08-001576GM Susan Woods And Karen Lynn Recio vs. Marion County And Department Of Community Affairs Status: Closed Recommended Order on Wednesday, February 4, 2009.

Summary: Petitioners and DCA proved beyond fair debate there was no need for FLUM change.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

SUSAN WOODS AND KAREN LYNN )

RECIO, )

)

Petitioners, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 08-1576GM

)

MARION COUNTY and DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, )

)

)

Respondents, )

and )

AUSTIN INTERNATIONAL REALTY, )

LLC, CASTRO REALTY HOLDINGS, )

LLC, and HALCYON HILLS, LLC, Intervenors. )

)

)

)

)

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

A final administrative hearing was held in this case in

Ocala, Florida, on October 29 and 30, 2008, before J. Lawrence

Johnston, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of

Administrative Hearings (DOAH).

APPEARANCES

For Petitioners: Susan Woods, pro se

7323 Northwest 90th Avenue

Ocala, Florida 34482

Karen Recio, pro se

8650 Northwest 63rd Street

Ocala, Florida 34482

For Respondent Department of Community Affairs:

Leslie E. Bryson, Esquire

Department of Community Affairs

2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100

For Respondent Marion County:

Thomas L. Wright, Esquire

Marion County Attorney

601 Southeast 25th Avenue

Ocala, Florida 34471-9109

For Intervenors: Bryce W. Ackerman, Esquire

Steven H. Gray, Esquire

Gray, Ackerman & Haines, P.A.

125 Northeast 1st Avenue, Suite 1

Ocala, Florida 34470

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue in this case is whether comprehensive plan future

land use map amendment (FLUMA) 07-L25, adopted by Marion County

Ordinance 07-31 on November 20, 2007, which changed the FLUM

designation on 378 acres of Urban Reserve and on 17.83 acres of

Rural Land to Medium Density Residential, is "in compliance," as

defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. 1

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

The Department of Community Affairs (DCA, or Department)

reviewed the FLUMA and published a notice of intent (NOI) to find

the Amendment “in compliance.” On March 14, 2008, Susan Woods

and Karen Lynn Recio filed a Petition for Administrative Hearing

(Petition) challenging the FLUMA and the NOI. The Petition was

referred to DOAH, and a final hearing was scheduled for

October 29-31, 2008. On May 6, 2008, Austin International, LLC,

Castro Realty Holdings, LLC, and Halcyon Hills, LLC, owners of

the property subject to the FLUMA, were granted leave to

intervene.

At the outset of the final hearing, DCA announced that it

had changed its position on the FLUMA and would join Petitioners

in asserting that the FLUMA was not "in compliance" because of

inconsistency with provisions of Marion County's Comprehensive

Plan and the lack of an adequate demonstration of need. DCA

stipulated that non-compliance would have to be proven beyond

fair debate under Section 163.3184(9)(a), Florida Statutes.

The parties then had Joint Exhibits 1-5 admitted into

evidence. 2

During their case-in-chief, Petitioners called:

Tony Beresford, a resident of Marion County; Mike McDaniel, DCA's

Chief of Comprehensive Planning; Robert Pennock, Ph.D., an expert

in comprehensive planning employed by DCA; Susan Woods; and

Fay Baird, a professional hydrologist. Petitioners' Exhibits 1-7

were admitted in evidence. 3 DCA presented its case-in-chief by

cross-examining Mr. McDaniel and Dr. Pennock and by calling

Troy Kuphal, the County's Water Resources Manager. DCA Exhibits

1, 3, and 4 were admitted in evidence. 4 Marion County presented

no evidence. In their case-in-chief, Intervenors called:

Jimmy Massey, Acting Director of the County's Planning

Department; Stanley Geberer, an economist and director of the

real estate research division of Fishkind & Associates, Inc.;

J. Thomas Beck, Ph.D., an expert in comprehensive planning;

Jonathan Thigpen, a traffic engineer employed by Kimley-Horn &

Associates; Richard Busche, a surface water management engineer

employed by Kimley-Horn & Associates; and Pete Lee, an expert in

comprehensive planning. Intervenors' Exhibits 1-5 were admitted

in evidence. 5 DCA re-called Mr. McDaniel and Dr. Pennock in

rebuttal.

