09-004297GM Section 7 Tract 64 Property, Inc., And The Grand At Doral I, Ltd. vs. City Of Doral, Florida And Department Of Community Affairs
 Status: Closed
DOAH Final Order on Wednesday, August 11, 2010.


View Dockets  
Summary: LDRs adopted by City are not inconsistent with the effective County comprehensive plan.

1STATE OF FLORIDA

4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

8SECTION 7 TRACT 64 PROPERTY, )

14INC. , AND THE GRAND AT DORAL I, )

22LTD., )

24)

25Petitioner s, )

28)

29vs. ) Case No. 0 9 - 4297 GM

38)

39CITY OF DORAL AND DEPARTMENT )

45OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, )

49)

50Respondent s . )

54___________________________ ___ _ )

58FINAL ORDER

60Pursuant to notice, this matter was heard before the

69Division of Administrative Hearings by its assigned

76Administrative Law Judge, D . R. Alexander, on May 18 and 19,

882010, in Miami , Florida.

92APPEARANCES

93For Petitioner s: Beth - Ann Krimsky , Esquire

101Rob yn L. Libow, Esquire

106Jamie B. Wasserman, Esquire

110Ruden McClosky, P.A.

113200 East Broward Boulevard, Suite 1500

119Fort La uderdale, Florida 3330 1 - 19 63

128For Respondent: Michael D. Cirullo, Jr., Esquire

135(City) Jamila V. Alexander, Esquire

140Goren, Cherof, Doody & Ezrol, P.A.

1463099 East Commer cial Boulevard, Suit e 200

154Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 - 4311

160For Respondent : L. Mary Thomas, Esquire

167(Department) Department of Community Affairs

1722555 Shumard Oak Boulevard

176Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 2100

181STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

185The issue is whether the Land Development Code (LDC)

194adopted by Ordinance No. 2007 - 12 on August 22, 2007, as amended

207on February 27, 2008, is inconsistent with the effective

216c omprehensive p lan for the City of D oral (City), which is the

230Miami - Dade Comprehensive Development Master Plan (County Plan) .

240PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

242On August 22, 2007, the City adopted a new LDC. Because

253the City's Comprehensive Plan (City Plan) was not yet effective

263due to administrative l itigation, the controlling comprehensive

271plan for the City was, and still is , the County Plan. On

283February 27, 2008, the City amended the LDC in minor respects.

294On August 20, 2008, or within twelve months after the adoption

305of the LDC , Petitioners, Secti on act 64 Property, Inc.

315(Section 7) and The Grand at Doral I, Ltd. (The Grand) , or

327Petitioners collectively , who own two parcels consisting of ten

336acres in the City, timely filed with the City a Petition

347pursuant to Section 163.3213(3), Florida Statut es (2009) , 1

356contending that the new LDC was inconsistent with the County

366Plan. On November 20, 2008, t he City served its response to the

379Petition, which denied the Petition. On December 22, 2008,

388Petitioners filed a Petition with Respondent, Department o f

397Community Affairs (Dep artment), alleging generally that the LDC

406is inconsistent with the County Plan and the new, but not yet

418effective, City Plan. In a Determination of Consistency of a

428Land Development Regulation (Determination) issued on July 23,

436200 9, the Department denied the Petition and determined that the

447LDC was not in consistent with either Plan .

456On August 13, 2009, Petitioners filed a Petition for Formal

466Proceedings with the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH)

474alleging generally that t he Department's Determination was

482incorrect for numerous reasons and asserting again that the LDC

492was inconsistent with both the City and County Plans .

502By Notice of Hearing dated August 26, 2009, a final hearing

513was scheduled on November 9 and 10, 2009, in Miami, Florida. By

525agreement of the parties, the matter was continued and

534rescheduled to May 18 and 19, 2010, at the same location.

545During the course of this proceeding, various discovery

553disputes arose and their disposition may be found in Orders

563issu ed in this matter.

568On May 14, 2010, the City filed a Motion in Limine to Limit

581the Scope of the Formal Proceedings seeking to limit the

591evidence to those issues raised in the first Petition filed with

602the City on August 20, 2008, rather than the issues lat er raised

615before the Department and DOAH, and to further exclude all

625evidence relating to Petitioners' site plans for developing its

634property now pending before the City. The Motion was denied at

645hearing , and Petitioners were allowed to present evidence t o

655support all claims in the Petitions filed with the Department

665and DOAH. However, evidence regarding Petitioners' pending site

673development plans with the City is not relevant to this appeal.

