15-004711GM Cemex Construction Materials Florida, Llc, And Lake Louisa, Llc vs. Lake County Status: Closed Recommended Order on Monday, November 21, 2016.

Summary: Petitioners proved beyond fair debate that the proposed comprehensive plan amendment was not "in compliance" because it lacks meaningful and predictable standards to guide development and creates internal inconsistencies.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

CEMEX CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS

FLORIDA, LLC, AND LAKE LOUISA,

LLC,

Petitioners,

vs. Case Nos. 15 - 4711GM

15 - 5278GM

LAKE COUNTY, 16 - 0628GM

Respondent,

and

SOUTH LAKE CROSSINGS I, LLC;

SOUTH LAKE CROSSINGS II, LLC;

SOUTH LAKE CRO SSINGS III, LLC;

CLONTS GROVES, INC.; CATHERINE

E. ROSS GROVES, INC. ; AND CRA -

MAR GROVES, INC.,

Intervenors.

_______________________________/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

The final hearing i n this case was held July 12 and 13,

2016, in Tavares, Florida, before Bram D.E. Ca n ter,

Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative

Hearings (ÐDOAHÑ).

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner s : Martin John Alexander, Esquire

Holland & Knight LLP

701 Brickell Avenue , Suite 3300

Miami, Florida 33131

Roger William Sims, Esquire

Lauren L. Millcarek , Esquire

Holla nd & Knight LLP

200 South Orange Avenue, Suite 2600

Orlando, Florida 32801

For Respondent: Gregory T. Stewart, Esquire

Lynn M. Hoshihara, Esquire

Heath R. Stokl ey, Esquire

Nabors, Giblin & Nickerson, P.A.

1500 Mahan Drive, Suite 200

Tallahassee, Florida 32308

For Intervenors: Daniel William Langley, Esquire

Christo pher M. Conley, Esquire

Fishback, Dominick, Bennett, Stepter,

Ardaman, Ahlers and Langley, LLP

1947 Lee Road

Winter Park, Florida 32789

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue to be determined in this case is whether the

Wellness Way Area Plan Map and Text Amendment to the Lake County

Comprehensive Plan (ÐRemedial AmendmentÑ) adopted through Lake

County Ordinance No. 2016 - 1 is Ðin compliance,Ñ as defined in

section 16 3.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

In July 2015, Lake County amended its Comprehensive Plan to

establish a Wellness Way Sector Plan. The amendment was

submitted to the Department of Economic Opportunity (ÐDEOÑ) for

review. These Petit ioners filed a petition for hearing to

challenge the amendment and it was assigned DOAH Case

No. 15 - 4711GM. In September 2015, DEO determined that the

amendment was not in compliance and filed a petition for hearing

which was assigned DOAH Case N o. 15 - 52 7 8GM . Petitioners were

granted leave to intervene in the case .

In December 2015, Lake County and DEO entered into a

compliance agreement, which settled their disputes. The

compliance agreement called for Lake County to adopt the Remedial

Amendmen t which would establish the We llness Way Urban Service

Area . On January 5, 2016, the Remedial Amendment was adopted by

Lake County by Ordinance No. 2016 - 1. Petitioners filed an

amended petition in DOAH Case No. 15 - 4711GM to challenge the

validity of the Remedial Amendment . On February 1, 2016, DEO

issued a written determination that the Remed i al Amendment was in

compliance. On February 4, 2016, Petitioners filed a separate

petition for hearing to challenge the Remedial Amendment , which

was assigned DOAH Case No. 16 - 0628GM. The three cases were then

consolidated for hearing.

At the final hearing, Joint Exhibits 1 - 16 were admitted into

evidence. Petitioners presented the testimony of Charles

Gauthier, accepted as an expert in comprehensive planning; Ryan

Mahoney, the corporate representative of Cemex Construction

Materials Florida LLC (ÐCemexÑ); and Matthew McNulty, the

corporate representative of Lake Louisa, LLC. PetitionersÓ

Exhibits 1 - 18, 25, 32 - 33, 40, 43 - 45, 57, 59 - 66, and 68 were

admitted into evi dence.

Lake County presented the testimony of Robert Chandler;

Cristopher Schmidt; Fabricio Pon c e, accepted as an expert in

transportation planning; and J im Hall, accepted as an expert in

comprehensive planning. Lake CountyÓs Exhibits 2, 5, 10 - 11, 21,

23, 28 - 29, and 31 - 32 were admitted into evidence.

