14-000940GM Katie Pierola And Greg Geraldson vs. Manatee County Status: Closed Recommended Order on Tuesday, July 8, 2014.

Summary: Petitioners proved that the proposed comprehensive plan amendments which increased residential density in the Coastal Evacuation area and Coastal High Hazard area were "not in compliance."

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

KATIE PIEROLA AND GREG

GERALDSON,

Petitioners,

vs. Case No. 14 - 0940GM

MANATEE COUNTY,

Respondent,

and

ROBINSON FARMS, INC.,

Intervenor.

_______________________________/

R ECOM M ENDED ORDER

The final hea r ing in this case was held o n M ay 7 , 2 014,

in B r adenton, Florid a , befo r e B ram D. E. C a nter, Administrative

L aw Judge of the D ivision of Administrative He a rin g s (DOA H ).

A P P EAR A NCES

For Petitioners: Thomas W. Reese, Esquire

2951 61 st Avenue South

St. P ete r sbur g , Florida 33712 - 4539

For Respondent: J ames A. Minx, Esquire

Sarah A . Schenk, Esquire

Office of the Manat e e County Attorne y

P o st Office B ox 1000

B r adenton, F lorida 34206 - 1000

For I nterv e nor: Edwa r d Vol g er, II , Esquire

Vol g ler Ashton, P LL C

2411 - A Man a tee Av e nue West

B r adenton, F lorida 34205 - 4948

STAT E MENT OF THE I SSUE

The issue to be determined in this case is w hether the

a mendments to the Manat e e County Comprehensive Plan (M a natee

Plan) adopted by the B oard of County Comm i ssioners of Manatee

County via Ordin a nce N o. 13 - 10 on De c ember 5, 2013 , a r e Ðin

c om pliance , Ñ as defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida

Statutes (2013).

P RELIMINARY STATEMENT

On De c ember 5, 2013, Manat e e County adopted O r dinance

No. 13 - 10 which amended the Future Land Use Map of the Manat e e

Plan to re classify certain real propert y owned by Robinson Farms ,

Inc. , f r om Residential 1 (RES - 1) to Residential 3 (RES - 3) and to

add text in the Manatee Plan which limit s the future development

of the property to a maxi m um of 38 dwelling units (2013

Amendments) .

Petitioners Pierola and Ge r ald son filed a petition for

hearing to c hallen g e the 2013 Amendment s, using DOAH C a se

No. 11 - 0009GM , a case which involved a challenge by these same

Petitioners to an earlier and different amendment to the Manatee

Plan (2010 Amendment) . An Order was is sued in Case

No. 11 - 0009GM , stating that the Recommended Order had already

been issued in the case , the case was c losed , and a new DOAH case

file would have to be opened for the new petition . D OAH Case

No. 13 - 0940 GM was then opened on Petitio nersÓ challenge to the

2013 Amendments.

Manat e e County and the I nterv e nors filed a motion to

d i smiss t he petition. T he motion was denied.

At the final hearing , Petitioners presented the testimony

of Katie Pierola and John Osborne. PetitionersÓ Exhibit 9 w as

admitted into evidence. Petitioners Ó r equests for offici a l

re c o g nition of certain a g ency and app e llate cou r t orders were

g rant e d. Manatee County presented the testimony of

John Osborne. Manatee CountyÓs Exhibits 1 - 2 and 5 - 13 were

admitted into evi dence. Manatee County and Robinson Farms '

Joint Exhibits 3 and 4 were admitted into evidence. Robinson

Farms presented the testimony of Frank Domingo.

The one - volume Transcript of the final hearing was filed

with DOAH. The parties filed proposed recomm ended orders that

were considered by the Administrative Law Judge in the

preparation of this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Pa r ties

1. Katie Pierola is a resid e nt and landown e r in M a natee

Count y . Mrs. Pierola made timely obje c tions and comments to

Manatee County on the 2013 Am e ndment s .

2. Gr e g Ge r aldson is a r e sident and landown e r in M a natee

Count y . Mr. Ge r aldson made timely obje c tions and comments to

Manatee County on the 2013 Am e ndment s .

3. Manat e e County is a political subdivis i on of the S tate

and h a s adopted the Manat e e Plan , which it amends f r om time to

t i me pursuant to s ection 163.3184, F l orida Statutes .

