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.
DOAH Final Order on Wednesday, August 11, 2010.
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.
- Date
- Proceedings
- PDF:
- Date: 01/13/2011
- Proceedings: Index, Record, and Certificate of Record sent to the District Court of Appeal.
- 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: 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: 06/09/2010
- 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: 05/07/2010
- 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: 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.
- 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: 04/15/2010
- 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: 04/12/2010
- 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: 03/25/2010
- 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: 11/02/2009
- 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: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for November 9 and 10, 2009; 9:00 a.m.; Miami, FL).
- 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.
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
-
Michael D. Cirullo, Jr., Esquire
Address of Record -
John J Hearn, Esquire
Address of Record -
Beth-Ann E. Krimsky, Esquire
Address of Record -
Lathika Mary Thomas, Esquire
Address of Record -
Jamie Wasserman, Esquire
Address of Record