998 which reflected that the City's traffic system did not

have sufficient capacity to accommodate the new land use. The

Department determination triggered this action.

4. On May 27, 1998, Petitioners, and 82 other property

owners, filed a paper styled "Petition for Administrative Hearing

and Petition to Intervene" challenging the change of land use on

the Berman property in numerous respects. The paper was treated

as a petition to intervene and was later granted.

5. After the case was temporarily abated in August 1998

pending efforts to settle the matter, in January 1999, a new

traffic study was prepared for the City by Ghyabi, Lassiter &

Associates (GLA study), which determined that the existing and

planned City transportation network could accommodate the impacts

from the development allowed under the amendment. All parties

except Petitioners then executed a Stipulated Settlement

Agreement in February and March 2000, which resolved all issues

originally raised by the Department. Thereafter, the Department

issued an Amended Notice of Intent to find the plan amendment in

compliance. As required by Section 163.3184(16)(f), Florida

Statutes (1999), the parties were realigned consistent with their

respective positions.

6. Through an Amended Petition filed by Petitioners on

July 19, 2000, all original Petitioners except Bollum and the

Brewers have been dismissed, and the factual issues in this case

narrowed to two: (a) whether the recent traffic studies

"demonstrate a transportation concurrency failure, and a failure

to fall within a lawful transportation concurrency exception

under F.S. 163.3180(5)(c) and (d)"; and (b) whether the "plan

amendment data and analyses continue a failure to show demand for

additional 'highway commercial' land, as originally asserted by

the Department's Notice of Intent."

b. Standing of the Parties

7. Bollum owns property, resides within, and owns and

operates a business within the City. She also submitted written

and oral comments to the City while the amendment was being

adopted. The parties have stipulated that she is an affected

person and thus has standing to participate.

7. The Brewers own property and reside in an unincorporated

area of the County in the immediate vicinity of the proposed plan

amendment. They also reside within what is known as the "Greater

Deland Area," as defined by Chapter 73-441, Laws of Florida.

However, they do not own property, reside within, or own and

operate a business within the corporate limits of the City, and

thus they lack standing to participate.

8. The parties have stipulated that Intervenors Berman and

Wal-Mart have standing to participate in this proceeding.

c. The Amendment

9. The Berman property lies on the eastern side of U.S.

Highway 17 just north of the intersection of U.S. Highways 17 and

92, approximately three miles north of the City's central

business district. The land is currently undeveloped.

10. Prior to being annexed by the City, the property was

located within the unicorporated area of the County, just north

of the City limits. The earliest County land use designation was

Urban Medium Intensity, a primarily residential land use

classification which also allowed some commercial development,

including small neighborhood shopping centers.

11. In 1993, the County began a comprehensive examination

of land use and zoning restrictions in the vicinity of the Berman

property. In May 1994, it redesignated the Berman property from

Urban Medium Intensity to Industrial. This use allowed not only

industrial development, but also some commercial development.

12. Before the Berman property was annexed by the City, it

was depicted on the City's Urban Reserve Area Map (map). That

map established advisory designations for unincorporated County

land abutting the City, and was meant to be a guide for City land

use decisions when property was annexed. The property was

designated on the map as approximately one-half Commercial and

one-half Industrial.

13. In 1997, the Berman property was annexed by the City.

Because the City was then required to place a land use

designation on the property, on May 16, 1998, it adopted

Amendment 98-1ER, which redesignated the property from Volusia

County Industrial to City Highway Commercial. The new mixed-use

designation allows "a wide range of retail and service and office

uses," as well as up to twenty percent residential land uses,

including multi-family manufactured housing developments. Thus,

the Highway Commercial land use designation is meant to

accommodate major shopping centers like the one proposed by

Wal-Mart.

d. Transportation issue

14. In their Amended Petition, Petitioners allege that

accepting as fact the "most recent traffic studies," those

studies still "demonstrate a transportation concurrency failure,

and a failure to fall within a lawful transportation concurrency

exception under F.S. 163.3180(5)(c) and (d)."

15. The "most recent traffic studies" are the GLA study,

and it shows that the existing and planned City transportation

network can accommodate the traffic impacts arising from

development allowed under the plan amendment.

16. Some of the transportation impacts from the expected

development on the Berman property will affect roadways within an

area of the City that was formally designated in May 1992 as a

Special Transportation Area (STA) or road segments with

specialized level of service (LOS) standards. The STA includes

the central business district and certain outlying areas

essentially bounded by Minnesota Avenue, Amelia Avenue, the rear

property lines of properties along the north side of New York

Avenue (State Road 44), South Hill Avenue, Beresford Avenue,

Boundary Avenue, and Clara Avenue, which extend to approximately

one mile from the Berman property. None of the roadways within

the STA are on the Florida Intrastate Highway System.

