19-001537 Robert Dammers vs. Pasco County And State Of Florida, Department Of Economic Opportunity Status: Closed DOAH Final Order on Wednesday, September 11, 2019.

Summary: It is fairly debatable that Pasco County's Ordinance 18-18 is consistent with its Comprehensive Plan.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

ROBERT DAMMERS,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 19 - 1537

PASCO COUNTY AND STATE OF

FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC

OPPORTUNITY,

Respondents,

and

TAMPA ELECTRIC COMPANY,

Intervenor.

______________________ _________/

FINAL ORDER

A duly noticed final h earing was held in this case on July 2

and 22, 2019, in Dade City, Florida, before Francine M. Ffolkes,

an Administrative Law Judge with the Division of Administrative

Hearings (DOAH).

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner Robert Dammers:

Susan E . Johnson - Velez, Esquire

Susan E. Johnson - Velez, P.A.

607 West Bay Street

Tampa, Florida 33606

Rena Upshaw - Frazier, Esquire

Rena Frazier Law PLLC

Post Office Box 6312

Brandon, Florida 33508

For Respondent Pasco County:

David A. Goldstein, Esquire

Pasco County Attorney ' s Office

8731 Citizens Drive , Suite 340

New Port Richey, Florida 34654

For Respondent Department of Economic Opportunity:

John A. Barr, Esquire

Jon F. Morris, Esquire

Department of Economic Opportunity

Caldwell Building, Mail Station 110

107 East Madison Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 4128

For Int ervenor Tampa Electric Company:

Eric S. Koenig, Esquire

Trenam, Kemker, Scharf, Barkin,

Frye, O ' Neill & Mullis, P.A.

101 East Kennedy Boulevard , Suite 2700

Tampa, Florida 33602

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether Ordinance 18 - 18 adopted on June 5, 2018, by Pasco

County, is consistent with the Pasco County Comprehensive Plan.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Pasco County (County) adopted Ordinance 18 - 18 on June 5,

2018. Ordinance 18 - 18 amended the County ' s Land Development Code

(LDC) to add solar farms as a special exception use in six

agricultural zoning districts, and a permitted use in three

commercial/light manufacturing districts.

On January 4, 2019, Rober t Dammers (Petitioner) petitioned

the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) under

section 163.3213, Florida Statutes, challenging whether

Ordinance 18 - 18 was consistent with the Pasco County Comprehensive

Plan (Comp Plan) , particularly as it rel ates to the Northeast

Pasco County Rural Area (Rural Area). DEO investigated the issue

as required by section 163.3213(4) . The investigation included an

informal hearing at which the Petitioner and the County presented

oral and written testimony. Based on its investigation, DEO

determined that Ordinance 18 - 18 was consistent with the Comp Plan.

Under section 163.3213(5)(a), the Petitioner filed a

challenge with DOAH. The challenge alleged that Ordinance 18 - 18

was inconsistent with the Comp Plan goals, ob jectives, and

policies relating to the Rural Area. Tampa Electric Company

(Intervenor) moved and was granted intervention in this

proceeding.

At the final hearing, the Petitioner testified on his own

behalf and presented the direct testimony of County emp loyees :

Denise Hernandez and Nectarios Pittos . The Petitioner also

presented the expert testimony of Robert Hunter. The Petitioner ' s

Exhibits 8, 9, 14, and 15 were admitted into evidence. The County

presented the expert testimony of Frances Chandler - Ma rino, and

County Exhibits 11, 12, and 13 were admitted into evidence. The

Intervenor presented the expert testimony of Cyndi Tarapani, and

Intervenor Exhibits 16, 17, and 18 were admitted into evidence.

The Petitioner presented rebuttal testimony from Ms . Hernandez.

Joint Exhibits 1 through 6 and 10 were admitted into evidence.

Ms. Hernandez is the zoning administrator and special

projects manager for the County. Mr. Pittos is the planning and

development director for the County. Mr. Hunter, Ms. Chandl er -

Marino , and Ms. Tarapani are private consultants with expertise in

planning and land development regulations. Ms. Chandler - Marino

was the primary author of the Northeast Pasco County Special Area

Plan and the Comp Plan ' s goals, objectives , and policies adopted

to implement the Northeast Pasco County Special Area Plan.

