03-004415GM Gregory L. Strand vs. Department Of Community Affairs And Escambia County Status: Closed Recommended Order on Thursday, May 6, 2004.

Summary: Plan amendment changing the land use on parcel from residential to commercial is fairly debatable and therefore in compliance.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

GREGORY L. STRAND, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Ca se No. 03 - 4415GM

)

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY )

AFFAIRS and ESCAMBIA COUNTY, )

)

Respondents. )

________________________________)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pu rsuant to notice, this matter was heard before the

Division of Administrative Hearings by its assigned

Administrative Law Judge, Donald R. Alexander, on March 2,

2004, in Pensacola, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Margaret T. Stopp, Esquire

Moore, Hill & Westmoreland, P.A.

Post Office Box 13920

Pensacola, Florida 32591 - 3290

For Respondent: Timothy E. Dennis, Esquire

(Department) Department of Community Affairs

2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 2100

For Respondent: Alison A. Perdue, Esquire

(County) Escambia County Attorney's Office

14 West Government S treet, Room 411

Pensacola, Florida 32501 - 5814

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue is whether the plan amendment adopted by

Ordinance No. 2003 - 45 on September 4, 2003, is in compliance.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This matter began on Septe mber 4, 2003, when Respondent,

Escambia County (County), adopted Ordinance No. 2003 - 45, which

changed the land use designation on the Future Land Use Map

(FLUM) on five parcels of land totaling 43.76 acres from Low

Density Residential (LDR) to Commercial.

On October 24, 2003, the Department of Community Affairs

(Department) issued a Notice of Intent To Find the Escambia

County Comprehensive Plan Amendment In Compliance. On

November 17, 2003, Petitioner, Gregory L. Strand, who resides

within the County , filed a Petition under Section 163.3184(9),

Florida Statutes (2003), 1 challenging the plan amendment on

the ground that the amendment conflicted with four policies of

the County's Comprehensive Plan (Plan). The Petition was

forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings on

November 21, 2003, with a request that an administrative law

judge conduct a hearing.

By Notice of Hearing dated December 5, 2003, a final

hearing was scheduled on January 27, 2004, in Pensacola,

Florida. Thereafter, the parties ' joint Motion for

Continuance was granted, and the matter was rescheduled to

March 2, 2004, at the same location.

At the final hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony

of Vikki R. Garrett, former County Transportation Planner;

Doyle Butler, Chief of the County's Environmental Quality

Division; Doris Ruth Smith, a County Senior Planner; and

Jeffrey E. Beilling, a Department Principal Planner. Also, he

offered Petitioner's Exhibits 1 - 6, which were received in

evidence. The Department presented the tes timony of Jeffrey

E. Beilling, a Principal Planner, and offered Department

Exhibits 1, 2, and 4 - 7, which were received in evidence. The

County presented the testimony of Keith Wilkins, Director of

the County's Neighborhood Environmental Services Departmen t.

Also, it offered County Exhibits 1 - 3, which were received in

evidence.

The Transcript of the hearing was filed on March 26,

2004. Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law were

filed by Respondents and Petitioner on April 12 and 13, 2004,

respe ctively, and they have been considered in the preparation

of this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of

fact are determined:

A. Background

1. E. K. Edwards (Edwards) and Richard J. Clark (Clark) ,

who are non - parties, own two tracts of land totaling 43.76

acres approximately four or five miles west - northwest of the

City of Pensacola in unincorporated Escambia County. The

larger tract (known as the Northern Parcel and owned by

Edwards) consists of one parcel totaling 26.76 acres and is

located at 2700 Blue Angel Parkway, also known as State Road

173. The second tract (known as the Southern Parcel and owned

by Clark) consists of four contiguous parcels totaling around

17 acres and is located approx imately 560 feet south of the

Northern Parcel at the northeastern quadrant of the

intersection of Blue Angel Parkway and Sorrento Road

(intersection). The two tracts are separated by two large

privately - owned lots that currently have residential uses.

(H owever, the land use on one of those parcels, totaling

almost 9 acres, was recently changed to a Commercial land use

designation. See Finding of Fact 15, infra .)

