19-004486GM Dr. Michael Rohan vs. City Of Panama City, A Political Subdivision Of The State Of Florida Status: Closed Recommended Order on Tuesday, February 4, 2020.

Summary: The small-scale plan amendment is "in compliance" as that term is defined in section 163.3184.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DR. MICHAEL ROHAN ,

Petitioner ,

vs. Case No. 19 - 4486GM

CITY OF PANAMA CITY, A POLITICAL

SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF

FLORIDA ,

Respondent .

/

RECOMMEN DED ORDER

A duly - noticed final hearing was held in this matter in

Panama City, Florida, on December 3, 2019, before Suzanne

Van Wyk, an Administrative Law Judge assigned by the Division of

Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Michael X. R ohan, pro se

239 South Cove Terrace Drive

Panama City, Florida 32401

For Respondent: David A. Theriaque, Esquire

Benjamin R. Kelly, Esquire Theriaque and Spain 433 North Magnolia Drive

Tallahassee, Florida 32308 - 5083

Michael S. Burk e , Esquire

Burke Blue

16215 Panama City Beach Parkway

Panama City Beach, Florida 32407

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether a small - scale amendment to the Panama City

Comprehensive Plan, adopted by Ordinance 2690.1 (the “Plan

Amendment”) on July 23, 2019, is “in compliance,” as that term

is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2019). 1/

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On July 23, 2019, the City of Panama City (“the City” or

“Respondent”) adopted the Plan Amendment, which changes the

Future Land Use Ma p (“FLUM”) designation of the subject property

from “Recreation” to “Residential.”

On August 21, 2019, Petitioner filed a Petition with the

Plan Amendment as: (1) internally inconsistent wit h the City’s

adopted comprehensive plan, contrary to section 163.3177(2) ; (2)

unsupported by relevant and appropriate data and analysis, as

required by section 163.3177(1)(f); and (3) lacking meaningful

and predictable standards for the use and development of land,

contrary to section 163.3177(1).

The case was set for hearing on December 3 and 4, 2019, and

commenced and concluded on December 3, 2019.

At the final hearing, the parties’ Joint Exhibits J1

through J7 were admitted in evidence. Petitioner testi fied on

his own behalf and, according to the undersigned’s ruling at the

final hearing, offered late - filed exhibits on December 13, 2019.

Pursuant to the undersigned’s Order on Admissibility of

Petitioner’s Late - Filed Exhibits, issued January 8, 2020,

Pet itioner’s Exhibits 2 through 6, 12(a) through 12(e), and 13

were admitted in evidence.

Respondent presented the testimony of Robbie Hughes ; Mike

Lane, the City’s planning director; and Allara Mills - Gutcher, a

professional planning consultant. Respondent e stablished the

factual background for, but did not expressly tender , Mr. Lane

or Ms. Mills - Gutcher as expert witnesses. The undersigned finds

that both witnesses have the education, training, and experience

to provide expert testimony in the fi eld of comp rehensive

planning.

Respondent’s Exhibits 1 (a) through 1(j) , 2a., 2b. , and 3

through 5 were admitted in evidence.

A one - volume Transcript of the proceedings was filed on

January 3, 2020. The undersigned granted Petitioner’s Motion

for Extension of Time to Submit Proposed Recommended Orders

until January 27, 2020.

Both parties timely filed Proposed Recommended Orders ,

which have been considered in preparing this Recommended Order.

FINDING S OF FACT

The Parties and Standing

1. Petitioner, Michael Rohan, res ides and owns property

within the City. Mr. Rohan submitted written comments

concerning the Plan Amendment to the City during the period of

time beginning with the transmittal hearing for the Plan

Amendment and ending with the adoption of same.

2. Respo ndent is a Florida municipal corporation with the

duty and authority to adopt and amend a comprehensive pla n,

pursuant to section 163.3167 .

The Subject Property

3. The subject property is a platted residential lot in

the Cove Terrace subdivision (“The Co ve”), which was platted in

approximately 1950. The parcel fronts on Tyndall Drive and

backs up to Watson Bayou. The lot is surrounded by single

family development, with the exception of Watson Bayou to the

north. The parcel is the only lot in The Cove n ot developed for

residential purposes.