4. Robinson Farms is a F lorida co r poration doing business

in Manatee County and owning re a l property in the Count y . It

owns the prope rty affected by the 2013 Amendments .

The 2013 Amendments

5 . The 2013 Amendments would amend t he Future Land Use Map

of the Manatee Plan to change the future land use classification

of approximately 20 acres of land owned by Robinson Farms from

RES - 1 to R ES - 3. The land is described by metes and bounds in

Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 13 - 10 . It is located on the north

side of 9th Avenue Northwest, about 600 feet east of 99th Street.

6 . The RES - 1 classification allows one dwelling unit per

acre (du/a). The RES - 3 classification allows up to three du/a.

7 . The General Introduction c hapter of the Manatee Plan,

Section D Î Special Plan Interpretation Provisions, would be

amended to add the following new text:

D.5.16 Ordinance 13 - 10 (ROBINSON FARMS PLAN

AMENDME NT)

The 20± acre property identified as the

Robinson Farms Plan Amendment and designated

RES - 3 on the Future Land Use Map pursuant to

Manatee County Ordinance No. 13 - 10 shall be

limited to a maximum of thirty eight (38)

residential units.

Coastal Evacuat ion Area and Coastal High Hazard Area

8. All 20 acres of the Robinson Farms property is within

the Coastal Evacuation Area (CEA).

9 . The CEA is defined in the Manatee Plan as:

The evacuation Level A for a Category 1

hurricane as established in the regio nal

evacuation study applicable to Manatee

County, as updated on a periodic basis.

1 0 . Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 2.2.2.4.2,

which addresses the purposes of the CEA, states in part:

a) To limit population in the Category 1

hurricane evacuatio n area requiring

evacuation during storm events.

b) To limit the amount of infrastructure,

both private and public, within the CEA

Overlay District and thereby limit magnitude

of public loss and involvement in mitigating

for loss of private infrastructur e to Manatee

County residents.

c) To, through exercise of the police power,

increase the degree of protection to public

and private property, and to protect the

lives of residents within the CEA, and reduce

the risk of exposing lives or property to

storm damage.

11. All but 4.68 acres is within the Coastal High Hazard

Area (CHHA).

12 . The CHHA is defined in the Manatee Plan as:

The geographic area below the Category 1

storm surge line as established by a Sea,

Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes

(SLOSH) computerized storm surge model,

pursuant to applicable law, as updated on a

periodic basis.

13. FLUE Policy 2.2.2.5.2, which addresses the purposes of

the CHHA, repeats the same purposes that are set forth above for

the CEA.

Relevant Goals, Obje ctive s, and Polic ies

1 4 . Goal 4.3 of the Coastal Element of the Manatee Plan is :

Protection of the Residents and Property

Within the Coastal Planning Area from the

Physical and Economic Effects of Natural

Disasters

1 5 . Coastal Element Objective 4.3.1 s tates :

Limit development type, density and intensity

within the Coastal Planning Area and direct

population and development to areas outside

the Coastal High Hazard Area to mitigate the

potential negative impacts of natural hazards

in the area.

1 6 . Coas tal Element Policy 4.3.1.1 states :

Direct population concentrations away from

the Coastal Evacuation Area

1 7 . F LUE Policy 2.2.2. 4 . 5 (a) , which addresses development

restrictions in the C EA, states :

Prohibit any amendment to the Future Land Use

Map which w ould result in an increase in

allowable residential density on sites within

the Coastal Evacuation Area.

1 8 . FLUE Policy 2.2.2. 4 . 4(a) states , in part:

The area designated under the CEA Overlay

District on the Future Land Use Map shall

also be subject to all goals, objectives and

policies for any land use category overlaid

by the CHHA District, except where policies

associated with the CEA Overlay conflict with

such goal s , objectives and policies. In this

event, policies associ a ted with the CHHA

Ov e rlay D istrict shall ove r ride other g oals,

objectives a nd policies.

19 . FLUE Policy 2.2.2.5.5 ( a ) , which addresses development

r estrictions in the CHHA , states :

Prohibit any amendment to the F uture L and Use

Map which w ould result in an incr e ase in

a llowable r e si dential density on sites within

the Coastal High H a zard Ar e a Ov e rlay

District.

