04-003081 In Re: Petition For Rule Amendment - Gateway Services Community Development District vs. * Status: Closed Recommended Order on Monday, November 22, 2004.

Summary: The local public hearing was held on the Petition to Amend the Boundary of the Gateway Services Community Development District to remove approximately 12 acres of the District. The received evidence supports the petition.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

IN RE: PETITION FOR RULE )

AMENDMENT - GATEWAY SERVICES ) Case No. 04 - 3081

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. )

)

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S REPORT TO

THE FLORIDA LA ND AND WATER ADJUDICATORY COMMISSION

Notice was given and on November 2, 2004, a local public

hearing was conducted pursuant to Sections 190.046(1)(g) and

190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes, in Fort Myers, Florida, by

Charles A. Stampelos, Administrative La w Judge (ALJ) of the

Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH).

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Jonathan T. Johnson, Esquire

Chasity H. O’Steen, Esquire

Hopping Green & Sams, P.A.

Post Office Box 6526

Tallahassee, Florida 32314 - 6526

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue before the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory

Commission (FLWAC) in this proceeding is whether to grant the

Petition to Amend the Boundary of the Gateway Services Community

Development District (Petition), dated June 2, 2004. The lo cal

public hearing was for purpose of gathering information in

anticipation of rulemaking by the FLWAC.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

The Petition was filed by the Gateway Services Community

Development District (Petitioner) on June 2, 2004. It requested

that t he FLWAC amend the rule that provides the boundary of the

Gateway Services Community Development District (District), on

certain property in the City of Fort Myers (City), Lee County,

Florida. The Petition includes seven exhibits. Petitioner also

filed a n Addendum.

The FLWAC referred the Petition to DOAH on August 31, 2004,

for assignment of an ALJ to conduct a local public hearing

pursuant to Sections 190.046(1)(g) and 190.005(1)(d), Florida

Statutes. The local public hearing before the ALJ was sched uled

and was held at 9:00 a.m., on Tuesday, November 2, 2004, in the

East Room of the Lee County Old Courthouse, located at 2120 Main

Street, in Fort Myers, Lee County, Florida. At the local public

hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of John Asher ,

employed by Worthington Holdings Southwest, L.L.C., in Fort

Myers, Florida; James P. Ward, employed by Severn Trent

Services, Inc., in Coral Springs, Florida; David S. Wilkison,

employed by WilsonMiller, Inc., in Fort Myers, Florida; and Stan

Geberer, em ployed by Fishkind & Associates, Inc., in Orlando,

Florida. Petitioner also introduced ten exhibits, designated

Composite Exhibit A through Exhibit J, which are described in

page 2 of the Transcript of the Record. No one from the public

appeared at the h earing. After the public hearing, Petitioner

filed a "late - filed exhibit" which is a letter from Assistant

Lee County Attorney Dawn E. Perry - Lehnert to Petitioner's

counsel. This document is admitted into evidence as

Petitioner's Exhibit K.

The one - vo lume Transcript of the local public hearing was

filed on November 16, 2004. Petitioner filed a Proposed ALJ’s

Report to the FLWAC, which has been considered in the

preparation of this Report.

SUMMARY OF RECORD

A. Petition and Related Matters

1. The Pet ition was submitted to the FLWAC, Lee County,

and the City of Fort Myers, Florida.

2. The Petition alleges that the land proposed to be

excluded from the District is located in the City of Fort Myers,

Lee County, Florida. Petition Exhibit 1 depicts the ge neral

location of the existing District. The District currently

covers approximately 4,501 acres of land. The current metes and

bounds description of the external boundary of the District is

set forth in Petition Exhibit 2. The metes and bounds

descript ion for the lands to be excluded from the contracted

boundary of the District is set forth in Petition Exhibit 3.

After amendment, the District will encompass approximately

4,488.58 acres with a net decrease of approximately 12 acres

from the total acreag e of the District. The metes and bounds

description of the proposed District boundary is set forth in

Petition Exhibit 4.

