11-000584GM Diane Brown vs. Bay County Status: Closed Recommended Order on Tuesday, October 18, 2011.

Summary: Petitioner failed to prove beyond fair debate that the Bay County's comprehensive plan amendment was not in compliance.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DIANE BROWN , )

)

Petitioner , )

)

vs. ) Case No. 11 - 058 4GM

)

BAY COUNTY , )

)

Respondent, )

)

and )

)

CEDAR CREEK RANCH, INC., )

)

Intervenor . )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

The final hearing in this case was held on April 27 and 28,

2011, in Panama City, Florida, and April 29, 2011, in

Tallahassee, Florida, before Bram D. E. Canter, Administrative

Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings ( "DOAH").

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Diane C. Brown, pro se

241 Twin Lakes Drive

Laguna Beach, Florida 32413

For the Department of Community Affairs:

Lynette Norr, Esquire

Assistant General Counsel

Department of Community Affairs

2555 Shumard Oaks Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 2100

For Bay County: Terrell K. Arline, Esq uire

Bay County AttorneyÓs Office

840 West 11 th Street

Panama City, Florida 32401

For Intervenor: Gary K. Hunter, Esq uire

Vinette D. Godelia, Esq uire

Hopping Green & Sams, P.A.

119 South Monroe Street, Suite 300

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue to be determined in this case is whether

Amendment 10 - 01A to the Bay County Comprehensive Plan (Ðthe Plan

AmendmentÑ), adopted by Ordinance 10 - 22, is Ðin compliance,Ñ as

that ter m is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida

Statutes. 1

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On November 16, 2010, Bay County adopted Ordinance 10 - 22,

amending the Bay County Comprehensive Plan to make text and map

changes to its Future Land Use Element related to the Sand Hills

Rural Community Special Treatment Zone (ÐSand Hills STZ"). Bay

County transmitted the Plan Amendment to the Department of

Community Affairs (ÐDepartmentÑ) for compliance review. On

January 13, 2011, the Department issued its Notice of Intent to

find the Plan Amendment in compliance.

Petitioner initiated this administrative proceeding by

filing a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing with the

Department. The Department referred the petition to DOAH to

conduct an evidentiary hearing and pr epare a recommended order.

Cedar Creek Ranch, Inc. (ÐCedar CreekÑ) filed a petition to

intervene in support of the Plan Amendment and the intervention

was granted.

At the final hearing, Joint Exhibits 2, 4, 5, and 7 were

admitted into evidence. Petition er presented the expert

testimony of Todd Kincaid (hydrogeology), Mike McDaniel

(comprehensive planning), Anastasia Richmond (comprehensive

planning), Ian Crelling (comprehensive planning), and Martin

Jacobson (comprehensive planning). Petitioner Exhibits 19, 41,

and 43 were admitted into evidence. Petitioner Exhibit 40 was

placed in the record as a proffer. Bay County presented the

expert testimony of Martin Jacobson (comprehensive planning),

Ian Crelling (comprehensive planning), Paul Lackemacher (wate r

and wastewater systems and facilities), Jennifer Bowes

(transportation planning) and Steven Peene (water quality and

hydrology). Bay County Exhibits 1 Î 14, 17, 21A - E, and 27 - 30 were

admitted into evidence. The Department did not call a witness

or offer an exhibit. Cedar Creek presented the expert testimony

of Raymond Greer (comprehensive planning). Cedar Creek Exhibit

14 was admitted into evidence.

On June 26, 2011, the Department moved for dismissal of

itself as a party, based on the changes to chapte r 163, Florida

Statutes, made by chapter 2011 - 139, Laws of Florida ("the new

law"). The motion was granted. Effective October 1, 2011, the

functions of the Department of Community Affairs were

transferred to the Department of Economic Opportunity.

The t hree - volume Transcript of the final hearing was

prepared and filed with DOAH. At the request of Petitioner, the

time for filing proposed recommended orders ("PROs") was twice

extended. The parties timely filed their PROs.

On August 1, 2011, the Administ rative Law Judge issued an

Order Regarding the Governing Law, ruling that the new law would

govern the case. The Order allowed the parties to file amended

PROs to conform their arguments to the new law. Petitioner

filed a motion for consideration of the Order, which was denied.

