01-004826GM
Sally O`connell, Donna Melzer, And Martin County Conservation Alliance, Inc. vs.
Martin County And Department Of Community Affairs
Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Wednesday, October 16, 2002.
Recommended Order on Wednesday, October 16, 2002.
1STATE OF FLORIDA
4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
8SALLY O'CONNELL; DONNA )
12MELZER; and MARTIN COUNTY )
17CONSERVATION ALLIANCE, )
20)
21Petitioners, )
23)
24vs. ) Case No. 01 - 4826GM
31)
32DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY )
36AFFAIRS and MARTIN COUNTY, )
41)
42Respondents, )
44)
45and )
47)
48DICK BLYDENSTEIN and ECONOMIC )
53COUNCIL OF MARTIN COUNTY, )
58)
59Intervenors. )
61_ _______________________________)
63RECOMMENDED ORDER
65Pursuant to notice, this matter was heard before the
74Division of Administrative Hearings by its assigned
81Administrative Law Judge, Donald R. Alexander, on March 5 - 8,
92April 30, and May 1, 2002, in Stuart , Florida.
101APPEARANCES
102For Petitioners: Richard J. Grosso, Esquire
108Environmental and Land Use Center, Inc.
1143305 College Avenue
117Shepard Broad Law Center
121Fort Laude rdale, Florida 33314 - 7721
128Joan P. Wilcox, Esquire
1322336 Southeast Ocean Boulevard, PMP 110
138Stuart, Florida 34996
141For Respondent: Colin M. Roopnarine, Esquire
147(DCA) Department of Community Affairs
1522555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
156Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 2100
161For Respondent: David A. Acton,, Esquire
167(County) Office of County Attorney
1722401 Southeast Monterey Road
176Stuart, Florida 34996 - 3322
181For Intervenor: Johnathan A. Ferguson, Esquire
187(Blydenstein) Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Shuster
192& Russell, P.A.
195145 Northwest Central Park Plaza
200Suite 200
202Port St. Lucie, Florida 34986 - 2482
209For Intervenor: Linda R. McCann, Esquire
215(ECMC) Royal P alm Financial Center
221789 South Federal Highway, Suite 310
227Stuart, Florida 34994 - 2962
232STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
236The issue is whether plan amendments 00 - 1, 97 - 4, and 01 - 7
252adopted by Ordinance No. 598 on September 25, 2001, are in
263compliance.
264PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
266This matter began on September 20, 2001, when Respondent,
275Martin County, adopted Ordinance No. 598 approving certain
283amendments to its Comprehensive Plan. After Respondent,
290Department of Community Affair s, published a Notice of Intent
300to find the plan amendments in compliance, on December 7,
3102001, Petitioners, Donna Melzer, Sally O'Connell, and Martin
318County Conservation Alliance, Inc., filed a Petition for
326Formal Administrative Hearing challenging the pl an amendments
334on numerous grounds. The matter was forwarded to the Division
344of Administrative Hearings on December 13, 2001, with a
353request that an Administrative Law Judge be assigned to
362conduct a hearing. On December 20, 2001, Petitioners filed an
372Amen ded Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing. By Orders
381dated January 22 and February 5, 2002, Intervenors, Dick
390Blydenstein and Economic Council of Martin County, were
398authorized to intervene in this proceeding. Intervention by
406Economic Council of Mar tin County was reconfirmed by Order
416dated February 14, 2002, after Petitioners moved to dismiss
425that Intervenor.
427By Notice of Hearing dated January 11, 2002, a final
437hearing was scheduled on March 5 - 8, 2002, in Stuart, Florida.
449A continued hearing was als o held on April 30 and May 1, 2002,
463at the same location. On February 14, 2002, a Notice of
474Demand for Expeditious Resolution under Section 163.3189(3),
481Florida Statutes (2001), was filed by Martin County. Because
490the final hearing was already scheduled within 30 days of the
501filing of that paper, no action on the Notice was necessary.
512At the final hearing, Petitioners presented the testimony
520of Nicky van Vonno, director of growth management for Martin
530County; Fred Goodrow, an urban planning consultant and
538accepted as an expert; Donna Melzer, a former County
547Commissioner; Charles L. Pattison, executive director of 1000
555Friends of Florida; Dr. Arthur C. Nelson, a professional
564planner and accepted as an expert; Sally O'Connell; Harry W.
574King, a planner with Martin County; Roger Wilburn, a community
584program administrator with the Department of Community
591Affairs; and Margaret Hurchalla, a former County Commissioner
599and accepted as an expert. Also, they offered Petitioners'
608Exhibits 6, 9, 13, 28, 32 - 38, 42 , 42C, 49, 51, 58, 59, 90, 98,
62499, and 103. All were received in evidence. Respondent,
633Department of Community Affairs, presented the testimony of
641Roger Wilburn, a community program administrator accepted as
649an expert. Also, it offered Department Exhibi ts 1 - 5 and 6A - D,
664which were received in evidence. Respondent, Martin County,
672presented the testimony of William H. Fruth, an economic
681planner; Nicki van Vonno, director of growth management for
690Martin County and accepted as an expert; Ted Astolfi, a membe r
702of the Martin County Business Development Board and accepted
711as an expert; and Dr. Merle F. Dimbath, an economic consultant
722and accepted as an expert. Also, it offered County Exhibits
7321 - 16 and 17A - C. All were received in evidence. Intervenor,
745Economic Council of Martin County, presented the testimony of
754Charlene Hoag, its executive director, and offered
761Intervenor's Exhibits 1 - 6, which were received in evidence.
771Finally, the parties offered Joint Exhibits 1 - 6, which were
782received in evidence.
785Althou gh prepared on an earlier date, the Transcript of
795the hearing (12 volumes) was not filed with the undersigned
805until September 16, 2002, while the original exhibits were not
815filed until September 17, 2002. By agreement of the parties,
825the time for filing p roposed findings of fact and conclusions
836of law was extended to September 12, 2002. All parties,
846except Economic Council of Martin County, submitted proposed
854orders, and they have been considered by the undersigned in
864the preparation of this Recommended O rder.
