16-001278 Wolfcreek Homeowners Association, Inc.; J.P. Lepez; Carol Smith; Michael Urban; And Elizabeth Urban vs. Leon County Department Of Development Support And Environmental Management, And Floresta, Llc Status: Closed Recommended Order on Wednesday, May 25, 2016.

Summary: Applicant demonstrated that its site and development plan for tiny homes was consistent with County Code and Comprehensive Plan.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

WOLF CREEK HOMEOWNERS

ASSOCIATION, INC.; J.P. LEPEZ;

CAROL SMITH; MICHAEL URBAN ;

AND ELIZABETH URBAN,

Case No. 1 6 - 1278

Petitioner s,

vs.

LEON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF

DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT AND

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAG EMENT AND

FLORESTA, LLC,

Respondent s.

_______________________________/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

This case was heard by D . R. Alexander, the assigned

Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative

Hearings (DOAH ) , on April 27 , 2016, in Tallahassee, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner s: Timothy J. Perry, Esquire

Oertel , Fernandez , Bryant

& Atkinson, P.A.

Post Office Box 1110

Tallah assee, Florida 323 02 - 1110

For Respondent : Patrick T. Kinni, Esquire

(County) Jessica M. Icerman, Esquire

Leon County Attorney's Office

301 South Monroe Street, Room 202

Tallahassee, Florida 32301 - 18 61

F or Respondent: Claude Ridley Walker, Esquire

(Floresta) Suite 155

2073 Summit Lake Drive

Tallahassee, Florida 32317 - 7949

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The i ssue is whether Leon County Project ID No. LSP160001 ,

conditionally approved on February 5, 2016, is consistent with

the Leon County Land Development Code (Code) a nd the

Tallahassee - Leon County 2030 Comprehensive Plan (Plan).

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On Febru ary 5, 2016, the Director of the Department of

Development Support and Environmental Management (Department)

issued a letter approving, with conditions, a site and

development plan submitted by Floresta, LLC (Floresta), which

would allow the construction o f the first phase of a single -

family residential (condominium) project, consisting of

24 units, to be developed on 4.09 acres of the total parcel on

Blountstown Highway just west of Capital Circle Northwest, Leon

County (County) .

Petitioners, Wolf C reek Homeowners Association, Inc.

( Association), an association of homeowners in a subdivision

adjacent to the project, and J.P. Lepez, Carol Smith, Michael

Urban, and Elizabeth Urban, who reside adjacent to or near the

project, timely filed their Petition for Formal Proceeding

(Petition) contending that the project was inconsistent with

certain provisions within the Code and Plan. Pursuant to a

contract, the County transmitted t he matter to DOAH to appoint a

special master to conduct a quasi - judicial hear ing.

At the hearing, the parties agreed that no witnesses w ould

be called by any party , and that the matter would be submitted

on a stipulated record consisting of County Exhibits 1 , 2, 3a

through 3g, 4 through 7, 8a through 8e, and 9 through 1 9 . Those

exhibits have been accepted in evidence. Exhibits 1 through 18

make up the original application file , while Exhibit 19 is a

copy of speaker cards . The parties have also stipulated to

certain facts in their Pre - hearing Stipulation. Pursuant to

section 10 - 7.414(J) ( v)d . of the Code, six members of the public

offered comments , all in opposition to the project . Official

recognition was taken of those Code and Plan provisions that are

cited in the Petition or relied upon by the parties in their

post - hearing f ilings . As required by section 10 - 7. 414(J) (viii)

of the Code, a copy of this Recommended Order is being sent to

all members of the public who participated at the hearing.

A transcript of the hearing was not prepared. Petitioners

and the County filed p rop osed r ecommended o rder s (PROs) , which

have been considered in the preparation of this Recommended

Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

A. The Parties

1. Floresta is a limited liability corporation that

proposes to develop property located at 5044 Blountstown Highwa y

(State Road 20) , approximately one - half mile west of the

intersection of Capital Circle Northwest and State Road 20 .

2. The Ass ociation is comprised of residents of the

Wolf Creek Subdivision (Subdivision) , and numbers around

200 residential tow n homes on State Road 20 just west of the

proposed development . The parties agree that a substantial

number of members of the Association would otherwise have

standing to bring this action in their own right.

3 . J.P. Lepez lives in the Subdivision direct ly adjacent

to, and west of, the development proposed by Floresta.