684A Joint Pre - Hearing Stipulation was filed by the parties on

696May 14, 2010. At the final hearing, Petitioners presented the

706testimony of Pablo Valdez, the owner and president of the

716corporations that own the subject property; Mark Woerner, chief

725of the County M etro politan P lanning Section ; Nathan Kogon, City

737Planning a nd Zoning Director; Henry Iler, a land use consultant,

748president of Iler Planning Group, and accepted as an expert; and

759Dr. David W. Depew, president of Morris - Depew Associates, Inc. ,

770a land planner, and accepted as an expert. Also, they offered

781Petitione rs' Exhibits 1A, 1B, 2 - 11 , 13a, 13b, 15, 24 - 33, 36, 38,

79739, 44, 45, 53 - 55, 59, 65, 67, 68, 70, 71, 75 - 78 , 83, 84, 101 -

816148, 195, 210, 263, 416, and 4 28 (also identified in the record

829as Joint Exhibit 428) , which were received in evidence. Exhibit

839428 is th e deposition testimony of Robert Dennis, a De partment

851Regional Planning Administrator. The City presented the

858testimony of Nathan Kogon, City Planning and Zoning Director;

867and Guillermo Olmedillo, an urban and regional planner and

876accepted as an expert. Also, it offered City Exhibit 77, which

887was received in evidence. The Department presented no witnesses

896but adopted the evidence presented by the C ity. Finally,

906Petitioners' Motion for Official Recognition of Public Records

914was granted, and the following documents were officially

922recognized: City of Doral Zoning Map Version 2007; City of

932Doral Future Land Use Map; City of Doral Zoning Map adopted as

944part of Ordinance 2007 - 12; and the Miami - Dade County Land Use

958Plan (LUP) m ap.

962The Transcript of the hearin g ( three volumes) was filed on

974June 8 , 2010. P r oposed F i nal Orders w ere filed by Petitioners

989and jointly by the City and Department on July 19, 2010, and

1001have been considered in the preparation of this Final Order.

1011FINDINGS OF FACT

1014Based upon all of the e vidence, the following findings of

1025fact are determined:

1028A . The Parties

10321. Section 64 is a Florida corporation . The Grand is a

1044Florida limited partnership. Both entities are owned by the

1053same individual. On September 25, 2001, Section 7 acquired

1062owne rship of an approximate ten - acre tract of property in the

1075County (now the City) located along the southern boundary of

1085Northwest 82nd Street, between 109th and 112th Avenues. See

1094Petitioners' Exhibit 416. On December 16, 2005, title in one -

1105half of the pr operty was conveyed to The Grand in order to

1118divide the property into two different ownerships. Id. It was

1128Petitioners' i ntent at that time to build two hotel s on separate

1141five - acre tract s, one owned by Section 7 and the other by The

1156Grand.

11572. The Cit y is located in the northwestern part of Dade

1169County and was incorporated as a municipality in June 2003. At

1180the time of incorporation, the County's Plan and Land Use Code

1191were the legally effective comprehensive plan and land

1199development regulations (LDR s), respectively . On April 26,

12082006, the City adopted its first comprehensive plan. After the

1218Department determined that the Plan was not in compliance,

1227r emedial amendments were adopted on January 10, 2007 , pursuant

1237to a Stipulated Settlement Agreement . Although the Department

1246found the Plan, as remediated, to be in compliance, it was

1257challenged by a third part y , and the litigation is still

1268pending. See DOAH Case No. 06 - 2417. Therefore, the County Plan

1280is still the legally effective Plan . See § 163.31 67(4), Fla.

1292Stat.

12933. The Department is the state land planning agency

1302charged with the responsibility of reviewing LDRs whenever the

1311appeal process described in Section 163.3213, Florida Statutes ,

1319is invoked by a substantially affected person .

1327B. History of the Controversy

13324. When Petitioners' property was purchased in 2001, the

1341County zoning on the property was Light Industrial (IU - 1),

1352having been rezoned by the County to that designation on

1362October 9, 1984. See Petitioners' Exhibit 5. One of the use s

1374permitted under an IU - 1 zoning classification is a hotel with up

1387to 75 units per acre . See Petitioners' Exhibit 6. The land use

1400designation on the County's LUP m ap for the property is Low -

1413Density Residential (LDR) , with One Density Bonus, which allows

14222.5 to 6 residential units per acre with the ability for a

"1434bump - up" in density to 5 to 13 units per acre if the

1448development includes specific urban design characteristics

1454according to the County urban design guide book .