871FINDINGS OF FACT
874Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of
884fact are determined:
887A. Background
8891. In this land use dispute, Petitioners, Sally
897O'Connell (O'Connell), Donna Melzer (Melzer), and Martin
904County Conservation Alliance, Inc. (MCCA), contend that three
912amendments (Amendments 00 - 01, 01 - 7, and 97 - 4) to the Martin
927County Comprehensive Plan (Plan) adopted by Respondent, Martin
935County (County), are not in compliance. Amendment 00 - 01 makes
946certain textual changes to the Econom ic Element and Future
956Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Plan. Amendments 01 - 7 (also
968known as the Blydenstein amendment) and 97 - 4 (also known as
980the Seven J amendment) amend the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) by
992changing the land use designation on property owned by
1001Intervenor, Dick Blydenstein (Blydenstein), and Seven J's
1008Investments, Inc., from Mobile Home Residential and Medium
1016Density Residential, respectively, to General Commercial. The
1023parties agree that the validity of Amendments 01 - 7 and 97 - 4 is
1038contingen t on whether Amendment 00 - 01 is in compliance.
10492. On September 25, 2001, the County approved Ordinance
1058No. 598, which adopted the foregoing amendments and three
1067other FLUM amendments not relevant to this dispute. On
1076November 16, 2001, Respondent, Departm ent of Community Affairs
1085(Department), the state agency charged with the responsibility
1093of reviewing comprehensive land use plans and amendments,
1101issued its Notice of Intent to find the amendments in
1111compliance. In addition, an external review of the amen dments
1121was conducted by the Department of Transportation (DOT), the
1130Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, the Department of
1138State, and the Department of Environmental Protection. Except
1146for minor objections by DOT, which were satisfactorily
1154resolved, no objections were filed by any reviewing agency.
11633. On December 7, 2001, as later amended on December 20,
11742001, Petitioners filed their Petition for Formal
1181Administrative Hearing challenging the plan amendments. As
1188reflected in their unilateral Pre - Hear ing Statement,
1197Petitioners contend that:
1200The data and analysis for the amendments
1207was not available to the public throughout
1214the review and adoption process.
1219The conclusions about supply and demand for
1226commercial land uses that underlie the
1232adoption of th e amendments to the Economic
1240and Future Land Use Elements, and the
"1247Blydenstein" and "7J" [FLUM] Amendments
1252are not supported by the best available and
1260professionally acceptable data and
1264analysis. Instead of a deficit of, and
1271need for, land available for commercial
1277uses, there is a surplus of land available
1285for such uses.
1288The "Blydenstein" and "7J" [FLUM]
1293Amendments are not supported by data and
1300analysis concerning the availability of
1305infrastructure, the character of the land
1311and the need for redevelopmen t. The
1318approval of these FLUM amendments is
1324inconsistent with several provisions of Ch.
1330163, Fla. Stat., Rule 9J - 5, F.A.C., and the
1340Martin County Comprehensive Plan.
1344These allegations may be grouped into three broad categories:
1353(1) that the data and ana lysis was not available for public
1365inspection throughout the adoption process; (2) that the plan
1374amendments are not based on the best available, professionally
1383acceptable data and analysis; and (3) that the Blydenstein and
1393Seven J amendments are not suppor ted by data and analysis as
1405they relate to infrastructure, character of land, and need for
1415redevelopment and thus are inconsistent with relevant
1422statutes, Department rules, and Comprehensive Plan provisions.
1429Although Petitioners have not addressed the fir st allegation
1438in their Proposed Recommended Order, and have apparently
1446abandoned that issue, in an abundance of caution, a brief
1456discussion of that matter is presented below.
1463b. The parties
14664. The Department is the state land planning agency
1475responsible for reviewing and approving comprehensive plan
1482amendments by local governments.
14865. The County is a political subdivision of the State
1496and is the local government which enacted the three plan
1506amendments under review. The overall size of the County is
1516appr oximately 538 square miles, with agricultural uses on 72
1526percent of the land, residential uses on 16 percent of the
1537land, public conservation uses on 6.5 percent of the land, and
1548other uses (such as commercial, industrial, and institutional)
1556on the remaini ng 5.5 percent of the land. The current
1567population is around 125,300 residents.
15736. Blydenstein is the owner of the property that is the
1584subject of Amendment 01 - 7. He submitted oral and written
1595comments concerning Amendment 01 - 7 to the County during its
1606adoption.
16077. Melzer is a former County Commissioner who resides
1616and owns property within the County. She is also the
1626chairperson and member of the board of directors for MCCA.
1636Melzer presented comments in opposition to all three
1644amendments during the ti me period beginning with the
1653transmittal hearing for the plan amendments and ending with
1662the adoption of those amendments.
16678. O'Connell has resided and owned property in the
1676County since 1984. She presented comments to the County in
1686opposition to Amendme nts 00 - 01 and 97 - 4 (but not to Amendment
170101 - 07) during the time period beginning with the transmittal
1712hearing for the plan amendments and ending with the adoption
1722of those amendments.
17259. MCCA is a not - for - profit corporation first organized
1737in 1965 and lat er incorporated in 1997 to advocate and promote
1749the protection of the natural environment and quality of life
1759in the County. The specific purpose of the corporation is to
"1770conserve the natural resources of Martin County, to protect
1779the native flora and fa una of Martin County, to maintain and
1791improve the quality of life for all of the residents of Martin
1803County, and to work to these ends."
181010. The corporation holds monthly meetings and annual
1818forums to educate its members and others about issues related
1828to the County's growth management. In prior years, it has
1838actively participated in the development of the County's
1846Comprehensive Plan and actively advocated for a public land
1855acquisition program in the County. Presently, there are 104
1864individual members (of whom 99 reside in the County), 9
1874delegates at large, and 20 corporate and non - profit corporate
1885members. The latter group includes such organizations as 1000
1894Friends of Florida, the Marine Resources Council, and the
1903Citizens Stormwater Protection Group , who also have individual
1911members residing within the County. The parties have
1919stipulated that MCCA made comments to the County in opposition
1929to the three amendments and that a substantial number of MCCA
1940members own businesses within the County. The rec ord also
1950shows that MCCA's Board of Directors passed an appropriate
1959resolution authorizing MCCA to file this action.