A four - volume Transcript of the hearing was filed on

August 13, 2019. The parties submitted their proposed final

orders and any supporting memoranda of law on August 23, 2019 ,

which have been considered in the preparation of this Final Order.

References to the Florida Statutes are to the 2019 version,

unless otherwise indicated.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Parties and Standing

1. The Petitioner resides at 15052 Dionna Way , Dade City, in

Pasco Count y, Florida . His property is zoned Agricultural -

Residential District. The property is located in the Rural Area

approximately 240 feet above sea level with a view shed of roll ing

hills and rural landscape. Because of the property ' s zoning, it

is impacted by Ordinance 18 - 18, and the Petitioner also resides in

close proximity to other properties with agricultural zoning that

are impacted by adoption of Ordinance 18 - 18.

2. The Petitioner testified that he was personally affected

by the potential location of solar farms on properties in close

proximity to his home . He would be able to see the solar farms

from his own property and also when he drives by the areas where

they could be located. The Petitioner is substantially affected

by the adoption of Ordinan ce 18 - 18.

3. The County is a non - charter county and a political

subdivision of the S tate of Florida. The County is the affected

local government and is subject to the requirements of

chapter 163.

4. The DEO is the state land planning agency . The DEO ha s

the duty to review and investigate petitions submitted under

section 163.3213, challenging land development regulations adopted

by local governments.

5. The Intervenor is an electric utility company that

obtained a special exception approval from the Co unty for a solar

farm project, which is located in the Rural Area. 1/

Ordinance 18 - 18

6. Ordinance 18 - 18 amended Appendix A of the County ' s LDC to

add the following definition of solar farm:

A type of electric power collection facility

that includes solar photovoltaic (PV) systems

mounted on the ground (which may include

battery storage) that are utilized in the

collection/storage of solar electric power as

the primary or principal use of the property

and whereby the power being collected/stored

is being so ld to an electric utility provider

or being collected/stored directly by an

electric utility provider.

7. Ordinance 18 - 18 added solar farms to the County ' s LDC as

a special exception use within six agricultural zoning districts,

and as a permitted princi pal use within three commercial/light

manufacturing districts. Specifically, Ordinance 18 - 18 amended

sections 503.5, 504.5, 505.5, 506.5, 507.5, 508.5, and 527.3 of

the County ' s LDC. In each of the zoning districts, solar farms

with capacity equal to or greater than 75 megawatts (MW) are

limited by location to within the Public/Semi - Public, Planned

Development, Industrial - Light, or Industrial - Heavy Future Land Use

(FLU) classifications.

Consistency with Comp Plan

8. Policy FLU 3.2.2 of the Comp Plan prov ides that " private

electric public utilities needed to support growth may be

permitted in all land use designations " subject to the proviso

that " [a] ll new power plants and transmission lines shall be

subject to applicable State and Federal siting regulati ons and

shall be consistent with the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of

this Comprehensive Plan. " Policy FLU 3.2.2 is the only Comp Plan

policy that specifically addresses the siting of private electric

public utilities. There was no dispute that solar f arms are

private electric public utilities.

9. The rules of interpretation of the Comp Plan are set

forth in its administration element. The administration element

provides that in the event of a conflict, the more specific

policies in the Comp Plan prev ail over the more general policies.

Policy FLU 3.2.2 is specific to the siting of pr ivate electric

public utilities and prevails over general policies in the Comp

Plan . Policy FLU 3.2.2 is definitive that private electric public

utilities may be permitte d in all land use designations. 2/

10. All special exception use applications undergo a

compatibility review in accordance with Policy FLU 1.10.1 of the

Comp Plan. Compatibility review factors include an evaluation of

existing uses of land , including exis ting and potential densities

and intensities ; consideration of existing development patterns

and approved development in the area ; consideration of cultural

features ; and availability of adequate public facilities and

services.

11. Policy FLU 1.10.2 provi des for mitigation of potential

incompatibilities by encouraging certain design standards. These

design standards include use of undisturbed , undeveloped or

landscaped buffers, use of screening with increased size and

opacity, increased setbacks, limiting building heights, use of

innovative site designs and appropriate building designs, limiting

duration or operation of uses, use of noise attenuation

techniques, setting limits on density and/or intensity, and

gradually transitioning the density and intensi ty of a use.