14635. La nguage found on pages I - 62 and I - 63 of the Future

1479Land Use Element (FLUE) in effect at the time of the

1490incorporation of the City (now found on pages I - 73 and I - 74 of

1506the current version of the FLUE ) provides in relevant part as

1518follows :

1520Uses and Zoning Not Specifically Depicted on

1527t he LUP Map. Within each map category

1535numerous land uses, zoning classifications

1540and housing types may occur. Many existing

1547uses and zoning classifications are not

1553specifically depicted on the Plan map.

1559. . . All existing lawful uses and zoning

1568are deemed to be consistent with the [Plan]

1576unless such a use or zoning (a) is found

1585through a subsequent planning study, as

1591provided in Land Use Policy 4E, to be

1599inconsistent with the criteria set forth

1605below; and (b) the implementation of such a

1613finding will not result in a temporary or

1621permanent taking or in the abrogation of

1628vested rights as determined by the Code of

1636Metropolitan Dade County, Florida.

1640As noted above, if there is a concern that zoning might be

1652inconsistent with land use, using the criteri a described in the

1663provision, the County may initiate a planning study to analyze

1673consistency and down - zone the property to a less intense use if

1686an inconsistency is found. Although the County initiated a

1695number of planning studies after it adopted its Pl an in 1993,

1707and ultimately down - zoned many properties, none was ever

1717initiated by the County for Petitioners' property.

17246. Essentially, when existing uses and zoning are not

1733depicted on the County LUP map, the language in the FLUE

1744operates to deem lawfu lly existing zoning consistent with the

1754land use designation on the property. In this case, the parties

1765agree that the zoning of Petitioners' property is not depicted

1775on the County LUP map. Therefore, absent a planning study

1785indicating an inconsistency, the zoning is deemed to be

1794consistent with the land use category.

18007. On August 22, 2007, the City adopted Ordinance No.

18102007 - 12, which enacted a new LDC , effective September 1, 2007,

1822to replace the then - controlling County Land Use Code . Although

1834the LDC was adopted for the purpose of implementing the new City

1846Plan, u ntil the new Plan becomes effective, the LDC implements

1857the County Plan. Amendments to the LDC were adopted by

1867Ordinance No. 2008 - 1 on February 27, 2008. The LDC does not

1880change the zoning on Petitioners' property . However , it

1889contain s a provision in Chapter 1, Section 5, known as the

1901Zoning Compatibility Table (Table) , which sets forth the new

1910land use categories in the City Plan (which are generally

1920similar but not identical to the County land use categories) and

1931the zoning districts for each category. Pertinent to this

1940dispute is a n asterisk note to the Table which reads in relevant

1953part as follows:

1956Under no circumstances shall the density,

1962intensity, or uses permitted be inconsistent

1968wi th that allowed on the city's future land

1977use plan. . . . Zoning districts that are

1986inconsistent with the land use map and

1993categories shall rezone prior to

1998development.

1999See Petitioners' Exhibit 27 at p. I - 3. Under the Table, only

2012residential zoning distr icts (with up to ten dwelling units per

2023acre and no density bonus) are allowed in the City's proposed

2034LDR land use category. Th erefore, if or when the City Plan

2046becomes effective, before Petitioners can develop their

2053property, they must rezone it to a dis trict that is consistent

2065with the land use designation shown on the Table. There is no

2077specific requirement in the LDC that t he City conduct a planning

2089study when it has a concern that the zoning is inconsistent with

2101the relevant land use category in the new City Plan.

21118 . Petitioners construed the a sterisk note as being

2121inconsistent with the text language on pages I - 62 and I - 63 of

2136the County Plan . See Finding of Fact 5 , supra . Accordingly , o n

2150August 21, 2008, Petitioners submitted a Petition to the City

2160pursuant to Section 163.3213(3), Florida Statutes , alleging

2167generally that they were substantially affected persons; that

2175the LDC was inconsistent with the County Plan; t hat the LDC

2187changes the regulations regarding character, density, and

2194intensity of us e permitt ed by the County Plan ; and that the LDC

2208was not compatible with the County Plan, as required by Florida

2219Administrative Code Rule 9J - 5.023 . 2 See Petitioners' Exhibit

2230103.