196611. Intervenor, the Economic Council of Martin County
1974(ECMC), is a non - profit corporation whose mission is to
1985dedicated to building a qu ality community which provides a
1995healthy economy and protects the quality of life and to
2005encourage the planned growth of the County. Like the MCCA,
2015the ECMA has actively participated in the development of the
2025Comprehensive Plan. Its members are individua ls and
2033businesses who reside, own property, and operate businesses
2041within the County. The ECMC made comments to the County in
2052support of the three amendments during the adoption of those
2062amendments.
2063c. The Amendments
206612. Amendment 00 - 01 represents a policy change by the
2077County and amends the text of the Economic Element and FLUE to
2089change the methodology for determining the need for commercial
2098land within the County. Prior to the amendment, the County
2108used a supply - demand equation based upon an "acr eage per
2120population" methodology to determine the amount of commercial
2128land use necessary to serve the County. Under the old
2138methodology, relevant portions of the FLUE, in conjunction
2146with various provisions in the Economic Element, were used to
2156establish a supply - demand equation that would determine
2165whether the projected need for commercial lands by a future
2175population of the County could be met by the current amount of
2187designated lands. If the result of the equation was a surplus
2198of commercial lands, th at factor alone would require the
2208denial of any request to redesignate land for commercial use,
2218regardless of any other factor or circumstance. According to
2227the repealed text of the Plan, this methodology produced a
22371,131 - acre surplus of commercial lands for the year 2010.
224913. The County proposes to use a more flexible policy
2259and guideline type of review to make this need determination.
2269Rather than projecting future demand for commercial land based
2278solely on a numerical calculation, the County will make that
2288determination based on a number of factors which must be
2298weighed together, such as suitability, location,
2304compatibility, community desire, and numerical need. It also
2312proposes to change the manner in which numerical need is
2322determined. Under the new methodology, the County will now
2331use jobs and the amount of land needed to support those jobs.
2343Put another way, commercial demand will be based on the
2353projected number of jobs in the future. Using the new
2363methodology, and after adding a 25 percent marke t factor, the
2374County projects that in the year 2015 there will be a
2385commercial land deficit of 112 acres.
239114. To accomplish this change in policy, the amendment
2400alters the text of the Economic Element and FLUE by moving
2411some language from the goals, obj ectives, or policies sections
2421of the elements to preliminary sections that contained
2429summaries of the data and analysis relied upon for each
2439element. It also eliminates certain language from the goals,
2448objectives, and policies of the elements, or from the
2457preceding sections containing summaries of data and analysis,
2465where such language was redundant and already appeared
2473elsewhere in the Plan. In contrast to the former provision,
2483the new amendment makes a finding that "the raw data appears
2494to show that the re is a significant deficit of commercial land
2506necessary to accommodate economic needs if Martin County's ten
2515year trend toward retail/service jobs continues."
252115. Amendment 01 - 07 pertains to a 27.8 - acre triangular -
2534shaped tract of land located less than a mile south of the
2546center of the urban area of Indiantown, a small community in
2557the southwestern part of the County. The property, which lies
2567within the County's Primary Urban Service District, is bounded
2576on the north by State Road 76, a major arterial r oadway which
2589connects Indiantown with Stuart, on the west by State Road
2599710, another major arterial roadway which connects Indiantown
2607with Okeechobee and Palm Beach Counties, and on the east by
2618Southwest Indiantown Avenue, which connects State Roads 76 and
2627710. The site is surrounded by vacant property, including
2636Agriculture - designated land on three sides, and Estate Density
2646Residential on the other. Immediately north of State Road 76
2656lies the C - 44 Canal, a major waterway that connects Lake
2668Okechobeee wit h the South Fork of the St. Lucie River and
2680ultimately the Atlantic Ocean. A two - lane bridge (with no
2691pedestrian walkway) provides automobile access from Indiantown
2698to the Blydenstein property. The amendment changes the land
2707use designation on the proper ty from Mobile Home Residential
2717(8 dwelling units per acre) to General Commercial. Even
2726though the property is designated for use as a mobile home
2737park, the property has been vacant and undeveloped for more
2747than 20 years and is used principally for cattle grazing.
275716. The Seven J property consists of 2.99 acres located
2767just west of Jensen Beach in the northern part of the County
2779at the intersection of U.S. Highway 1 and Westmoreland
2788Boulevard, both major arterial roadways. The property is
2796adjacent to a partially built Development of Regional Impact
2805(DRI) known as the West Jensen DRI and is virtually surrounded
2816by other commercial uses. The amendment changes the land use
2826designation on the property from Medium Density Residential (8
2835dwelling units per a cre) to General Commercial. Presently, a
2845nursery, older residential homes, rental property, and
2852wetlands are found on the property; the nearby property is
2862primarily made up of both developed and undeveloped commercial
2871land.
2872d. Availability of Data and Analysis
287817. Rule 9J - 5.005(1), Florida Administrative Code,
2886requires in part that "[a]ll background data, studies,
2894surveys, analyses, and inventory maps not adopted as part of
2904the comprehensive plan shall be available for public
2912inspection while the compr ehensive plan is being considered
2921for adoption and while it is in effect." Relying upon this
2932provision, Petitioners have contended in their Unilateral
2939Prehearing Stipulation that the County failed to make such
2948data and analysis "available to the public th roughout the
2958review and adoption process."
296218. At least one general source of data that was used by
2974County experts was not physically present in the County
2983offices for inspection by the public during the adoption
2992process. That derivative data source wa s entitled "CEDDS
30012000: the Complete Economic and Demographic Data Source" and
3010was prepared by Woods and Poole Economics, a Washington, D.C.
3020consulting firm. The data source was used by one of the
3031County's experts (Dr. Nelson) "to generate [the] demand
3039nu mbers" in his technical report. In order to inspect and
3050review this data, Petitioners, like the County or any other
3060interested person, would have had to purchase a copy from the
3071authors. However, all of the data and analyses accumulated or
3081generated by t he County staff were available for public
3091inspection during the time between the transmittal and
3099adoption of the amendments under review. Further, Petitioners
3107did not show how they were prejudiced by the failure of the
3119County to maintain the Woods and Poo le data in their offices.