12. Appendix FLU Section A - 2 of the Comp Plan places the

burden of proving Comp Plan consistency on the landowner - applicant

for the special exception use. The landowner - applicant must also

show that the special exception use complies with al l procedural

requirements of the LDC .

13. Policies FLU 3.2.2, 1.10.1, and 1.10.2 and Appendix FLU

Section A - 2 together provide that private electric public

utilities, which include solar farms, were intended under the Comp

Plan to be allowed throughout th e County, including in

agricultural and rural areas, subject to the heightened review

requirements for special exception uses.

14. The heightened review process for special exception uses

set forth in the Comp Plan is further implemented by the County ' s

L DC. The LDC states that each proposed special exception use must

undergo an individual review of location, design, configuration,

operation, and the public need for the particular use at the

particular location proposed.

15. In addition, the LDC provides that each special

exception may require the imposition of individualized conditions

to ensure that the use is appropriate at a particular location.

Each proposed special exception must meet a set of enumerated

standards in the LDC. These standards inclu de requirements that

the site has screening and buffering sufficient to prevent

interference with the enjoyment of surrounding properties, that

proposed signs or lighting will not create adverse glare or

adversely affect economic value or cause other signi ficant

problems on adjoining or surrounding properties, and that there is

adequate open space to serve the property on which the special

exception use will be maintained.

16. As part of this heightened review process, section 402.4

of the LDC requires tha t the proposed special exception use be

consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Comp

Plan.

17. Solar farms join a list of uses currently allowed in the

County ' s agricultural zoning districts. The list includes, but is

not limited to: commercial farming and agricultural activities

(permitted), utility substations (special exception), storage and

repair facilities for essential public services (special

exception), wastewater treatment plants (special exception), a

variety of waste - relate d uses (conditional), a variety of

large - scale outdoor recreation (some conditional, some as special

exceptions), and mining (conditional ). This list suggests that

solar farms can be a compatible use in the County ' s agricultural

zoning districts.

18. In the County ' s commercial/light manufacturing zoning

district (C - 3), permitted uses include but are not limited to:

manufacturing and assembly, warehousing and distribution, welding

and machine shops, office uses, and commercial uses.

19. It is fairly debat able that the scale, intensity, and

type of uses currently permitted in the County ' s agricultural and

commercial/light manufacturing districts are similar in scale,

intensity, and type to a solar farm.

Northeast Pasco Rural Area

20. The Rural Area is uniq ue in the County and in Florida,

consisting of scenic rolling hills, undeveloped rural landscapes,

unique vistas, ridges, valleys, and naturally occurring berms and

hillsides reaching up to 245 feet above sea level.

21. Goal FLU 2 of the Comp Plan is enti tled " Protection of

Rural Areas. " The stated goal is to " [i]mplement and enforce

policies and programs designed to preserve and reinforce the

positive qualities of the rural lifestyle and protect rural

communities and agricultural areas. "

22. Objective F LU 2.1 of the Comp Plan is " [t]o protect the

existing rural character of the Northeast Pasco County Rural Area

as defined in Map 2 - 13, Rural Areas, of the Future Land Use Map

Series and, thereby, ensure the rural lifestyle is preserved for

existing residen ts and remains available to future residents. "

23. Policy FLU 2.1.1 of the Comp Plan provides:

Pasco County shall recognize through land use

policies and land development regulations the

Northeast Pasco County Rural Area (as defined

in Map 2 - 13, Rural Are as) as an area with

specific rural character. It shall be the

policy of the County that rural areas require

approaches to land use intensities and

densities, rural roadway corridor protection,

the provision of services and facilities,

environmental protec tion, and Land Development

Code enforcement consistent with the rural

character of such areas.

24. Policy FLU 2.1.4 provides that " Pasco County shall

develop a long - term vision by December 2008 for the Northeast

Pasco Rural Area for a planning horizon of at least fifty (50)

years that establishes a planning vision, strategy, and framework

that establishes a ' buildout ' vision for these areas. "

25. Policy FLU 2.1.5 provides:

Pasco County shall amend the Land Development

Code by December 2008 to include st andards

that would limit topographic alterations

within eastern Pasco County, including

Northeast Pasco County Rural Area, and

particularly along the Northeast Pasco County

Rural Area Boundary; areas along the

Brooksville Ridge; and areas along the Polk

Ri dge, in order to maintain and protect the

integrity of the natural rolling vistas and

scenic view sheds within the Northeast Pasco

County Rural Area. The intent of these

standards is to provide limitations for

topographic alterations that would remove the

unique vistas of the area ' s naturally

occurring berms or hillsides that provide

unique vistas of the area or function as

buffers.