After presenting the evidence, the parties had a Transcript

of the final hearing prepared and were given 20 days from the

filing of the Transcript to file proposed recommended orders

(PROs). The Transcript (in four volumes) was filed on

December 22, 2008. On January 8, 2009, the Department’s

unopposed motion to extend the deadline for filing PROs to

January 20, 2009, was granted. The timely-filed PROs have been

considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The parcel that is the subject of the FLUMA at issue

(the Property) is approximately 395.83 acres in size. The

existing FLUM designation for 378 acres of the Property is Urban

Reserve, and the remaining 17.3 acres are designated as Rural

Land. Both designations allow a maximum of 1 dwelling unit per

10 acres. The FLUMA would change the designation of the entire

parcel to Medium Density Residential (MDR). MDR generally

allows up to four dwelling units per acre. However, Future Land

Use Element (FLUE) Policy 12.5.k, which also was adopted as part

of County Ordinance 07-31, limits the maximum density on the

Property to two dwelling units per acre.

2. FLUE Policy 12.5.k also requires: that development on

the Property "be served by central potable water and central

sanitary sewer services available concurrent with development"

and be a Planned Unit Development "to address site design,

buffering, and access issues"; and that NW 90th Avenue be

reconstructed from U.S. Highway 27 north to the north-eastern

corner of the Property and that all traffic facility

improvements needed at the NW 90th Avenue/U.S. 27 intersection,

including signalization if approved by the Florida Department of

Transportation, be constructed prior to the issuance of any

certificates of occupancy for the Property. Finally, with

respect to the 17.3 acres formerly designated as Rural Land,

FLUE Policy 12.5.k defers compliance with the County's Transfer

of Development Rights (TDR) Program until application for

assignment of a zoning classification for the land.

Petitioners' Challenge

3. Intervenors own the Property. Petitioners own property

nearby in Marion County. Intervenors and Petitioners commented

on the proposed FLUMA between transmittal to DCA and adoption by

the County.

4. Petitioners contend:

a. The FLUMA is not consistent with the

stormwater drainage, retention, and

management policies contained in Policies

1.1.a. and 1.1.d. of the Natural Groundwater

Aquifer Recharge Sub-Element of the

Infrastructure Element of the Comprehensive

Plan.

b. MDR is not suitable or compatible with

existing and planned development in the

immediate vicinity, as required by FLUE

Policy 12.3 of the Comprehensive Plan.

c. The Board of County Commissioners failed

to evaluate the FLUMA's impact on “the need

for the change” as provided in FLUE Policy

12.3 of the Comprehensive Plan.

d. The FLUMA fails to take into account its

impact on “water quality and quantity, the

availability of land, water and other natural

resources to meet demands, and the potential

for flooding,” as required by Section

187.201(15)(b)6., Florida Statutes.

e. The FLUMA is not consistent with

Transportation Policy 1.0 of the

Comprehensive Plan, which states: "Marion

County shall create and maintain

transportation facilities that operate in a

safe and efficient manner within an

established level of service."

f. The FLUMA is not consistent with the

State's Comprehensive Plan in that it does

not "ensure that new development is

compatible with existing local and regional

water supplies," as required by Section

187.201(7)(b)5., Florida Statutes.

g. The FLUMA does not direct development

away from areas without sediment cover that

is adequate to protect the Floridan Aquifer

and does not prohibit non-residential uses

within 200 feet of a sinkhole, solution

channel, or other karst feature, in violation

of FLUE Policy 4.2 of the Comprehensive Plan.

h. The FLUMA does not comply with Section

187.201(7), Florida Statutes, concerning the

protection of surface and ground water

quality in the State.

Recharge Sub-Element Policy 1.1.a. and d.

5. Policy 1.1 of the Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge

Sub-Element of the Infrastructure Element of the Marion County

Comprehensive Plan provides in part:

The County’s land development regulations

shall implement the following guidelines for

stormwater management consistent with

accepted engineering practices by October 1,

2007:

a. Stormwater retention/detention basin

depth will be consistent with the water

management district's storm water

requirements for Karst Sensitive Areas so

that sufficient filtration of bacteria and

other pollutants will occur. Avoidance of

basin collapse due to excessive hydrostatic

pressure in Karst Sensitive Areas shall be

given special consideration.

* * *

d. Require the use of swales and drainage

easements, particularly for single family

residential development in Karst Sensitive

Areas.

These are requirements for land development regulations (LDRs);

they do not apply to comprehensive plan amendments. In any

event, the evidence did not prove that the site is unsuitable for

the density allowed under the adopted FLUMA due to karst

features.