3. The property to be contracted out of the boundary of

the District is owned by Lee County (County). Mr. Johnson,

counsel for Petit ioner, stated that the consent of the County,

the landowner of the 12 acres proposed to be excluded from the

District, was included in the Petition although Lee County is

not a Landowner as that term is defined in Section 190.003(13),

Florida Statutes. Pu rsuant to Section 190.003(13), Florida

Statutes, Petitioner is not required to obtain the consent of

the County, which is a governmental entity not included within

the definition of a Landowner. Nevertheless, the consent of the

County is provided in Petit ion Exhibit 5. The Lee County

Attorney's office has taken the position that no further consent

is necessary. The letter of the County Attorney is provided in

Petitioner's Exhibit K. The favorable action of the Board of

Supervisors of the District consti tutes consent for all other

lands pursuant to Section 190.046(1)(e), Florida Statutes, as is

evidenced by the District's submission of the Petition.

4. The future general distribution, location, and extent

of the public and private land uses for the lands to be excluded

from the District by the future land use plan element of the

local Comprehensive Plans are shown in Petition Exhibit 6.

Amendment of the District boundary in the manner proposed is

consistent with the adopted local Comprehensive Plans.

5. T he Petition alleges and incorporates in its Petition

Exhibit 7, a Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs (SERC).

6. The Petition alleges that Petitioner submitted a copy

of the Petition with the petition exhibits to the City and to

the County with the req uired filing fee for each local

government entity in compliance with the statute.

7. The Petition alleges that amendment of boundary of the

District should be granted for the following reasons:

a. Amendment of the boundary of the

District and all land use s and services

planned within the District as amended are

not inconsistent with applicable elements or

portions of the adopted State Comprehensive

Plan or the effective local Comprehensive

Plan.

b. The area of land within the District as

amended is part of a planned community and

will continue to be of sufficient size and

sufficiently compact and contiguous to be

developed as one functional and interrelated

community.

c. The community development services and

facilities of the District as amended will

provide greater enhancement of the area

remaining within the District without

causing any undue hardship or burdens upon

the land to be excluded or the immediately

surrounding incorporated areas of the City

of Fort Myers and unincorporated areas of

Lee Cou nty.

d. The area to be served by the District as

amended will continue to be amenable to

separate special - district government.

8. The Addendum to the Petition alleges that no services

or facilities are currently provided to the land to be excluded

fro m the District.

9. The Addendum states that the District is currently

seeking to contract its boundary pursuant to Section

190.046(1)(g), Florida Statutes, because of a previous District

boundary amendment that exceeded the acreage limitations of

Section 1 90.046(1)(f)1., Florida Statutes, so that the

amendatory process of Section 190.046(1)(d)4., Florida Statutes,

is not available to Petitioner.

10. The Addendum alleges and incorporates a revised SERC

that provides a good faith estimate of the cost to the D istrict

of implementing and enforcing the proposed rule in compliance

with Sections 190.005(1)(a)8. and 120.541(2), Florida Statutes.

B. Additional Information from Local Public Hearing

11. The local public hearing on the Petition was noticed

and held on Nov ember 2, 2004, in the East Room of the Lee County

Old Courthouse, located at 2120 Main Street, in Fort Myers, Lee

County, Florida, an accessible location in Fort Myers, Lee

County, Florida. Pursuant to Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida

Statutes, notice of th e public hearing was advertised on October

5, 12, 19, and 26, 2004, in the Fort Myers News - Press, a

newspaper of general paid circulation in Lee County, and of

general interest and readership in the community, not one of

limited subject matter, pursuant to Chapter 50, Florida

Statutes. The published notice gave the date, time and place of

the hearing, a description of the area to be excluded from the

District, including a map clearly showing the location of the

District, and other relevant information. Th e advertisement was

published as a display advertisement, not in the portion of the

newspaper where legal notices and classified advertisements

appear.

12. The hearing commenced at 9:00 a.m., the time

advertised in the published notice. Appearances were made by

counsel for Petitioner. Only the four witnesses of Petitioner

testified at the hearing. No members of the public were in

attendance at any time during the hearing.

13. The first witness for Petitioner was John Asher. Mr.

Asher is employed by Worthington Holdings Southwest, L.L.C., as

project manager. Mr. Asher is the person within Worthington

Holdings Southwest, L.L.C., who will supervise the development

of the area proposed to be excluded from the District.