Petitioner then filed a motion to abate the proceeding to await

a decision of the circuit court for Leon County in a case

challenging the constitutionality of the new law. That motion

was also denied. Bay County and Intervenor f iled an amended

PRO, but Petitioner did not.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Parties

1. The Department is the state land planning agency and,

at the time of the adoption of the Plan Amendment, was charged

with the duty to review comprehensive plan amendments and to

determine whether they are Ðin compliance,Ñ as that term is

defined in section 163.3184(1)(b).

2. Bay County is a political subdivision of the State of

Florida and has adopted a comprehensive plan that it amends from

time to time.

3. Petitioner Diane Bro wn resides and owns property in Bay

County, but not in the Sand Hills STZ. Petitioner submitted

comments to Bay County during the time between the transmittal

and adoption hearings for the Plan Amendment.

4. Intervenor Cedar Creek is a Florida corporatio n that

owns approximately 1,007 acres of land within the Sand Hills

STZ. Intervenor submitted comments to Bay County during the

time between the transmittal and adoption hearings for the Plan

Amendment.

The Sand Hills STZ

5. The Sand Hills STZ is one of three Rural Community STZs

in Bay County.

6. The Sand Hills STZ has a number of platted and

unplatted subdivisions that were created before the adoption of

the Bay County Comprehensive Plan. Within the Sand Hills STZ is

a police station, a fire station , and a public school for Pre -

Kindergarten through 12th grade. Residences and businesses in

the Sand Hills STZ are on private wells and septic tanks. The

public school is on central sewer and water.

7. Existing land uses within the Sand Hills STZ inclu de

Agriculture, Public/Institutional, Conservation/Preservation,

General Commercial, and Rural Residential.

8. Lands designated Agriculture can be developed at one

dwelling unit on ten acres ("1 du/10 ac"). Lands designated

Rural Residential can be devel oped at 1 du/3 ac on unpaved roads

and 1 du/ac on paved roads. This leads to some semantic

confusion. Densities of 1 du/10 ac and 1 du/3 ac are rural

densities, but a density of 1 du/ac is a suburban density. That

means the Rural Residential land use de signation allows for

densities that are suburban in character and the rural community

STZs are not altogether rural.

9. Abutting the Sand Hills STZ on the north is Washington

County. To the south are areas designated Agricultur e /

Timberland. The communi ty of Southport is located about five

miles to the south.

10. West of the Sand Hills STZ is the Northwest Florida

Beaches International Airport and other lands subject to the

West Bay Area Sector Plan. East of the Sand Hills STZ is Deer

Point Lake/Reserv oir, the CountyÓs primary source of drinking

water. Also to the east are 8,500 acres of land owned by the

Northwest Florida Water Management District that are designated

Conservation/Recreation.

11. The Sand Hills region is hydrogeologically sensitive

b ecause of significant recharge which occurs throughout the

region via ground and surface waters to Deer Point

Lake/Reservoir.

The Plan Amendment

12. The Plan Amendment creates a new Policy 3.4.10 to

guide development in the Sand Hills STZ. The Policy be gins:

The Sand Hills Area is an established and

continually evolving community with unique

character and environmental assets that

warrant a special planning approach to

ensure the preservation and protection of

its distinctive qualities. Due to its

beaut iful natural landscapes, picturesque

areas, and its strategic location east of

the West Bay Area Sector Plan (Centered

around the Northwest Florida Beaches

International Airport) and nearby

transportation corridors -- State Road 77,

County Road 388, and Stat e Road 20,

development and growth will continue to

occur in the Sand Hills Community.

The Sand Hills Rural Community Special

Treatment Zone is an overlay area that has

been established to maintain the area's

character while protecting its significant

natu ral resources and advancing Bay County's

Wide Open Spaces strategy (Map 3.7). The

Sand Hills Rural Community Special Treatment

Zone encourages efficient development and

infill within an area that has the capacity

to service future growth.

13. Guiding p rinciples for the Sand Hills STZ are set

forth in new Policy 3.4.10:

Protect important recharge areas from

the effects of irresponsible

development.

Create a sense of place by implementing

design and landscape standards.

Promoting civic and community uses, and

providing interconnection between uses,

community parks, and open space that

protect and enhance the character of

the Sand Hills Community.

Provide for sustainable development and

environmentally responsible design.

Maintain the character of the Sand

Hills Rural Community while providing

for neighborhood commercial, retail,

office, and civic uses located within

designated commercial area and

corridors, appropriately scaled to meet

the needs of the Sand Hills Community.