313119. The Department does not construe the foregoing rule
3140as narrowly as Petitioners, that is, that every piece of data
3151relied upon by a local government must be physically present
3161in the jurisdiction of the local government. Inde ed, the
3171Department has never found a plan amendment out of compliance
3181solely on the basis that data was not physically located at a
3193local government's offices. Rather, it construes the rule
3201more broadly and considers the rule to have been satisfied so
3212lon g as data and analyses are "available for public
3222inspection," even if this means that derivative source data
3231such as the Woods and Poole report must be purchased from out -
3244of - state sources.
3248e. Were the plan amendments based on the best available,
3258profess ionally acceptable data and analysis ?
326420. Petitioners contend that the plan amendments "are
3272not supported by the best available and professionally
3280acceptable data and analysis." As to this contention, Rule
32899J - 5.005(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, se ts forth a
3299general directive that all plan provisions "be based upon
3308relevant and appropriate data and analyses applicable to each
3317element." In addition, the same rule requires that the data
3327must be "collected and applied in a professionally acceptable
3336ma nner."
333821. Petitioners contend that the County's collection of
3346data to support the amendments, and its analysis of that data,
3357was not professionally acceptable, as required by the rule.
3366More specifically, Petitioners contend that the County
3373undercounte d the commercial land inventory used in projecting
3382future need by omitting between 80 and 100 acres of
3392undeveloped commercial land from the West Jensen DRI, by
3401failing to count commercial development allowed in industrial -
3410designated lands, and by failing t o include 30 acres of land
3422at the Witham Field airport which remains available for
3431commercial development. They also contend that the County
3439inadvertently failed to include more than 60 acres that were
3449placed in the Commercial category by amendments to th e FLUM in
34611995 and 1996 and which remain undeveloped and available for
3471new commercial development.
347422. In support of the amendments, the County submitted
3483to the Department more than 1,000 pages of supporting
3493materials and maps, including 384 pages relat ed to the FLUM
3504amendments, 642 pages of revised supporting data for the text
3514amendments, and 89 pages of public comments. In choosing the
3524sources of data to support the plan, the County used generally
3535accepted, nationally available data as the basis for i ts
3545review and revision of the Plan. After reviewing the
3554foregoing material, the Department found such data and
3562analysis to be relevant and appropriate.
356823. The County also generated extensive data from
3576locally available information that is unique to the County,
3585such as an inventory of the lands within the County that are
3597designated for Commercial uses on the FLUM, but do not yet
3608have any developed commercial uses on them.
361524. As to one of Petitioners' contentions, the County
3624agrees that its staff inadv ertently omitted 60.4 acres of
3634commercial property which was changed to that designation by
3643certain 1995 - 96 FLUM amendments. However, the greater weight
3653of evidence shows that this omission was not significant in
3663terms of the overall collection of data, a nd it did not render
3676the gathering of the other data as professionally
3684unacceptable.
368525. Petitioners go on to contend that the analysis of
3695the data (in determining the supply inventory) was flawed for
3705a number of reasons. First, they argue that the und eveloped
3716portions (around 70 acres or so) of the West Jensen DRI that
3728are commercially - designated land should have been included in
3738the commercial land inventory. The West Jensen DRI is an
3748approximately 180 - acre residential/commercial development with
3755a l arge commercial component. Even though specific site plans
3765have not been issued for some of the undeveloped property, the
3776County excluded all of the undeveloped acreage because the
3785property is dedicated under a master plan of development, and
3795therefore it would be inappropriate to include it as vacant
3805inventory. On this issue, the more persuasive evidence shows
3814that the treatment of undeveloped land in a DRI (subject to a
3826master plan of development) is a "close call" in the words of
3838witness van Vonno, and that it is just as professionally
3848acceptable to exclude this type of undeveloped land from
3857vacant commercial inventory as it is to include it.
3866Therefore, by excluding the West Jensen DRI land from its
3876inventory count, the County's analysis of the data wa s not
3887flawed, as alleged by Petitioners.
389226. The Plan itself does not allow commercial uses
3901within the Industrial land category. However, the County's
3909Land Development Regulations (LDRs) permit certain commercial
3916uses on Industrial lands when done pursua nt to specific
3926overlay zoning. While the County (at the urging of the
3936Department) intends to review (and perhaps repeal) these
3944regulations in 2003, and possibly create a new mixed - use
3955category, there are now instances where commercial uses are
3964located on Industrial lands by virtue of the LDRs. Because of
3975this anomaly, Petitioners contend that the County's analysis
3983of the data was flawed because it failed to count vacant,
3994surplus lands in the Industrial land use category that are
4004available for commercial d evelopment.
400927. Except for arbitrarily allocating all undeveloped
4016industrial land to the commercial category, as Petitioners
4024have proposed here, the evidence does not establish any
4033reasonable basis for making an industrial/commercial division
4040of indust rial - designated lands for inventory purposes.
4049Indeed, no witness cited to a similar allocation being made in
4060any other local government's comprehensive plan as precedent
4068for doing so here.
407228. In those rare instances where the Plan itself
4081permits multi ple uses in a single land category, such as
4092Commercial Office/Residential (an office and multi - family land
4101use designation), the County used a supply figure that was
4111derived from estimating how much land in this category was
4121developed commercially as oppos ed to residential and
4129allocating acreage from the category based on that percentage.
4138No party has suggested that such a methodology be used here,
4149particularly since the mixed use categories are
4156distinguishable from single land use categories, such as
4164Indu strial and Commercial.
416829. Moreover, the County has demonstrated a conscious
4176effort to separate these two types of land uses (industrial
4186and commercial) into separate and distinct categories, they
4194are depicted separately on the County's FLUM, and the Pl an has
4206separate locational criteria for the siting of these lands.
421530. Based on the foregoing, it is found that the
4225County's analysis of the data was not flawed (or
4234professionally unacceptable) because it failed to include
4241undeveloped industrial lands i n the commercial inventory.
424931. Petitioners next contend that the County erred in
4258its commercial inventory count by failing to include around 30
4268acres of vacant land located at Witham Field, a local airport.
4279Under the present zoning scheme at the airpo rt, only aviation -
4291related commercial uses are allowed, and thus the vacant land
4301cannot be used for any other commercial purpose. Further, the
4311airport is designated Institutional on the land use map,
4320rather than Industrial, and it would be inappropriate to count
4330vacant institutional lands in the commercial land inventory.