6. The admissible evidence presented by Petitioners

regarding stormwater management in karst topography generally

related to flooding problems on the property contiguous to the

Property, and to a karst feature referred to as the “63rd

Street Sinkhole,” which is located in the general vicinity of

the Property.

7. Fay Baird, an expert hydrologist called by Petitioners,

testified that the 63rd Street Sinkhole allows stormwater run-

off to enter the upper aquifer. Ms. Baird testified generally

of the problems and concerns regarding development and

stormwater management systems in karst topography. She

testified that the Property should be properly inventoried, that

specific karst features should be identified, and that any

stormwater system designed or developed should take into account

karst features to protect against groundwater contamination and

flooding. She testified that she had not been on the Property,

had not seen or reviewed core borings or other data to determine

the depth and nature of the sub-surface, and was not in a

position to provide opinions as to whether or not a particular

stormwater management system would or could adequately protect

against her concerns. Intervenors’ expert, Richard Busche,

testified that a stormwater management plan like the one

recommended by Ms. Baird was being developed.

Compatibility under FLUE Policy 12.3

8. FLUE Policy 12.3 provides in pertinent part:

Before approval of a future land use

amendment, the applicant shall demonstrate

that the proposed future land use is

suitable, and the County will review, and

make a determination that the proposed land

use is compatible with existing and planned

development in the immediate vicinity . . . .

9. Petitioners argued that the proposed MDR development of

the Property is incompatible with surrounding agricultural uses.

Actually, the Property is surrounded by a mixture of

agricultural and residential uses, including residential

subdivisions, a golf course, and scattered large-lot residential

and equestrian uses. The properties immediately to the south

and east of the Property are developed residential properties

and are designated MDR.

10. Before the FLUMA, most of the Property was designated

Urban Reserve under the County's Comprehensive Plan. Such land

"provides for expansion of an Urban Area in a timely manner."

FLUE Policies 1.24.B and 2.18.

11. "For an Urban Reserve Area to be designated an Urban

Area, it must be compact and contiguous to an existing Urban

Area, and central water and sewer must be provided concurrent

with development within the expanded area." FLUE Policy 2.18.

The Property is compact and is contiguous to existing Urban Area

designated MDR. This indicates that the County already has

planned for timely conversion of the Urban Reserve land on the

Property to urban uses, including MDR. It also means that the

County already has determined that at least certain urban uses,

including MDR, are compatible with adjacent agricultural uses.

12. The Property is in the receiving area under the

County's Farmland Preservation Policy and TDR Program in FLUE

Objectives 13.0 and 13.01 and the policies under those

objectives. This means that the County already has determined

that residential density can be transferred to the Property from

the Farmland Preservation sending areas to increase residential

density up to one dwelling unit per acre. See FLUE Policy 13.6.

This would constitute Low Density Residential, which is an urban

use under the County's Comprehensive Plan. See FLUE Policy

1.24.A. By establishing the Farmland Preservation Policy and

TDR Programs, the County already has determined that Low Density

Residential is compatible with adjacent Rural Land. In

addition, Low Density Residential clearly is compatible with

MDR.

13. Although not raised in the Petition, Petitioners

argued that the Urban Reserve and Farmland Preservation eastern

boundary was improperly moved west to NW 90th Avenue. However,

that change was made prior to the adoption of Ordinance 07-31

and the FLUMA at issue in this case and is not a proper subject

of this proceeding.

Demonstration of Need under FLUE Policies 13.2 and 12.3

14. FLUE Policy 13.2 provides:

The Transfer of Development Rights program

shall be the required method for increasing

density within receiving areas, unless,

through the normal Comprehensive Plan

Amendment cycle, an applicant can both

justify and demonstrate a need for a Future

Land Use Map (FLUM) amendment.

15. FLUE Policy 12.3 provides:

Before approval of a future land use

amendment, . . . the County . . . shall

evaluate its impact on:

1. The need for the change;

2. The availability of facilities

and services;

3. The future land use balance;

and

4. The prevention of urban sprawl

as defined by Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g),

Florida Administrative Code.

16. The evidence proved that the County interprets FLUE

Policy 12.3 to require need and future land use balance to be

assessed within the planning districts it has established.