Promote an integrated network of local

streets, pedestrian paths, and bicycle

and equestrian trails.

Access management policies that promote

development patterns which reduce

automobile trip length.

Provide for a range of housing types

for all ages, incomes, and lifestyles.

Provide centra lized utilities for all

new developments in a planned,

coordinated and efficient manner.

14. Policy 3.4.10.1 would allow properties designated

Rural Residential to increase from 1 du/ac to 4 du/ac if central

water and sewer are available and other condit ions are met as

set forth in Policy 3.4.10.4.

15. Policy 3.4.10.2 has special conditions applicable to

commercial development, such as a maximum floor area ratio of 30

percent. General Commercial land uses are only permitted in

three designated "Commerci al Nodes."

16. Policy 3.4.10.3 creates special conditions applicable

to agricultural uses in the Sand Hills STZ.

17. Policy 3.4.10.4 establishes criteria for new

development in the Sand Hills STZ, including the requirement for

a site analysis by a licens ed engineer or geologist. This

requirement is imposed to protect karst features and aquifer

recharge areas. This Policy also requires enhanced stormwater

treatment and buffers around karst features, low impact design

and landscaping standards, and open s pace requirements.

18. Policy 3.4.10.5 requires the County to complete a plan

by January 2012 for the expansion of water and sewer facilities

into the Sand Hills STZ and to "retrofit" existing septic tanks

by connecting properties to central sewer lines. New

developments, regardless of density, are required to connect to

central sewer lines if they are within 1,000 feet.

19. Policy 3.4.10.6 addresses roadway access management to

reduce reliance on State Road 77 and preserve levels of service.

Internal In consistency

20. Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendment is

inconsistent with existing Policy 3.4.4 which states, in part,

that rural community STZs are intended:

to promote infill development into existing

rural developed areas that will allow

reside nts to work, shop, live, and recreate

within one relatively compact area while

preserving the rural and low density land

uses in the designated and surrounding

areas.

21. Petitioner has a misunderstanding about Policy 3.4.4

that is the basis for several of her objections to the Plan

Amendment. Petitioner focuses on the words "preserving the

rural and low density land uses" and fails to see that the

primary purpose of the policy is to enhance communities out in

the rural areas of Bay County by encouraging the creation of a

"nucleus" of mixed land uses in a compact development, while

preserving the rural character of the surrounding area.

22. Petitioner also asserts that the Plan Amendment is

inconsistent with Policy 3.4.4 because the policy refers to

"exi sting" developed areas, but the Plan Amendment allows

residential density increases on some lands that are currently

undeveloped. Petitioner's interpretation of the wording in the

policy is not the only interpretation that can be given to the

words and it is not the interpretation that Bay County gives to

the words. Bay County interprets existing developed areas as a

general reference to the areas that are currently recognizable

as the core of village - like features, rather than a finite group

of parcels.

23. Policy 3.4.4 refers to the designation of rural

community STZs "consistent with the Wide Open Spaces Strategy."

A 7 - page document entitled "Wide Open Spaces Strategy" was

admitted into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 41.

24. It is stated in the stra tegy that:

This policy is an attempt by the Board of

County Commissioners to focus its

infrastructure planning and construction

efforts. In no way should this policy be

construed to discourage anyone choosing to

live in the rural area. Rather, the Board

is establishing the parameters and

expectations that should be associated with

that choice.

25. The significance of the strategy to a compliance

determination is not clear. It does not appear in the

Comprehensive Plan and it may not have been properly a dopted by

reference. See § 163.3711(1)(b), Fla. Stat. Policy 3.4.4

states that a rural community STZ is to be "designated"

consistent with the strategy, but this Plan Amendment does not

designate the Sand Hills STZ.

26. There are general statements in t he strategy that fail

to account for more specific policies of the comprehensive plan.

For example, the strategy states that the County will limit

residential development in rural communities to 1 du/3 ac, even

though the Comprehensive Plan clearly allows 1 du/ac on Rural

Residential lands if the lands are on paved roads. Statements

in the policy regarding rural services do not reflect the

existing public services and utility planning in the Sand Hills

STZ.

