02-000332 In Re: Rulemaking To Establish The Double Branch Community Development District vs. * Status: Closed Recommended Order on Monday, April 1, 2002.

Summary: Petition to establish Double Branch Community Development District meets the applicable criteria set forth in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

IN RE: A RULE TO ESTABLISH )

THE DOUBLE BRANCH COMMUNITY ) Case No. 02 - 0332

DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. )

)

______________________________)

REPORT TO THE FLORIDA LAND AND WATER

ADJUDICATORY C OMMISSION

Pursuant to Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes,

Charles A. Stampelos, Administrative Law Judge, conducted a

public hearing on March 12, 2002, at 1:00 p.m., in Orange Park,

Clay County, Florida, for the purpose of taking testimony and

publi c comment and receiving exhibits on the Petition of OakLeaf

Plantation, L.L.C. (Petitioner) to establish the Double Branch

Community Development District.

APPEARANCES

For OakLeaf Plantation, L.L.C.:

Cheryl G. Stuart, Esquire

Jennifer A. Tschetter, Esquire

Hopping, Green & Sams, P.A.

123 South Calhoun Street

Post Office Box 6526

Tallahassee, Florida 32314

STATEMENT OF THE ISS UE

The sole issue to be addressed is whether the Petition to

establish the Double Branch Community Development District meets

the applicable criteria set forth in Chapter 190, Florida

Statutes, and Chapter 42 - 1, Florida Administrative Code.

PRELIMINARY STATEMEN T

1. On January 10, 2002, t he Petitioner filed the Petition

to establish the Double Branch Community Development District

with the Secretary of the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory

Commission (Commission). Prior to this time, the Petitioner

provided for the delivery of a copy of the Petition and its

exhibits, along with the requisite filing fee, to Clay County.

A copy of the Petition, including its exhibits, was received

into evidence as Petitioner’s Composite Exhibit A.

2. On January 22, 2002, the Secretary of the Commission

certified that the Petition contained all required elements and

forwarded it to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the

purpose of holding the public hearing required under Section

190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes. A copy of the Secretary’s

corresp ondence to the Division of Administrative Hearings was

received into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit D.

3. The Commission published a Notice of Receipt of

Petition in the Florida Administrative Weekly on March 1, 2002.

A copy of the Notice of Receipt of Petition was received into

evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit C.

4. The local public hearing was scheduled in Orange Park,

Clay County, Florida, for Tuesday, March 12, 2002 at 1:00 p.m.

The Petitioner published notice of the hearing in accordance

with Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes. The Proof of

Publication of the Notice of Local Public Hearing was received

into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit I.

5. The land to be included within the proposed District is

contained wholly within the boundari es of Clay County. The land

within the external boundaries of the proposed District is

neither contained within nor contiguous to the boundaries of any

municipality or any other county.

6. Section 190.005(1)(c), Florida Statutes, provides that

the count y containing all or a portion of the lands within the

proposed District has the option to hold a public hearing within

forty - five (45) days of the filing of the petition. Clay County

elected to hold such a hearing on February 26, 2002. After the

public h earing, the Clay County Commission passed a resolution

in support of the establishment of the Double Branch Community

Development District. A certified copy of the resolution was

received into evidence as P etitioner's Exhibit G.

7. At the local public he aring on March 12, 2002, the

Petitioner presented the testimony of Donald P. Hinson (Hinson),

President of OakLeaf Plantation, L.L.C.; Douglas C. Miller, P.E.

(Miller) of England, Thims and Miller, Inc., an expert in civil

engineering and public infrastruc ture; and Gary R. Walters

(Walters), President of Gary Walters and Associates, a community

planning and management consulting firm and an expert in land

planning and economic development. The full names and addresses

of Petitioner's witnesses are attached to this Report as

Exhibit 1. Petitioner's Exhibits A through L, were received

into evidence at the hearing. A list of Petitioner's Exhibits

in this proceeding is attached to this report as Exhibit 2.