20 . FLUE Policy 2.2.2.5. 4(a) states that , in the event of a

conflict between CHHA policies and other policies in the Manatee

Plan , the CHHA policies shall override .

D ata and A nalysis

2 1 . Petitioners contend that the 2013 Amendments are not

based on best av a ilable data a nd anal y sis as r e quired by Fl orida

Administrative Code Rule 9 J - 5.005(2 ) . However, that rule was

repealed in 2011 .

2 2 . Section 163.3177(1)(f) requires that pla n amendments be

based on Ðrelevant and appropriate data and analysis.Ñ This

section explains:

To be based on data means to react to it in an

appropriate way and to the extent necessary

indicated by the data available on that

particular subject at the time of adoption of

the plan or plan amendment at issue.

2 3 . Petitioners contend that t he proposed reclassification

of the Robinson Farms property from RES - 1 to RES - 3 does n ot react

appropriately to the data which show the Robinson Farms property

lies within the CEA and CHHA. However, as explained in the

Conclusions of Law, it is not the mapping of the CEA and CHHA

that creates a conflict with the 2013 Amendments . The conflict

is created by the policies which address future land uses in the

CEA and CHHA .

In ternal Consistency

2 4 . Petitioners contend that the 2013 Amendments make the

Manatee Plan internally inconsistent with Coastal Element

Objective 4.3.1 and Coastal Element Policy 4.3.1.1 which require

Ð population concentrations Ñ to be directed away from th e Coastal

Evacuation Area.

2 5 . No evidence was presented by Petitioners or by Manatee

County on the CountyÓs interpretation of the term Ðpopulation

concentrations . Ñ However, FLUE Policy 2.2. 2.4 .5 (a) prohibits any

increase in residential density in the C E A . Therefore, assuming

as we must that the Manatee Plan is internally consistent , it

follows that Ðpopulation concentrationsÑ in Coastal Element

Objective 4.3.1 and Policy 4.3.1.1 means any increase in

residential density . Because the 2013 Amendments inc rease

residential density in the CEA, they are inconsistent with this

objective and policy.

2 6 . Because the 2013 Amendments would amend the Future Land

Use Map to increase allowable residential density on a site

within the CEA they are inconsistent with F LUE Policy

2.2.2. 4 . 5 (a) , which p rohibit s any amendment to the Future Land

Use Map that would increase allowable residential density on

sites within the C EA .

2 7 . Because the 2013 Amendments would amend the Future Land

Use Map to increase allowable resident ial density on a site

within the C HHA they are inconsistent with FLUE Policy

2.2.2.5.5 ( a ) , which p rohibit s any amendment to the F uture L and

Use Map that w ould i ncr e ase a llowable r e sidential density on

sites within the C HHA .

Competing Policies

2 8 . Manatee County and Robinson Farms argue that there are

other policies in the Manatee Plan, such as those that discourage

urban sprawl and encourage infill in the Urban Core Area , which

the County must weigh along with the policies discussed above .

The County cont ends that it weighed these conflicting policies

and reached a fairly debatable determination that the 2013

Amendments are consistent with the Manatee Plan.

29 . Contradicting th is argument are FLUE Policy

2.2.2. 4 . 4(a) and FLUE Policy 2.2.2.5. 4 ( a ) , which st ate that the

CEA and CHHA policies shall override any conflicting goal s,

objective s, and polic ies in the Manatee Plan.

3 0 . U rban sprawl , infill , and other policies of the Manatee

Plan cannot be invoked to avoid the specific prohibition s in FLUE

Polic ies 2 .2.2.4 .5 (a) and 2.2.2.5.5 ( a ) against any amendment to

the F uture L and Use Map that w ould result in an incr e ase in

a llowable r e sidential density on sites within the CEA and C HHA .

Density Offsets

3 1 . Manatee County and Robinson Farms argue that the

CountyÓs reduction in dwelling units in other parts of the CHHA

over the past several years is a valid consideration in

determining whether an increase in residential density on the

Robinson Farms property is permissible despite the prohibition in

FLUE Policy 2.2. 2.5.5 (a). In support of their argument, they

cite D ep artment of Community Affairs v. Leeward Yacht Club, LLC ,

DOAH Case No. 06 - 0049GM, 2006 WL 2497934 ( Nov. 16, 2006 ) .

However, the Leeward Yacht Club case involved the comprehensive

plan of Lee County , wh ich did not p rohibit increase s in

residential density in the CHHA.