Intervenors presented no witnesses. IntervenorsÓ Exhibits

1 - 9, 13 - 15, 18, and 23 were admitted into evidence.

PetitionersÓ Exhibit 86 and Lake County Ós Exhibit 34 were

placed in the record as proffers . They were not considered by

the Administrative Law Judge.

The two - volume Transcript of the final hearing was filed and

made a part of the record. The parties filed proposed

recommended orders that were considered by the Administrative Law

Judge in the preparat ion of this Recommended Order.

FINDING S OF FACT

The Parties

1. Petitioner Cemex is a Florida limited liability company

doing business in Lake County. Cemex made timely objections and

comments to Lake County on the Remedial Amendment.

2. Petitioner Lake Louisa is a limited liability company

that owns property in Lake County. Lake Louisa made timely

objections and comments to Lake County on the Remedial Amendment.

3. Cemex leases 1,200 acres of land in Lake County from

Lake Louisa. The leased property is located within the area

affected by the Remedial Amendment.

4 . Cemex proposes sand mining on the leased property and

obtained all the required state permits. Prior to adoption of

the Remedial Amendment , Cemex sought a conditional use permit

from Lake County for its proposed sand min ing.

5. Respondent Lake County is a political subdivision of the

State of Florida and adopted the Lake County Comprehensive Plan,

which it amends from time to time pursuant to section 163.3184,

Florida Statutes.

6. Interv enors South Lake Crossings I, LLC ; South Lake

Crossings II, LLC ; South Lake Crossings III, LLC ; Clonts Groves,

Inc. ; Catherine Ross Groves, Inc .; and Cra - Mar Groves, Inc.,

(referred to collectively as ÐSouth LakeÑ) own 2,500 acres in

Lake County which are subject to the Remedial Amendment.

Intervenors made timely comments to Lake County on the Remedial

Amendment. 1/

The Wellness Way Area

7. The Wellness Way Area comprises 15,471 acres in

southeastern Lake County. It is bordered by U . S . Highway 27 to

the w est, the City of Clermont to the north, and Orange County to

the east.

8. Currently, the Wellness Way Area is mostly designated as

agricultural with some small areas of residential and industrial

uses. However, there is only one active agricultural oper ation.

The majority of properties within the Wellness Way Area are large

tracts of unused land. Directly east of the Wellness Way Area,

in Orange County, is the Horizon West Sector Plan which consists

of 23,000 acres and is one of the fastest growing are as in the

United States.

The Remedial Amendment

9 . To address DEOÓs objections to the Lake County Wellness

Way Sector Plan, the County adopted the Remedial Amendment which

converted the S ector P lan into the Wellness Way Urban Service

Area . Based on the t erms of the settlement agreement , the

ordinance adopting the Remedial Amendment , and Lake CountyÓs

stipulation on the record, the Wellness Way Sector Plan no longer

has force or effect.

1 0 . The Remedial Amendment creates five future land use

categories wi thin the Wellness Way Area: Town Center and

Wellness Way 1 through Wellness Way 4. Each future land use

category allows a mix of uses, but with different density and

intensity limits in each category. The highest density and

intensity limits are in the Town Center category, located along

U.S. Highway 27. The lowest limits are in the Wellness Way 4

category.

1 1 . The Town Center and Wellness Way 1 - 3 categories have

identical permitted and conditional land uses. Wellness Way 4

allows fewer types of land use s and no residential land use

because the land is publicly owned and contains a large

wastewater reclamation facility.

1 2 . The new land use categories provides for a distribution

of land uses by percentage of total land area within the

category. In To wn Center, the distribution is 25 percent non -

residential, 45 percent residential, and 30 percent open space.

In Wellness Way 1 - 3, the distribution is 10 percent non -

residential, 60 percent residential, and 30 percent open space.

1 3 . The allowable reside ntial density for each category

differs. The Town Center has a minimum density of 6.0 dwelling

units per net buildable acre (Ðdu/acÑ) and a maximum density of

25 du/ac. Net buildable acre is defined as gross acres minus

wetlands, waterbodies, and open sp aces. Wellness Way 1 has a

minimum density of 3 du/ac and a maximum density of 20 du/ac.