14. Mr. Asher testified that he was the representative of

Worthington Communities in the establishment of the Arborwood

Community Development District (Arborwood), and he is now

Chairman of the Board of Arborwood. Mr. Asher testified that he

also sits on the Board of the Colonial Countr y Club Community

Development District. Mr. Asher testified that Worthington is

developing property in the Renaissance Community Development

District, and that he is involved in that construction and

development. Based upon his credentials and experience, Mr.

Asher was designated as an expert witness in the field of real

estate development.

15. Mr. Asher testified that he had previously pre - filed

five pages of direct testimony dealing with the preparation and

content of the Petition. Mr. Asher testified that there were no

changes or corrections to his prefiled written testimony, and it

was received into the record.

16. Mr. Asher identified the Petition and the Addendum to

the Petition. These documents were marked as Petitioner’s

Composite Exhibit A fo r identification.

17. Mr. Asher identified a letter from the FLWAC

transmitting the Petition to the DOAH. This letter was marked

as Petitioner’s Exhibit B for identification.

18. Mr. Asher identified a letter from the FLWAC

transmitting the Petition t o the Department of Community Affairs

(DCA). This letter was marked as Petitioner’s Exhibit C for

identification.

19. Mr. Asher identified a letter from the DCA to the

FLWAC indicating that it has reviewed the Petition and

identified no potential incons istency with Chapter 163, Florida

Statutes. This letter was marked as Petition's Exhibit D for

identification.

20. Mr. Asher identified the notice of this hearing that

was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly . This notice

was marked as Petiti oner’s Exhibit E for identification.

21. Mr. Asher identified the affidavit of publication of

the notice of the public hearing, which has been published in

the Fort Myers News - Press in the manner and form prescribed by

Section 190.05, Florida Statutes. This affidavit was marked as

Petitioner’s Exhibit F for identification.

22. Mr. Asher testified that Lee County held its optional

public hearing pursuant to Section 190.005, Florida Statutes, on

October 26, 2004, and that he was in attendance. Mr. Asher

identified Lee County Resolution No. 04 - 10 - 37 (Resolution) in

support of the Petition, which was adopted by Lee County at a

public hearing pursuant to Section 190.005, Florida Statutes.

The Resolution was marked as Petitioner’s Exhibit G for

identificati on.

23. Mr. Asher identified the transcript of the DOAH

Hearing to establish Arborwood. The transcript was marked as

Petitioner’s Exhibit H for identification. Mr. Asher testified

that a revised legal description to exclude approximately 12

acres from Arborwood was filed during the establishment

proceeding, and that the rule establishing Arborwood adopted a

legal description excluding the 12 acres.

24. Mr. Asher testified that the purpose of this Petition

is to remove the 12 acres from the Gateway Se rvices District so

that the acreage can be later added into the Arborwood District.

Mr. Asher testified that the boundary amendments have been

undertaken in consultation with FLWAC, which agency did not want

an overlap in the boundaries of the Gateway Ser vices District

and the Arborwood District.

25. Mr. Asher identified the Engineer's Report for

Arborwood. The Report was marked as Petitioner’s Exhibit I.

Mr. Asher testified that the Engineer's Report has been adopted

by the Arborwood Board of Supervis ors, and that the

infrastracture described in the Report includes the improvements

needed to develop the 12 acres proposed to be excluded from the

Gateway Services District. Mr. Asher testified that a road will

be constructed on the 12 acres.

26. Mr. As her testified that it is his expert opinion that

the removal of the 12 acres from the Gateway Services District

will not impact the District's operations and ability to

continue to serve as a functional interrelated community.

27. Mr. Asher testified tha t it is his expert opinion that

the Gateway Services District will still be of sufficient size

and continuity to provide infrastructure to the lands remaining

within the District. Mr. Asher testified that it is his expert

opinion that the Arborwood Distri ct, which is an existing

District located adjacent to the Gateway Services District,

would be the best alternative to provide the infrastructure for

the 12 acres proposed to be removed from the Gateway Services

District.

28. Petitioner’s Exhibits A throu gh I were received into

evidence.

29. The next witness for Petitioner was James P. Ward.

Mr. Ward is employed by Severn Trent Services, Inc., as Vice

President of Operations. Mr. Ward serves as District Manager,

Secretary, Financial Advisor and/or Asse ssment Methodology

Consultant for special tax districts in the State of Florida.

His responsibilities include administration, budgeting,

assessing and collecting and bond financing relating to special

districts. Based upon his credentials and experience, Mr. Ward

was designated as an expert witness in the field of special

district management and operations.