22319 . The City issued its R esponse to the Petition on

2243November 20, 2008. Se e Petitioners' Exhibit 104. The Response

2253generally indicated that Petitioners did not have standing to

2262challenge the LDC; that the Petition lacked the requisite

2271factual specificity and reasons for the challenge; that the LDC

2281did not change the character, density, or intensity of the

2291permitted uses under the County Plan; and the allegation

2300concerning compatibility lacked factual support or allegations

2307to support that claim.

231110 . On December 22, 2008, Petitioners filed a Petition

2321with the Department pursua nt to Section 163.3213(3), Florida

2330Statutes, alleging that the LDC implements a City Plan not yet

2341effective; that the LDC changes the uses, densities, and

2350intensities permitted by the existing County Plan; and that the

2360LDC changes the uses, densities, and intensities permitted by

2369the not yet effective City Plan. See Petitioners' Exhibit 105.

23791 1 . After conducting an informal hearing on April 7, 2009,

2391as authorized by Section 163.3213(4), Florida Statutes, on

2399July 23, 2009, the Department issued a Determi nation of

2409Consistency of a Land Development Regulation (Determination).

2416See Petitioners' Exhibit 102. See also Section act 64

2425Property, Inc., et al. v. The City of Doral, Fla. , Case No.

2437DCA09 - LDR - 270, 2009 Fla. ENV LEXIS 119 (DCA July 23, 2009). In

2452the Determination, the Department concluded that Petitioners

2459were substantially affected persons and had standing to file

2468their challenge; that the provision on pages I - 62 and I - 63 of

2483the County FLUE did not apply to Petitioners' property because

2493the uses and zoning of the property are specifically designated

2503on the LUP map; that the law does not prohibit the Department

2515from reviewing the LDC for consistency with the not yet

2525effective City Plan; and that because the LDC will require

2535Petitioners to rezone th eir property to be consistent with the

2546City Plan, the challenge is actually a challenge to a rezoning

2557action and not subject to review under this administrative

2566process . See § 163.3213 (2)(b) , Fl a. Stat.

25751 2 . On August 13, 2009, Petitioners filed their Pe tition

2587for Formal Proceedings with DOAH raising three broad grounds:

2596that the LDC unlawfully implements a comprehensive plan not yet

2606effective; that it changes the uses, densities, and intensities

2615permitted by the County Plan and is therefore inconsistent with

2625the County Plan ; and that it changes the uses, densities, and

2636intensities permitted by the not yet effective City Plan and is

2647inconsistent with that Plan . See Petitioners' Exhibit 39.

2656These issues are repeated in the parties' Stipulation. As to

2666ot her issues raised by Petitioners, and evidence submitted on

2676those matters over the objection of opposing counsel, they were

2686tried without consent of the parties, and they are deemed to be

2698beyond the scope of this appeal.

2704C . The Objections

27081 3 . Petitioners first contend that the LDC unlawfully

2718implements a comprehensive plan not yet in effect , in that it

2729was specifically intended to be compatible with, further the

2738goals or policies of, and implement the policies and objectives

2748of, the City Plan. See Fla. A dmin. Code R. 9J - 5.023. But

2762Petitioners cited no statute or rule that prohibits a local

2772government from adopting LDRs before a local plan is effective,

2782or that implement another local government's plan ( in this case

2793the County Plan). While the LDC was ad opted for the purpose of

2806implementing a City Plan that the City believed would be in

2817effect when the LDC was adopted, t he City agrees that until the

2830new City Plan becomes effective, the LDC implements the County

2840Plan. Even though the two Plan s are not ide ntical , and may even

2854be in consistent with each other in certain respects , th is does

2866automatically create an inconsistency between the LDC and County

2875Plan. Rather, it is necessary to determine consistency between

2884th ose two documents, and not the City Plan. Except for

2895testimony regarding one provision in the LDC and its alleged

2905in consistency with language in the County FLUE, no evidence was

2916presented, nor was a ground raised, alleging that other

2925inconsistencies exist. The Table note and the County Plan do

2935not conflict. T he LDC is not "inconsistent" merely because it

2946was initially intended to implement a local plan that has not

2957yet become effective .