3 2 . In contrast , the Manatee Plan quite plainly prohibits

Ð any amendment Ñ to the Future Land Use Map that w ould incr e ase

r e sidential density in the CHHA.

Previous Proceedings

3 3 . These same parties were involved in a dispute regarding

an earlier proposed amendment to the Manatee Plan to reclassify

property owned by Robinson Farms from RES - 1 to RES - 3. The 2010

Amendment was di ffere nt in that it affected 28 acres (which

encompasses the 20 acres in the 2 013 Amendments) . The 2010

Amendment would have increased the residential density on the 28

acres from 28 dwelling units to 105 dwelling units, all in the

CEA. It would have added 56 dwelling units to the CHHA.

3 4 . Petitioners challenged t he amendment and an evidentiary

hearing was held befo r e A dministrative Law Judge D.R. Alexander

(DOAH Case No. 11 - 0009GM ) . On April 13, 2011, Judge Alexander

ent e red a Recommend e d Ord e r which recommended that the 2010

Amendment be determined not in compli ance because:

a. The amendment was not based on relevant

and appropriate data because the most current

SLOSH model results were not used;

b. The amendment was inconsistent with FLUE

Policy 2.2.2.4.5(a) which prohibits any

increase in residential density in the C EA .

c . The amendment was inconsistent with

Coastal Element Objective 4.3.1 and Policy

4.3.1.1 which require that population and

development be directed to areas outside the

CHHA.

3 5 . The Recommended Order went to the Administration

Commission, which ultimately dismissed the case when Manatee

County rescinded Ordinance No. 10 - 02 and the 2010 Amendment.

3 6 . In Manatee County Ordinance No. 11 - 035, which was the

ordinance used to rescind the 2010 Amendment, the Board of County

Commissioners determ ined that the 2010 Amendment w as internally

inconsistent with FLUE Policy 2.2.2.4.5(a) , Coastal Element

Objective 4.3.1 , and Coastal Element Policy 4.3.1.1 because the

amendment increased residential density in the CEA and CHHA .

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Stan d in g

3 7 . To have standing to challen g e a c ompreh e nsive plan

am e ndment, a pe r son must be an Ða f fe c ted pe r sonÑ as de f ined in

section 163.3184(1) ( a) , Florida Statutes (2013) .

3 8 . Petitioners meet the definition of affected persons and

have standing to challeng e the 2013 Amendments.

39 . Intervenor meets the definition of affected person and

has st a nding to intervene in this proceeding.

Scope of Review

4 0 . An a f fe c ted pe r son challen g ing a plan amendm e nt must

show that it is not Ðin complianc e Ñ as th a t term is d efined in

s e c tion 163.3184(1)(b):

Ð I n complianc e Ñ me a ns consistent with the

requir e ments of ss. 163.3177, 163.3178,

163.3180, 163.3191, 163.3245, and 163.3248,

with the app r opriate strate g ic r e g ional

policy plan, and with the p r inciples for

g uiding d e velop ment in desi g nated a re a s of

c r itical state con c ern a nd with part II I of

ch a pter 369, wh e re applicabl e .

4 1 . The statutes listed in s ection 163.3184(1) ( b) do not

include section 163.3184, which set s forth the procedures to be

followed in adopting a plan am endment. It follows , therefore,

t hat alleged procedural errors are beyond the scope of an Ðin

complianceÑ determination . P etitioners were not allowed to

present evidence or argument in support of their contention that,

in adopting O rdinance No. 13 - 10, Ma natee County failed to follow

the appropriate procedures of section 163.3184.

4 2 . However, t here is no dispute about the procedures that

Manatee County followed in adopting the 2013 Amendments. The

County used the procedures applicable to the adoption of a plan

amendment following a compliance agreement. Petitioners contend

that the County should have followed the procedures applicable to

a new plan amendment. Petitioners did not allege they were

prejudiced by the procedures the County followed.

4 3 . Pe titioners concede that procedural errors can not be

reviewed and determined in this proceeding, but argue that they

should have been allowed to make a record at the final hearing

because procedural errors can be considered and determined for

the first time on appeal of a comprehensive plan case .