4. The lot is flat, undeveloped, and roughly 222 feet in

depth. The northern 24 feet of the lot, most of which is

located below the water line of Watson Bayou , is within the

Coastal High Hazard Area (“CHHA”).

5. T here are no wetlands, protected or endangered species,

protected habitat, or other sensitive natural resources located

on the lot.

6. At the rear of the lot is an approximate five - foot drop

down to Watson Bayou. Petitioner has described this as a

“prec ipitous slope.” There are no stairs or other improvements

to facilitate access to the water from the lot. There is no

platform, boardwalk, or other improvement on, or adjoining, the

lot to provide public use or enjoyment of the waterfront.

7. Access to the water from the lot, in its current

condition, is not easy or safe. In order to access the water

from the lot, one would need to hold on to trees or shrubs to

prevent falling down the embankment.

8. There is no evidence that anyone has regularly acc essed

the water from the lot. Petitioner accessed it one time and

testified that he and his grandchildren “sort of shimmied and

scooted down to the water.”

9. The lot is bordered by a two - rail wooden fence along

Tyndall Drive, and a steel wire prevents automobile access where

there is an opening in the fence. A sign posted just outside

the fence reads “Sudduth Park Overflow Parking.” Petitioner

agrees that public access to the lot is discouraged.

10. Sudduth Park is a nearby little league baseball fi eld

that is additionally used for kickball and soccer practices.

11. For at least the past 44 years, the lot has been

utilized solely as overflow parking for sporting events at

Sudduth Park.

12. The lot was donated to the City in 1958, and the City

stil l owns it.

13. The City is under contract to sell the lot to a

private buyer.

14. The City has never designated the lot as a public

waterfront access point.

15. On April 23, 2019, the City Commission adopted

Resolution No. 20190423 , in which the City determined the lot is

not a “waterfront access point,” as that phrase is used in the

comprehensive plan.

16. Further, the Resolution finds that even if the lot

were deemed a waterfront access point, the City has determined

there is an overriding public i nterest to sell the lot, as

follows:

The Property has not been used as an active

park, is located in an area that is not

easily accessible for public use as a park

and the proceeds from the sale of the

property are to be used to improve Sudduth

Park for th e benefit of the community.

The Plan Amendment

17. The Plan Amendment changes the FLUM designation of the

lot from Recreation to Residential.

18. Pursuant to the comprehensive plan, the lot could be

developed for residential use at a density no greate r than

10 units per acre, for a private or public school, utilities, or

for public or non - commercial private recreation.

Challenges to the Plan Amendment

Internal Inconsistency

19. Petitioner alleges the Plan Amendment is internally

inconsistent with s everal provisions of the City’s existing

comprehensive plan.

20. Petitioner alleges the Plan Amendment is inconsistent

with Goal 1A, which read s as follows:

Goal 1A: Establish a defined pattern of

land use intended to guide the provision of

public fac ilities and provide predictability

in managing development.

21. Respondent introduced the expert witness testimony of

Allara Mills - Gutcher, who testified that the defined pattern of

land use in the subdivision is residential , and the Plan

Amendment does not conflict with this goal. Respondent’s expert

witness testimony was uncontradicted.

22. Petitioner testified that the City has justified the

Plan Amendment by arguing that the Residential designation is

consistent with the surrounding residential us es. Petitioner

testified, summarily, that recreation is not incompatible with

residential uses.

23. Petitioner’s argument does not support a finding that

the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Goal 1A.

24. Petitioner alleges the Plan Amendment is inco nsistent

with the following provisions related to waterfront access

points: Objective 1.11 , and P olicies 1.11.1 and 1.11.2;

Goal 5C, Objective 5.7, and Policies 5.7.1, 5.7.3, and 5.7. 5;

and Policies 7.1.5 and 7.1.6 , which read, as follows:

Objective 1.11: Provide additional areas

for public recreation with particular

emphasis on public access to the waterfront.

Policy 1.11.1: The City shall pursue local,

State, and federal funds as necessary to

upgrade and acquire sites for public

recreation and public access to the

waterfront.

Policy 1.11.2: The City shall retain

ownership of all public access points to the

waterfront. Vacation of public access

points shall be based solely on public

safety or overriding public interest

considerations.

* * *

Goal 5C: Provide, or have available,

adequate areas for public waterfront access.