8. No other persons or entities presented any witne sses or

exhibits. No members of the public provided any comment.

9. The one - volume Transcript of the local public hearing

was filed on March 25, 2002, with the Division of Administrative

Hearings. The original Transcript and hearing exhibits are

transmi tted with this Report.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Overview

10. The Petitioner is seeking the adoption of a rule by

the Commission to establish a community development district

proposed to consist of approximately 1,203 acres located within

the boundaries of unincor porated Clay County. The suggested

name for the proposed District is the Double Branch Community

Development District.

11. The Petition notes that the proposed District covers

approximately 1,203 acres. Hinson testified that the

approximate acreage of the proposed District remains 1,203

acres; however, the metes and bounds description contained in

the Petition has been revised since the time of the filing of

the Petition. The revised metes and bounds description was,

without objection, admitted int o evidence.

12. There are no out - parcels within the area to be

included in the proposed District.

13. The estimated cost of the infrastructure facilities

and services which are presently expected to be provided to the

lands within the District was incl uded in the Petition.

14. The sole purpose of this proceeding was to consider

the establishment of the District as proposed by the Petitioner.

Summary of Evidence and Testimony

A. Whether all statements contained within the Petition

have been foun d to be true and correct.

15. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit A was identified for

the record as a copy of the Petition and its exhibits as filed

with the Commission.

16. Hinson testified that he had reviewed the contents of

the Petition and approved i ts findings. Hinson also generally

described the exhibits to the Petition. Hinson testified that

the Petition and its exhibits, as modified by the revised metes

and bounds description admitted into evidence as Exhibit B, are

true and correct to the best of his knowledge.

17. Miller testified that he had assisted in the

preparation of portions of the Petition and its exhibits.

Miller also generally described several exhibits to the Petition

which he or his office had prepared. Miller testified that th e

exhibits to the Petition, prepared by England, Thims & Miller,

Inc., and admitted into evidence, were true and correct to the

best of his knowledge.

18. Walters testified that he had prepared Exhibit 11 to

the Petition, the Statement of Estimated Regul atory Costs

(SERC). Walters also testified that Statement of Estimated

Regulatory Costs submitted as Exhibit 11 to Petitioner's

Composite Exhibit A was true and correct to the best of his

knowledge.

19. Hinson also testified that the consent by the owne r of

the lands to be included within the proposed District is still

in full force and effect. The Petition included written consent

to establish the District from the owners of one hundred percent

(100%) of the real property located within the lands to be

included in the proposed District. There have been no sales of

these lands thus far.

20. Based upon the foregoing, the Petition and its

exhibits are true and correct.

B. Whether the establishment of the District is

inconsistent with any applica ble element or portion

of the State Comprehensive Plan or of the effective

local government comprehensive plan.

21. Walters reviewed the proposed District in light of the

requirements of the State Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 187,

Florida Stat utes. Walters also reviewed the proposed District

in light of the requirements of the Clay County Comprehensive

Plan.

22. From a planning and economic perspective, four (4)

subjects of the State Comprehensive Plan apply directly to the

establishment of the proposed District as do the policies

supporting those subjects.

23. Subject 16, Land Use, recognizes the importance of

locating development in areas with the fiscal ability and

service capacity to accommodate growth. The proposed District

will hav e the fiscal ability to provide services and facilities

to the population in the designated growth area and help provide

infrastructure in an area which can accommodate development

within Clay County in a fiscally responsible manner.

24. Subject 18, Publ ic Facilities, provides that the S tate

shall protect substantial investments in public facilities and

plan for and finance new facilities to serve residents in a

timely, orderly, and efficient manner. The proposed District

will be consistent with this ele ment because the District will

plan and finance the infrastructure systems and facilities

needed for the development of lands within the District at no

capital cost to Clay County.