2. On July 10, 2002, a realtor (acting as agent on

behalf of the two owners) filed an applic ation with the County

seeking to change the land use on the FLUM for both the

Northern and Southern Parcels from LDR to Commercial. The LDR

category allows residential densities ranging from one

dwelling unit per five acres to 18 dwelling units per acre, as

well as neighborhood commercial uses. The Commercial category

would allow the owners to place a broad range of commercial

uses on their property, such as shopping centers, professional

offices, medical facilities, convenience retail, or other

similar u ses.

3. On November 20, 2002, the County Planning Board (on

which Petitioner was then a member) considered the application

and voted unanimously to change the land use classification on

the Southern Parcel to Commercial. It also voted to change

the non - w etlands portion of the Northern Parcel to Commercial.

However, the request to change the land use on the wetlands

portion of the Northern Parcel was denied. This

recommendation was forwarded to the Board of County

Commissioners (Board), which modified th e Planning Board's

recommendation and approved the application as originally

submitted. The amendment was then sent to the Department for

an in compliance determination.

4. On June 13, 2003, the Department issued its

Objections, Recommendations, and Comm ents (ORC) Report. In

the ORC, the Department expressed concerns that there were

insufficient "adequate data and analyses to demonstrate the

suitability of the [Northern Parcel] for the proposed Future

Land Use designation" because of the presence of on - s ite

wetlands. The ORC went on to say that the County had failed

to demonstrate how the proposed amendment would be consistent

with four other Plan provisions that prohibit the location of

commercial and industrial land uses in certain types of

wetlands. The ORC recommended that the County "provide a more

detailed characterization of the site and the surrounding area

relative to the natural resources [wetlands] on the amendment

site and the general area."

5. After the issuance of the ORC, Mr. Edwards reta ined

an ecological consultant, Dr. Joe A. Edmisten, to address the

Department's concerns. On July 16, 2003, Dr. Edmisten

submitted a 14 - page Report in which he essentially concluded

that while there were wetlands on the site, there were no

endangered, thr eatened, rare, or listed plant or animal

species. That Report has been received in evidence as

Petitioner's Exhibit 4.

6. In light of this new information, the Planning Board

again considered the matter on August 20, 2003, and by a four -

to - one - vote rec ommended that the application, as originally

filed, be approved. The matter was then forwarded to the

Board.

7. In response to an inquiry by a Board member at the

Board's meeting on September 4, 2003, Dr. Edmisten stated that

he found a "few pitcher plan ts in the wetlands [on Mr.

Edwards' property]," including Sarracenia leucophylla, which

is on the State (but not federal) Endangered Plant List. See

Fla. Admin. Code R. 5B - 40.0055(1)(a)334. Even though this

information had not been disclosed in the Repor t, by a three -

to - two vote, the Board adopted Ordinance No. 2003 - 45, which

approved the change to the FLUM for both the Northern and

Southern Parcels. On October 24, 2003, the Department issued

its Notice of Intent to Find the Escambia County Comprehensive

Plan Amendment in Compliance.

8. On November 17, 2003, Petitioner, who resides, owns

property, and operates a business within the County, and

submitted written or oral comments, objections, or

recommendations to the County before the amendment was

adopte d, filed his Petition alleging that the plan amendment

was not in compliance. Petitioner is an affected person

within the meaning of the law and has standing to file his

Petition.

9. In the parties' Pre - Hearing Stipulation, Petitioner

contends that the re is inadequate data and analyses relative

to the natural environment (wetlands), traffic concurrency,

and urban sprawl to support the amendment. As further

clarified by Petitioner, he does not challenge the change in

the FLUM for the Southern Parcel, bu t only contests that

portion of the amendment which changes the land use on the

Northern Parcel, on which wetlands are sited. In view of

this, only the Northern Parcel will be considered in this

Recommended Order.