26. Additionally, Policy FLU 2.1.8 provides that:

Pasco County shall amend the Land Development

Code by December 2008 to ad opt design

standards for nonresidential development in

Northeast Pasco Rural Area, for the purpose of

maintaining the rural character in this area.

Nonresidential development shall mean office

uses, commercial uses, and any other use that

is nonresidentia l in character as that term

may be defined in the implementing ordinance.

27. The County has not adopted design standards for

nonresidential development in the Rural Area.

Petitioner ' s Objections

28. The Petitioner alleged in the p etition that

Ordinance 18 - 18 is inconsistent with Goal FLU 2, Objectives

FLU 2.1 and 2.3, and Policies FLU 2.1.1 through 2.1.18, 2.3.1,

and 2.3.2. However, the Petitioner presented expert testimony

that only addressed Goal FLU 2, Objective FLU 2.1, and Policies

FLU 2.1.1, 2.1. 4, 2.1.5, 2.1.7, and 2.1.8.

29. The County ' s expert witness was the primary author of

the Northeast Pasco County Special Area Plan and the Comp Plan 's

goals, objectives, and policies adopted to implement the Northeast

Pasco County Special Area Plan. She testified that adoption of

Objective FLU 2.1 and its implementing policies regarding the

Rural Area was not intended to eliminate a landowner ' s right to

seek any of the conditional and special exception uses allowed in

the County ' s agricultural zoning dist ricts.

30. Ordinance 18 - 18 simply establishes that solar farms can

be considered in rural/agricultural areas through the special

exception process in section 402.4 of the LDC and the

compatibility requirements in Policies FLU 1.10.1 and 1.10.2.

Goal FLU 2 and Objective FLU 2.1 do not prohibit solar farms or

any other land use in rural/agricultural areas. Therefore,

Ordinance 18 - 18 is consistent and compatible with Goal FLU 2 and

Objective FLU 2.1.

31. The County adopted land use policies and land

develo pment regulations for the Rural Area in section 604 of the

LDC. Ordinance 18 - 18 does not amend section 604 of the LDC or

exempt any use from complying with section 604 of the LDC. While

section 604 of the LDC does not specifically apply to

nonresidential uses, the standards in section 604 of the LDC are

specific enough to guide the County regarding the extent of

protections needed for the Rural Area. These protections can be

enforced through the special exception process. Therefore,

Ordinance 18 - 18 is c onsistent and compatible with Policy

FLU 2.1.1.

32. Policy FLU 2.1.4 , entitled " Development of a Long - Term

Planning Vision, " requires the County to develop a long - term

" build - out " vision for the Rural Area and contains required

elements for this vision. The text of Policy FLU 2.1.4 does not

require or address land development regulations or solar farms,

and Ordinance 18 - 18 did not address or alter the requirements of

Policy FLU 2.1.4. Policy FLU 2.1.4 is not relevant to

Ordinance 18 - 18 and is therefor e consistent and compatible with

Ordinance 18 - 18.

33. With regard to Policy FLU 2.1.5 , the Petitioner

presented a substantial amount of evidence and testimony relating

to the " rolling vistas " and " scenic view sheds " in the Rural Area.

The County ' s expert witness testified that Policy FLU 2.1.5 is the

only Comp Plan policy that contains any protections for these

" rolling vistas " and " scenic view sheds " in the Rural Area.

34. Specifically, Policy FLU 2.1.5 requires the County to

amend the LDC to " provide l imitations for topographic alterations

that would remove the unique vistas of the area ' s naturally

occurring berms or hillsides that provide unique vistas of the

area or function as buffers. " The County amended its LDC to

provide such limitations in secti on 604.5.B. Ordinance 18 - 18 does

not amend section 604.5.B. of the LDC or exempt any use from

complying with section 604.5.B. of the LDC.