25. Subject 21, Governmental Efficiency, provides that

governments shall e conomically and efficiently provide the

amount and quality of services required by the public. The

proposed District will be consistent with this element because

the proposed District will finance and deliver those public

services and facilities as needed by the District's residents

and property owners. The proposed District will be established

under uniform general law standards as specified in Chapter 190,

Florida Statutes. Creating a District does not burden the

general taxpayer with the costs for the services or facilities

inside the proposed District. The proposed District will

require no subsidies from the state or its citizens.

26. Subject 26, Plan Implementation, provides that

systematic planning capabilities be integrated into all levels

of go vernment, with emphasis on improving intergovernmental

coordination. The proposed District is consistent with this

element of the State Comprehensive Plan because the proposed

District, by and through a separate and distinct Board of

Supervisors, will sys tematically plan for the construction,

operation, and maintenance of the public improvements and the

community facilities authorized under Chapter 190, Florida

Statutes, subject to and not inconsistent with the local

government comprehensive plan and land development regulations.

Additionally, the District meetings are publicly advertised and

are open to the public so that all District property owners and

residents can be involved in planning for improvements.

Finally, Section 189.415(2), Florida Statutes , requires the

District to file and update public facilities reports with the

county or city, which they may rely upon in any revisions to the

local comprehensive plan.

27. Based on the testimony and exhibits in the record, the

proposed District will no t be inconsistent with any applicable

element or portion of the State Comprehensive Plan.

28. The Clay County Comprehensive Plan contains thirteen

(13) elements which are supported by numerous goals and

objectives. Walters testified that portions of thre e (3) of

these elements are relevant when determining whether or not the

proposed District is inconsistent with the local comprehensive

plan.

29. There are Goals and Objectives within the Future Land

Use Element which are targeted to effectively manage gr owth in

areas designated to accommodate future development and provide

services in a cost - efficient manner. The proposed District is

within the County's Planned Urban Service Area, and is part of a

Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, development order vested i n the

County Land Use Plan. The proposed District is a recognized

vehicle to provide the necessary services and facilities to the

lands within the boundaries of the proposed District.

30. The goal of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element

is to esta blish processes among various governmental, public and

private entities to coordinate development activities,

preservation of the quality of life, and the efficient use of

available resources. The proposed District will assist in the

coordination process by providing and maintaining community

infrastructure in a way that is not inconsistent with the plans

and activities of related public and private agencies.

31. The Capital Improvements Element is intended to

provide necessary infrastructure in a timely and orderly manner.

The proposed District will expand the areas that enjoy

infrastructure in a manner consistent with the Clay County

Comprehensive Plan.

32. Based on the evidence in the record, the proposed

District will not be inconsistent with any applicable element or

portion of the Local Comprehensive Plan, and will in fact

further the goals provided.

33. The Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA)

reviewed the Petition for compliance with its various programs

and responsibilities. DCA als o discussed the contents of the

Petition with the Clay County Planning Department and the

Northeast Florida Regional Planning Council. After conducting

its own review and conferring with local governmental entities,

DCA concluded that it had no objection to the establishment of

the Double Branch Community Development District.

C. Whether the area of land within the proposed district

is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is

sufficiently contiguous to be developable as on e

functional interrelated community.

34. Testimony on this criterion was provided by Miller and

Walters. The lands that comprise the proposed District will

consist of approximately 1,203 acres, located within the borders

of unincorporated Clay C ounty.

35. All of the land in the proposed District is part of a

planned community included in the Villages of Argyle Forest

Development of Regional Impact (DRI).

36. Functional interrelation means that each community

purpose has a mutual reinforcing r elationship with each of the

community's other purposes. Each function requires a management

capability, funding source, and an understanding of the size of

the community's needs, so as to handle the growth and

development of the community. Each function must be designed to

contribute to the development or the maintenance of the

community.