4338Therefore, the exclusion of the Witham Field land from the
4348commercial inventory did not render the County's analysis of
4357the data professionally unacceptable.
436132. Finally, the remaining c ontentions by Petitioners
4369that the County understated its supply inventory for both
4378commercial and industrial property have been considered and
4386rejected.
438733. In summary, it is found that the amendments are
4397based on relevant and appropriate data and anal yses, and that
4408the data was collected and applied in a professionally
4417acceptable manner.
4419f. The Blydenstein FLUM Amendment
442434. Petitioners generally contend that there is no
4432demonstrated need for the Blydenstein parcel to be
4440redesignated as General Comme rcial, that the amendment is not
4450based upon data and analysis, that the County failed to
4460coordinate the land use with the availability of facilities
4469and services, that the amendment is inconsistent with
4477redevelopment and infill policies, and that the amend ment
4486encourages urban sprawl.
448935. The Blydenstein amendment reclassifies 28 acres to
4497commercial use and will amount to 36 percent of the existing
4508commercial development in downtown Indiantown. In terms of
4516need, the County projects that only 17 acres of commercial
4526development will be needed in Indiantown through the year
45352015, and there presently exist around 186 acres of
4544undeveloped commercial acreage in that community. At the same
4553time, Amendment 00 - 01 reflects a deficit of 112 acres of
4565commercial lan d in the County during the same time period.
4576Although the local and countywide demand calculations are
4584seemingly at odds, at least in the Indiantown area, there will
4595be a surplus of unused commercial lands through the end of the
4607current planning horizon, and thus there from that perspective
4616there is no need for an additional 28 acres of commercial
4627property in that locale.
463136. Notwithstanding a lack of numerical need, that
4639consideration is not the sole factor in determining whether
4648the amendment should be approved. As noted earlier, in
4657addition to need, the County considers such factors as the
4667suitability of the property for change, locational criteria,
4675and community desires in making this determination. Here, the
4684subject property is suitable for commerci al development
4692because of its location on two major arterial roadways and its
4703ready access to a railroad and major waterway. Further, the
4713property is located within the Primary Urban Services
4721District, which is an area specifically designated for more
4730int ense, urban development. In addition, the current land use
4740designation allows 8 residential units per acre, which is an
"4750urban" type of designation. Finally, because there is
4758vacant, undeveloped property surrounding the subject property,
4765the redesignatio n of the property to General Commercial will
4775not pose a compatibility problem with any residential areas.
4784When these considerations are weighed with the need factor, it
4794is found that the proposed land use change is appropriate.
480437. The existing land use designation of Mobile Home
4813Residential is a carryover land use designation which
4821recognized the mobile home use that occurred on the property
4831when the future land use maps were originally created. At the
4842present time, all mobile home use has ceased and t he property
4854is vacant. The nearest residential neighborhood is located to
4863the north across State Road 76 beyond the Canal and is at
4875least 600 feet away. Because of the property's configuration
4884and immediate proximity to major arterial roads, railroad
4892tra cks, and a canal, the greater weight of evidence shows that
4904it is not suitable for residential development. These
4912considerations support the County's determination that the
4919property has been inappropriately designated as residential
4926for more than a decade .
493238. Although the County did not conduct formal studies
4941to determine whether the public facilities and services will
4950be capable of serving the proposed change in land use, a
4961general analysis of the availability and adequacy of public
4970facilities was per formed by its staff. That analysis reflects
4980that the property lies within the service area of a local
4991water and sewer utility and has access to two major roadways.
5002Based on its proximity to major roadways and local public
5012utilities, the County does not a nticipate that the change in
5023land use will adversely impact public facilities and services.
5032To ensure that this does not occur, the County will require a
5044traffic impact analysis at the time the parcel is submitted
5054for development review.
505739. Rule 9J - 5.0 06(3)(b)8., Florida Administrative Code,
5066requires that a plan "[d]iscourage the proliferation of urban
5075sprawl." Leapfrog development is a form of urban sprawl and
5085typically means leaping over a lower density development and
5094placing higher density developm ent just beyond the lower
5103density development. Given the location of the Blydenstein
5111property within the Primary Urban Services District, and the
5120adjacent major arterial roads, railroad, and canal, the
5128greater weight of evidence supports a finding that th e
5138proposed land use change will not constitute leapfrog
5146development.
514740. The change in land use will not promote, allow, or
5158designate urban development in radial, strip, isolated, or
5166ribbon patterns; it will not result in the premature or poorly
5177planned c onversion of rural land; it will not discourage or
5188inhibit infill or redevelopment of existing neighborhoods; it
5196will not result in poor accessibility among linked or related
5206land uses; and it will not result in a loss of significant
5218amounts of functional open space. In the absence of these
5228indicators, it is found that the amendment will not contribute
5238to urban sprawl.
5241g. The Seven J FLUM Amendment
524741. Like the Blydenstein amendment, Petitioners likewise
5254contend that there is a lack of demonstrated need for the
5265Seven J amendment; that the amendment lacks data and analysis;
5275that the County failed to coordinate with the availability of
5285services; that the amendment will promote urban sprawl; and
5294that the amendment is internally inconsistent.
530042. The Seven J property is surrounded by the partially
5310built - out West Jensen DRI, is located within the County's
5321Primary Urban Services District, and is considered to be in a
"5332regional hub" of activity, that is, within the core of major
5343commercial development in the n orthern part of the County.
5353Further, it is located on an eight - lane road at a major
5366intersection (U.S. Highway 1 and Westmoreland Boulevard).
5373Therefore, the change is compatible with surrounding existing
5381and planned commercial uses, and the County's rede signation of
5391the property from Medium Density Residential (8 units per
5400acre) to General Commercial is appropriate. Further, the
5408greater weight of evidence shows that because the property is
5418located within the Primary Urban Services District, is near
5427exist ing commercial and residential development, and urban
5435services are already provided, the Amendment will not
5443contribute to urban sprawl.
544743. Finally, the greater weight of evidence supports a
5456finding that the amendment is internally consistent and based
5465on adequate data and analysis, contrary to Petitioners'
5473assertions.