Wellness Way 2 has a minimum density of 2.5 du/ac and a maximum

density of 15 du/ac. Wellness Way 3 has a minimum density of

2 du/ac and a maximum density of 10 du/a c. Wellness Way 4 has no

density criteria because residential uses are not allowed.

1 4 . The allowable intensity for non - residential uses in

each category also differs. The Town Center has a minimum

average Floor Area Ratio (ÐFARÑ) of 30 percent and a ma ximum

average FAR of 200 percent. Wellness Way 1 has a minimum average

FAR of 25 percent and a maximum average FAR of 200 percent.

Wellness Way 2 has a minimum average FAR of 20 percent and a

maximum average FAR of 200 percent. Wellness Way 3 has a mini mum

average FAR of 15 percent and a maximum average FAR of

200 percent. Wellness Way 4 has no intensity criteria.

1 5 . Implementation of the Remedial Amendment goals,

objectives, and policies is to be accomplished through the r eview

and approval of planne d unit developments (ÐPUD s Ñ).

1 6 . Despite the density allowances stated above, the total

number of dwelling units that can be included in a PUD are

further controlled by Policy I - 8.2.1.1 , which ties residential

development to job creation. For each dwell ing unit proposed in

a PUD, a certain number of jobs must be created through the

setting aside of areas for non - residential uses. The jobs - to -

housing ratio assumes that one job is created for every

450 square feet of non - residential development.

1 7 . Each land use category has a different jobs - to - housing

ratio applicable to approved PUDs. In Town Center, the jobs - to -

housing ratio is 2.0 to 1.0, meaning 900 square feet of non -

residential development must accompany every proposed dwelling

unit. In Wellness Way 1, the jobs - to - housing ratio is 1.75 to

1.0. In Wellness Way 2, the ratio is 1.50 to 1.0. In Wellness

Way 3, the ratio is 1.35 to 1.0.

1 8 . In the Remedial Amendment, the information and criteria

for a PUD application are more detailed and extensive than under

the Comprehensive Plan provisions for PUDs outside the Wellness

Way Area. For example, a PUD application under the Remedial

Amendment must include a report on the PUDÓs impact on

transportation facilities and the need for additional

transporta tion improvements, and a detailed plan for public

facilities, such as potable water, sanitary sewer, and schools.

19 . The Remedial Amendment requires each PUD to establish

Wellness Way Corridors, which serve as buffers around the border

to connect job hub s and neighborhoods through trails and other

pedestrian facilities.

Meaningful and Predictable Standards

Sand Mining Approval

2 0 . Petitioners contend the Remedial Amendment fails to

provide meaningful and predictable standards governing sand

mining within the Wellness Way Area.

21. Sand mining is listed as a conditional use in all land

use categories. Comprehensive Plan Objective III - 3.5 and its

policies , which address sand mining , w ere not changed by the

Remedial Amendment. They prohibit mining in envi ronmentally

sensitive areas which cannot be reclaimed, require mining within

aquifer protection zones to be performed in a manner that would

not negatively impact water quality, and require mining operators

to demonstrate a practical and environmental ly so und reclamation

plan.

2 2 . U nder the Remedial Amendment , an application for a

conditional use in the Wellness Way Area must be combined with a

PUD application and must comply with the detailed PUD criteria of

new Policy I - 8.7. By combining a conditional u se application

with a PUD application, Lake County can impose additional

conditions designed to assure the conditional use will be

compatible with the surrounding land uses.

2 3 . The Remedial Amendment adds more criteria and greater

detail than exists curr ently in the Comprehensive Plan for

reviewing a proposal for sand mining. Adding these review

criteria is not a failure to provide meaningful and predictable

standards.

PUD Densities and Intensities

2 4 . Petitioners contend that the densities and intensit ies

within the Wellness Way Area cannot be reasonably predicted

because Policy I - 8.2.1.2 permits the density and intensity of

developments to exceed or fall below the required maximum and

minimum densities and intensities of use so long as a PUD as a

whole fits within the limits. PetitionersÓ evidence on this

point was not persuasive. A pplying density and intensity limits

to the entire area of a PUD is not unreasonable and does not fail

to provide meaningful and predictable standards.