37. The size of the District as proposed is approximately

1,203 acres. From a planning perspective, this is a sufficient

size to accommodate the basic infrastructu re facilities and

services typical of a functionally interrelated community. The

proposed facilities and services require adequate planning,

design, financing, construction, and maintenance to provide the

community with appropriate infrastructure.

38. Compactness relates to the location in distance

between the lands and land uses within a community. The

community is sufficiently compact to be developed as a

functionally inter - related community. The compact configuration

of the lands will allow the Dis trict to provide for the

installation and maintenance of its infrastructure in a long -

term, cost - efficient manner.

39. The Petitioner is developing all of the lands within

the District as a single master - planned community. All of these

lands are gover ned by the Villages of Argyle Forest Development

of Regional Impact Development Order issued by Clay County.

40. From planning, economics, engineering, and management

perspectives, the area of land to be included in the proposed

District is of suffici ent size, is sufficiently compact, and is

sufficiently contiguous to be developed as a single functionally

interrelated community.

D. Whether the proposed district is the best alternative

available for delivering community development services

and facilities to the area that will be served by the

proposed district.

41. It is presently intended that the District will

participate in the construction or provision of certain

infrastructure improvements as outlined in the P etition.

42. Instal lation and maintenance of infrastructure systems

and services by the District is expected to be financed through

the issuance of tax exempt bonds and the debt retired by "non - ad

valorem" or "special" assessments on benefited property within

the proposed Di strict. Expenses for operations and maintenance

are expected to be paid through maintenance assessments. Use of

such assessments will ensure that the real property benefiting

from District services is the same property which pays for them.

43. Two t ypes of alternatives to the use of the District

were identified. First, the County might provide facilities and

services from its general fund. Second, facilities and services

might be provided by some private means, with maintenance

delegated to a prope rty owners' association (POA) or a home

owners' association (HOA).

44. The District is preferable to the available

alternatives at focusing attention on when, where, and how the

next system of infrastructure will be required. This results in

a full uti lization of existing facilities before new facilities

are constructed and reduces the delivered cost to the citizens

being served.

45. The District will construct certain infrastructure and

community facilities which will be needed by the property owne rs

and residents of the project. Expenses for the operations and

maintenance are expected to be paid through maintenance

assessments to ensure that the property or person receiving the

benefit of the district services is the same property or person

to pay for those services.

46. Only a community development district allows for the

independent financing, administration, operations and

maintenance of the land within such a district. Only a

community development district allows district residents to

comp letely control the district. The other alternatives do not

have these characteristics.

47. From an engineering perspective, the proposed District

is the best alternative to provide the proposed community

development services and facilities to the land included in the

proposed District because it is a long - term, stable, perpetual

entity capable of funding, constructing, and in some cases,

maintaining the facilities over their expected life.

48. From planning, economic, engineering, and special

distr ict management perspectives, the proposed District is the

best alternative available for delivering community development

services and facilities to the area that will be served by the

District.

E. Whether the community development services and

facilities of the proposed district will be

incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing

local and regional community development services and

facilities.

49. The services and facilities proposed to be provided by

t he District are not incompatible with uses and existing local

and regional facilities and services. The District's facilities

and services within the proposed boundaries will not duplicate

any existing regional services or facilities which are provided

to the lands within the District by another entity. None of the

proposed services or facilities are presently being provided by

another entity for the lands to be included within the District.

50. Therefore, the community development services and

faciliti es of the proposed district will not be incompatible

with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional

community development services and facilities.

F. Whether the area that will be served by the district

is amenable to separate spe cial - district government.

51. As cited previously, from planning, economics,

engineering, and special district management perspectives, the

area of land to be included in the proposed District is of

sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is suffic iently

contiguous to be developed and become a functionally

interrelated community. The community to be included in the

District has need for basic infrastructure systems to be

provided.

52. From planning, engineering, economic and management

perspect ives, the area that will be served by the amended

District is amenable to separate special - district government.