17. Rule 9J-5.0055(2), Florida Administrative Code,

requires that the City adopt LOS standards on roadways within its

planning jurisdiction (which are not on the Florida Intrastate

Highway System), including the disputed portion of U.S. Highways

17 and 92. The applicable LOS standards and STA provisions are

found in Policies 3.1.7 and 3.1.10, respectively, of the

Transportation Circulation Element of the plan. They read as

follows:

3.1.7 For those roadways listed in

Policy 3.1.6 [which include U.S. Highways 17

and 92], the City of Deland may permit

development to occur until the peak hour

traffic volumes exceed a 20% increase over

the peak traffic counts published in the

FDOT's affic Data Report.

3.1.10 As a result of FDOT's approval of the

STA designation for US 17/92 (Woodland

Boulevard), from Beresford Avenue to Michigan

Avenue, and SR 44 (New York Avenue), from SR

15A to Hill Avenue, the following maximum LOS

and/or traffic volumes shall be permitted.

ROADWAY SEGMENT

US 17/92, from Beresford to Michigan = 22,028

SR 44, from SR 15A to US 17/92 = LOS E

SR 44, from US 17/92 to Hill = LOS E

*The proposed maximum traffic volume is

compatible with the maximum LOS for this

section of roadway, as stated in Policy

3.1.7.

These two policies have been found to be in compliance and are

not subject to challenge in this proceeding.

18. Although the STA is identified as a specific area, the

City's Comprehensive Plan anticipates that development from

outside of this area will impact the STA. As noted above,

however, the undisputed GLA study demonstrates that the plan

amendment will not allow development which would cause these

adopted LOS standards to be exceeded.

19. The STA was approved in May 1992, or prior to the

enactment of Section 163.3180, Florida Statutes (1993), which

allows certain exceptions from the otherwise blanket requirement

to adopt and enforce a transportation LOS standard for roadways.

20. Two planning tools made available to local governments

by Section 163.3180(5), Florida Statutes (1993), are a

Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) and a

Transportation Concurrency Management Area, both of which allow

exceptions to transportation concurrency requirements. The

practical effect of a TCEA is to allow development to proceed

without having to comply with transportation concurrency.

21. Petitioners essentially contend that the STA created by

the City for the central business district and certain outlying

areas is "the substantial equivalent of a TCEA," and thus it

should be treated as one for purposes of this proceeding. They

go on to argue that while the City may grant an exception to

concurrency requirements for transportation facilities for

projects located within a TCEA, those benefits cannot be extended

to any other area, including the Berman property. Based on this

premise, Petitioners conclude that without the benefit of the

TCEA exception, the anticipated traffic from the new development

on the Berman property will cause a "continuation of a [LOS]

failure on the constrained segments of US 17/92 and on the

unconstrained segment from SR44 to Wisconsin Avenue," in

violation of the law.

22. Petitioners' contention is based on an erroneous

assumption. The evidence shows that the City has never adopted a

TCEA. Neither has the STA "transformed" into a TCEA, as

Petitioners suggest. Moreover, as noted above, the undisputed

GLA study shows rather clearly that the plan amendment will not

allow development which would cause the adopted LOS standards to

be exceeded.

23. Petitioners further contend that the plan amendment is

somehow inconsistent with the transportation exception

requirements in Section 163.3180(5)(b) and (c), Florida Statutes

(2000). However, these provisions apply to developments "which

pose only special part-time demands on the transportation

system[,]" that is, "one that does not have more than 200

scheduled events during the calendar year and does not affect the

100 highest traffic volumes." The evidence shows that the

Highway Commercial land use category is not designed for such

developments and, in fact, encourages far more intense uses.

e. Is There a Need for Additional Commercial Land?

24. Petitioners next contend that "the plan amendment data

and analyses continue a failure to show demand for additional

'highway commercial' land, as originally asserted by the

Department's Notice of Intent and not resolved by the Compliance

Agreement."

25. In the immediate vicinity of the Berman property, near

the intersection of U.S. Highways 17 and 92 north of the City,

"there is an emerging trend of 'regional-type' commercial

developments." This area is already partially developed with

commercial uses, and it has additional areas depicted for future

commercial and industrial use. There are no other parcels in the

City, especially in this area, of a sufficient size to

accommodate this type of regional commercial development.

26. There are numerous ways to project the raw, numerical

need for commercial land in the City. The City's Comprehensive

Plan, its Evaluation and Appraisal Report, and the GLA study all

contain statements regarding projected population and employment,

each portraying a slightly different result. In fact,

Petitioners' own expert criticized the numbers used in these

documents as being unreliable and suspect.