27. These disharmonies between the Wide Open Sp aces Policy

and the Comprehensive Plan suggest that the strategy is a

collection of general statements that are not intended to have

the same force and effect as the policies of the Comprehensive

Plan. The record evidence is insufficient to show the inten ded

role of the strategy in Bay County's comprehensive planning.

The record evidence is insufficient to show that the Plan

Amendment is inconsistent with the strategy.

28. Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendment is

inconsistent with Policy 6.10.5 of the Conservation Element,

which states: "The County will maintain rural densities and

intensities of development in identified high aquifer recharge

areas." The existing rural densities in the Sand Hills STZ (1

du/10 ac and 1 du/3 ac) are not changed by the Plan Amendment.

The existing suburban densities of 1 du/ac cannot be increased

unless the parcels are connected to central water and sewer

systems. Therefore, the purpose of Policy 6.10.5 -- to protect

aquifer recharge areas -- is achieved by the Plan A mendment.

29. The stated "performance measure" for Policy 6.10.5 is

the maintenance of rural designations on the FLUM. The Plan

Amendment maintains rural designations on the FLUM.

30. Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendment is

inconsistent with Poli cy 3.2.3 because it conflicts with the

intent of the policy to limit the Sand Hills STZ to rural levels

of service. However, Policy 3.2.3 does not prohibit the County

from providing central services in the Rural STZs. The service

area map for the Sand Hi lls STZ shows that central water and

sewer services are already planned. The County already provides

central sewer and water to the public school located in the Sand

Hills STZ.

31. Petitioner claims that the Plan Amendment, for the

first time, allows gen eral commercial uses within the Sand Hills

STZ, but General Commercial uses were already allowed in the

Sand Hills STZ.

32. In summary, Petitioner failed to prove facts showing

that the Plan Amendment causes the Comprehensive Plan to be

internally inconsi stent with any goal, objective, or policy of

the Comprehensive Plan.

Data and Analysis

33. Petitioner asserts that there is insufficient data and

analysis to support the need for increased residential density

to meet population projections for the area. A local government

can accommodate more than the projected population. See

§ 163.3177(6)(a)4., Fla. Stat.

34. T he Plan Amendment responds to growth pressures in the

Sand Hills STZ, modifies antiquated subdivisions, and furthers

numerous other general a nd specific goals, objectives, and

policies of the Comprehensive Plan to promote well - designed,

environmentally - protective, infrastructure - efficient, high -

quality communities.

35. Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendment is not

supported by appropriate data and analysis regarding the

protection of aquifer recharge areas. However, the evidence

offered by Petitioner only established that she wants the Plan

Amendment to be more protective. Petitioner's expert

hydrogeologist, Dr. Kincaid, admitted that th e County had taken

"strong" and "aggressive" measures in the Plan Amendment to

protect water quality, but said he wished the County had done

more to address water withdrawals. There was no evidence

presented indicating that there is insufficient water ava ilable

to serve the Sand Hills STZ. The Northwest Florida Water

Management District has exclusive authority to regulate water

withdrawals in Bay County. See § 373.217(2), Fla. Stat.

36. The Deer Point Lake Hydrologic Analysis is the

principal data and a nalysis that the Plan Amendment is based

upon. In addition, the Plan Amendment is supported by the

analysis presented at the final hearing by Dr. Kincaid and

Steve Peene. Petitioner did not present data and analysis

showing that the Plan Amendment would be harmful to water

resources.

37. Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendment is not

supported by data and analysis regarding impacts on species and

habitats. Petitioner did not explain what additional data and

analysis would be required regarding speci es and habitat when

the lands affected by the Plan Amendment are already designated

for residential and commercial development. Petitioner refers

to comments made by the Fish and Wildlife Conservation

Commission, but those comments are also unexplained, a nd are

hearsay.

38. The Conservation Element of the Comprehensive Plan

addresses the protection of natural resources, species, and

habitat. The Plan Amendment does not remove any goal,

objective, or policy of the Conservation Element. Petitioner

did not show the Plan Amendment would be harmful to species and

their habitat.

39. A large area where septic tanks are used can be

expected to be a source of groundwater contamination because a

significant number of septic tanks will fail. The Plan

Amendment in cludes a new map which depicts priority areas for

retrofitting existing parcels that use private wells and septic

tanks and connecting the parcels to central water and sewer

lines. Petitioner contends that the mapping is not supported by

data and analysis . The priority areas were selected based on

development density and proximity to Deer Point Lake. Those

data are sufficient to support the mapping of priority areas.