29611 4 . Petitioners next contend that the LDC changes the

2972uses, densities, and intensities permitted by the Coun ty Plan

2982and is therefore inconsistent with that Plan. Specifically,

2990they c ontend that the not e following the Zoning Compatibility

3001Table in Chapter 1, Section 5 of the LDC is inconsistent with

3013the language on pages I - 62 and 63 (now renumbered as pages I - 73

3029and I - 74) of the County Plan. In other words, they assert that

3043an inconsistency arises because the note requires them to down -

3054zone their property before development, while the County Plan

3063deems their zoning to be consistent with the County LUP map

3074unless a special planning study is undertaken.

30811 5 . The evidence establishes that if there is a conflict

3093between zoning and land use on property wit hin the City , it is

3106necessary to defer to the language on pages I - 62 and I - 63 of the

3123County FLUE for direction. T his is because the County Plan is

3135the effective plan for the City. Under that language , if no

3146planning study has been conducted, the zoning w ould be deemed to

3158be consistent with the land use. On the other hand, if a

3170planning study is undertake n, and an i nconsistency is found , the

3182property can be rezoned in a manner that would make it

3193consistent with the land use. Therefore, the LDC does not

3203change the use, density, or intensity on Petitioners' property

3212that is permitted under the County Plan. It is at l east fairly

3225debatable that there is no conflict between the Table note and

3236the County Plan.

32391 6 . Finally, Petitioners contend that the LDC changes the

3250uses, densities, and intensities permitted by the not yet

3259effective City Plan because the current industr ial zoning

3268designation will be inconsistent with the LDR land use

3277designation. Petitioners argue that once the new City Plan

3286becomes effective, the LDC requires them to down - zone their

3297property before development. However, t his concern will

3305materialize o nly if or when the new City Plan , as now written,

3318becomes effective ; therefore, it is premature.

332417. Further, t he definition of "land development

3332regulation" specifically excludes "an action which results in

3340zoning or rezoning of land." See § 163.3213( 2)(b), Fl a. Stat.

3352Because the challenged regulation (the note to the Table) is "an

3363action which results in zoning or rezoning of land," the issue

3374cannot be raised in an administrative review of land development

3384regulations. Id.

33861 8 . The other contentio ns raised by Petitioner are either

3398new issues that go beyond the scope of the Petition filed in

3410this case or are without merit.

3416CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

34191 9 . The Division of Administrative Hearings has

3428jurisdiction over the subject matter and the par ties her eto

3439pursuant to Sections 120.569, 120.57(1), and 163.3 213(5)(a) ,

3447Florida Statutes.

344920 . Unlike a challenge to a comprehensive plan amendment,

3459i n order to have standing to challenge a n LDR, a challenger must

3473be an affected person as defined in Chapter 120, Florida

3483Statutes. See § 163.3213( 2)(a), Fla. Stat. The facts establish

3493that Petitioner s ' substantial interests are affected , and they

3503have standing to file this challenge.

35092 1. Section 163.3194(1)(b), Florida Statutes, requires

3516that "[a]ll land develop ment regulations enacted or amended

3525shall be consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan, or

3534element or portion thereof . . . ." Because the City Plan is

3547still not effective, consistency must be measured against the

3556County Plan. Section 163.3194(3)(a) , Florida Statutes, provides

3563that a "land development regulation shall be consistent with the

3573comprehensive plan if the land uses, densities or intensities,

3582and other aspects of development permitted by such . . .

3593regulation are compatible with and further the objectives,

3601policies, land uses, and densities or intensities in the

3610comprehensive plan and if it meets all other criteria enumerated

3620by the local government." Rule 9J - 5.023 in turn sets forth

3632further criteria for determining the consistency of a n LD R.

3643That rule provides that

3647A determination of consistency of a land

3654development regulation with the

3658comprehensive plan will be based upon the

3665following:

3666(1) Characteristics of land use and

3672development allowed by the regulation in

3678comparison to the land use and development

3685proposed in the comprehensive plan. Factors

3691which will be considered include:

3696(a) type of land use;

3701(b) intensity and density of land use;

3708(c) location of land use;

3713(d) extent of land use; and

3719(e) other aspects of development, in cluding

3726impact on natural resources.

3730(2) Whether the land development

3735regulations are compatible with the

3740comprehensive plan, further the

3744comprehensive, and implement the

3748comprehensive plan. The term "compatible"

3753means that the land development regulati ons

3760are not in conflict with the comprehensive

3767plan. The term "further" means that the

3774land development regulations take action in

3780the direction of realizing goals or policies

3787of the comprehensive plan.