5474CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
547744. The Division of Administrative Hearings has
5484jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties hereto
5493pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
550145. O'Connell (except as to Amendment 01 - 7), Melzer, and
5512Blydenstein reside, own property, or own or operate a business
5522within the County and submitted oral or written comments,
5531recommendations, or objections to the County during the
5539adoption process of the amendments. Thus, they are affected
5548persons within the meaning of Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida
5556Statutes, and have standing to challenge the amendments.
556446. It is concluded that MCCA and ECMC are "operating a
5575business" within the County by condu cting meetings and
5584participating in governmental decisions and are therefore
5591affected persons within the meaning of the law. See The
5601Sierra Club v. St. Johns County and Dep't of Comm. Affairs ,
5612DOAH Case No. 01 - 1851GM (DCA July 30, 2002); 1000 Friends of
5625F la., Inc. and Audubon Society of the Everglades, Inc. v.
5636Dep't of Comm. Affairs , DOAH Case No. 01 - 0781GM (DCA Dec. 28,
56492001).
565047. Section 163.3184(9), Florida Statutes, provides that
5657when the Department has rendered a notice of intent to find a
5669comprehe nsive plan provision to be in compliance, those
5678provisions "shall be determined to be in compliance if the
5688local government's determination is fairly debatable." Thus,
5695Petitioners must bear the burden of proving beyond fair debate
5705that the challenged amen dments are not in compliance. This
5715means that "if reasonable persons could differ as to its
5725propriety," a plan amendment must be upheld. Martin County v.
5735Yusem , 690 So. 2d 1288, 1295 (Fla. 1997).
574348. The more persuasive evidence supports a conclusion
5751that Petitioners have failed to prove beyond a fair debate
5761that the three amendments are not in compliance.
576949. Finally, Part VII of Ordinance No. 598 reads as
5779follows:
5780Special acts of the Florida Legislature
5786applicable only to incorporated areas of
5792M artin County, County ordinances and County
5799resolutions or parts thereof, and other
5805parts of the Martin County Comprehensive
5811Growth Management Plan in conflict with
5817this ordinance are hereby superceded by
5823this ordinance to the extent of such
5830conflict.
5831Peti tioners contend that this provision "is vague
5839concerning the legal effect and meaning of the amendments, and
5849about which parts of the Plan it supercedes," and that it is
5861inconsistent with the procedural requirements in Rule 9J -
58705.005(8)(b) - (d), Florida Admi nistrative Code. However, the
5879provision is simply a part of the enacting Ordinance which
5889adopted the amendments and not a part of the plan amendments.
5900As such, it is not subject to a compliance review. Therefore,
5911assuming that Petitioners' fears are val id, a determination as
5921to the meaning or effect of this provision would have to be
5933made by a court of competent jurisdiction rather than by this
5944forum.
5945RECOMMENDATION
5946Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions
5955of Law, it is
5959RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs
5966enter a final order determining that Martin County Plan
5975Amendments 00 - 01, 01 - 07, and 97 - 4 are in compliance.
5989DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of October, 2002, in
5999Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
6003__ _________________________________
6005DONALD R. ALEXANDER
6008Administrative Law Judge
6011Division of Administrative Hearings
6015The DeSoto Building
60181230 Apalachee Parkway
6021Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060
6026(850) 488 - 9675 SUNCOM 278 - 9675
6034Fax Filing (850) 921 - 684 7
6041www.doah.state.fl.us
6042Filed with the Clerk of the
6048Division of Administrative Hearings
6052this 16th day of October, 2002.
6058COPIES FURNISHED:
6060Steven M. Siebert, Secretary
6064Department of Community Affairs
60682555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100
6074Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 2100
6079Cari L. Roth, General Counsel
6084Department of Community Affairs
60882555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325
6094Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 2100
6099Richard J. Grosso, Esquire
6103Environmental and Land Use Center, Inc.
61093305 College Avenue
6112Shepard Broad Law Center
6116Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33314 - 7721
6122Joan P. Wilcox, Esquire
61262336 Southeast Ocean Boulevard, PMP 110
6132Stuart, Florida 34986
6135Colin M. Roopnarine, Esquire
6139Department of Community Affairs
61432555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
6147Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 21 00
6153David A. Acton, Esquire
6157Office of County Attorney
61612401 Southeast Monterey Road
6165Stuart, Florida 34996 - 3322
6170Johnathan A. Ferguson, Esquire
6174Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Shuster & Russell, P.A.
6181145 Northwest Central Park Plaza, Suite 200
6188Port St. Lucie, Flori da 34986 - 2482
6196Linda R. McCann, Esquire
6200Royal Palm Financial Center
6204789 South Federal Highway, Suite 310
6210Stuart, Florida 34994 - 2962
6215NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
6221All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within
623115 days of the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions
6242to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that
6253will render a final order in this matter.
- Date
- Proceedings
- PDF:
- Date: 03/01/2004
- Proceedings: BY ORDER OF THE COURT: Ordered that upon consideration of appellant`s response filed February 12, 2004, this court`s February 5, 2004, order to show cause is hereby dismissed.
- PDF:
- Date: 02/09/2004
- Proceedings: BY ORDER OF THE COURT: Ordered that the Appellants in the above-styled case are hereby directed to show cause in writing five days of the issuance of this order as to why this cause should not be dismissed for lack of standing on appeal.
- PDF:
- Date: 01/26/2004
- Proceedings: BY ORDER OF THE COURT: Ordered that pursuant to the January 20, 2004, notice substitution of counsel for the Department of Community Affairs, Shaw P. Stiller is hereby substituted for Karen Brodeen and David L. Jordan as counsel for appellee in the above-styled cause.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/25/2003
- Proceedings: Order from the District Court of Appeal: "The April 21, 2003, notice of substitution of counsel for Department of Community Affairs, L. Jordan, Deputy General Counsel is hereby substituted for C. Roopnarine."
- PDF:
- Date: 03/19/2003
- Proceedings: Order from the District Court of Appeal: "Appellants` motion filed 3/6/03, for extension of time is granted."
- PDF:
- Date: 10/16/2002
- Proceedings: Recommended Order issued (hearing held March 5-8, April 30, and May 1, 2002) CASE CLOSED.