B. The Property

10. The Northern Parcel fronts on the eastern side of

Blue Angel Parkway approximately 1,400 feet north of the

intersection. In broader geographic terms, the property is in

western Escambia County and appears to be several miles west -

northwest of the Pensacola Naval Air Station (which lies west -

southwest of the City of Pensacola) and several miles south of

U.S. Highway 98, which runs east - west through the southern

part of the County. Blue Angel Parkway is a minor arterial

roadway (at least where it runs in front of the Northern

Parcel) and begins at the Pensacola Naval Air Station (to the

south) and runs north to at least U.S. Highway 98. From the

Naval Air Station to the intersection, Blue Angel Parkway

appears to have four lanes, and from that point continuing

past the Nort hern Parcel to U.S. Highway 98, it narrows to two

undivided lanes.

11. At the present time, an old borrow pit sits on the

eastern side of the land, for which the property was given a

special exception by the County's Zoning Board of Adjustments

in March 1 995. Also, there are at least three other ponds (or

old borrow pits) formerly used by the owner for catfish

farming; two large, unused metal buildings (apparently

hangars) moved from the Naval Air Station to the property as

military surplus; and numerous stored empty tanks in the

southeastern corner of the property. The remainder of the

property is vacant. When Dr. Edmisten's Report was

submitted in July 2003, all of the ponds were filled with

water due to recent heavy rains.

12. Because of existi ng development at all corners of

the intersection except the southwest corner, the intersection

has been designated by the County as a commercial node, and

the County considers the node to extend from the intersection

northward along the eastern side of Bl ue Angel Parkway to the

Northern Parcel. (However, on the western side of the road,

the County has determined that the node terminates at the end

of a parcel on which a Wal - Mart Super Center sits, and that

further commercial development beyond that point would be

inappropriate.) This determination is consistent with the

Commercial land use classification found on the western

portion of the Northern Parcel. See Finding of Fact 13,

infra .

13. The property presently carries a split future land

use: an app roximate 150 - foot deep sliver of land which fronts

on Blue Angel Parkway is classified as Commercial, while the

remainder of the parcel is LDR. This dichotomy in land uses

stems from a decision by the County in 1993 (when the Plan was

adopted) to designat e a narrow commercial strip on both sides

of Blue Angel Parkway from just south of the intersection to

Dog Track Road, which lies north of the Northern Parcel.

14. The property also carries an Industrial zoning

classification (presumably related to the mining activities),

even though the land use on most of the parcel is residential.

By his application, Edwards is seeking to "unify" the back or

eastern portion of his property, which is now LDR, with the

western portion fronting on Blue Angel Parkway, wh ich is

classified as Commercial.

15. To the east of the Northern Parcel is Coral Creek, a

fairly large residential subdivision platted in the 1990s.

Some of the single - family lots in that subdivision back up to

the eastern boundary of the property. The property to the

north is vacant, is populated with some pitcher plants, and is

classified as residential. Across the street and to the

southwest is a new Wal - Mart Super Center which opened in the

last year or so at the northwestern quadrant of the

inters ection. (The northern boundary of the Wal - Mart Super

Center parcel is directly across the street from the southern

boundary of the Northern Parcel.) The property directly

across the street and extending to the north is vacant and

classified as Residentia l. That parcel also contains pitcher

plants and is informally designated as "pitcher plant

prairie." The property which separates the Northern and

Southern Parcels is classified as Residential, except for 8.98

acres which were recently changed from LDR t o Commercial

through a small - scale development amendment approved by the

Department. See Gregory L. Strand v. Escambia County , DOAH

Case No. 03 - 2980GM (DOAH Recommended Order Dec. 23, 2003; DCA

Final Order Jan. 28, 2004). The Final Order in that case,

ho wever, has been appealed by Petitioner.

16. While the precise amount of wetlands on the site is

unknown, the record does indicate that wetlands exist on

"approximately" one - half of the Northern Parcel, or around

thirteen or so acres, leaving a like amou nt of uplands.

(Therefore, even if the property is reclassified, the amount

of development on the property will be restricted in some

measure through the application of the County's Wetlands

Ordinance found in the Land Development Code.) A small area

of wetlands exists on the western side of the property near

Blue Angel Parkway while a larger wetland system lies on the

eastern side of the property and acts as a buffer with the

Coral Creek subdivision. The wetlands are under the

permitting jurisdiction of the United States Corps of

Engineers, the Department of Environmental Protection, and the

County.