Objective 5.7: Maintain or increase public

access to waters of the state.

Policy 5.7.1: The City shall improve

selected street - ends for use as dedicated

public waterfront access points and shall

clearly mark such points as public

waterfront access.

* * *

Policy 5.7.3: The City shall not vacate,

sell, or otherwise dispose of waterfront

access points, except in cases of overriding

public interest.

* * *

Policy 5.7.5: The City shall maintain

existing public access points to the

waterfront, and work with private property

owners to increase public waterfront access

within any waterfront area.

25. The lot is not a “waterfront access point” as that

term is used in Policy 5.7.3. Nor does the lot provide public

access to the waterfront.

26. The Plan Amendment is not internally inconsistent with

Objective 5.7 and Policies 1.11.2, 5.7.3, and 5.7.5.

27. Petitioner introduced no evidence to support a finding

that the City has ina dequate areas for public access to waters

of the state. The Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with

Goal 5C.

28. The Plan Amendment will have no impact on the City’s

ability to acquire, upgrade, or otherwise provide additional

areas for public recreatio n and public access to the waterfront.

29. The Plan Amendment is not internally inconsistent with

Objective 1.11 and Policies 1.11.1.

30. The lot is not a street end , and the Plan Amendment is

not inconsistent with Policy 5.7.1.

31. Petitioner next contends the Plan Amendment is

inconsistent with Goal 5A, Objective 5.3, and Policy 5.3.1,

which read as follows:

Goal 5A: Maintain the quality of coastal

resources by restricting development

activities which damage or destroy coastal

resources.

* * *

O bjective 5.3: Prioritize shoreline uses.

Policy 5.3.1: The City recognizes the need

to establish the public interest in

achieving a balance between competing

waterfront land uses and the limited amount

of shoreline available for such uses. When

making decisions concerning designation of

land use categories, approval of plan

amendments, or issuance of development

approvals involving competing shoreline land

uses, the City shall choose the following

land uses in priority order, using number 1

as the highe st priority:

1. Water - dependent land uses that preserve

the waterfront, including water - dependent

conservation or recreation uses;

2. Water - dependent industrial uses;

3. Water - related land uses;

4. Land for which a definitive public

purpose has bee n established; and

5. Other land uses which are not water -

dependent or water - related including

residential, commercial, institutional, or

industrial.

32. Petitioner introduced no evidence to support a finding

that the Plan Amendment would allow develo pment activities which

would destroy coastal resources. The Plan Amendment is not

inconsistent with Goal 5A.

33. Read together, Objective 5.3 and Policy 5.3.1 require

the City to prioritize shoreline uses and sets forth a hierarchy

for approving land us e changes when competing shoreline land

uses are at issue.

34. Due to its location in a residential neighborhood, the

lot is not suitable for either a water - dependent industrial or

commercial use.

35. No public water - related use has ever been establishe d

on the property.

36. No definitive public purpose has been established for

this property, other than overflow parking for sporting events

at the nearby little league field. Even that use has been

suspended since, if not prior to, Hurricane Michael.

37. In its current configuration, with a precipitous slope

to the water, the lot is not suitable for a water - related

recreational land use. Any such use would require improvements

to the property.

38. Petitioner believes the City should improve the lot

fo r water - dependent recreation, or passive recreation that would

allow the public to view the water without access thereto,

rather than changing the use to residential, which will

eliminate the possibility of public access.

39. The City is under no obligat ion to improve the

property. The City’s stated intent in selling this lot is to

fund the improvement of a nearby recreational facility which has

a high utility rate.

40. The Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with either

Objective 5.3 or Policy 5.3.1.

41. Petitioner next contends the Plan Amendment is

inconsistent with Goal 5B, Objec tives 5.5 and 5.6, and

Policies 5.5.3 and 5.5.4, which read, in pertinent part, as

follows: 2 /

Goal 5B: Reduce the risk of hurricane -

related damage to life and property.

O bjective 5.5: Maintain or reduce hurricane

evacuation times as established in the

Northwest Florida Hurricane Evacuation

Study.

* * *

Policy 5.5.3: The City shall direct

population concentrations away from known

Coastal High Hazard Areas (“CHHA”)(as

de fined in the element) through the [FLUM]

by not incre asing densities within the

CHHA . . . .