- PDF:
- Date: 10/16/2002
- Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying hearing record referred to the Agency sent out.
- PDF:
- Date: 10/03/2002
- Proceedings: Letter to Judge Alexander from P. Warren enclosing Intervenor`s proposed recommended order on disk filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 09/30/2002
- Proceedings: Letter to Judge Alexander from C. Roopnarine enclosing copy of the Department of Community Affairs proposed recommended order filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 09/25/2002
- Proceedings: Letter to Judge Alexander from D. Acton enclosing diskette containing a copy of Respondent proposed recommended order filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 09/23/2002
- Proceedings: Letter to Judge Alexander from R. Hartsell enclosing 3.5" disk containing word format or Petitioner`s proposed recommended order filed.
- Date: 09/19/2002
- Proceedings: Transcript of Proceedings (11 Volumes) filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 09/17/2002
- Proceedings: Letter to DOAH from J. Wilcox requesting letter as notice of ommission of Petitioner`s composite exhibit 73 A-K of PRO filed 09/06/02 (filed via facsimile).
- PDF:
- Date: 09/17/2002
- Proceedings: Letter to Judge Alexander from D. Acton enclosing original exhibits filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 09/09/2002
- Proceedings: (Proposed) Respondent Martin County`s Proposed Recommended Order (filed via facsimile).
- PDF:
- Date: 09/09/2002
- Proceedings: Notice of Filing Martin County`s Proposed Recommended Order (filed via facsimile).
- PDF:
- Date: 09/06/2002
- Proceedings: Intervenor, Dick Blydenstein`s Proposed Recommended Order (filed via facsimile).
- PDF:
- Date: 09/06/2002
- Proceedings: Department of Community Affairs` Proposed Recommended Order (filed via facsimile).
- PDF:
- Date: 09/06/2002
- Proceedings: Respondent Martin County`s Final Motion for Extension of Time (filed via facsimile).
- PDF:
- Date: 09/03/2002
- Proceedings: Order issued (the parties are authorized, but not required, to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law up to 60 pages in length).
- PDF:
- Date: 09/03/2002
- Proceedings: Respondent Martin County`s Unopposed Emergency Motion for Extension of Time (filed via facsimile).
- PDF:
- Date: 08/29/2002
- Proceedings: Respondent Martin County`s Second Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time (filed via facsimile).
- PDF:
- Date: 08/20/2002
- Proceedings: Petitioner`s Motion to Enlarge the Page Limitation for Proposed Recommended Order (filed via facsimile).
- PDF:
- Date: 07/19/2002
- Proceedings: Order issued. (parties shall have until August 30, 2002, to file their proposed findings of fact and conslusions of law)
- PDF:
- Date: 07/15/2002
- Proceedings: Respondent Martin County`s Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 04/30/2002
- Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held; see case file for applicable time frames.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/29/2002
- Proceedings: Intervener, Dick Blydenstein`s Motion to Compel Petitioners to Provide Copies of Exhibits (filed via facsimile).
- PDF:
- Date: 04/29/2002
- Proceedings: Intervenor, Dick Blydenstein`s, Objections and Responses to Petitioner`s First Request for Admissions (filed via facsimile).
- PDF:
- Date: 03/13/2002
- Proceedings: Amended Notice of Hearing issued. (hearing set for April 30 through May 2, 2002; 9:00 a.m.; Stuart, FL, amended as to continuation hearing dates).
- PDF:
- Date: 03/12/2002
- Proceedings: Letter to Judge Alexander from D. Acton advising of availability (filed via facsimile).
- PDF:
- Date: 03/11/2002
- Proceedings: Letter to Judge Alexander from R. Grosso advising of availability for hearing (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 03/05/2002
- Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Partially Held; continued to date not certain.
- PDF:
- Date: 03/04/2002
- Proceedings: Respondent and Intervenor`s Joint Prehearing Statement (filed via facsimile).
- PDF:
- Date: 03/04/2002
- Proceedings: Respondent Martin County`s Motion for Protective Order (filed via facsimile).
- PDF:
- Date: 02/28/2002
- Proceedings: Joint Request for an Extension of Time to File Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation (filed via facsimile).
- PDF:
- Date: 02/28/2002
- Proceedings: Martin County`s Answers and Objections to Petitioners` First Request for Admissions (filed via facsimile).
- PDF:
- Date: 02/27/2002
- Proceedings: Response to First Request for Admissions to Respondent Florida Department of Community Affairs (filed by Respondent via facsimile).
- PDF:
- Date: 02/27/2002
- Proceedings: Petitioners` Notice of Serving Answers to Respondent Florida Department of Community Affairs` First Set of Interrogatories filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 02/26/2002
- Proceedings: Economic Council of Martin County`s Answers and Objections to Petitioner`s Interrogatories (filed via facsimile).
- PDF:
- Date: 02/26/2002
- Proceedings: Economic Council of Martin County`s Notice of Service of Answers and Objections to Petitioner`s Interrogatories (filed via facsimile).
- PDF:
- Date: 02/26/2002
- Proceedings: Motion for Extension of Time (filed by Respondent via facsimile).
- PDF:
- Date: 02/25/2002
- Proceedings: Respondent Martin County`s Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time (filed via facsimile).
- PDF:
- Date: 02/25/2002
- Proceedings: Martin County`s Answers and Objections to Petitioners` Interrogatories filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 02/22/2002
- Proceedings: Respondent Martin County`s Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of Maggy Hurchalla (filed via facsimile).
- PDF:
- Date: 02/22/2002
- Proceedings: Respondent Martin County`s Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of Sally O`Connell (filed via facsimile).
- PDF:
- Date: 02/22/2002
- Proceedings: Petitioners` First Request for Admissions to Intervenor Economic Council of Martin County filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 02/22/2002
- Proceedings: Petitioner`s Notice of Serving Answers to Respondent Florida Department of Community Affiars` First Set of Interrogatories (filed via facsimile).
- PDF:
- Date: 02/19/2002
- Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of Charles Pattison (filed via facsimile).
- PDF:
- Date: 02/19/2002
- Proceedings: Respondent Martin County`s Re-Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of Donna Melzer (filed via facsimile).