C. Petitioner's Objections

17. Petitioner contends that the amendment is not in

compliance because there is inadequate data and analyses

relative to conser vation (wetlands), traffic, and urban sprawl

to support the change in the land use. 2 These issues will be

addressed separately below.

a. Wetlands

18. As to this objection, Petitioner's principal concern

is that if the land use change is approved, ther e will be much

more intense development on the property which will result in

a loss of wetlands, even with mitigation. Citing Policy

11.A.2.6.d of the Coastal Management Element of the Plan, he

contends that there is insufficient data and analyses to

supp ort the plan amendment's distribution of land uses in such

a way as to minimize the effect and impact on wetlands. The

cited policy contains provisions which govern the development

of lands within wetland areas, including one provision which

states that " commercial and industrial land uses will not be

located in wetlands that have a high degree of hydrological or

biological significance, including the following types of

wetlands: . . . Wetlands that have a high degree of

biodiversity or habitat value, bas ed on maps prepared by the

Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission or Florida National Areas

Inventory, unless a site survey demonstrates that there are no

listed plant or animal species on the site."

19. In Case No. 03 - 2980GM, supra , which involved a

chan ge in the FLUM on a parcel of property which separates the

Northern and Southern Parcels, Petitioner contended, among

other things, that the terms of Policy 11.A.2.6.d should apply

whenever the FLUM is being amended, and that because there

were wetlands on the parcel, along with two types of

endangered plants, the policy prohibited a change from a

residential to a commercial land use. In rejecting that

contention, however, the Department approved and adopted

language by the Administrative Law Judge which c oncluded, for

several reasons, that "the County intended Policy 11.A.2.6.a

through e to apply to decisions of the County regarding

development applications and not to changes in future land use

designations or categories in a FLUM." (Recommended Order,

page 19). Therefore, the policy applies to development

applications, and not to FLUM amendments, and does not have to

be considered at this juncture. (That policy, and the

County's Wetlands Ordinance, will obviously come into play at

the time a site plan is filed and the owner seeks to develop

the property.) As such, there is no need for data and

analyses at this time to demonstrate that the policy has been

satisfied.

20. As noted above, after the Department issued its ORC,

Mr. Edwards engaged the servi ces of Dr. Edmisten, who

performed a study and prepared a Report that evaluated the

wetlands on the Northern Parcel. That Report constitutes much

of the data and analyses which support the amendment.

21. Despite the presence of one endangered plant

spe cies, the Report indicates that the wetlands do not have a

high degree of hydrological or biological significance; that

the change in the FLUM is consistent with all relevant

policies in the Plan, including those cited in the ORC; that a

mitigation plan wi ll be offered prior to any development; and

that all wetlands issues will be addressed during the

development stage. The Report also indicates that among other

things, Dr. Edmisten utilized the National Wetlands Inventory

Map in reaching his conclusions.

22. The Department reviewed the document and found that

it constituted the best available data and analyses, that the

data were analyzed in a professional manner, and that the

County reacted to the data in an appropriate manner when it

adopted the amend ment. This is especially true since the

County has provisions in its Plan for wetlands avoidance and

fully considers these issues through the site - review process.

Given these considerations, it is at least fairly debatable

that there exist adequate data and analyses regarding wetlands

to support the change in the land use on the property.

b. Traffic

23. Petitioner also contends that there is a lack of

adequate data and analyses to demonstrate that the proposed

change in land use will not adversely impac t traffic in the

area. More specifically, he contends that the County failed

to perform an analysis of infrastructure capacity, and that it

also failed to include information that Blue Angel Parkway is

not in its five - year plan for improvements.

24. Data and analyses were provided in the form of a

spreadsheet dated November 6, 2002, and entitled Traffic

Volume and Level of Service Report (Traffic Report). The

Traffic Report contained several categories of information

regarding traffic volume, Level of Se rvice (LOS), and other

transportation information. ( See Petitioner's Exhibit 1) The

data were far more detailed than data previously used by the

County on other amendments of this size and character, and

they were based on Florida Department of Transport ation (DOT)

accepted standards of traffic calculations. The data and

analyses were the best available at the time the plan

amendment was adopted.