Policy 5.5.4: New structures, other than

recreational amenities or water - dependent

structures, are prohibited within the

porti on of the CHHA lying within the

FEM A V Zone.

* * *

Objective 5.6: Maintain procedures that

will reduce the exposure of human life, and

public and private property, to hurricane -

related hazards.

42. Petitioner introduced no evidence regarding the

hurricane evacuation times established for the City, or how the

Plan Amendment may impact hurricane evacuation times in the

City. Respondent introduced the uncontroverted testimony of

Ms. Gutcher that one single - family home would have a de minimus

impact on hurricane evacuation times .

43. Th e Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with

Objective 5.5.

44. The buildable area of the lot is located completely

outside of the CHHA. The Plan Amendment does not increase

densities within the CHHA or allow prohibited structures within

the CHHA.

45. Th e Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with

Policies 5.5.3 and 5.5.4.

46. Objective 5.6 is implemented by 11 policies which

describe specific programs by which the City will reduce

exposure to hurricane - related hazards. Petitioner did not

challenge the Pl an Amendment as inconsistent with any of these

implementing policies. The Plan Amendment does not interfere

with or prevent the City’s procedures to reduce the exposure of

human life, and public and private property, to hurricane -

related hazards.

47. Th e Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with

Objective 5.6.

48. Next, Petitioner alleges the Plan Amendment is

inconsistent with the following goal and policy relating to

natural resources:

Goal 6A: Provide the circumstances

necessary for the conservation and

protection of natural and public health

related resources.

* * *

Policy 6.6.2: The City shall protect and

conserve natural functions of existing

soils, wetlands, marine resources, wildlife

habitat, flood zones, and estuaries by

enforcing the require ments established in

its Land Development Regulations.

* * *

Objective 7.6: Conserve locally and

regionally significant natural resources

through the use of sustainable development

practices when improving park and open

space.

* * *

Policy 7.6.3: The following activities

shall be considered when developing

environmentally sensitive sites acquired by

the City: nature trails or boardwalks,

waterway trails, interpretive displays,

educational programs, and wildlife

observation areas.

49. These provisi ons are wholly irrelevant to the Plan

Amendment. Goal 6A applies to conservation of natural

resources, none of which have been identified on the subject

lot. Policy 6.6.2 requires enforcement of the City’s land

development regulations, and the Plan Amend ment does not affect

enforcement of those regulations.

50. The lot contains neither locally or regionally

significant natural resources, nor environmentally sensitive

areas, so Objective 7.6 and Policy 7.6.3 do not apply . 3/

51. The Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with Goal 6A,

Policy 6.6.2, Objective 7.6, and Policy 7.6.3.

52. Finally, Petitioner alleges the Plan Amendment is

inconsistent with the following provisions relating to

recreation: 4/

The purpose of [the recreation and open

space] elemen t is to plan for a

comprehensive system of public and private

recreation opportunities, and to provide

areas of open space.

Goal 7A: Provide equitable, adequate, and

appropriate recreation opportunities through

provision of a combination of public and

pr ivate facilities.

Objective 7.1: Provide public access to

identified recreation sites, including

public access to beaches.

Policy 7.1.1: The City shall provide

recreation sites and facilities consistent

with the level of service standards

established i n policy 7.3.10.

Policy 7.1.2: The City shall provide signs

designating recreation sites and shall allow

beach access to such sites during reasonable

hours of operation.

Policy 7.1.3: The City shall provide

adequate parking for all City - owned

recreatio n sites.

Policy 7.1.4: The City shall guarantee

reasonable public access to City - owned

natural areas.

* * *

Policy 7.2.1: The City shall accept

donations, contributions, volunteer

assistance, or other forms of fiscal or

physical private assistance in meeting

recreational needs.

* * *

Objective 7.3: Provide, or require the

provision of, adequate recreation sites and

facilities consistent with level of service

standards and population demand.

* * *

Policy 7.3.14: The City shall retain all

public pa rk land and waterfront rights - of -

way in perpetuity, unless a land swap of

equal or greater value and acreage to the

City’s park inventory is agreed upon by the

City Commission. The vacation of a

waterfront right - of - way may occur as

specified in policy 5.7 .3 of the Coastal

Management Element.

* * *

Objective 7.5: Provide appropriate

recreation facilities for the full range of

citizenry needs.