30. Mr. Ward testified that he had previously pre - filed

six pages of direct testimony relating the management and

operations of the District. In hi s pre - filed written testimony,

Mr. Ward opined that the District is still the best alternative

to provide community development services and facilities to the

lands remaining within the District. Mr. Ward testified that it

is his expert opinion that the A rborwood District is the best

alternative for the provision of infrastructure for the 12 acres

proposed to be excluded from the Gateway Services District

because of the location of the acreage and the infrastructure

proposed to be provided.

31. In his pr e - filed written testimony, Mr. Ward opined

that the services and facilities that will continue to be

provided by the District will not be incompatible with the uses

and existing local and regional facilities and services. In his

pre - filed testimony, Mr. W ard opined that the area remaining

within the boundary of the District will continue to be amenable

to being served by a separate special district government.

32. Mr. Ward testified that there was one change to his

testimony to correct an erroneous refer ence to another community

development district. Mr. Ward's testimony was received into

the record as amended.

33. Mr. Ward testified that Worthington Communities

appeared before the District's Board of Supervisors and

requested that the District's bound ary be amended to exclude the

12 acres. Mr. Ward testified that the Board acted favorably

upon the request and authorized the filing of this Petition.

34. Mr. Ward identified a letter prepared by him in his

capacity as District Manager for the District to the Lee County

Attorney's office in preparation for Lee County's optional

public hearing. The letter was marked as Petitioner’s Exhibit J

for identification. Petitioner’s Exhibit J was received into

evidence.

35. The next witness for Petitioner was David S. Wilkison.

Mr. Wilkison is employed by WilsonMiller, Inc., as the senior

vice - president of the development design business unit in

Southwest Florida. Based upon his qualifications and

experience, Mr. Wilkison was designated as an expert witness i n

community planning and engineering.

36. Mr. Wilkison testified that he had previously pre -

filed four pages of direct testimony evaluating and finding that

the amendment of the boundary of the District as proposed is not

inconsistent with the State of F lorida Comprehensive Plan and

also with the Lee County Comprehensive Plan. In his pre - filed

written testimony, Mr. Wilkison opined that the area remaining

within the District after the proposed boundary amendment will

continue to be of sufficient size, su fficiently compact and

sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one functional

interrelated community.

37. Mr. Wilkison testified that there were no changes or

corrections to his pre - filed written testimony, and it was

received into the record.

38. The next witness for Petitioner was Stan Geberer.

Mr. Geberer is employed by Fishkind & Associates, Inc., as an

associate. Based upon his credentials and experience with

community development districts, Mr. Geberer was designated as

an expert witness in economic analysis and consultation.

39. Mr. Geberer testified that he had previously pre - filed

three pages of direct testimony regarding the SERC and the

revised SERC that were prepared by his firm. In his direct

written testimony, Mr. Geberer testifie d that the SERC attached

to the Addendum was revised to include a statement that the

costs to the District of implementing and enforcing the proposed

rule are minimal.

40. In his direct written testimony, Mr. Geberer opined

that the proposed amended Dist rict is expected to continue to be

financially viable and feasible and that the minor change in the

boundary of the District would not impact the District's ability

to serve its residents and property owners.

41. In his direct written testimony, Mr. Gebe rer opined as

an economist that the proposed amended District is not

inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan from an economic

perspective. In his direct written testimony, Mr. Geberer

opined as an economist that the area that will be served by the

proposed amended District is amenable to separate special

district government because the amended District would be of

sufficient size, compactness, and contiguity.

42. In his direct written testimony, Mr. Geberer opined

that the District is still the best alternative for providing

community development services and facilities to the area to be

served within the amended boundary of the District based upon

his firm's economic analysis. Mr. Geberer testified that it is

his expert opinion that the removal of the 12 acres will not

affect the size of the District or its contiguity nor impact the

District's ability to function as a single, interrelated

community.

43. Mr. Geberer testified that there were no changes or

corrections to his pre - filed written te stimony, and it was

received into the record.

44. Petitioner introduced several documents that were

admitted into evidence:

Composite Exhibit A

Petition, with exhibits, and Addendum to the

Petition.

Exhibit B

Letter from the Florida Land and Water

Ad judicatory Commission transmitting the

Petition to the Division of Administrative

Hearings.