There is no need for additional MDR in the County's Planning

District 5, where the Property is located. To accommodate the

projected population increase in Planning District 5 by 2010,

which is the planning horizon for the County’s Comprehensive

Plan, an additional 644 dwelling units are needed. There are

1,893 vacant acres of MDR available in Planning District 5. At

four units per acre allowed in MDR, the County has an available

supply of 7,572 MDR dwelling units in Planning District 5.

17. In the absence of a need in Planning District 5, the

County relied on a need demonstration prepared for the

Intervenors by Fishkind and Associates. 6 Besides being a

County-wide analysis instead of a planning district analysis,

the Fishkind analysis assumed a planning horizon of 2015, rather

than the 2010 horizon established in the Comprehensive Plan.

Finally, the Fishkind analysis applied an allocation factor to

the total projected need for residential use, most of which

already is supplied, resulting in a projection of residential

far in excess of the incremental need for additional residential

land by 2015, much less by 2010.

18. The result of the Fishkind approach was to allocate

enough land for residential use to meet the County-wide

projected incremental need for additional residential land use

for approximately 45 years, which is five times the calculated

incremental need for 2015. Even assuming that a County-wide

demonstration of need complied with Marion County's

Comprehensive Plan, this is much too high an allocation ratio to

use to meet the incremental need projected for a 2015 plan, much

less for a 2010 plan.

19. The expert for Intervenors, Stanley Geberer, defended

the Fishkind analysis in part by stating that it was comparable

to demonstrations of need accepted by DCA in other cases.

However, there was no evidence that the facts of those other

cases were comparable to the facts of this case.

20. Mr. Geberer also asserted that holding the County to

its 2010 planning horizon would make it impossible for the

County to plan for the future. However, nothing prevents the

County from revising its Comprehensive Plan to plan

comprehensively for a longer timeframe.

21. There was no evidence of any other circumstances that

would demonstrate a need for the FLUMA at issue in this case.

State Comprehensive Plan Policy 187.201(15)(b)6.

22. Petitioners did not prove that the FLUMA fails to take

into account its impact on "water quality and quantity, the

availability of land, water and other natural resources to meet

demands, and the potential for flooding." To the contrary, the

evidence was that those items were taken into account as part of

the FLUMA. (However, as to the FLUMA's impact on the

availability of land to meet demands, see "Demonstration of Need

under FLUE Policies 13.2 and 12.3," supra .)

Transportation Element Objective 1.0

23. Transportation Element Objective 1.0 provides:

Marion County shall create and maintain

transportation facilities that operate in an

efficient and safe manner within established

levels of service.

24. Petitioners presented no expert testimony or

admissible evidence that the FLUMA will change established

levels of service or result in transportation facilities

operating in an unsafe or inefficient manner. Intervenors

presented the testimony of Jonathan Thigpen, an expert traffic

engineer, who prepared and submitted to the County a Traffic

Impact Study and testified that the FLUMA would not change

established levels of service or result in transportation

facilities operating in an unsafe or inefficient manner. The

ultimate need for transportation improvement, such as turn lanes

and traffic lights to mitigate the impacts of development under

the FLUMA, will be determined at later stages of development.

25. Petitioners suggested that the FLUMA will result in

delays caused by additional traffic, frustrate drivers waiting

to turn east on U.S. 27, and induce large numbers of them to

seek an alternative route to the north through agricultural

areas, some of which have inadequate slag roads. However,

Petitioners failed to prove that this result is likely.

State Comprehensive Plan Policy 187.201(7)(b)5

26. Petitioners presented no evidence that the designation

of MDR on the Property is incompatible with existing local and

regional water supplies. The evidence was that adequate local

and regional water supplies exist. Even if they did not exist,

the consequence would be less development than the maximum

allowed by the FLUMA.

FLUE Policy 4.2

27. FLUE Policy 4.2 provides in pertinent part:

In order to minimize the adverse impacts of

development on recharge quality and quantity

in high recharge Karst sensitive and springs

protection areas, design standards for all

development shall be required and defined in

the LDRs to address, at a minimum, the

following:

* * *

f. Directing development away from

areas with sediment cover that is

inadequate to protect the Floridian

[sic] Aquifer.

* * *

h. Prohibiting nonresidential uses

within 200 feet of a sinkhole,

solution channel, or other Karst

feature.

28. This policy sets forth requirements for the content of

LDRs, not FLUMAs.