3791(3) Whether the land development

3796regulations inclu de provisions that

3801implement objectives and policies of the

3807comprehensive plan that require implementing

3812regulations in order to be realized,

3818including provisions implementing the

3822requirement that public facilities and

3827services needed to support developmen t shall

3834be available concurrent with the impacts of

3841such development.

384322 . Section 163.3215(5), Florida Statutes, provides that

3851the adoption of an LDR "is legislative in nature and shall not

3863be found to be inconsistent with the local plan if it is fairly

3876debatable that it is inconsistent with the plan." For the

3886reasons given in the Findings of Fact, Petitioners have failed

3896to establish beyond fair debate that the challenged LDC is

3906in consistent with the County Plan.

3912DISPOSTION

3913Based on the foregoing Findin gs of Fact and Conclusions of

3924Law, it is

3927ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and that Ordinance No.

39372007 - 12, as later amended by Ordinance No. 2008 - 1, is not

3951in consistent with the County Plan.

3957DONE AND ORDERED this 11th day of August, 2010, in

3967Tallahassee , Leon County, Florida.

3971S

3972D . R. ALEXANDER

3976Administrative Law Judge

3979Division of Administrative Hearings

3983The DeSoto Building

39861230 Apalachee Parkway

3989Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

3994(850) 488 - 9675

3998Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

4004www .doah.state.fl.us

4006Filed with the Clerk of the

4012Division of Administrative Hearings

4016this 11th day of August , 20 10 .

4024ENDNOTE S

40261 / All references are to the 2009 version of the Florida

4038Statutes.

40392/ A ll references are to the current version of the Florida

4051A dministrative Code.

4054COPIES FURNISHED:

4056Beth - Ann Krimsky , Esquire

4061Ruden McClosky, P.A.

4064200 East Broward Boulevard, Suite 1500

4070Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 - 1963

4076L. Mary Thomas, Esquire

4080Department of Community Affairs

40842555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325

4090Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 2100

4095Michael D. Cirullo, Jr., Esquire

4100Goren, Cherof, Doody & Ezrol, P.A.

41063099 East Commercial Boulevard, Suite 200

4112Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 - 4311

4118NOTICE OF RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW

4124A part y who is adversely affecte d by this Final Order is entitled

4138to judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes.