4 4 . In support of thi s argument, Petitioners cite the

statement in section 163.3184(1 0 ) that Ðthis section shall be the

sole proceedingÑ for determining whether a plan amendment is in

compliance with Ð this act. Ñ Ho wever, because the term Ðin

complianceÑ is defined to exclude the procedural requirements for

adopting a plan amendment , section 163.3184 (10) does not ma ke

this the proceeding for determining whether procedural errors

were made .

4 5 . The decisions cited by Petitioners involv e different

kinds of claims which arose in different procedural contexts .

4 6 . Procedural errors made by local governments in the

adoption of ordinances are generally reviewable in the circuit

courts. PetitionersÓ argument is unpersuasi ve.

Estoppel by Judgment

4 7 . Petitioners contend that the doctrine of estoppel by

verdict, more commonly known as estoppel by judgment, is

applicable in this case and should bar Manatee County from

litigating the same issues that were litigated in DOAH Ca se

No. 11 - 0009GM.

4 8 . Estoppel by judgment is applicable where the same

parties are involved in a subsequent suit involving a different

cause of action, in which event the judgment in the first suit

estops the parties from litigating in the second sui t points and

questions common to both causes of action and which were actually

adjudicated in the first suit. See Deep Lagoon Boat Club, LTD v.

Sheridan , 784 So. 2d 1140, 1143 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).

49 . The cases cited by Petition er s , Wire g rass Ran c h, I nc. v .

Saddleb r ook Resorts, I nc., 645 So. 2d 374 ( F la. 1994) and City of

North Port, F lorida v. Consolidated Miner a ls, I nc. , 645 So. 2d

485 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) , deal with a different legal issue :

whether a party c an unilaterally divest an agency of jurisdiction

after a recommended order ha s been issued. Both courts answered

the question in the negative. There is no attempt here to

unilaterally divest an agency of jurisdiction. Wire g rass Ran c h

and City of North Port were appeal s to contest an agenc yÓs action

i n terminating the proceedings, but Petitioners here did not

appeal the Administration CommissionÓs Final Order of Dismissal .

5 0 . Petitioners assert Wire g rass Ran c h held that Ða

Recommended Order of a DOAH Hearing Officer after an evidentiary

hearing is a verdi c t which is binding upon the p a rties pursuant

to the estoppel by verdi c t doctrine .Ñ However, nowhere in the

opinion is there such a holding. Instead, the court quotes from

Middlebrooks v. St. Johns River Water M anagement District , 529

So. 2d 1167, 1 169 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), wh ich refers to a

recommended order as a ÐtentativeÑ verdict and ma kes no mention

of the doctrine of estoppel by verdict or estoppel by judgment .

5 1 . T he Supreme Court of Florida s tated in Wire g rass Ran c h

that Ðthe [agency] could have agreed with some of the points made

by WiregrassÑ ( the petitioner who had filed a notice of voluntary

dismissal ). In other words, it was still up to the agency to

make the final determination of whether the challenged permit

should be issued , and the agency could have disagreed with the

recommended order. The c ourt recognized that the adjudication

process is not concluded with the issuance of a recommended

order. See also D ykes v. Quincy Telephone Co. , 539 So. 2d 503, 504

(Fla. 1st DCA 1989)(Findings of fact in a recommended order c annot

support a summary judgment in a civil action because a recommended

order is not a final order.) .

5 2 . The Administration CommissionÓs Final Order of Dismissal

in DOAH Case No. 1 1 - 0009GM stated, Ð T here is no final acti on to be

taken on the ALJÓs Recommended Order because Ordinance 10 - 02 has

been and remains rescinded, thereby rendering the PetitionersÓ

original challenge moot.Ñ The Administration Commission did not

determine whether the findings of fact in the recommen ded order were

based on competent substantial evidence or whether the conclusions

of law were based on a correct application of the law to the facts.

53. T he points and issues in DOAH Case No. 1 1 - 0009GM were not

Ð actually Ñ or fully adjudicated. Therefore , the doctrine of

estoppel by judgment is inapplicable in this proceeding .

Burden and S tan d ard of P roof

5 4 . As the parties ch a llen g ing the 2013 Amendments ,

Petitioners h a ve the bu r den of p r oof.

5 5 . Man a tee Count y Ós dete r mination that the 2013 Amendments

are Ðin complianc e Ñ is presum e d to be co r re c t and must be

sustained if the Count y Ós dete r mination of compliance is fairly

debat a ble. See § 163.3184(5)( c ), Fla. Stat.