27. The need calculus basically involves projecting

population over a ten-year planning period and then allocating

commercial, residential, and other land uses in an amount to

match that projection. For the reasons set forth below, this

process is imprecise, and it must be tempered by other factors.

28. First, the planner must project population over the

ten-year planning timeframe. Any mistake in this projection will

skew the numbers. Second, employment ratios used in the calculus

can change from year to year, especially in a smaller community.

Also, other planning objectives are inherently subject to change

year by year.

29. Given this imprecision and changing market demands, it

is appropriate for professional planners to overallocate land

uses. An excess allocation of twenty-five percent (or an

allocation factor of one hundred and twenty-five percent) is

recognized by professional planners as being appropriate. The

evidence supports a finding that this amount is reasonable under

the circumstances present here.

30. There are numerous professionally acceptable ways in

which to allocate land uses. The City has not adopted a

particular methodology in its Comprehensive Plan.

31. The specifics of the plan amendment and the City's

Comprehensive Plan make application of a strict numerical

calculus even more difficult. The prior designation of the

property was Industrial, which is not a pure industrial category,

but actually allowed up to thirty percent of commercial uses.

The amendment here simply changes the land use from Industrial,

with some commercial uses allowed, to a mixed-use Highway

Commercial designation. As noted earlier, the City's

Comprehensive Plan anticipates regional commercial uses in the

area of the Berman property. Finally, the parcel is relatively

small (less than 40 acres) and is embedded within an urban area.

32. Given the uncertainty of a numerical calculation of

commercial need in the City, the size and location of the

property, the property's inclusion in an urban area, and the

surrounding commercial land uses, the evidence supports a finding

that either Industrial or Commercial would be an appropriate land

use for the property.

33. The evidence further supports a finding that the need

question is not a compliance issue here and does not support a

finding that the plan amendment is not in compliance.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

34. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties hereto

pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 163.3184, Florida Statutes

(2000).

35. By stipulation of counsel, all parties except the

Brewers have been found to be affected persons within the meaning

of Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2000), and have

standing to participate in this proceeding. The Brewers argue

that they reside within the "Greater Deland Area," as that term

is defined in Chapter 73-441, Laws of Florida, and thus they also

qualify as affected persons. However, Section 163.3184(1)(a),

Florida Statutes (2000), specifically requires that in order to

qualify as an affected person, one must own property, reside, or

own or operate a business "within the boundaries of the local

government whose plan is the subject of review." The Brewers do

not. Moreover, the special act relied upon by the Brewers simply

reserves an area outside of the City "as the logical future

extension of the City limits of the City of Deland" and prohibits

other municipalities from annexing within this area. While it

designates the City as the sole provider of potable water and

wastewater disposal within that area, the special act expressly

reserves planning jurisdiction over the area to the County until

the property is annexed. Therefore, the Brewers are not affected

persons.

36. This case first arose under Section 163.3184(10)(a),

Florida Statutes (1997), following the Department's Notice of

Intent to find portions of the City's plan amendment not in

compliance. The original Notice of Intent was later superceded

by an Amended Notice of Intent following the execution of a

Stipulated Settlement Agreement. Petitioners maintained their

challenge to the plan amendment following the Amended Notice of

Intent and thus bear the burden of proof.

37. Where a settlement agreement resolves the issues

originally raised by the Department in issuing a notice of intent

to find an amendment not in compliance, any challenge is governed

by Section 163.3184(9), Florida Statutes (2000). See Section

163.3184(16)(f)2., Florida Statutes (2000). The burden of proof

is such a proceeding is "fairly debatable."

38. Petitioners contend, however, that realignment and the

change in burden of proof from a preponderance of the evidence to

beyond fair debate are not warranted because the City did not

adopt a remedial amendment pursuant to a settlement agreement.

This contention is based on language in Section 163.3184(16)(f),

Florida Statutes (2000), which sets forth procedures to be

followed if a local government adopts "compliance agreement

amendments."

39. This statute does not establish the requirement that a

comprehensive plan amendment proceeding can be settled only upon

the adoption of compliance agreement amendments. While such

amendments are mentioned, the referenced statute is procedural,

not substantive, and does not impose additional requirements on

the settlement of a case involving the Department.

40. To read the statute in the manner urged by Petitioners

would lead to absurd results, especially in a case such as this

one. Existing data and analysis, ultimately proven erroneous,

formed the sole basis for the Department's initial decision to

find the amendment not in compliance. A reanalysis of the data

demonstrated serious flaws in the original conclusions of the

Department, and compelled issuance of an Amended Notice of

Intent. This Amended Notice and realignment of the parties

followed the process established in Section 163.3184(16)(f),

Florida Statutes (2000). It was unnecessary for the parties to

craft a new plan amendment to address a problem caused and cured

by data and analysis. Petitioners' argument would impose the

additional requirement for no benefit to the local government or

the comprehensive plan. Accordingly, the prior ruling as to

realignment is reaffirmed, and the burden of proof in this matter

is "fairly debatable."