4147Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules of Appellate

4157Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing the original

4166notice of appeal with th e Clerk of the Division of Administrative

4178Hearings and a copy, accompanied by filing fees prescribed by

4188law, with the District Court of Appeal, First District, or with

4199the District Court of Appeal in the Appellate District where the

4210party resides. The not ice of appeal must be filed within 30 days

4223o f rendition of the order to be reviewed.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 10/14/2011
Proceedings: Mandate filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/07/2011
Proceedings: Mandate
PDF:
Date: 09/23/2011
Proceedings: Opinion filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/21/2011
Proceedings: Opinion
PDF:
Date: 01/13/2011
Proceedings: Index, Record, and Certificate of Record sent to the District Court of Appeal.
PDF:
Date: 10/27/2010
Proceedings: Index (of the Record) sent to the parties of record.
PDF:
Date: 10/27/2010
Proceedings: Invoice for the record on appeal mailed.
PDF:
Date: 09/13/2010
Proceedings: Acknowledgment of New Case, Third DCA Case No. 3D10-2354 filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/08/2010
Proceedings: Notice of Appeal filed and Certified copy sent to the Third District Court of Appeal this date.
PDF:
Date: 08/11/2010
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 08/11/2010
Proceedings: DOAH Final Order
PDF:
Date: 08/11/2010
Proceedings: Final Order (hearing held May 18 and 19, 2010). CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 07/19/2010
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Respondent, City of Doral's Proposed Final Order and Joinder by Department of Community Affairs in Proposed Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/19/2010
Proceedings: Petitioners' Notice of Filing Petitioners' Proposed Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/07/2010
Proceedings: Proposed Order on Petitioners' Agreed Motion for an Extension of Time of Two Additional Business Days to Submit Proposed Recommended Orders on Tuesday July 13, 2010 at 5:00 p.m. filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/07/2010
Proceedings: Agreed Motion for Extension of Time of Two Additional Business Days to Submit Proposed Recommended Orders no Later than Tuesday July 13, 2010 at 5:00 p.m. filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/10/2010
Proceedings: Notice of Non-objection filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/09/2010
Proceedings: Order (granting agreed motion for extension of time to submit proposed recommended order to court; parties to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law on or before July 9, 2010).
PDF:
Date: 06/09/2010
Proceedings: Agreed Motion for an Extension of Time to Submit Proposed Recommended Order to Court filed.
Date: 06/08/2010
Proceedings: Transcript of Proceedings (Volumes I-III) filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/25/2010
Proceedings: Letter to Judge Alexander from Beth-Ann Krimsky regarding additional stipulated exhibits (exhibits not available for viewing) filed.
Date: 05/21/2010
Proceedings: Deposition filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/21/2010
Proceedings: Petitioner's Notice of Filing Deposition Transcript of Bob Dennis filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/21/2010
Proceedings: Plans, Maps, Code Exhibits (exhibits not available for viewing) filed.
Date: 05/18/2010
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 05/17/2010
Proceedings: Petitioners' Response to Respondent, the City of Doral, Florida's Motion in Limine to Limit the Scope of the Formal Proceedings filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/14/2010
Proceedings: Petitioners' Notice of Filing Defendant's Response to Request for Admissions filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/14/2010
Proceedings: Petitioners' Notice of Filing Petitioners' Request for Admissions filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/14/2010
Proceedings: Petitioners' Motion for Official Recognition of Public Records filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/14/2010
Proceedings: Motion in Limine to Limit the Scope of the Formal Proceedings filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/14/2010
Proceedings: Joint Prehearing Stipulation filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/07/2010
Proceedings: Respondent, City of Doral's Notice of Serving Supplemental Answers to Petitioners' Expert Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/05/2010
Proceedings: Respondent, City of Doral's Notice of Taking Telephonic Deposition (of Bob Dennis) filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/05/2010
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition (of G. Olmedillo) filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/04/2010
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition (of J. Corradino) filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/03/2010
Proceedings: Order.
PDF:
Date: 04/29/2010
Proceedings: Notice of Filing filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/27/2010
Proceedings: Memorandum of Law in Support of Motions for Protective Order Opposing the Deposition of John Hearn and to Quash Subpoena for Deposition filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/27/2010
Proceedings: Petitioners' Supplemental Memorandum of Law in Further Support of Their Opposition and Response to the City of Doral, Florida's Motion for Protective Order and to Quash Subpoena of John Hearn filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/27/2010
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Hearing (hearing set for May 18 and 19, 2010; 9:00 a.m.; Miami, FL; amended as to location of hearing).
PDF:
Date: 04/26/2010
Proceedings: Proposed Order on Petitioners' Unopposed Motion for an Extension of Time to File Memorandum of Law in Further Support of Their Response to Respondent, the City of Doral, Florida's Motion for Protective Order and to Quash Subpoena of John Hearn filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/26/2010
Proceedings: Petitioners' Unopposed Motion for an Extension of Time to File Memorandum of Law in Further Support of Their Response to Respondent, the City of Doral, Florida's Motion for Protective Order and to Quash Subpoena of John Hearn filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/26/2010
Proceedings: Respondent, City of Doral's Re-notice of Taking Deposition (Duces Tecum) (of D. Depew) filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/22/2010
Proceedings: Order.
Date: 04/21/2010