Location of Future Land Uses

2 5 . A more persuasive argument made by Petitioner s is that

the land use planning flexibility in the Remedial Amendment goes

too far because the location of particular land uses will not be

known until PUDs are approved. Lake CountyÓs arguments in this

regard do not overcome the fact that, under the Remedial

Amendment, the determination where l and uses will be located in

the Wellness Way Area is deferred to the PUD process. The

Remedial Amendment itself does not establish the location of

future land uses in the Wellness Way Area . A landowner or

citizen cannot predict where future land uses will be located in

the Wellness Way Area.

2 6 . Lake County did not present evidence to show that any

other local government comprehensive plan i n Florida uses a

similar planning approach . T here appears to be no other

comprehensive plan amendment that was the subject of a DOAH

proceeding which le ft the location of future land uses

unspecified in this way .

Potential PUDs

2 7 . Petitioners contend that the Remedia l Amendment fails

to provide meaningful and predictable standards because

applications for development approvals in the Wellness Way Area

are reviewed on a case - by - case basis for their effect on approved

and Ðpotential PUDs.Ñ Policy I - 8.7.1 provides:

Unti l and unless a PUD is approved by the

Lake County Board of County Commissioners,

the property in the WWUSA area shall maintain

the existing zoning (e.g. A, R - 1, CFD, PUD).

All applications for development approvals

(i.e. l ot splits, conditional use permits ,

variances, etc.) on any property within the

WWUSA area shall be reviewed on a case - by -

case basis for the effect of such development

approval on adopted or potential PUDs and

compliance with the general principles of the

Urban Service Area.

2 8 . T he Remed ial AmendmentÓs requirement that development

approvals account for potential PUDs makes it impossible to

predict how Lake County will make a land use decision b ecause it

is impossible to know or account for a n unapproved, potential

PUD . This standard lack s meaning and predictability for g uid ing

land development .

Case - by - Case Approvals

29. Petitioners assert that Policy I - 8.7.1 also creates

internal inconsistency because it require s all development to be

approved through the PUD process, but then appears t o also

provide for non - PUD development approvals on a case - by - case

basis . The testimony presented by Lake County seemed to support

PetitionersÓ claims. Exceptions can be stated in a comprehensive

plan without constituting an internal inconsistency. Howe ver,

t he a mbiguity of Policy I - 8.7.1 causes it to lack meanin g and

predictab ility for gui ding land development.

Urban Form Guiding Principles

30 . Policy I - 8.2.2 of the Remedial Amendment sets forth

guiding principles for development derived from the goal s,

objectives, and polic i es for the Wellness Way Area and

establishes principles to guide development. Petitioners argue

that the p rinciples are not meaningful and predictable standards

for the use and development of land because they w ere described

by a Lake County witness at the final hearing as Ðaspirational.Ñ

3 1 . The policy itself states that , Ð T hese guiding

principles shall be specifically demonstrated in the PUDs.Ñ The

plain meaning of this statement is that application of the

principles is mandato ry. A witnessÓ testimony cannot alter the

plain meaning of a policy for purposes of a n Ðin complianceÑ

determination .

Data and Analysis

Planning Timeframes

3 2 . Petitioners contend that the Remedial Amendment is not

supported by appropriate data and an an alysis because they

a ddress only infrastructure needs at the time of the Wellness Way

Area Ós buildout in 2040 ; no intermediate timeframes were used .

Although s ection 163.3177(5)(a) requires comprehensive plans to

Ðinclude at least two planning periods, on e covering at least the

first 5 - year period occurring after the planÓs adoption and one

covering at least a 10 - year period , Ñ the statute is less clear on

the requirements applicable to a comprehensive plan amendment.

PetitionersÓ evidence and argument on this claim was insufficient

to meet their burden of proof .

Potable Water Supply

3 3 . Petitioners claim the Remedial Amendment is not

supported by appropriate data and an analysis to show that the

demand for potable water will be met at buildout. Petitione rs Ó

evidence was insufficient to prove this claim.

Internal Consistency

Goal I - 8

3 4 . Petitioners argue that Goal I - 8 of the Remedial

Amendment contains an impermissible waiver of any Comprehensive

Plan goals, objectives, or policies that conflict with t he

Remedial Amendment . Goal I - 8 provides:

The following Objectives and Policies shall

govern the WWUSA as depicted on the Future

Land Use Map. In the event that these Goals,

Objectives or Policies present either an

express (direct) or implied (indirect)

conflict with the Goals, Objectives and

Policies that appear elsewhere in the

comprehensive plan, the provision elsewhere

in the comprehensive plan that is in direct

or indirect conflict with a Wellness Way

Goal, Objective or Policy shall not apply to

the WWUSA area. All Goals, Objectives and

Policies in the Lake County Comprehensive

Plan that do not directly or indirectly

conflict with this Goal and associated

Objectives and Policies shall apply to the

WWUSA area depicted in the Future Land Use

Map.