4 . Michael and Elizabeth Urban reside in Deer Tree Hills

Condominium C ommunity adjacent to, and west of, the Subdivision,

and in close proximity to the proposed development.

5 . Carol Smit h resides just south of Deer Tree Hills

Condominium Community on the opposite side of Blountstown

Highway, and in close proximity to the proposed development.

B. The App roval Process

6 . On January 12, 2016, the County received a site and

development plan application filed by Floresta regarding a

proposed project call ed the Residential Condominiums on

Blountstown Highway , a principal arterial roadway . The

application consisted of an application ; a permitted use

verification ; an applicant's affidavit of ow nership and

designation of agent; a school impact analysis form; an

application for concurrency determination; a natural features

inventory approval; a site plan narrative; a site and

development plan; a concept utility plan; a concept water and

sewer plan ; and fire flow calculations . The applicant also

submitted an environmental impact analysis application,

consisting of the application, an environmental impact analysis

narrative, a proposed conservation easement, a conservation

easement management and ma intenance plan, a stormwater analysis,

and an environmental impact analysis plan. See Ex. 3a. - g., 4,

8a. - e., 9, 13, 14, and 16.

7 . The project is Phase I of a multi - phase development.

Floresta proposes to develop around 4.09 acres of the total

33.52 - acr e parcel. As explained in more detail in the site plan

narrative prepared by Floresta's consultant on January 13, 2016 :

The residential condominium project is

limited to the front - 4 acres along

Blountstown Highway and will include the

entry drive with guest parking, a stormwater

pond and 24 residential units.

Each unit is a small footprint unit for low -

income residents. It is anticipated that

not all residents will rely upon a vehicle

for transportation and therefore not all

units will have driveways . Units will range

in size, but will be less than 500 gsf

[gross square feet], single story dwellings.

T he units will be placed within the

identified area and located among the

existing trees of the property to retain a

wooded development. Future phases of

construction may include community buildings

and additional units based on market

conditions.

Ex. 3g. Because of the small size of the units -- gross square

footage represents the overall footprint of the building -- they

were referred to at times by members of the public as "tiny

homes." Petitioners' PRO alleges that information obtained at a

public meeting conducted by the County on January 27, 2016,

revealed that the project will in all likelihood function as a

homeles s shelter . While no County o r Floresta representative

testified to confirm or deny this fact , testimony by public

commenters s uggest this may be true, and their testimony was not

challenged by Respondents at hearing.

8. The project is located on a parcel zoned R - 3 , Single -

and Two - Fa mily Residential . It is designated Urban

Residential 2 on the Future Land Use Map of the Plan. The

R - 3 zoning and Urban Residential 2 Future Land Use category

allow for a wide range of single - family dwelling units ,

including single - family detached dwellings, single - family

attached dwellings, two - family dwellings, and zero - lot line

single - family detached dwellings. See § 10 - 6.637 , L.D.C. ;

Land Use Element Policy 2.2.24(L). The project consists of

small condominium units as single - family detached dwellings.

These are a permitted use in the R - 3 zoning district and in the

Urban Residential 2 Future Land Use category.

9. Because the project is located on a parcel zoned R - 3

and consists of 24 units, it qualifies for a Type "A" review

under section 10 - 7.402 of the Code.

10. Under Type A review, an applicant can select from two

development review tracks. See § 10 - 7.402(5), L.D.C. The

project was reviewed under the concept plan approval track.

This review track option is intended to expedite the revi ew

process by reducing the requirement for permitting - level

information while providing assurance that the development

entitlements reflected on the concept plan can be realized on

the subject site. See § 10 - 7.402(5)(a), L.D.C. An applicant is

still requ ired to complete the environmental permitting process

for the project prior to construction. A point of entry is

available to third parties to challenge any state , but not

County, environmental permit required for the project .

11. Under Type A review, an Application Review Committee

(Committee) , composed of City and County technical staff,

reviews the site and development plan application for compliance

with the applicable regulations. See § 10 - 7.403(e) , L.D.C. The

Committee then renders a recommendatio n to the County

Administrator or designee recommending approval, approval with

conditions, or denial of the application. Id. The County

Administrator or designee renders a Written Preliminary

Decision. Id. That decision becomes final unless an appeal i s

timely filed. See § 10 - 7.403(h), L.D.C. For this project , the

County's Administrator's designee is the Director of the

Department.