25. The data shows that the section of Blue Angel

Parkway on which the Northern Parcel fronts has an adopted LOS

of "D." At the time the amendment was adopted, the service

volume on that portion of the road was 74 percent, which means

that the roadway was operating at 74 percent of its capacity.

Therefore, when the amendment was adopted, the roadway was not

fa iling, and it could handle additional traffic, including any

that might be associated with the future development of the

land.

26. Petitioner also contends that the County's study was

flawed because the County used so - called "Art Tab" software,

which beca me outdated after September 1, 2002. (Art - Tab

software has now been updated and is called Free Plan

software.) He further suggests that the County should have

performed a new study using updated software. Under DOT

requirements set forth in its Quality/ Level of Service

Handbook, however, the County was not required to redo its

analysis; rather, it was required to use the new software only

in the event further studies were required. Because Blue

Angel Parkway was not failing at the time the study was

per formed, it was not necessary for the County to undertake a

new study.

27. During the interagency review process, the DOT did

not issue any objections, recommendations, or comments to the

Department concerning the amendment.

28. Finally, Petitioner conte nds that because the County

did not have Blue Angel Parkway on any road improvement list

at the time the amendment was adopted, its analysis of

infrastructure capacity was flawed. See Section

163.3177(3)(a), Florida Statutes, which requires that each

loca l government's comprehensive plan contain a capital

improvements element with a component which outlines the

principles for correcting public facility deficiencies

covering at least a five - year period. Whether the County's

Plan contains such a component i s not of record. In any

event, even if the County failed to consider the fact that

Blue Angel Parkway was not scheduled for upgrading when the

amendment was adopted, given the other data and analyses

available at that time (the traffic spreadsheet), which

reflected that the roadway was operating below capacity, the

County had sufficient information regarding infrastructure

capacity to support the amendment.

29. Based on the foregoing, it is at least fairly

debatable that the amendment has adequate data a nd analyses

relative to traffic impacts to support the land use change.

c. Urban sprawl

30. Finally, Petitioner asserts that no data were

gathered and no analyses were performed to demonstrate that

the change in land use will discourage urban sprawl.

31. In this case, the Department did not require that

the County perform an urban sprawl analysis, given the type of

surrounding land uses; the relative small size of the Northern

Parcel; the absence of any land use allocation problems; the

ability of the owner to now place up to 18 units per acre

and/or neighborhood commercial development on the property

under the current LDR classification; and the fact that the

Northern Parcel is located on the edge of a rapidly urbanizing

area of the County. At the sa me time, Petitioner presented no

evidence which supported the need for such a study.

32. The Northern (and Southern) Parcel is located in a

rapidly urbanizing area of the County and is close to several

other urban uses. Indeed, as noted earlier, there is a Wal -

Mart Super Center across the street at the northwestern

quadrant of the intersection, and a mix of commercial and

residential uses abut the intersection to the southeast.

33. All four corners of the intersection have been

designated as a commerci al node in the County's draft

Southwest Sector Plan, and the County has determined that the

node continues northward on the eastern side of the road to

and including the Northern Parcel. As a general rule, the

Department considers the size and shape of no des to be a local

government decision, and it found no reason here to question

that determination. The Plan encourages commercial

development at intersectional nodes.

34. Under Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J -

5.003(134), urban sprawl is defined in pa rt as "urban

development or uses which are located in predominately rural

areas." Indicators of urban sprawl include "[t]he premature

or poorly planned conversion of rural land to other uses," and

the "creation of areas of urban development or uses which are

not functionally related to land uses which predominate the

adjacent area." The evidence does not support a finding that

the amendment will result in the poorly planned conversion of

rural lands, or the creation of a land use that is not

functionally related to land uses that predominate the

adjacent area.

35. Given these considerations, Petitioner has not

proven beyond fair debate that the plan amendment will result

in urban sprawl, or that the County lacked adequate data and

analyses related to urba n sprawl to support the change in the

land use.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

36. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties hereto

pursuant to Sections 120.569, 120.57(1), and 163.3184(9),

Florida Statutes.