Petitioner produced no contrary data and analysis.

40. In summary, Petitioner failed t o prove facts showing

that the Plan Amendment is not supported by relevant and

appropriate data and analysis.

Urban Sprawl

41. Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendment encourages

urban sprawl, but her evidence was not persuasive. According to

Petitio ner's theory of sprawl, every rural town and village

would be an example of sprawl because they all "leap frog" from

urban areas over agricultural and rural lands. Leap frog g ing as

an indicator of sprawl usually involves a leap from an urban

area to an ar ea of undeveloped rural lands which will be

transformed into urban or suburban land uses. That is not the

situation here. The Plan Amendment's application of modern

planning principles to enhance the quality and functionality of

an existing rural communi ty does not indicate urban sprawl.

42. Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendment triggers

most of the 13 indicators of urban sprawl that are set forth in

section 163.3177(6)(a)9., but she failed to prove the existence

of any indicator. The Plan Amendm ent does not promote the

development of a single use or multiple uses that are not

functionally related. It does not promote the inefficient

extension of public facilities and services. It does not fail

to provide a clear separation between urban and rur al uses.

43. In summary, Petitioner failed to prove facts showing

that the Plan Amendment constitutes a failure of Bay County to

discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl.

Other Compliance Issues

44. Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendment's

provi sions regarding infrastructure were not shown to be

financially feasible, but the record evidence shows otherwise.

Bay County has water and sewer facilities with sufficient

capacity to serve the Sand Hills STZ. Furthermore, the new law

eliminated the fin ancial feasibility provisions of section

163.3177.

45. Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendment improperly

changes the FLUM, but the Plan Amendment does not change the

FLUM. The rural community STZs are overlays that do not change

FLUM designations.

4 6. Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendment does not

address hurricane evacuation times, but did not show that there

is any legal requirement for Bay County to address hurricane

evacuation times for amendments affecting lands outside of areas

of hurric ane vulnerability.

47. Petitioner alleges that the Plan Amendment is

inconsistent with the requirements of section 163.3177 related

to energy conservation and efficiency, but the law cited by

Petitioner was eliminated by the new law. Petitioner stated at

the final hearing that her real objection is that the Plan

Amendment promotes subdivisions far away from employment

centers. Growth in the Sand Hills STZ is likely to be affected

by and run parallel to growth in the adjacent West Bay Sector

Plan because it is a developing employment center. Furthermore,

the Plan Amendment is designed to make the Sand Hills STZ more

self - sustaining, which would reduce vehicle miles.

48. Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendment does not

include sufficient standards and measures for the implementation

of its new policies. T he Plan Amendment is primarily self -

implementing, in that it sets forth specific conditions for

development. In addition, the Plan Amendment includes guiding

principles that can be used in the applic ation of existing land

development regulations (LDRs) or the adoption of new LDR s .

There also are references in the Plan Amendment to other

regulatory programs that will be used to implement the policies.

49. Petitioner claims the Plan Amendment was not

coordinated with Washington County, but she did not prove the

claim.

50. In summary, Petitioner failed to prove facts showing

that the Plan Amendment is not in compliance.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

51. In order to have standing to challenge a plan

amendment, a challenger must be an Ðaffected person,Ñ which is

defined in section 163.3184(1)(a) as a person who resides, owns

property, or owns or operates a business within the local

government whose comprehensive plan amendment is challenged, and

who submitted comm ents, recommendations, or objections to the

local government during the period of time beginning with the

transmittal hearing and ending with the amendmentÓs adoption.

Petitioner Brown and Intervenor Cedar Creek have standing as

affected persons.

52. ÐI n complianceÑ is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b):

"In complianceÑ means consistent with the

requirements of ss. 163.3177, 163.3178,

163.3180, 163.3191, 163.3245, and 163.3248,

with the appropriate strategic regional

policy plan, and with the principles f or

guiding development in designated areas of

critical state concern and with part III of

chapter 369, where applicable.

53. The definition of the term Ðin complianceÑ was amended

by the new law to remove the requirement that a plan amendment

must be co nsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan and Florida

Administrative Code Chapter 9J - 5.

54. A compliance determination is not a determination of

whether a comprehensive amendment is the best approach available

to a local government for achieving its pur poses.