29. Petitioners presented no evidence that sediment cover

on the Property is inadequate to protect the Floridan Aquifer or

that any non-residential uses would be constructed within 200

feet of a sinkhole, solution channel, or other karst feature

under the FLUMA.

30. Marion County has adopted amendments to its

Comprehensive Plan to protect springs and karst features.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

31. Petitioners and Intervenors have party standing as

"affected persons" under Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida

Statutes.

32. Section 163.3184(9), Florida Statutes, provides that

when the Department has issued an NOI to find a comprehensive

plan amendment to be "in compliance," the amendment "shall be

determined to be in compliance if the local government's

decision is fairly debatable." In recognition of the local

nature of legislative land use decisions, and the Department's

expertise on the subject, the "fairly debatable" standard defers

not only to the local government's determination, but also to

the Department's determination in its NOI. In this case,

Petitioners and the Department bear the burden of proving beyond

fair debate that the FLUMA is not "in compliance." In addition,

to the extent that internal inconsistency is at issue, the

"fairly debatable" standard applies regardless of the

Department's NOI. See § 163.3184(10)(a), Fla. Stat.

33. The Florida Supreme Court has held that, under the

"fairly debatable" standard, the local government's decision

must be upheld "if reasonable persons could differ as to its

propriety." Martin County v. Yusem , 690 So.2d 1288, 1295 (Fla.

1997). See also B & H Travel Corp. v. Department of Community

Affairs , 602 So.2d 1362 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), appeal dismissed

and rev. denied , 613 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1992).

34. Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, defines "in

compliance" to mean:

consistent with the requirements of ss.

163.3177, when a local government adopts an

educational facilities element [sic],

163.3178, 163.3180, 163.3191, and 163.3245,

with the state comprehensive plan, with the

appropriate strategic regional policy plan,

and with chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative

Code, where such rule is not inconsistent

with this part and with the principles for

guiding development in designated areas of

critical state concern and with part III of

chapter 369, where applicable.

35. Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, provides in

part:

The future land use plan shall be based upon

surveys, studies, and data regarding the

area, including the amount of land required

to accommodate anticipated growth; the

projected population of the area; the

character of undeveloped land; the

availability of water supplies, public

facilities, and services; the need for

redevelopment, including the renewal of

blighted areas and the elimination of

nonconforming uses which are inconsistent

with the character of the community; the

compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to or

closely proximate to military installations;

the discouragement of urban sprawl; energy-

efficient land use patterns accounting for

existing and future electric power generation

and transmission systems; greenhouse gas

reduction strategies; and, in rural

communities, the need for job creation,

capital investment, and economic development

that will strengthen and diversify the

community's economy.

36. Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(2)(c) 7

requires that the FLUE be based on an "analysis of the amount of

land needed to accommodate the projected population . . . ."

37. Rule 9J-5.005(2) provides in pertinent part:

(a) All goals, objectives, policies,

standards, findings and conclusions within

the comprehensive plan and its support

documents, and within plan amendments and

their support documents, shall be based upon

relevant and appropriate data and the

analyses applicable to each element. To be

based on data means to react to it in an

appropriate way and to the extent necessary

indicated by the data available on that

particular subject at the time of adoption of

the plan or plan amendment at issue. Data or

summaries thereof shall not be subject to the

compliance review process. However, the

Department will review each comprehensive

plan for the purpose of determining whether

the plan is based on the data and analyses

described in this chapter and whether the

data were collected and applied in a

professionally acceptable manner.

* * *

(c) Data are to be taken from professionally

accepted existing sources, such as the United

States Census, State Data Center, State

University System of Florida, regional

planning councils, water management

districts, or existing technical studies.

The data used shall be the best available

existing data, unless the local government

desires original data or special studies.

Where data augmentation, updates, or special

studies or surveys are deemed necessary by

local government, appropriate methodologies

shall be clearly described or referenced and

shall meet professionally accepted standards

for such methodologies.

* * *

(e) The comprehensive plan shall be based on

resident and seasonal population estimates

and projections. Resident and seasonal

population estimates and projections shall be

either those provided by the University of

Florida, Bureau of Economic and Business

Research, those provided by the Executive

Office of the Governor, or shall be generated

by the local government. If the local

government chooses to base its plan on the

figures provided by the University of Florida

or the Executive Office of the Governor,

medium range projections should be utilized.

If the local government chooses to base its

plan on either low or high range projections

provided by the University of Florida or the

Executive Office of the Governor, a detailed

description of the rationale for such a

choice shall be included with such

projections.