12. On January 27, 2016, the County held a noticed

Application Review Meeting, whereby the Committee convened to

review the application for the project and receive public

comment. Pursuant to section 10 - 7.403(g), notice of the public

hearing was mailed at least seven calendar days prior to the

meeting to all property owners within 600 feet of the proposed

project. The n ot ice euphemistically described the project as a

24 - unit "Residential Condominium Project . " Although Petitioners

assert the n otice was misleading, they attended th e January 27

meeting, and they were given an opportunity to present

witnesses, introduce evide nce, and to otherwise participate in

th e instant case. No evidence of prejudice was shown.

13. At the meeting, the Committee presented a staff

report, which included memoranda from the Tallahassee - Leon

County Planning Department, Leon County Environmenta l Services

Department, City of Tallahassee Utilities Department, City of

Tallahassee Fire Department, and Leon County Public Works

Department. See Ex. 7. The staff report and each memorandum

included comments regarding deficiencies in the application tha t

the applicant must address in order for the project to be

consistent with the Code and Plan.

14. County and City staff determined, however, that the

deficiencies were "minor" in nature and agreed to recommend

approval of the site and development plan wi th the condition

that the applicant must correct the deficiencies identified in

the staff report. See § 10 - 7.403(f), L.D.C. , which allows

approval of a Type A application, with conditions. Because they

considered the deficiencies to be minor, the staff t ook the

position they did not require a substantial, or even moderate,

alteration in the layout or geometry of the site plan. Some of

the deficiencies are related to notes that are required to be

added to the site plan simply for clarification purposes.

15. On February 2, 2016, the County , through a Department

Planner II, issued a Notice of Application Deficiency Letter

(Notice) . See Ex. 2. The Notice outlined many of the

conditions raised in the staff report. The Notice did not

impose any additional conditions.

16. On February 5, 2016, the Director of the Department

issued a Written Preliminary Decision, approving the project

subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report presented

at the meeting on January 27, 2016. See Ex. 1. The approva l

required the applicant to submit a revised site and development

plan demonstrating compliance with all conditions within

90 days, or by May 6, 2016. It further cautioned that u nless a

timely extension was requested by the applicant, a failure to

c omply with that requirement by the May 6 d eadline would render

the approval expired. The revised site and development plan was

not made a part of the record, and the staff's final compliance

determination was not disclosed at hearing. Under the County's

approval process, a n administrative c hallenge to the staff's

final determination is not available to third parties.

17. On February 17, 2016, Petitioners timely filed a

Notice of Intent to File a Petition for Formal Proceedings

Before a Hearing Officer. See Ex. 17.

18. On March 7, 2016, Petitioners timely filed their

Petition for Formal Proceeding (Petition) . Except for one

ground voluntarily dismissed at hearing, the Petition alleged

that the application was inconsistent with the Code and Plan for

th e same reasons cited in the staff report dated Janu ary 27,

2016 , and reiterated in the Notice issued on February 2, 2016.

C . Petitioners' Objections

19. Petitioners' PRO asserts generally that any one of the

conditions noted by the staff constitutes grou nds for denial of

the application. However, based upon the exhibits and testimony

of members of the public, in their PRO, they focus on only four

items regarding the project .

i. Setbacks

20. Petitioners first allege that the project is

inconsistent with development standards for the R - 3 zoning

district. See § 10 - 6.637, L.D.C. Development standards for

single - family detached dwellings in zoning district R - 3 are

found in the site data table of section 10 - 6.637 and require a

minimum lot or site size of 5, 000 square feet (or 0.11 acres);

minimum lot widths of 50 feet; minimum lot depths of 100 feet;

minimum front setbacks of 20 feet; minimum side - interior lot

setbacks of 7.5 feet on each side; or any combination of

setbacks that equals at least 15 feet, pro vided that no setback

shall be less than five feet; minimum side - corner lot setbacks

of 15 feet; minimum rear lot setbacks of 25 feet; and no

building exceeding three stories in height.

2 1 . In assessing whether the applicant complied with these

standard s, the staff made the following comments on the

project's compliance with setbacks and building height and size

requirements:

Finding #4: The project appears to meet the

applicable building setbacks, height and

size requirements; however, please annotate

the height of the building (in feet) in the

site data table alongside the minimal

requirements. Please clarify that the

setbacks provided in the site data table are

the perimeter setbacks for the development.