Exhibit C

Letter from the Florida Land and Water

Adjudicatory Commission transmitting the

Petition to the Department of Community

Affairs.

Exhibit D

Letter from the Department of Community

Affairs to the Florida Land and Water

Adjudicatory Commission indicating that

staff reviewed the Petition and found no

potential inconsistencies with Chapter 163,

Florida Statutes.

Exhibit E

Notice of the Petition and the local public

hearing published in the Florida

Administrative Hearing .

Exhibit F

Affidavit of Publication from the Fort Myers

News - Press establishing that statutory

notice of local public hearing published.

Exhibit G

Lee County Resolution No. 04 - 10 - 37 adopted

in support of the Petition by Lee County,

Florida, at its optional public hearing held

on October 26, 2004.

Exhibit H

Transcript of local public hearing held on

January 28, 2004, for the establishment of

the Arborwood Community Developme nt

District.

Exhibit I

Engineer’s Report, dated October 6, 2004,

for the Arborwood Community Development

District.

Exhibit J

James Ward letter, dated September 22, 2004,

to the Lee County Attorney’s office in

preparation for Lee County’s optional public

hearing.

Exhibit K

Dawn E. Perry - Lehnert, Assistant County

Attorney, letter dated November 4, 2004, to

Petitioner's counsel.

APPLICABLE LAW

A. General

45. Section 190.046(1), Florida Statutes, provides the

means of contracting the boundary of a community development

district (CDD) of 1,000 acres or more that has been established

by a rule adopted by the FLWAC.

46. Section 190.046(1)(a), Florida Statutes, provides that

the petition shall contain the same information required by

Sections 19 0.005(1)(a)1. and 8., Florida Statutes. Namely, the

petition must provide a metes and bounds legal description of

the area to be serviced by the district with a specific

description of real property to be excluded from the district,

if any. The petition must also contain a SERC.

47. Pursuant to Section 190.046(1)(a), Florida Statutes,

when the contraction of a district boundary is sought, the

petition must describe the services and facilities currently

provided by the district to the area being removed, if any, and

the designation of the future general distribution, location and

extent of public and private uses of land proposed for the area

by the future land element of the adopted local government

comprehensive plan.

48. Section 190.046(1)(e), Florida Statutes, requires the

written consent of all the landowners whose land is to be

contracted out of the District. The filing of the petition for

contraction by the district board of supervisors constitutes

consent of the landowners within the district othe r than of the

landowners whose land is proposed to be removed from the

district. Id. The County is the owner of the land to be

excluded from the District. Pursuant to Section 190.003(3),

Florida Statutes, Petitioner is not required to obtain the

consent of the County, which is a governmental entity not

included within the definition of a Landowner. However,

Petitioner obtained the consent of the County. The Lee County

Attorney's office has taken the position that no further consent

is necessary, given the Resolution in support of the Petition

that was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of the

County at its optional public hearing on October 26, 2004.

49. Section 190.046(1)(g), Florida Statutes, states that a

district initially established b y administrative rule that has

previously amended a cumulative total of more than 10 percent of

the land in the initial district, or if 250 acres have

previously been amended from the boundary of a district, the

current boundary amendment shall be consider ed a petition to

establish a new district and the procedures specified in Section

190.005, Florida Statutes, must be followed to amend the

boundary of a district.

50. Section 190.005(1)(a), Florida Statutes, requires that

a boundary amendment petition be f iled with the FLWAC.

51. Section 190.005(1)(b), Florida Statutes, requires that

petitioner provide a copy of the boundary amendment petition and

the requisite filing fee to the county and to each municipality

whose proposed boundary is within or contiguou s to the district

prior to filing the boundary amendment petition with the FLWAC.

52. Section 190.005(1)(c), Florida Statutes, permits the

general purpose local governments described in the preceding

paragraph to conduct a public hearing on the boundary am endment

petition. These local government entities may then present

resolutions to the FLWAC expressing their support of, or

opposition to, the boundary amendment petition. In this case,

the Board of County Commissioners of Lee County, Florida, passed

and adopted a Resolution supporting the amendment of the

boundary of the District on October 26, 2004. The Board of City

Commissioners of Fort Myers, Florida, opted not to hold a public

hearing or adopt a resolution regarding the amendment of the

boundary of the District.

53. Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes, requires an

ALJ to conduct a local public hearing pursuant to Chapter 120,

Florida Statutes. The hearing “shall include oral and written

comments on the petition pertinent to the factors specifie d in

paragraph (e).” Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes,

requires the petitioner to publish notice of the local public

hearing once a week for four successive weeks immediately prior

to the hearing.

B. Factors by Law to be Considered for Granting or

Deny ing Petition

54. Pursuant to Section 190.005(1)(e)1. - 6., Florida

Statutes, the FLWAC must consider the entire record of the local

hearing, the transcript of the hearing, any resolutions adopted

by local general - purpose governments as provided in paragraph

(c), and the following factors to make a determination to grant

or deny a petition for the amendment of the boundary of a

district:

1. Whether all statements contained within the

petition have been found to be true and correct;

2. Whether the amendm ent of the boundary of the

district is inconsistent with any applicable element or portion

of the state comprehensive plan or of the effective local

government comprehensive plan;

3. Whether the area of land to remain within the

amended boundary of the d istrict is still of sufficient size, is

still sufficiently compact, and is still sufficiently contiguous

to continue to be developable as one functional interrelated

community;

4. Whether the district is still the best alternative

available for deliverin g community development services and

facilities to the area to remain within the boundary of the

district and that will continue to be served by the district;

5. Whether the community development services and

facilities that will continue to be provided by the district

will be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing

local and regional community development services and

facilities; and

6. Whether the area that will continue to be served

by the district is still amenable to separate special - di strict

government.

COMPARISON OF INFORMATION IN RECORD TO APPLICABLE LAW

A. Procedural Requirements

55. The evidence was that Petitioner satisfied the

procedural requirements for the amendment of the boundary of the

District by filing the Petition and Addend um in the proper form

with the required attachments, by tendering the requisite filing

fee to each local government and by publishing statutory notice

of the local public hearing.

B. Six Factors of Section 190.005(1)(e)1. - 6.,

Florida Statutes

56. The e vidence was that the statements in the Petition

and its attachments, as supplemented by the Addendum and its

attachments, are true and correct.

57. The evidence was that the amendment of the boundary of

the District is not inconsistent with any applicable element or

portion of the State and local government comprehensive plan.

58. The evidence was that the area of land to remain

within the amended boundary of the District is still of

sufficient size, is still sufficiently compact, and is still

sufficiently contiguous to continue to be developable as “one

functional interrelated community.”

59. The evidence was that the District is still the best

alternative available for delivering community development

services and facilities to the area to remain within th e

boundary of the District and that will continue to be served by

the District.

60. The evidence was that the District is not the best

alternative available for delivering community development

services and facilities to the area to be excluded from the

boundary of the District.

61. The evidence was that the community development

services and facilities that will continue to be provided by the

District will not be incompatible with the capacity and uses of

existing local and regional community development services and

facilities.

62. The evidence was that the area that will continue to

be served by the District is still amenable to separate special -

district government.

CONCLUSION

Section 190.005(1)(e), Florida Statutes, states that the

FLWAC “shall consid er the entire record of the local hearing,

the transcript of the hearing, resolutions adopted by local

general - purpose governments,” and the factors listed in that

subparagraph. Based on the record evidence, the Petition

appears to meet all statutory requ irements, and there appears to

be no reason not to grant the Petition to Amend the Boundary of

the Gateway Services Community Development District by rule.

For purposes of drafting the amended rule, a metes and bounds

description of the revised boundary o f the Gateway Services

Community Development District may be found as Petition

Exhibit 4.

DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of November, 2004, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

CHARLES A. STAMPELOS

Administrative La w 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 22nd day of November, 2004.

COPIES FURNISHED :

Michael P. Hansen, Secretary

Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission

The Capitol, Room 2105

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0001

Barbara Leighty, Clerk

Growth Management and Strategic Planni ng

The Capitol, Room 2105

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0001

Raquel A. Rodriguez, General Counsel

Office of the Governor

The Capitol, Room 209

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 1001

Jonathan T. Johnson, Esquire

Hopping Green & Sams, P.A.

Post Office Box 6526

Tall ahassee, Florida 32314

Heidi Hughes, General Counsel

Department of Community Affairs

2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 2100