G. Other requirements imposed by statute or rule.

53. Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42 - 1,

Florida Administrative Code, impose s pecific requirements

regarding the Petition and other information to be submitted to

the Commission.

Elements of the Petition

54. The Commission has certified that the Petition to

Establish the Double Branch Community Development District meets

all of th e requirements of Section 190.005(1)(a), Florida

Statutes.

Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs (SERC)

55. The SERC contains an estimate of the costs and

benefits to all persons directly affected by the proposed rule

to establish the District -- the S tate of Florida and its

citizens, the County and its citizens, the City and its

citizens, the Petitioner, and consumers.

56. Beyond administrative costs related to rule adoption,

the State and its citizens will only incur minimal costs from

establishing the District. These costs are related to the

incremental costs to various agencies of reviewing one

additional local government report. The proposed District will

require no subsidies from the State. Benefits will include

improved planning and coordinat ion of development, which are

difficult to quantify, but nonetheless substantial.

57. Administrative costs incurred by the County related to

rule adoption should be minimal. Benefits to the County will

include improved planning and coordination of deve lopment,

without incurring any administrative or maintenance burden for

facilities and services within the proposed District except for

those it chooses to accept.

58. Consumers will pay non - ad valorem or special

assessments for certain facilities. Loc ation in the District by

new residents is voluntary. Generally, District financing will

be less expensive than maintenance through a property owners'

association or capital improvements financed through developer

loans. Benefits to consumers in the area within the CDD will

include the option of having a higher level of public services

and amenities than might otherwise be available, completion of

District - sponsored improvements to the area on a timely basis,

and a larger share of direct control over commu nity development

services and facilities within the area.

59. Section 190.005(1)(a), Florida Statutes, requires the

P etition to include a SERC which meets the requirements of

Section 120.541, Florida Statutes. The P etition contains a

SERC. It meets th e requirements of Section 120.541, Florida

Statutes.

Other Requirements

60. Petitioner has complied with the provisions of Section

190.005(1)(b)1, Florida Statutes, in that Clay County was paid

the requisite filing fees.

61. Section 190.005(1)(d), Flori da Statutes, requires the

Petitioner to publish notice of the local public hearing in a

newspaper of general circulation in Clay County for four

consecutive weeks prior to the hearing. The notice was

published in The County Line section of The Florida Tim es - Union ,

a newspaper of general circulation in Clay County for four

consecutive weeks, on February 13, 2002, February 20, 2002,

February 27, 2002, and March 6, 2002.

Clay County Support for Establishment

62. Pursuant to the requirements of Section 190 .005(1)(b),

Florida Statutes, Petitioner filed a copy of the Petition and

the $15,000 filing fee with Clay County prior to filing the

Petition with the Commission.

63. As permitted by Section 190.005(1)(c), Florida

Statutes, the Clay County Commission held a public hearing on

February 26, 2002, to consider the establishment of the Double

Branch Community Development District.

64. At the conclusion of its public hearing on

February 26, 2002, the Clay County Commission adopted Resolution

No. 01/02 - 42, expressing support for the Commission to

promulgate a rule establishing the Double Branch Community

Development District.

65. The Clay County Resolution specifically found that all

six (6) of the statutory factors for evaluating the

establishment of com munity development districts found in

Section 190.005(1)(e), Florida Statutes, had been met by the

Petition in this matter.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

66. This proceeding is governed by Chapters 190 and 120,

Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42 - 1, Florida Administr ative Code.

67. The proceeding was properly noticed pursuant to

Section 190.005, Florida Statutes, by publication of an

advertisement in a newspaper of general circulation in Clay

County once each week for the four (4) consecutive weeks

immediately prior to the hearing.

68. The Petitioner has met the requirements of Section

190.005, Florida Statutes, regarding the submission of the

Petition and satisfaction of filing fee requirements.

69. The Petitioner bears the burden of establishing that

the P etition meets the relevant statutory criteria set forth in

Section 190.005(1)(e), Florida Statutes.