The applicant will need to also provide the

p roposed setback between structures to

ensure compliance with the Florida Building

Code requirements.

Ex. 7 , p. 00000 4 . This comment became a condition of approval

in the Department's Notice to ensure that Floresta was meeting

those requirements .

2 2 . As a condition, Floresta was required, no later than

May 6, 2016, to "clarify" that the setbacks in the site data

table are the perimeter setbacks for the development and provide

the proposed setback for each structure. Also, the County

relies on note 14 of Sheet 6.0 of the plan, which indicates a

front setback of 20 feet, a side interior setback of 15 feet,

and a rear setback of 25 feet. See Ex. 4. These distances

satisfy the Code requirements. Because the units are one - story

in height, they do not excee d the three - story limitation. As an

added condition, the County required Floresta to provide the

setbacks between each structure.

23. Petitioners contend that the County failed to fully

apply the R - 3 zoning district 's building standards for single -

family detached dwellings found in section 10 - 6.637.

Specifically, they assert that the 24 units are listed on the

site plan as having a total area of approximately 39,000 square

feet, or 1,625 square feet per dwelling. They also contend that

the lot geometry is not shown and therefore the site and

development plan is not consistent with the minimum lot widths,

depths, and setbacks required by the Code. Even if lot geometry

were shown, the y contend that the 39,000 square feet allotted is

insufficient to provid e for lots for 24 single - family detached

dwellings that meet the minimum required lot width of 50 feet

and lot depth of 100 feet.

2 4 . The project involves a condominium development with

the creation of individual units on a single lot . See Ex. 3g.,

p. 4. Therefore, the County asserts that the minimum lot sizes

found in section 10 - 6.637 are inapplicable. This is a

reasonable interpretation of the Code. Also, due to a

typographical error in the staff report, it initially appeared

that rear setbacks were not provided. However, th e rear

setbacks are actually shown on Note 14 of Sheet 6.0 of the site

plan. See Ex. 4. S ubject to the above condition s , the project

is consistent with the requirements of the Code.

ii. Parking Requirements

2 5 . Petitioners als o contend that the project fails to

comply with parking requirements, as the project will have

24 units , but only 18 regular parking spaces and two handicapped

parking spaces are proposed. Section 10 - 7.545 requires that

developments in the R - 3 zoning district have between 85 percent

and 100 percent of the parking standard in schedule 6 - 2 of the

section. Because t he schedule requires that conventional

detached homes have 1.5 parking spaces per unit , Petitioners

a ssert that 30.6 parking spaces are req uired.

2 6 . The applicant does not anticipate that all residents

will have automobiles. Because the project will serve low -

income residents, this is a logical assumption. The applicant

also propos es grass parking to be located closer to each unit.

Secti on 10 - 7.545(a) allows a deviation from the range of

required parking established in Schedule 6 - 2 upon approval or an

approval with conditions from the Parking Standards Committee

(Committee) . See Ex. 1, p. 000007. That Committee is comprised

of the Plann ing Director, the Department Director, and the

Public Works Director, or their designees. As a condition, the

applicant will be required to secure approval from the Committee

before final approval for the project is given . Id. Subject to

Floresta's comp liance with th is condition , which cannot be

administratively challenged by Petitioners , the site plan is

consistent with the Code.

iii. Transportation Infrastructure

2 7 . Petitioners contend that there is a lack of adequate

transportation infrastructure in the area. They also point out

that there are no sidewalks on State Road 20 , and there is no

bus stop adjacent to the project. Therefore , residents or

guests in the project will have to walk east along State Road 20

in order to find a bus stop.

2 8 . As a condition of approval, the County required the

applicant to extend a stub out from the parking lot to the

property line for future interconnection. See Ex. 1,

p. 00000 10. Mobility Element 1.4.1 requires vehicular,

pedestrian, and bicycle i nterconnection between adjacent,

compatible development. The applicant's site plan includes

sidewalks within and connecting to the facilities along State

Road 20. See Ex. 4; Ex. 1, p. 0000010. Also, a Preliminary

Certificate of Concurrency was issued fo r the project, and a

final certificate will be issued upon final site plan approval.