1. If the local government chooses to

prepare its own estimates and projections, it

shall submit estimates and projections and a

description of the methodologies utilized to

generate the projections and estimates to the

Department with its plan when the plan is due

for compliance review unless it has submitted

them for advance review. If a local

government chooses to prepare its own

resident and seasonal population estimates

and projections, it may submit them and a

description of the methodology utilized to

prepare them to the Department prior to the

time of compliance review. The Department may

request additional information regarding the

methodology utilized to prepare the estimates

and projections.

2. The Department will evaluate the

application of the methodology utilized by a

local government in preparing its own

population estimates and projections and

determine whether the particular methodology

is professionally accepted. The Department

shall provide its findings to the local

government within sixty days. In addition,

the Department shall make available, upon

request, beginning on December 1, 1986,

examples of methodologies for resident and

seasonal population estimates and projections

that are deemed by the Department to be

professionally acceptable. The Department

shall be guided by the Executive Office of

the Governor, in particular the State Data

Center, in its review of any population

estimates, projections, or methodologies

proposed by local governments.

38. Section 163.3177(2), Florida Statutes, provides in

part:

Coordination of the several elements of the

local comprehensive plan shall be a major

objective of the planning process. The

several elements of the comprehensive plan

shall be consistent . . . .

39. Implementing Section 163.3177(2), Florida Statutes,

Rule 9J-5.005(5) requires "Internal Consistency" and

subparagraph (a) provides:

The required elements and any optional

elements shall be consistent with each other.

All elements of a particular comprehensive

plan shall follow the same general format

(see "Format Requirements"). Where data are

relevant to several elements, the same data

shall be used, including population estimates

and projections.

40. In this case, Petitioners and the Department proved

beyond fair debate that the FLUMA was not based on a

professionally acceptable demonstration of need as required by

Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, and Rules

9J-5.006(2)(c) and 9J-5.005(2), or as required by Marion County

FLUE Policy 12.3, which makes the FLUMA internally inconsistent

with that Policy, as well as with the rest of the Marion County

Comprehensive Plan, which is based on a planning timeframe of

2010.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is

RECOMMENDED that the Department determine the FLUMA at issue

in this case to be not "in compliance" and take further action as

required by Section 163.3184(9)(b), Florida Statutes.

DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of February, 2009, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

[phone]

Fax Filing [phone]

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 4th day of February, 2009.

ENDNOTES

1/ Unless otherwise noted, all statutory references are to the

2008 Florida Statutes.

2/ The Joint Exhibits consisted of Marion County's Comprehensive

Plan, the Proposed FLUMA Package, DCA's Objections,

Recommendations, and Comments Report, agency comment letters, the

Adopted FLUMA Package, and the NOI.

3/ Petitioners' Exhibits 1-6 were admitted in part subject to

valid hearsay objections, so their use is restricted by Section

120.57(1)(c), Florida Statutes.

4/ DCA's exhibits were its staff memorandum on the adopted

FLUMA, the County's adopted springs protection remedial plan

amendment, and DCA's NOI on the County's adopted springs

protection remedial plan amendment.

5/ Intervenors' Exhibits 2, 3, and 4 were admitted in part

subject to valid hearsay objections, so their use is restricted

by Section 120.57(1)(c), Florida Statutes. .

6/ Dr. Beck also testified that need for the FLUMA was

demonstrated, but he did not explain the reason for his

testimony, other than the Fishkind analysis.

7/ Unless otherwise indicated, all rule references are to the

version of the Florida Administrative Code in effect at the time

of the final hearing.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Thomas Pelham, Secretary

Department of Community Affairs

2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100

Shaw Stiller, General Counsel

Department of Community Affairs

2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100

Thomas D. MacNamara, Esquire

Marion County's Attorney's Office

601 Southeast 25th Avenue

Ocala, Florida 34471-2690

Leslie E. Bryson, Esquire

Department of Community Affairs

2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100

Karen Lynn Recio

8650 Northwest 63rd Street

Ocala, Florida 34482

Steven H. Gray, Esquire

Gray, Ackerman & Haines, P.A.

125 Northeast 1st Avenue, Suite 1

Ocala, Florida 34470-6675

Susan Woods

7323 Northwest 90th Avenue

Ocala, Florida 34482

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15

days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to

this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will

issue the final order in this case.