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.


View Dockets  
Summary: Local government properly collected and analyzed data to support commercial land inventory used in demand projections and Future Land Use Map changes; amendments in compliance.

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.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 08/09/2004
Proceedings: Opinion filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/09/2004
Proceedings: Amended Mandate filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/06/2004
Proceedings: Mandate
PDF:
Date: 05/19/2004
Proceedings: Opinion
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: 01/24/2003
Proceedings: Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/03/2003
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 10/16/2002
Proceedings: Recommended Order
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: 09/19/2002
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Transcript filed byPetitioner.
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: 09/06/2002
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Proposed Recommended Order filed.
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: 03/01/2002
Proceedings: Petitioners` Prehearing Statement (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: Order issued (Intervention Status).
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: 02/04/2002
Proceedings: Intervenor`s Notice of No Objection (filed via facsimile).
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 Pre-Hearing Conference of Counsel filed by J. Wilcox.
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: Petitioners` Notice of Service of Interrogatories filed.
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: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions issued.
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: 12/21/2001
Proceedings: Petitioners` Response to Initial Order (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).
PDF:
Date: 12/17/2001
Proceedings: Initial Order issued.
PDF:
Date: 12/13/2001
Proceedings: Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing by Sally O`Connell, Donna Melzer and Martin County Conservation Alliance, Inc. filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/13/2001
Proceedings: Agency referral filed.

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

Related Florida Statute(s) (3):