See Ex. 1, p. 000005. Subject to compliance with these

conditions, the site plan is consistent with the Code.

iv. Compatibility

29 . For obvious reasons, P etitioners ' g reatest concern is

the intrusion of former homeless persons into the units

immediately adjacent to their properties. (By definition, once

a person resides in a home, he/she is no longer homeless.) On

this issue, they assert that the project is inconsiste nt with

section 10 - 7.505, which requires that each development shall be

designed to be as compatible as practical with nearby

development. Petitioners argue that the tiny house community

being proposed is not compatible with the "typical" single -

family ho mes found around the project site .

3 0 . The parcel on the west side of the project is also

zoned R - 3. The parcels on the east side of the project are

zoned OA - 1 (Airport Vicinity District) and CP (Commercial

Parkway District). The OA - 1 district does n ot permit

re sidential uses due to the noise levels from aircraft exceeding

the thresholds identified by the Federal Aviation Administration

and the State as being compatible with certain land use types.

See § 10 - 6.645 , L.D.C . The CP district permits gen eral

commercial and community facilities. See § 10 - 6.649, L.D.C.

3 1 . The project proposes a Type "D" 50 - foot buffer on both

the eastern and western borders of the property. A Type "D"

buffer is the most restrictive buffer provided in the Code. See

§ 10 - 7.522, L.D.C.

3 2 . Respondents agree that the project is "small footprint

housing for low - income residents." However, t here is no

prohibition in the Code that restricts low - income housing from

occurring in any residential zoning district. Also, the Plan

and Code do not regulate the size of dwelling units, outside of

minimum housing standards found in the Florida Building Code.

While Petitioners' objections are genuine and well - intentioned,

there is nothing in the existing Code or Plan that prevents the

introduction of extremely small low - income housing units into a

residential district , assuming all other requirements are met .

The project is compatible with the surrounding area.

D . Public Comments

3 3 . Six members of the public presented comments at th e

hearing. The public commenters either live in or own typical

single - family homes adjacent to or near the project, or operate

a commercial business near the project. The undersigned has

r ejected the County's assertion in its PRO that the comments

should be disregarded because a transcript was not prepared.

3 4 . One commenter, who owns a business on State Road 20

less than a quarter mile from the project, is concerned that

State Road 20 is inadequate to handle more traffic. He also is

concerned with the tiny house development feature of the project

and noted that one - half of the project is located within the

flood zone.

3 5 . Another commenter who resides in the Subdivision with

her disabled daughter expressed concern that low - income housing

units occupied by homeless persons sent from the Kearney Center ,

a nearby homeless shelter, will result in a substantial loss in

value to her property and increase safety issues for her

daughter who remains home alone during the day while she is at

work . Like other com menters, she complained that State Road 20

is already overburdened with traffic without adding another

development to the area .

3 6 . A third commenter is also concerned with the level of

traffic on State Road 20. During morning rush hours, h e cannot

turn left onto State Road 20 to go into town and fears the

project will cause a further deterioration of traffic

conditions.

3 7 . A fourth commenter , who lives in another county, has

owned a condominium in the Subdivision since 2007 , first used by

her daughter while going to college, and now rented. She

complained that the notice of the public meeting was misleading

as it indicated a condominium project would be built on the

parcel, and not tiny homes for former homeless persons. She is

c oncerned that the curr ent level of traffic on State Road 20

will be exacerbated, and that the value of her condominium will

be negatively impacted.

3 8 . A fifth commenter who resides in the Subdivision

complained that the notice of the public meeting was misleading

and vague , a nd led her to believe that a traditional or multi -

story condominium project would be constructed on the parcel ,

rather than a cluster of tiny homes. She also expressed

c oncerns that a large , low - income population in the neighborhood

will raise safety issu es for existing residents .

39 . The final commenter resides near the project and owns

a bail bond business on West Pensacola Street , a mile or so east

of the project site and near the Kearney Center . Based upon her

experience operating a bail bond busi ness near the Kearney

Center, s he testified that the number of arrests in that area of

town has "skyrocketed" sinc e the shelter opened . She added that

there has been an adverse impact on businesses located near the

Kearney Center because its residents sim ply hang out in the area

during the day. She fears that an influx of former homeless

persons into the tiny homes will lead to a similar i ncrease in

the crime rate around the project site. The commenter also

serves as a part - time volunteer at the Kearney Center several

days a week and noted that no background checks, identification

checks, or drug checks are performed on persons entering the

shelter . She is concerned that no checks will be performed on

the persons who will occupy the tiny homes. She adde d that m any

of the shelter residents are drug addicts and do not want to

work . If they move into the tiny homes , she believes they will

simply hang around the project site and c reate safety issues for

residents in the neighboring properties . She intends to sell

her home if the project is approved.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

4 0 . The re is no dispute by the parties that all

Petitioners have standing to file this appeal.