3 5 . Goal I - 8 gives no hint as to the nature or the number

of potential direct or indirect conflicts that could arise . As

explained in the Conclusions of Law, the goal creates an unlawful

waiver of un identified inconsistencies.

Urban Service Area

3 6 . The Well ness Way Area is intended to be an urban

service area. ÐU rban s ervice a rea Ñ is defined in section

163.3164(5 0 ):

ÐUrban Service AreaÑ means areas identified

in the comprehensive plan where public

facilities and services, including, but not

limited to, cent ral water and sewer capacity

and roads, are already in place or are

identified in the capital improvements

element. The term includes any areas

identified in the comprehensive plan as urban

services areas, regardless of local

government limitations.Ñ

3 7 . Petitioners contend the Capital Improvement s Element of

the Comprehensive Plan is inconsistent with the Remedial

Amendment because Lake County did not amend the Capital

Improvement s Element to address public facilities and services in

the Wellness Way Ar ea. Lake County responds t hat it does not own

or operate the utility companies that would provide the services ,

but who owns and operates the utilities has no effect on the

statutory requirement to do public utility planning .

3 8 . Lake County argues that it was sufficient for the

County to simply identify the utility providers. Section

163.31 6 4 (5 0 ) requires more. It requires the identification of

public facilities and services . Furthermore, section

163.3177(3)(a) requires a capital improvement element Ð to

consider the need for and location of public facilities . Ñ

3 9 . T he Remedial Amendment create s an internal

inconsistency in the Comprehensive Plan by p roviding for greater

growth and a new urban service area i n the Wellness Way Area

without amending the Capital Improvements Element to address the

greater growth or the u rban service area.

40 . The Capital Improvements Element should have been

amended to include s ome of the da ta and analysis that was used to

support the Remedial Amendment.

CONCLUSIONS OF LA W

Standing

4 1 . To have standing to challenge a comprehensive plan

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

defined in section 163.3184(1)(a) as a person owning property,

residing, or owning or operating a business within the boundaries

o f the local government, and who made timely comments to the

local government regarding the amendment.

4 2 . In this case, the parties stipulated that Petitioners

and Intervenors are affected persons.

4 3 . A party must be adversely affected by final agency

a ction in order to appeal the decision. § 120.68, Fla. Stat.

Petitioners proved that the Remedial Amendment would likely

impede their sand mining operations by creating a n unpredictable

and arbitrary approval process. Petitioners are adversely

affected b y the Remedial Amendment .

Burden and Standard of Proof

4 4 . As the challengers of the Remedial Amendment,

Petitioners have the ultimate burden of persuasion. A person

challenging a comprehensive plan amendment must show that it is

not Ðin complianceÑ as that term is defined in section

163.3184(1)(b):

ÐIn 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 for

guiding development in designated areas of

critical state concern and with part III of

Chapter 369, where applicable.

4 5 . Lake CountyÓs determination that the Remedial Amendment

is Ðin complianceÑ is presumed correct and must be sustained if

the TownÓs d etermination of compliance is fairly debatable. See

§ 163.3184(5)(c), Fla. Stat.

4 6 . The term Ðfairly debatableÑ is not defined in chapter

163, but the Florida Supreme Court held in Martin County v.

Yusem , 690 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. 1997) that Ð[t]he fairly d ebatable

standard is highly deferential standard requiring approval of a

planning action if reasonable persons could differ as to its

propriety.Ñ Id . a t 1295.

4 7 . The standard of proof to establish a finding of fact is

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

Meaningful and Predictable Standards

4 8 . Section 163.3177(1) requires a comprehensive plan to

include meaningful and predictable standards for the use and

development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the

content of more detailed land development and use regulations.

4 9 . It is a r equirement of all comprehensive plans that

the y show the location of future land uses. See

§ 163.3177 (6) (a), Fla. Stat. The Remedial AmendmentÓs failure to

show the location of future lan d uses is a violation of section

163.3177( 6 ) (a).