41. The fairly debatable test asks whether reasonable minds

could differ as to the outcome. The action of the City must be

approved "if reasonable persons could differ as to its

propriety." B & H Travel Corporation v. Department of Community

Affairs , 602 So. 2d 1362, 1365 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Thus,

Petitioners must show beyond fair debate that the plan amendment

is not in compliance. Under this test, an extremely heavy burden

is placed upon Petitioners to prove the legitimacy of their

claims.

42. "In compliance," as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b),

Florida Statutes (2000), means the plan is consistent with the

requirements of Sections 163.3177, 163.3178, and 163.3191,

Florida Statutes (2000), the state comprehensive plan, the

regional policy plan, and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative

Code.

43. Petitioners raise two issues in their Amended Petition

as grounds for finding the plan amendment not in compliance.

First, they contend that the most recent traffic studies (the GLA

study) "demonstrate a transportation currency failure, and a

failure to fall within a lawful transporation concurrency

exception under F.S. 163.3180(5)(c) and (d)." Second, they

contend that "the plan amendment data and analyses continue a

failure to show demand for additional 'highway commercial' land,

as originally asserted by the Department's Notice of Intent nd

not resolved by the Compliance Agreement."

44. As to the transportation issue, Rule 9J-5.0055(2),

Florida Administrative Code, mandates that local governments

adopt LOS standards for public facilities (including roadways)

and services located within the area for which such local

government has authority to issue development orders and

development permits. The disputed portion of U.S. Highways 17

and 92 falls within this category.

45. The LOS standards for roadways within the City's

jurisdiction are found in policies under Objective 3.1 in the

Traffic Circulation Element. The undisputed evidence shows that

the transportation impacts expected from the plan amendment can

be accommodated under the adopted LOS standards in the City,

including the STA.

46. Contrary to Petitioners' claim, the evidence shows that

the City has never adopted a TCEA, and there is no provision in

Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, which allows a STA to "transform"

into a TCEA. Indeed, for this to occur, a plan amendment would

be necessary. Because no such amendment was intended or

accomplished by the City, Petitioners' claim is rejected.

47. As to the need issue, the demonstration of "need" is a

planning data and analysis requirement under Chapter 163, Florida

Statutes. This requirement applies when a local government

adopts or amends its comprehensive plan future land use element,

and it mandates that the government utilize appropriate and

relevant data and analysis for purposes of distributing land uses

on the future land use map. Section 163.3177(6)(a) and (10),

Florida Statutes (2000); Rule 9J-5.006(2), Florida Administrative

Code. The requirement seeks to match the allocation of future

land use categories with the projected population in order to

ensure sufficient land to accommodate the varying uses of that

population. Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2000).

48. As established in the Findings of Fact, the evidence

shows that the need calculus is imprecise and must be tempered by

other factors. The more credible evidence supports a need for

additional Highway Commercial acreage in the chosen location.

49. In summary, Petitioners have failed to prove beyond

fair debate that the amendment is not in compliance as that term

is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2000).

Even if the less stringent preponderance of the evidence standard

is used, Petitioners have still failed to show that the amendment

is not in compliance.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the Foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is

RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a

final order determining Plan Amendment 98-1ER adopted by the City

of Deland by Ordinance Number 98-07 on March 16, 1998, to be in

compliance.

DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of November, 2000, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

___________________________________

DONALD R. ALEXANDER

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

[phone] SUNCOM 278-9675

Fax Filing [phone]

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 20th day of November, 2000.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Steven M. Siebert, Secretary

Department of Community Affairs

2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100

C. Allen Watts, Esquire

Cobb, Cole & Bell

Post Office Box 2491

Daytona Beach, Florida 32115

Shaw P. Stiller, Esquire

Department of Community Affairs

2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 315

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100

F. Alex Ford, Jr., Esquire

Landis, Graham, French, Husfeld,

Sherman & Ford, P.A.

Post Office Box 48

Deland, Florida 32721-0048

Mark A. Zimmerman, Esquire

James, Zimmerman, Paul & Huddleston

Post Office Drawer 2087

Deland, Florida 32721-2087

David L. Powell, Esquire

Hopping, Green, Sams & Smith, P.A.

Post Office Box 6526

Tallahassee, Florida 32314

Margaret E. Bowles, Esquire

Margaret E. Bowles, P.A.

205 South Hoover Street

Suite 402

Tampa, Florida 33609

Cari L. Roth, General Counsel

Department of Community Affairs

2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15

days to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this

Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will enter

a final order in this case.