70. All portions of the Petition and other submittals have

been completed and filed as required by law.

71. All statements contained within the Petition as

correc ted and supplemented at the hearing are true and correct.

72. The establishment of the District is not inconsistent

with any applicable element or portion of the State

Comprehensive Plan or the effective Clay County Comprehensive

Plan.

73. The area of land within the proposed District is of

sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently

contiguous to be developable as one functional interrelated

community.

74. The proposed District is the best alternative

available for delivering communi ty development services and

facilities to the area that will be served by the District.

75. The community development services and facilities of

the proposed District will not be incompatible with the capacity

and uses of existing local and regional commu nity development

services and facilities.

76. The area to be served by the proposed District is

amenable to separate special district government.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing F indings of F act and C onclusions

of L aw, it is

RECOMMENDED that the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the

Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission, pursuant to

Chapters 190 and 120, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42 - 1,

Florida Administrative Code, establish the Double Branch

Community Development District as requested by the Petitioner by

formal adoption of the proposed rule attached to this Report as

Exhibit 3.

DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of April, 2002, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

___________________________________

CHARLES A. STAMPELOS

Administrative L aw Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675 SUNCOM 278 - 9675

Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 1st day of April, 2002.

Exhibit 1

Petitioner's Witnesses at Public Hearing

Donald P. Hinson

OakLeaf Plantation, L.L.C

3020 Hartley Road, Suite 100

Jacksonville, Florida 32257

Douglas C. Miller, P.E.

England Thims & Miller, Inc.

14775 St. Augustine Road

Jacksonville, Florida 32258

Gary R. Walters

Gary Walters and Associates

12 Crooked Tree Trail

Ormond Beach, Florida 32174

Exhibit 2

List of Petitioner's Exhibits

Letter Description

A Composite Exhibit (Petition with twe lve (12)

exhibits)

B - 1 Pre - filed Testimony of Donald P. Hinson

(11 pages)

B Revised legal description for lands to be

included within the boundaries of the

proposed District

C Commission Notice of Re ceipt of Petition

D Letter to Division of Administrative Hearings

from Commission

E Letter to Department of Community Affairs

from Commission

F Correspondence from Department of Community

Affairs to the Commission

G Clay County Res olution 01/02 - 42

H Development Order (No. 99 - 45) for Villages of

Argyle Forest Development of Regional Impact

I Florida Times - Union Proof of Publication of

Notice of Local Public Hearing

J Pre - filed Testimony of Douglas C. Mil ler, P.E.

(8 pages)

K Pre - filed Testimony of Gary R. Walters

(21 pages)

L Chapter 187, Florida Statutes

(23 pages)

Exhibit 3

Text of Proposed Rule

CHAPTER 42___ - 1

DOUBLE BRANCH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT

42___ - 1.001 Establishment.

42___ - 1.002 Boundary.

42___ - 1.003 Supervisors.

42____ - 1.001 Creation. The Double Branch Community

Development District is hereby established.

Specific Authority 120.53(1), 190.005 FS. Law Implemented

190.005 FS. History - New

42____ - 1.002 Boundary. The boundaries of the District are

as follows:

A parcel of land lying in the being part of Sections 4, 5, 6, 8

and 9, Township 4 South, Range 25 East, Clay County, Florida,

being more particularly described as follows:

Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Section 4, also being

the Northeast corner of said Section 5; thence, on the West line

of said Section 4, South 00 degrees 10 minutes 14 seconds East,

5.00 feet to the point of beginning; thence, parallel with and

5.0 feet South from the North line of said Section 4, also being

the line dividing Clay County and Duval County, and the North

line of said Township 4 South, North 89 degrees 50 minutes 04

seconds East, 2039.14 feet to the West line of Deerfield Pointe,

as recorded in Plat Book 22, Pages 6 2 through 65, of the public

records of said Clay County; thence, on said West line, South 00

degrees 20 minutes 13 seconds West, 1354.17 feet to the South

line of said Deerfield Pointe; thence, on said South line, North

89 degrees 51 minutes 50 seconds Eas t, 675.62 feet to the West

line of Spencer’s Crossing Unit 1, as recorded in Plat Book 18,

Pages 18 through 22, of said public records; thence, on said

West line, the West line of Spencer’s Crossing Unit 5, as

recorded in Plat Book 27, Pages 19 through 22, the West line of

Sweetbriar, as recorded in Plat Book 32, Pages 61 through 64,

the West line of lands recorded in Official Records Book 1603,

Page 1212, and the West line of a 20 foot right - of - way recorded

in Official Records Book 1603, Page 1220, all bei ng recorded in

the public records of said county, said line also being the East

line of the Southeast quarter of the Northwest quarter and the

Southwest quarter of said Section 4, South 00 degrees 31 minutes

32 seconds West, 4050.46 feet to the South line of said Section

4; thence, on said South line, North 89 degrees 51 minutes 57

seconds West, 662.62 feet to the West line of lands described in

Official Records Book 1603, page 1212, of said public records,

also being the East line of the West half of the N ortheast

quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 9; thence, on

last said line, South 00 degrees 11 minutes 52 seconds East,

1388.96 feet to the South line of said Northeast quarter of the

Northwest quarter of said Section 9; thence, on said South line,

South 89 degrees 09 minutes 05 seconds West, 662.36 feet to the

East line of the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of

said Section 9; thence, on said East line, South 00 degrees 21

minutes 15 seconds East, 699.95 feet to the South line of th e

North half of the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of

said Section 9; thence, on said South line, South 88 degrees 36

minutes 38 seconds West, 1327.66 feet to the West line of said

Section 9, also being the East line of said Section 8; thence,

on the South line of the North half of the Southeast quarter of

the Northeast quarter of said Section 8, North 88 degrees 34

minutes 52 seconds West, 1335.51 feet to the East line of the

Southwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section 8;

thence, on said East line, South 00 degrees 10 minutes 48

seconds East, 700.93 feet to the South line of said Southwest

quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 8; thence, on said

South line, North 88 degrees 09 minutes 42 seconds West, 1156

feet, more or less , to the centerline of the North prong of

Double Branch; thence, in a Northwesterly direction, by and

along said centerline and following the meanderings thereof,

12,053 feet, more or less, to a point bearing South 89 degrees

49 minutes 27 seconds West fro m the point of beginning; thence,

parallel with and 5.0 feet South from the North line of said

Section 5, North 89 degrees 49 minutes 27 seconds East, 5043

feet, more or less, to the point of beginning. said parcel

containing 1203 acres, more or less.

Sp ecific Authority 120.53(1), 190.005 FS. Law Implemented

190.004, 190.005 FS. History - New

42____ - 1.003 Supervisors. The following five persons are

designed as the initial members of the Board of Supervisors:

Donald P. Hinson, James T. O’Riley, Donald E. Brown, Charles W.

Arnold, III, and Gary F. Hannon.

Specific Authority 120.53(1), 190.005 FS. Law Implemented

190.006(1) FS. History - New

COPIES FURNISHED:

Cheryl G. Stuart, Esquire

Jennifer A. Tschetter, Esquire

Hopping, Green & Sams, P.A.

123 South Calhoun Street

Post Office Box 6526

Tallahassee, Florida 32314

Charles Canady, General Counsel

Florida Land and Water

Adjudicatory Commission

Office of the Governor

Department of Legal Affairs

The Capitol, Room 209

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

Donna Ar duin, Secretary

Florida Land and Water

Adjudicatory Commission

Office of the Governor

The Capitol, Room 2105

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

Barbara Leighty, Clerk

Growth Management and Strategic Planning

The Capitol, Room 2105

Tallahassee, Florida 32399