* * *

Policy 7.5.2: The City shall locate and

utilize recreation sites in areas that will

stimulate ancillary economic activity and

promote redevelopment of rehabilitation

efforts.

53. Petitioner introduced no evidence to demonstrate that

the Plan Amendment will render the City’s recreation facilities

inadequate for the population or inconsistent with the level of

service standards. The Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with

Goal 7A, Policy 7.1.1, and Objectives 7.3 and 7.5.

54. Petitioner’s contention that the Plan Amendment is

inconsistent with Objective 7.1 and Policies 7.1.2, 7.1.4, and

7.2.1, is misdire cted. These policies require public access to,

and public parking for, City - owned recreation areas, with an

emphasis on public access to beaches. The lot does not provide

public beach access, so the Plan Amendment is not contrary to

those directives. Th e Plan Amendment has no impact on the

City’s duty to provide public access to recreation sites and the

beach. Nor does the Plan Amendment interfere with the City’s

ability to accept contributions or other assistance with meeting

recreational needs.

55. The Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with

Objective 7.1 and Policies 7.1.2, 7.1.4, and 7.2.1.

56. With respect to Policy 7.5.2, Petitioner did not

introduce any evidence that retaining the lot in the Recreation

land use category would accomplish the go als of stimulating

economic activity or promoting redevelopment. The Plan

Amendment is not inconsistent with Policy 7.5.2.

57. Petitioner’s position is that the lot is public park

land , which the City must retain a ccording to the terms of

Policy 7.3.14.

58. The facts do not support Petitioner’s position.

Although Mr. Lane agreed that the City’s website identifies the

property at the lot’s address as a park, the website shows no

recreational amenities or activities available thereon.

Further, Mr. Lane t estified that the only reference in the

City’s records to this lot as a park is that single webpage.

59. The comprehensive plan defines two types of parks:

neighborhood and community. A neighborhood park must be a

minimum of a half - acre, and a communi ty park must be a minimum

of 2.5 acres. The lot does not meet the minimum acreage

requirement for either a neighborhood or community park.

60. The lot has not been utilized as either a neighborhood

or community park, and has been limited to an overflow parking

area for at least the last 44 years. Further, public access to

the property is discouraged.

61. The Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with

Policy 7.3.14.

Data and Analysis

62. The lot is previously disturbed, contains no

endangered or threate ned species, and no environmentally

sensitive habitat. All supporting infrastructure is available

to serve residential development of the lot, including sewer and

water service. The lot is located in a developed single family

subdivision and is appropria te for residential use.

63. The Plan Amendment is supported by relevant and

appropriate data.

Meaningful and Predictable Standards

64. Petitioner offered no evidence that the Plan Amendment

fails to provide meaningful and predictable standards for the

use and development of land. Petitioner seems to contest the

City’s change in land use of the lot as contrary to establishing

predictable use of land. That position is misguided. Adoption

of a local government comprehensive plan does not permanently

fi x the land use designations. Amendments are allowed if they

meet the criteria of the Community Planning Act.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

65. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties hereto pursuant

to sections 1 20.569, 120.57(1), and 163.3187, Florida Statutes.

66. To have standing to challenge a plan amendment, a

person must be an “affected person,” as defined in section

163.3184(1)(a). Petitioner is an affected person within the

meaning of the statute.

67. “ In compliance” means, in pertinent part, “consistent

with the requirements of §§ 163.3177, 163.3178, 163.3180,

163.3191, 163.3245, and 163.3248[.]” § 163.3184(1)(b), Fla.

Stat.

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

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

Stat.

69. The Plan Amendment shall be determined to be in

compliance if the local government’s determination that the

amendment is in compliance is “fairly debatable.” See

§ 163.3187(5)(a), Fla. Stat.

70. The “fa irly debatable” standard, which provides

deference to the local government’s disputed decision, applies

to any challenge filed by an affected person. Therefore,

Petitioner bears the burden of proving beyond fair debate that

the challenged FLUM Amendment i s not in compliance. This means

that “if reasonable persons could differ as to its propriety,” a

plan amendment must be upheld. Martin C ty. v. Yusem , 690 So. 2d

1288, 1295 (Fla. 1997).