5 6 . The te r m Ðf a irly debat a bleÑ is not defin e d in c hapter

163. In Ma r tin Coun t y v. Yuse m , 690 So. 2d 1288 (Fl a . 1997) , t he

Supreme Court of Florida explained :

T he fairly debat a ble standa r d is a hi g hly

def e rential stand a rd r e quiring approv a l of a

planning action if a r e asonable person c ould

differ as to its propriet y . In other words,

an ordi nance may be said to be fairly

debatable when for any reason that is open to

dispute or controversy on grounds that make

sense or point to a logical deduction that in

no way involves its constitutional validity.

Id. , 1295.

5 7 . The stand a rd of p r oof for f indin g s of f a ct is

p r eponde r ance of the eviden c e. § 120.57(1 ) (j), F la. Stat.

Data and Analysis

5 8 . Petitioners contend that the proposed reclassification

of the Robinson Farms property from RES - 1 to RES - 3 does not react

appropriately to the data which sh ow the Robinson Farms property

lies within the CEA and CHHA and, therefore, the 2013 Amendments

violate s ection 163.3177(1)(f). However, it is not the mapping of

the CEA and CHHA that gives rise to a conflict. I f the Manatee

Plan a lready allow ed up to tw o du/a within the CEA and CHHA,

there would be no conflict with t he 2013 Amendments. The

conflict is created by the policies which prohibit any increase

in residential density in the CEA and CHHA .

5 9 . Generally, c onflict with a n existing policy will not

constitute a failure to react appropriately to data . Otherwise ,

every instance of internal inconsistency between a proposed

amendment and an existing polic y would also be a violation of the

requirement in section 163.3177(1)(f) that amendments be based on

relevant and appropriate data and analysis. It is clear in

chapter 163 that the requirement for an amendment to be internal ly

consistent and the requirement that it be based on relevant and

appropriate data and analysis are intended to be distinct

criter ia . In this case, there was no dispute about data or the

analysis of data.

60 . Petitioners failed to prove that the 2013 Amendments

are not based on relevant and appropriate data and analysis.

Internal Consistency

6 1 . Petitioners proved beyond fair deba te that the 2013

A m e ndments would create internal inconsistency with F L UE Policies

2.2.2.4.5(a) and 2.2.2.5.5( a ) , Coastal Element Objective 4.3.1 ,

and Coastal Element Policy 4.3.1.1.

6 2 . The inconsistency is clear. The Manatee Plan prohibits

Ð any amendme ntÑ that would increase residential density in the

CEA and the CHHA and directs that these prohibitions shall

override any other policies that may be in conflict. The

inconsistency is not open to dispute or controversy on grounds

that make sense or point to a logical deduction.

6 3 . Manatee County and Robinson Farms assert that the

County me e t s the mitigation criteria described in section

163.3178(8)(a) for a proposed amendment affecting lands in the

CHHA. However, section 163.3178(8) ( a) addresses state c riteria.

The 2013 Amendments must also satisfy local criteria in the

Manatee Plan. As explained herein, t hey do not.

Summary

6 4 . Petitioners proved be y ond fair d e bate that the 2013

Amendments are not in complianc e .

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is

RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission issue a

final order determining that the 2013 Amendments adopted by

Manatee County Ordinance No. 13 - 10 are not in compliance.

DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of J uly , 2014 , 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 8th day of July , 2014 .

COPIES FURNISHED:

James A. Minix, Esquire

Manatee County Attorney's Office

Post Office Box 1000

Bradenton, Flori da 34206

Edward Vogler, II, Esquire

Vogler Ashton, PLLC

2411 - A Manatee Avenue West

Bradenton, Florida 34205 - 4948

Thomas W. Reese, Esquire

2951 61st Avenue South

St. Petersburg, Florida 33712 - 4539

Barbara Leighty, Clerk

Transportation and Economic

D evelopment Policy Unit

The Capitol, Room 1801

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0001

Peter Antonacci, General Counsel

Office of the Governor

The Capitol, Suite 209

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0001

Robert N. Sechen, General Counsel

Department of Economic Opport unity

Caldwell Building, MSC 110

107 East Madison Street

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 exceptio ns

to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

will issue the Final Order in this case.