3 7. Petitioner resides, owns property, and operates a

business in the County, and he submitted oral or written

comments, objections, or recommendations to the County prior

to the adoption of the amendment. As such, he is an affected

person and has standin g to file this challenge. See §

163.3184(1)(a), Fla. Stat.

38. Under the statutory scheme in place, if a large -

scale plan amendment has been found to be in compliance by the

Department, as it was here, an affected person has the

somewhat onerous task of proving beyond fair debate that the

plan amendment is not in compliance. § 163.3184(9), Fla.

Stat. This means that "if reasonable persons could differ as

to its propriety," a plan amendment must be upheld. Martin

County v. Yusem , 690 So. 2d 1288, 1295 ( Fla. 1997). See also

Martin County v. Section 28 Partnership, Ltd. , 772 So. 2d 616,

621 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)(where there is "evidence in support of

both sides of a comprehensive plan amendment, it is difficult

to determine that the County's decision is any thing but

'fairly debatable'").

39. "'In compliance' means consistent with the

requirements of ss. 163.3177, 163.31776, . . . 163.3178,

163.3180, 163.3191, and 163.3245, with the state comprehensive

plan, with the appropriate strategic regional policy pla n, and

with chapter 9J - 5, Florida Administrative Code . . . ." §

163.3184(1)(b), Fla. Stat.

40. The more persuasive evidence supports a conclusion

that Petitioner has failed to prove beyond fair debate that

the plan amendment is not in compliance. A ccordingly, because

the County's determination of compliance is fairly debatable,

the plan amendment is in compliance. § 163.3184(9)(a), Fla.

Stat.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions

of Law, it is

RE COMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs

enter a final order determining that the plan amendment

adopted by Ordinance No. 2003 - 45 on September 4, 2003, is in

compliance.

DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of May, 2004, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Flo rida.

S

DONALD R. ALEXANDER

Administrative Law 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 - 6 847

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 6th day of May, 2004.

ENDNOTES

1/ Unless otherwise noted, all future references will be to

Florida Statutes (2003).

2/ The papers filed in this action cre ate some confusion as to

what are the actual concerns of Petitioner. This confusion

arises because in his Petition, he argued that the plan

amendment was "inconsistent" with Sections 7.A.4.1, 8.A.2.1,

11.A.2.6, and 14.A.3.1 of the Plan (which happen to be the

same four sections cited by the Department in its ORC). In the

parties' Pre - Hearing Stipulation, however, Petitioner describes

the nature of the controversy as being an alleged lack of

"adequate data and analysis to demonstrate concurrency and the

suitability of this site for the proposed Future Land Use

Designation as to the natural environment, traffic, and urban

sprawl." At the same time, he also contended that the

amendment "conflicts with Sections 7, 8, 11, and 14 of the

Comprehensive Plan, as well as Chapter 163, Florida Statutes,"

and that "the Amendment is not in compliance based on

concurrency issues related to the environment (wetlands),

traffic, and urban sprawl." In yet another portion of the Pre -

Hearing Stipulation, the parties identif y the facts requiring

litigation as relating principally to an alleged lack of data

and analyses and the amendment's failure to discourage urban

sprawl. Finally, in his Proposed Recommended Order, Petitioner

seeks relief only on the ground that the plan a mendment is not

supported by adequate data and analyses. Based on the latter

paper, and his counsel's remarks at hearing that Petitioner is

"focusing on data and analysis" (Transcript, page 10), the

undersigned has assumed that there are no consistency is sues,

but only a contention that the plan amendment lacks adequate

data and analyses.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Thaddeus Cohen, Secretary

Department of Community Affairs

2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 2100

Margaret T. Stopp , Esquire

Moore, Hill & Westmoreland, P.A.

Post Office Box 13290

Pensacola, Florida 32399 - 2100

Alison A. Perdue, Esquire

Escambia County Attorney's Office

14 West Government Street, Room 411

Pensacola, Florida 32501 - 5814

Timothy E. Dennis, Esquire

D epartment of Community Affairs

2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 2100

Heidi M. Hughes, General Counsel

Department of Community Affairs

2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 2100

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

15 days of the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

will render a final order in this matter.