71 . T he mere existence of contravening evidence is not

sufficient to establish that a land planning decision is “fairly

debatable.” It is firmly established that:

[E] ven though there was expert testimony

adduced in support of the City ’ s case, that

in and of itself does not mean the issue is

fairly debatable. If it did, e very zoning

case would be fairly debatable and the City

would prevail simply by submitting an expert

who testified favorably to the City ’ s

position. Of course that is not the case.

The trial judge still must determine the

weight and credibility factors to be

attributed to the experts. Here the final

judgment shows that the judge did not assign

much weight or credibility to the City ’ s

witnesses.

Boca Raton v. Boca Villas Corp. , 371 So. 2d 154 , 159 (Fla. 4th

DCA 1979).

Internal Inconsistency

7 2 . Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, Petitioner

did not prove beyond fair debate that the FLUM Amendment is

inconsistent with the identified goals, objectives, or policies

of the comprehensive plan. With regard to Policy 7.3.14, it is

at least fairly debatabl e that the Plan Amendment does not

violate the requirement that the City retain all public park

land in perpetuity.

Data and Analysis

73 . Section 163.3177(1)(f) requires plan amendments to be

“based upon relevant and appropriate data and analysis” by the

local government, which includes “surveys, studies, community

goals and vision, and other data available at the time of

adoption.”

74 . Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, Petitioner

did not prove beyond fair debate that the Plan Amendment is no t

based on relevant and appropriate data and analysis as required

by section 163.3177(1)(f).

Meaningful and Predictable Standards

75 . Section 163.3177(1) provides that the comprehensive

plan “shall establish meaningful and predictable standards for

the u se and development of land[.]”

76 . Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, Petitioner

did not prove beyond fair debate that the Plan Amendment is

incons istent with section 163.3177(1) .

77 . For the reasons stated above, Petitioner has not

proven beyond fair debate that the FLUM Amendment is not “in

compliance” with the spec ified provisions of chapter 163 .

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Economic

Opportunity enter a fi nal order determining that the City of

Panama City Comprehensive Plan Amendment adopted by Ordinance

2690.1 on July 23, 2019, is “in compliance,” as that term is

de fined in section 163.3184(1)(b) .

DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of February , 2020 , in

Tallah assee, Leon County, Florida.

SUZANNE VAN WYK

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 4th day of February , 2020 .

ENDNOTE S

1/ Except as otherwise provided herein, all references to the

Florida Statutes are to the 2019 version, which was in eff ect

when the Plan Amendment was adopted.

2 / Although the parties included consistency of the Plan

Amendment with Policies 5.5.3 and 5.5.4 in the Pre - hearing

Stipulation as issues of fact to be litigated, Petitioner

offered no testimony regarding these po licies. It is unclear

whether Petitioner intended to abandoned these allegations, so

the undersigned is including findings on these policies in an

abundance of caution.

3/ Objective 7.6 and Policy 7.6.3 would be relevant if, as

Petitioner prefers, the C ity was obligated to retain ownership

of the lot and improve it for recreational use.

4/ Although the parties included consistency of the Plan

Amendment with Objective 7.1 and Policy 7.1.3 in the Pre - hearing

Stipulation as issues of fact to be litigate d, Petitioner

offered no testimony regarding these policies. It is unclear

whether Petitioner intended to abandoned these allegations, so

the undersigned is including findings on these policies in an

abundance of caution.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Michael X. Roh an

239 South Cove Terrace Drive

Panama City, Florida 32401

(eServed)

David A. Theriaque, Esquire

Theriaque and Spain

433 North Magnolia Drive

Tallahassee, Florida 32308 - 5083

(eServed)

Michael S. Burke, Esquire

Burke Blue

16215 Panama City Beach Parkway

Panama City Beach, Florida 32407

(eServed)

S. Brent Spain, Esquire

Theriaque and Spain

433 North Magnolia Drive

Tallahassee, Florida 32308 - 5083

(eServed)

Benjamin R. Kelley, Esquire

Theriaque and Spain

433 North Magnolia Drive

Tallahassee, Florida 32 308 - 5083

(eServed)

William Chorba, General Counsel

Department of Economic Opportunity

Caldwell Building , MSC 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 )

Janay Lovett, Agency Clerk

Department of Economic Opportunity

Caldwell Building

107 East Madison Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 4128

(eServed )

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT E XCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

will issue the Final Order in this case.