35. While section 604.5.B. of the LDC does not specifically

apply to nonresidential uses, the standards in section 604.5.B.

are specific enough to guide the County regarding the extent of

topographic alterations allowed in the Rural Area. Protections

against such topographic alterations can be enforced through the

special exception process. Therefore, Ordinance 18 - 18 is

consistent and compatible with Policy FLU 2.1.5.

36. The Petitioner ' s expert witness testified that a more

expansive interpretation of topographic alterations should be

adopted for solar farms, which includes alterations of the " visual

topography " and installation of footing for the solar panels.

This expansive interpretation would be significantly more

stringent than the topographic alteration standard the County

already adopted for residential uses i n section 604.5.B. of the

LDC.

37. In addition, t he County ' s expert witness persuasively

testified that this expansive interpretation of topographic

alterations would effectively prohibit all new development in the

Rural Area. She further testified that it would be inconsistent

with the original intent of Policy FLU 2.1.5 and be inconsistent

with Objective FLU 1.9 regarding protection of private property

rights.

38. Policy FLU 2.1.7 is entitled " Standards for Review of

Rezoning Requests: Rural Neighborhoods. " Ordinance 18 - 18 was not

a rezoning request and did not create any processes or standards

for rezoning requests in the Rural Area. Policy FLU 2.1.7 is not

relevant to Ordinance 18 - 18 and is therefore consistent and

compatible with Ordinance 18 - 18.

39. Policy FLU 2.1.8 is entitled " Nonresidential D esign

Standards. " While the County has not yet adopted design standards

for nonresidential development in the Rural Area, it is fairly

debatable that Policy FLU 2.1.8 may only require the County to

adopt such standards for office uses and commercial uses, unless

the County elects to include other nonresidential uses in the

ordinance that implements the nonresidential design standards. A

solar farm is a utility use that would not be subject to the

mandatory design standard requirements of Policy FLU 2.1.8, unless

the County elects to include solar farms in the ordinance that

implements the nonresidential design standards. Ordinance 18 - 18

does not prevent the County from adopting the nonresidential

design standards required by Policy FLU 2.1.8. Therefore,

Ordinance 18 - 18 is consistent and compatible with Policy

FLU 2.1.8.

40. Although not directly relevant to determining the

consistency of Ordinance 18 - 18 with the Comp Plan, the

Petitioner ' s expert opined , both in his report and in oral

testimony , that the County was required to adopt design standards

for solar farms in conjunction with Ordinance 18 - 18. This is

because he believes the County ' s existing special exception use

standards lack specific, objective, and measurable criteria.

However, the Petition er ' s expert was unable to identify any

specific law or generally accepted planning document that requires

the County to adopt criteria for special exception uses in

addition to or instead of the heightened review process that

already exists.

Summary

41. The Petitioner did not prove beyond fair debate that

Ordinance 18 - 18 is inconsistent or incompatible with the

objectives , policies , and goal applicable to the Rural Area.

42. The Petitioner did not prove beyond fair debate that

Ordinance 18 - 18 is inconsis tent with the Comp Plan.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

43. DOAH has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this

proceeding under sections 120.569, 120.57(1), and 163.3213,

Florida Statutes.

44. The Petitioner is a " substantially affected person " and

has standing t o maintain this proceeding challenging the adoption

of Ordinance 18 - 18 under section 163.3213(2).

45. Section 163.3201 regulates the relationship of a local

government ' s comprehensive plan to its exercise of land

development regulatory authority and requi res that a land

development regulation " be based on, be related to, and be a means

of implementation for an adopted comprehensive plan. "

46. Section 163.3194(1)(b) requires that all land

development regulations " shall be consistent with the adopted

compre hensive plan. " Section 163.3194(3)(a) provides that a " land

development regulation shall be consistent with the comprehensive

plan if the land uses, densities or intensities, and other aspects

of development permitted by such . . . r egulation are compatib le

with and further the objectives, policies, land uses, and

densities or intensities in the comprehensive plan and if it meets

all other criteria enumerated by the local government. "

47. The adoption of a land development regulation by a local

government is legislative in nature and shall not be found to be

inconsistent with the local plan if it is fairly debatable that it

is consistent with the plan. See § 163.3213(5)(a), Fla. Stat.