- PDF:
- Date: 02/18/2002
- Proceedings: Respondent Martin County`s Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of Donna Melzer (filed via facsimile).
- PDF:
- Date: 02/18/2002
- Proceedings: Consolidated Notice of Taking Depositions (10), D. Melzer, R. Wilburn, C. Patterson, W. Fruth, T. Astolfi, F. Goodrow, S. O`Connell, M. Dimbath, M. Hurchalla, C. Hoag (filed via facsimile).
- PDF:
- Date: 02/15/2002
- Proceedings: Petitioner`s First Request for Admissions to Intervenor Economic Council of Martin County (filed via facsimile).
- PDF:
- Date: 02/15/2002
- Proceedings: Petitioners` First Set of Interrogatories to Intervenor Economic Council of Martin County (filed via facsimile).
- PDF:
- Date: 02/15/2002
- Proceedings: Petitioners` Notice of Service of Interrogatories to Intervenor Economic Council of Martin County (filed via facsimile).
- PDF:
- Date: 02/14/2002
- Proceedings: The Economic Council of Martin County`s Amended Petition to Intervene (filed via facsimile).
- PDF:
- Date: 02/14/2002
- Proceedings: Respondent Martin County`s Notice of Demand for Expeditious Resolution (filed via facsimile).
- PDF:
- Date: 02/14/2002
- Proceedings: Second Amended Notice of Taking Depositions, R. Wilburn (filed via facsimile).
- PDF:
- Date: 02/13/2002
- Proceedings: Order issued (Intervenor shall fax or hand delier its responses to Petitioner`s by February 25, 2002).
- PDF:
- Date: 02/11/2002
- Proceedings: Response in Opposition to the Economic Council of Martin County`s Petition to Intervene and Motion for Expedited Discovery filed by Petitioners.
- PDF:
- Date: 02/11/2002
- Proceedings: Petitioner`s Amended Response in Opposition to the Economic Council of Martin County`s Petition to Intervene and Motion for Expedited Discovery (filed via facsimile).
- PDF:
- Date: 02/11/2002
- Proceedings: Amended Notice of Hearing issued. (hearing set for March 5 through 8, 2002; 9:00 a.m.; Stuart, FL, amended as to ROOM LOCATION ).
- PDF:
- Date: 02/07/2002
- Proceedings: Correct First Page of Response in Opposition to the Economic Council of Martin County`s Petition to Intervene and Motion for Expedited Discovery (filed via facsimile).
- PDF:
- Date: 02/06/2002
- Proceedings: Response and Motion in Opposition to the Economic Council of Martin County`s Petition to Intervene and Motion for Expedited Discovery (filed by J. Wilcox via facsimile).
- PDF:
- Date: 02/05/2002
- Proceedings: Order Granting Leave to Intervene issued (Economic Council of Martin County).
- PDF:
- Date: 02/04/2002
- Proceedings: Letter to R. Blackburn from J. Wilcox requesting to inspect records filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 02/01/2002
- Proceedings: The Economic Council of Martin County`s Petition to Intervene (filed via facsimile).
- PDF:
- Date: 01/31/2002
- Proceedings: Amended Notice of Taking Depositions (4) N. van Vonno, D. Quigley, K. Sorenson, H. Tupper filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 01/31/2002
- Proceedings: Notice of Taking Depositions, R. Post, C. Gauthier, R. Wilburn filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 01/31/2002
- Proceedings: Amended Notice of Taking Depositions (7), N. van Vonno, D. Quigley, K. Sorenson, H. Tupper, R. Post, C. Gauthier, R. Wilburn filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 01/28/2002
- Proceedings: Petitioner`s Notice of Service of Interrogatories to the Department od Community Affairs filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 01/28/2002
- Proceedings: Notice of Taking Depositions, N. van Vonno, D. Quigley, K. Sorenson, H. Tupper filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 01/28/2002
- Proceedings: Letter to R. Blackburn from J. Wilcox requesting public records filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 01/28/2002
- Proceedings: Letter to C. Roopnarine from J. Wilcox requesting public records filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 01/28/2002
- Proceedings: Petitioners` Notice of Service of Interrogatories to Intervenor Dick Blydenstein filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 01/28/2002
- Proceedings: Petitioners` First Request for Admissions to Respondents Martin County and Florida Department of Community Affairs and Intervenor filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 01/25/2002
- Proceedings: Notice of Substitution of Counsel for Department of Community Affairs (filed by C. Roopnarine via facsimile).
- PDF:
- Date: 01/22/2002
- Proceedings: Order issued (Petition for Leave to Intervene filed by D. Blydenstein is granted).
- PDF:
- Date: 01/18/2002
- Proceedings: Notice of Service of Department of Community Affairs` First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioners (filed via facsimile).
- PDF:
- Date: 01/15/2002
- Proceedings: Petition for Leave to Intervene (filed by D. Blydenstein via facsimile).
- PDF:
- Date: 01/11/2002
- Proceedings: Notice of Hearing issued (hearing set for March 5 through 8, 2002; 9:00 a.m.; Stuart, FL).
- PDF:
- Date: 01/02/2002
- Proceedings: Joint Response to Order Granting Extension of Time to Propose Date for Hearing (filed via facsimile).
- PDF:
- Date: 12/20/2001
- Proceedings: Amended Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing by Sally O`Connell, Donna Melzer and Martin County Conservation Alliance, Inc. (filed via facsimile).
Case Information
- Judge:
- D. R. ALEXANDER
- Date Filed:
- 12/13/2001
- Date Assignment:
- 12/17/2001
- Last Docket Entry:
- 08/09/2004
- Location:
- Stuart, Florida
- District:
- Southern
- Agency:
- ADOPTED IN PART OR MODIFIED
- Suffix:
- GM
Counsels
-
David A. Acton, Esquire
Address of Record -
Johnathan A. Ferguson, Esquire
Address of Record -
Richard J. Grosso, Esquire
Address of Record -
Linda R. McCann, Esquire
Address of Record -
Colin M. Roopnarine, Esquire
Address of Record -
Richard Grosso, Esquire
Address of Record -
Richard J Grosso, Esquire
Address of Record