55. When an amendment is challenged by an affected person,

the amendment Ðshall be determined to be in compliance if the

local governmentÓs determination of compliance is fairly

debatable." § 163.3184(5)(c), Fla. Stat.

56. The term Ðfairly deba tableÑ is not defined in chapter

163. The Florida Supreme Court in Martin County v. Yusem ,

690 So. 2d. 1288 (Fla. 1997), held that [Ðt]he fairly debatable

standard is a highly deferential standard requiring approval of

a planning action if reasonable pers ons could differ as to its

propriety.Ñ Id . at 1295.

57. The fairly debatable standard's deference to the local

government's determination of compliance means that the local

government's interpretation of a challenged amendment or

comprehensive plan prov ision will be used to evaluate the

amendment, as long as it is a reasonable interpretation.

58. The standard of proof to establish a finding of fact

is preponderance of the evidence. See § 120.57(1)(j), Fla.

Stat.

59. Section 163.3177(2) requires the el ements of a

comprehensive plan to be internally consistent. A plan

amendment creates an internal inconsistency when it conflicts

with an existing provision of the comprehensive plan.

60. Petitioner failed to prove beyond fair debate that the

Plan Amendme nt is inconsistent with any goal, objective, or

policy of the Bay County Comprehensive Plan.

61. The consideration of need under the new law has

substantially changed. Section 163.3177(6)(a)4. now states that

local governments shall provide "at least the minimum amount of

land required to accommodate population projections." A local

government can accommodate more than the projected population.

62. Section 163.3177(1)(f) requires all amendments to be

based on relevant and appropriate data and analysis. Petitioner

failed to prove beyond fair debate that the Plan Amendment is

not based on relevant and appropriate data and analysis.

63. With regard to the issue of whether the Plan Amendment

includes sufficient standards and measures for the

implementation of its new policies, section 163.3177(1) was

amended by the new law to state:

It is not the intent of this part to require

the inclusion of implementing regulations in

the comprehensive plan but rather to require

identification of those programs,

activiti es, and land development regulations

that will part of the strategy for

implementing the comprehensive plan and the

principles that describe how the programs,

activities, and land development regulations

will be carried out.

64. Petitioner failed to prov e beyond fair debate that the

Plan Amendment does not include sufficient standard s and

measures for implementation.

6 5 . Section 163.3177(6)(a)9. s tates that an amendment

"shall discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl" and sets

forth 13 primary indica tors of urban sprawl to be considered.

The term "urban sprawl" is defined at section 163.3164(51):

"Urban sprawl" means a development pattern

characterized by low density, automobile -

dependent development with either a single

use or multiple uses that are not

functionally related, requiring the

extension of public facilities and services

in an efficient manner, and failing to

provide a clear separation between urban and

rural uses.

6 6 . Petitioner failed to prove beyond fair debate that the

Plan Amendment constitutes a failure of Bay County to discourage

the proliferation of urban sprawl.

6 7 . In summary, Petitioner failed to prove beyond fair

debate that the Plan Amendment is not in compliance.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Co nclusions of

Law, it is

RECOMMENDED that the Department of Economic Opportunity

enter a final order determining that the Plan Amendment is in

compliance.

DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of October, 2011, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

BRAM D. E. CANTER

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675

Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 18th day of October, 2011.

ENDNOTE

1/ All citations are to the Florida Statutes as amended by the

Community Planning Act, chapter 2011 - 139, Laws of Florida.

COPIES FURNISHED :

Terrell K. Arline, Esquire

Bay County Attorney's Office

840 West 11th Street

Panama City, Florida 32401 - 2336

Diane C. Brown

241 Twin Lakes Drive

Laguna Beach, Florida 32413 - 1413

Vinette D. Godelia, Esquire

Hopping Green & Sams

119 South Monroe Street, Suite 300

Post Off ice Box 6526

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Gary K. Hunter, Jr., Esquire

Hopping, Green & Sams

Post Office Box 6526

Tallahassee, Florida 32314 - 6526

David L. Jordan, Esquire

Department of Economic Opportunity

107 East Madison Street, MSC 110

Tallahassee, F lorida 32399 - 4128

Douglas Darling , Executive Director

Department of Economic Opportunity

107 East Madison Street, MSC 110

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 4128

Deborah Kearney, General Counsel

Department of Economic Opportunity

107 East Madison Street, MSC 1 10

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 4128

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 a gency that will

issue the Final Order in this case.