48. The term " fairly debatable " is not defined in

chapter 163, but in Martin County v. Yusem , 690 So. 2d 1288, 1295

(Fla. 1997), the Florida Supreme Court explained:

[t]he fairly debatable standard is a highly

deferential standard requiring approval of a

planning action if reasonable persons could

differ as to its propriety. In other words,

an ordinance may be said to be fairly

debatable when for any reason it 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.

(Internal citations omitted) .

49. " The ' fairly debatable ' rule is a rule of

reasonableness; it answers the question of whether, upon the

evidence presented to the [government] body, the [government ' s]

action was reasonably based. " Lee Cty. v. Sunbelt Equities, II,

Ltd. P ' s hip , 619 So. 2d 996, 1002 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)(citing Town

of Indialantic v. Nance , 400 So. 2d 37, 39 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)).

50. The " fairly debatable " standard, which provides

deference to the local government ' s disputed decision, applies to

any challenge f iled by an affected person. Therefore, the

Petitioner bears the burden of proving beyond fair debate that the

challenged land development regulation is not consistent with the

adopted comprehensive plan. This means that " if reasonable

persons could diffe r as to its propriety, " a land development

regulation must be found consistent. Yusem , 690 So. 2d at 1295.

51. It is fairly debatable that Ordinance 18 - 18 is

consistent with the Comp Plan.

52. The Petitioner did not prove beyond fair debate that

Ordinan ce 18 - 18 is inconsistent with the Comp Plan.

ORDER

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is ORDERED that Pasco County Ordinance 18 - 18 is

consistent with the Pasco County Comprehensive Plan.

DONE AND ORDERED this 11th day of Sep tember , 2019 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

FRANCINE M. FFOLKES

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 11th day of September, 2019 .

ENDNOTE S

1/ The County approved the Intervenor ' s solar farm project in

April 2018. The project is c alled Mountain View Solar and its

proposed location is near the Petitioner ' s home in the Rural

Area. Contrary to the Petitioner ' s arguments, the development

order for that project is not an appropriate subject of this

section 163.3213 consistency challeng e.

2/ The County ' s decision to limit 75 MW and greater solar farms

to certain land use classifications does not affect the

applicability of Policy FLU 3.2.2. See Bd. of Cty. Comm ' rs v.

Snyder , 627 So. 2d 469, 475 (Fla. 1993)( " [A] comprehensive plan

only establishes a long - range maximum limit on the possible

intensity of land use; a plan does not simultaneously establish

an immediate minimum limit on the possible intensity of land use.

The present use of land may, by zoning ordinance, continue to be

more limited than the future use contemplated by the

comprehensive plan. " ) .

COPIES FURNISHED:

David A. Goldstein, Esquire

Pasco County Attorney ' s Office

8731 Citizens Drive , Suite 340

New Port Richey, Florida 34654

(eServed)

Susan E . Johnson - Velez, Esquir e

Susan E. Johnson - Velez, P.A.

607 West Bay Street

Tampa, Florida 33606

(eServed)

Eric S. Koenig, Esquire

Trenam, Kemker, Scharf, Barkin,

Frye, O ' Neill & Mullis, P.A.

101 East Kennedy Boulevard , Suite 2700

Tampa, Florida 33602

(eServed)

Taya Orozco, Agency Clerk

Department of Economic Opportunity

Caldwell Building

107 East Madison Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 4128

(eServed)

John A. Barr, Esquire

Jon F. Morris, Esquire

Department of Economic Opportunity

Caldwell Building, Mail Station 110

107 Ea st Madison Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 4128

(eServed)

Rena Upshaw - Frazier, Esquire

Rena Frazier Law PLLC

Post Office Box 6312

Brandon, Florida 33508

William Chorba, General Counsel

Department of Economic Opportunity

Caldwell B uilding , M ail Statio n 110

107 East Madison Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 4128

(eServed)

Ken Lawson, Executive Director

Department of Economic Opportunity

Caldwell Building

107 East Madison Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 4128

(eServed)

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW

A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled

to judicial review pursuant to section 120.68, Florida Statutes.

Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules of Appellate

Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by fil ing the original

notice of administrative appeal with the agency clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings within 30 days of rendition

of the order to be reviewed, and a copy of the notice,

accompanied by any filing fees prescribed by law, with the clerk

of the District Court of Appeal in the appellate district where

the agency maintains its headquarters or where a party resides or

as otherwise provided by law.