4 1 . T h e burden is on the landowner who is seeking site

plan approval to demonstrate that the application complies with

the reasonable procedural requirements of the applicable

ordinance and that the use sought is consistent with the

applicable comprehensive plan and code requirements. See, e.g. ,

Alvey v. City of North Miami Bch. , 41 Fla. L. Weekl y D1028 (Fla.

3d DCA, April 27, 2016), citing Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Brevard

Cnty. v. Snyder , 627 So. 2d 469, 472 (Fla. 1993). As such,

Floresta has the burden of demonstrating that the project was

properly approved with conditions, and that its project complies

with all applicable requirements. Fla. Dep't of Trans p . v.

J.W.C. Co., Inc. , 396 So. 2d 778 , 787 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

4 2 . Section 10 - 7.407 provides that the County shall

determine the following in deciding whether to approve, approve

with condit ions, or deny a site and development plan

application:

a. Whether the applicable zoning standards

and requirements in Article VI of Code have

been met ;

b. Whether the applicable provisions of the

Environmental Management Act in Article IV

of the Code ha ve been met ; and

c. Whether the requirements of chapter 10

of the Code and other applicable regulations

or ordinances which impose specific

requirements on - site and development plans

and development have been met.

4 3 . Pursuant to section 10 - 7.108, all proposed development

must be consistent with the adopted Plan.

4 4 . The County is permitted to approve a site and

development plan with conditions pursuant to section 10 -

7.403 (f) . There is no evidence that the conditions imposed by

the County are inadequa te or will not correct all deficiencies

in the original application.

4 5 . A preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that upon

satisfaction of all conditions in the Department's Written

Preliminary Decision dated February 5, 2016, the project is

consiste nt with and meets all zoning, Code, and Plan

requirements and should be approved.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is

RECOMMENDED that the Leon County Board of County

Commissioners enter a final order approv ing the project, subject

to confirming that the applicant's revised site plan satisfies

all conditions imposed by the County on February 5, 2016 .

DONE AND ENTERED this 2 5 th day of May , 201 6 , in

T alla hassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

D . R. ALEXANDER

Administ rative 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 Hearing s

this 2 5 th day of May , 201 6 .

C OPIES FURNISHED:

Herbert W.A. Thiele, C ounty Attorney

Leon County Attorney's Office

301 South Monroe Street , Room 202

Tallahassee, Florida 32301 - 18 61

Vincent S. Long, County Administrator

Board of County Commissioners

30 1 South Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32301 - 1861

T imothy J. Perry, Esquire

Oertel, Fernandez, Bryant

& Atkinson, P.A.

Post Office Box 1110

Tallahassee, Florida 323 02 - 1110

(eServed)

Patrick T. Kinni, Esquire

Leon County Attorney's Office

301 Sou th Monroe Street, Room 202

Tallahassee, Florida 32301 - 18 61

(eServed)

Jessica M. Icerman, Esquire

Leon County Attorney's Office

301 South Monroe Street, Room 202

Tallahassee, Florida 32301 - 18 61

(eServed)

Claude Ridley Walker, Esquire

2073 Summit Lake Dr ive, Suite 155

Tallahassee, Florida 32317 - 7949

(eServed)

Shanon Of u iani

2022 Nena Hills Drive

Tallahassee, Florida 32304 - 3788

Joe Smith

1700 Smitty 's Way

Tallahassee, Florida 32304 - 9023

Yolanda Robies

1897 Nena Hills Drive

Tallahassee, Florida 32 304 - 3785

Jack Neece

4792 Blountstown Highway

Tallahassee, Florida 32304 - 9005

Dori Cordle

34 Cordle Road

DeFuniak Springs, Florida 32 433 - 5845

Teresa Ramsook

Post Office Box 5352

Tallahassee, Florida 32314 - 5352

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

ten calendar d ays of the date of this Recommended Order. Any

exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the

clerk of the Board of County Commissioners. See § 10.7.414(K),

Land Development Code.