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Motion Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 04/21/2010
Proceedings: Petitioners' Response to Respondent, the City of Doral, Florida's Motions for Protective Order Limiting the Scope of Depositions and to Quash Subpoenas filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/19/2010
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition (of D. Depew) filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/15/2010
Proceedings: Petitioners' Notice of Serving Supplemental Answers to Respondent, The City of Doral, Florida's Expert Witness Interrogatories to Petitioners, Section 7 Tract 64 Property, Inc. and the Grand at Doral I, LTD filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/14/2010
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/12/2010
Proceedings: Respondent, City of Doral's Notice of Serving Answers to Petitioners' Expert Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/12/2010
Proceedings: Motion for Protective Order Limiting the Scope of the Deposition of Rafael De Arazoza filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/12/2010
Proceedings: Motion for Protective Order Limiting the Scope of the Deposition of Nathan Kogon filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/12/2010
Proceedings: Motion for Protective Order Limiting the Scope of the Deposition of Mark Taxis filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/12/2010
Proceedings: Motion for Protective Order Opposing the Deposition of City Manager Yvonne Soler-McKinley and to Quash Subpoena for Deposition filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/12/2010
Proceedings: Motion for Protective Order Opposing the Deposition of John Hearn and to Quash Subpoena for Deposition filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/12/2010
Proceedings: Motion for Protective Order Opposing the Deposition of Mayor Juan Carlos Bermeduz and to Quast Subpoena for Deposition filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/31/2010
Proceedings: Petitioner's Notice of Serving Supplemental Answers to Respondent, the City of Doral, Florida's First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner, the Grand at Doral I, LTD. filed filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/31/2010
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/29/2010
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (filed by John J. Hearn).
PDF:
Date: 03/25/2010
Proceedings: Petitioners' First Request for Admissions from Respondent, the City of Doral, Florida filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/17/2010
Proceedings: Petitioner's Response to the City of Doral, Florida's First Request for Production of Documents filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/17/2010
Proceedings: Petitioner's Notice of Serving Answers to Respondent, the City of Doral, Florida's First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner, the Grand at Doral I, LTD. filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/17/2010
Proceedings: Petitioners' Notice of Serving Answers to Respondent, the City of Doral, Florida's Expert Witness Interrogatories to Petitioners, Section 7 Tract 64 Property, Inc. and the Grand at Doral filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/17/2010
Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing (hearing set for May 18 and 19, 2010; 9:00 a.m.; Miami, FL).
PDF:
Date: 02/16/2010
Proceedings: Unanimous Motion of the City of Doral, the Florida Department of Community Affairs and Petitioners for Continuance of Final Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/10/2010
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Hearing (hearing set for March 4 and 5, 2010; 9:00 a.m.; Miami, FL; amended as to dates of hearing).
PDF:
Date: 02/04/2010
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Hearing (hearing set for March 3 through 5, 2010; 9:00 a.m.; Miami, FL; amended as to hearing room location).
PDF:
Date: 01/27/2010
Proceedings: Department of Community Affairs' Notice of Service of Answers to Petitioners' Expert Witness Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/04/2009
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for March 3 through 5, 2010; 9:00 a.m.; Miami, FL).
PDF:
Date: 11/03/2009
Proceedings: Notice of Request for Hearing Dates filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/02/2009
Proceedings: Amended Order (final hearing now scheduled on November 9 and 10, 2009, is cancelled).
PDF:
Date: 10/29/2009
Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance (parties to advise status by November 9, 2009).
PDF:
Date: 10/27/2009
Proceedings: (Proposed) Order Granting Respondent City of Foral's Motion for Substitution of Counsel, Postponement of Pre-hearing Deadlines and Rescheduling of Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/27/2009
Proceedings: Respondent City of Doral's Motion for Substitution of Counsel, Postponement of Pre-hearing Deadlines and Rescheduling Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/16/2009
Proceedings: Joint Motion to Amend the Order of Pre-hearing Instructions filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/26/2009
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
PDF:
Date: 08/26/2009
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for November 9 and 10, 2009; 9:00 a.m.; Miami, FL).
PDF:
Date: 08/21/2009
Proceedings: Joint Response to Initial Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/14/2009
Proceedings: Initial Order.
PDF:
Date: 08/13/2009
Proceedings: Ordinance 2006-32 filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/13/2009
Proceedings: Ordinance No. 2005-16 filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/13/2009
Proceedings: Determination of Consistency of a Land Development Regulation filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/13/2009
Proceedings: Petition of Section 7 Tract 64 Property, Inc., and the Grand at Doral I, LTD., Pursuant to 163.3213, Fla. Stat., filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/13/2009
Proceedings: City of Doral Response to Petition Pursuant to 136.3213, Florida Statutes filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/13/2009
Proceedings: Petition of Section 7 Tract 64 Property, Inc., Pursuant to 163.3216, Fla. Stat., filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/13/2009
Proceedings: Petition for Formal Proceedings filed.

Case Information

Judge:
D. R. ALEXANDER
Date Filed:
08/13/2009
Date Assignment:
08/14/2009
Last Docket Entry:
10/14/2011
Location:
Miami, Florida
District:
Southern
Agency:
Department of Community Affairs
Suffix:
GM
 

Counsels

Related DOAH Cases(s) (1):

Related Florida Statute(s) (5):