50 . Because identifying the location of future land uses is

probably the most fundamental standard in a comprehensive plan

for guiding land development, the failure to identify the

location of future land u ses is a failure to provide meaningful

and predictable stand ards as required by section 163.3177(1). B y

a llowing the location of land uses to be determined outside of

the comprehensive plan ning process and, instead, in the land

development regulation proc ess ( via PUD approval s ) , the Remedial

Amendment fails to provide meaningful guidance for land

development .

5 1 . Policy I - 8.7.1 l acks meaning and predictability to guide

development because it requires that d evelopment proposals

account for Ð potential Ñ PUDs , and makes unclear when PUDs are

required and when they are not.

Data and Analysis

5 2 . Section 163.3177(1)(f) requires that all plan

amendments be based on relevant and appropriate data and an

analysis by the local government. Petitioners failed to prov e

the Remedial Amendment is not based on appropriate data and an

analysis .

Internal Consistency

5 3 . The elements of a comprehensive plan must be

consistent. § 163.3177(2), Fla. Stat.

5 4 . A comprehensive plan may state that certain provisions

will contro l over other provisions in the event of a conflict,

but such statements must be sufficiently focused so there can be

a reasonable understanding of where the conflicts could arise .

For example, if a policy establishing a maximum residential

density in the coastal zone is made controlling in the review of

a proposed future land use map amendment over conflicting

p olicies in a comprehensive plan, it would be understood to mean

that the density limit is controlling over policies associated

with higher densitie s such as policies that encourage infill or

affordable housing. Goal I - 8 gives no hint as to the nature or

the number of potential direct or indirect conflicts that exist

or could arise . By excusing all internal inconsistencies that

exist or might arise, Goal I - 8 render s the statutory requirement

for internal consistency meaningless .

Summary

5 5 . Petitioners proved beyond fair debate that the Remedial

Amendment is not in compliance.

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 Remedial Amendment adopted by

Lake County Ordinance No. 2016 - 1 is not in compliance .

DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of November , 2016 , 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.do ah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 21st day of November , 2016 .

ENDNOTE

1/ The finding regarding the participation of Intervenors in the

adoption of the Remedial Amendment is as sumed from the partiesÓ

s tipulation that Intervenors are affected persons.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Roger William Sims, Esquire

Lauren L. Millcarek, Esquire

Holland & Knight LLP

200 South Orange Avenue, Suite 2600

Orlando, Florida 32801

(eServed)

Daniel William Langley, Esquire

Chri stopher M. Conley, Esquire

Fishback, Dominick, Bennett, Stepter,

Ardaman, Ahlers and Langley, LLP

1947 Lee Road

Winter Park, Florida 32789

(eServed)

Lawrence E. Sellers, Jr., Esquire

Holland and Knight, LLP

Suite 600

315 South Calhoun Street

Tallahasse e, Florida 32301

(eServed)

John A. DeVault, III, Esquire

Bedell, Dittmar, DeVault, Pillans & Coxe

101 East Adams Street

Jacksonville, Florida 32202 - 3303

(eServed)

Melanie N. Marsh, Esquire

Lake County Attorney's Office

Post Office Box 7800

Tavares, Flo rida 32778

(eServed)

Martin John Alexander, Esquire

Holland & Knight LLP

701 Brickell Avenue , Suite 3300

Miami, Florida 33131

(eServed)

Gregory T. Stewart , Esquire

Lynn M. Hoshihara, Esquire

Heath R. Stokley, Esquire

Nabors, Giblin and Nickerson, P.A.

1500 Mahan Drive , Suite 200

Tallahassee, Florida 32308

(eServed)

Christina Arzillo Shideler, Esquire

Department of Economic Opportunity

Caldwell Building, MSC 110

107 East Madison Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 4128

(eServed)

John P. ÐJackÑ Heekin, General Counsel

Office of the General Counsel

Office of the Govenor

Room 209, The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0001

(eServed)

Barbara Leighty, Clerk

Transportation and Economic

Departmental Policy Unit

Room 1801, The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0001

(eServed)

James W. Poppell, General Counsel

Department of Economic Opportunity

Caldwell Building, MSC 110

107 East Madison Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 4128

(eServed)

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right t o submit written exceptions within

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

to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

will issue the Final Order in this case.