20-000581 Weyerhaeuser Nr vs. City Of Gainesville
 Status: Closed
DOAH Final Order on Wednesday, May 5, 2021.


View Dockets  
Summary: Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the City did not afford it procedural due process; that the City failed to observe essential requirements of law; and that the City's denial of its rezoning petition was not based on competent substantial evidence.

1S TATE OF F LORIDA

6D IVISION OF A DMINISTRATIVE H EARINGS

13W EYERHAEUSER N R ,

17Petitioner ,

18vs. Case No. 20 - 0581

24C ITY OF G AINESVILLE ,

29Respondent .

31/

32F INAL O RDER

36Petitioner, Weyerhaeuser NR Company ( Petitioner ), appealed the denial of its

48petition to rezone certain property from Alachua County Agriculture (A) to City of

61Gainesville Planned Development District (PD) . On December 5, 2019, t he City

74Commission of the City of Gainesville (City) held a quasi - judicial hearing on the

89petition and entered the denial order on January 16, 2020. The Division of

102Administrative Hearings (D OAH), by contract with the City and pursuant to

114s ection 30 - 3.58 of the City's Land Development Code (LDC), assigned

127Administrative Law Judge Francine M. Ffolkes to serve as Hearing Officer for the

140appeal. The parties submitted briefs on February 25, 2020, and March 6, 2020 .

154Petitioner submitted the record on appeal (ROA) on March 16, 2020. 1 Oral

167argumen t was presented on July 21, 2020, at which time the parties waived the

182LDC's seven calendar days requirement for rendering this Final Order . 2

1941 On February 2 6, 2020, the City filed a motion to strike Petitioner's ROA to which Petitioner

212responded on March 2, 2020. After reviewing the motion, the response, and the video of the quasi -

230judicial hearing held on December 5, 2019, the undersigned issued an O rder on M arch 10, 2020 , that

249denied the City's motion to strike . Thereafter, on March 16, 2020, Petitioner filed its entire ROA

266consisting of Bates numbers ROA 0001 through ROA 3413. Record references i n this Final Order are

283to the ROA filed on March 16, 2020.

2912 At the oral argument , the undersigned requested and allowed post argument responses dealing

305with two issues . Those filings were made by the parties on August 6 , 7, 13 , and 14, 2020.

324A PPEARANCES

326For Petitioner: David A. Theriaque, Esquire

332Benjamin R. Kelley, Esquire

336T heriaque & Spain

340433 North Magnolia Drive

344Tallahassee, Florida 32308 - 5083

349C. David Coffey, Esquire

353C. David Coffey, P.A.

357300 East University Avenue, Suite 110

363Gainesville, Florida 32601

366For City of Gainesville: Sean M. McDermott, Esquire

374City of Gainesville

377Office of the City Attorney

382200 East University Avenue , Suite 425

388Gainesville, Florida 32 601

392Daniel M. Nee, Esquire

396City of Gainesville

399Off ice of the City Attorney

405Pos t Office Box 490 , Mail Station 46

413Gainesville, Florida 32627

416S TATEMENT OF THE I SSUES

422The issues to be determined in this appeal are : (1) whether Petitioner was

436afforded procedural due process ; (2) whether t he City failed to observe the essential

450requirements of law ; and (3 ) whether the City's decision was supported by

463competent substantial evidence.

466B ACKGROUND

468Petitioner is the successor - in - interest to approximately 1,779 acres of land

483previously owned by Plum Creek Land Company. The property is generally located

495north of U.S. 441 and Northwest 74th Place, east and west of State Road 121 and

511County Road 231, and south of Northwest 121st Avenue. On April 24, 1992, the City

526annexed 460 acres of the property into the City . On February 12, 2007, the property

542owner voluntarily annexed into the City the remaining approximately 1 , 319 acres.

554At the time of both annexatio ns, the property had an Alachua County land use

569designation of Rural/Agricultural and a zoning designation of Alachua County A.

580On January 1, 2009, the City adopted the following land use designations for

593specified portions of Petitioner's property : Cons ervation, Single - Family, Residential

605Low - Density, and Planned Use District (PUD) Overlay. The 2009 City ordinance

618required that Petitioner timely apply for and obtain City PD zoning on the PUD

632portion of the property within 18 months. Failure to meet the d eadline would void

647the PUD Overlay and that portion of the property would retain the land use

661designation of City Agriculture. This ordinance was codified in Policy 4.3.4 of the

674Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the City's Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) .

687O ver time, the City adopted many extensions of the 18 - month PD rezoning

702deadline.

703FLUE Policy 4.3.4 also contained detailed requirements for environmental

712protection and development. In particular , all wetlands, wetland buffers, floodplain ,

722and upland hab itat areas were to be designated as Conservation Management

734Areas (CMAs) , and managed through adoption of Conservation Management Plans

744(CMPs) approved by the City. In July of 2017, Petitioner proposed and the City

758approved a Natural Area Resource Assessme nt (NARA) and 22 recommended CMAs

770totaling 1,161 acres of Petitioner's 1,779 - acre property.

781Petitioner filed its petition to rezone approximately 744 acres of its property on

794June 15, 2017. The petition sought to rezone portions of the Single - Family,

808Residential Low - Den s ity, and PUD areas from Alachua County A to City PD zoning

825for the "Gainesville 121 Planned Development . " Areas within the PD boundary

837designated as CMAs were labeled Conservation Management District (CON) with

847uses allowed "as indicate d in the approved CMP for the CMAs." City staff

861determined the petition to be complete, prepared a staff report and placed the

874matter on the October 26, 2017, City Plan Board meet ing agenda for a public

889hearing. The staff report recommended approval of the rezoning petition and found

901the petition consistent with the City's Com p Plan and LDC . However, the staff

916report recommended two conditions be placed on an y approval . The two conditions

930concerned perpetual silvicultur e activities within lands designated a s wetlands and

942wetland buffers by the NARA report. The staff report included the following staff

955position on the posture of the rezoning petition:

963CONSERVATION DISTRICT: The applicant has

968proposed to omit the large portions of the Gainesville 121

978property from the PD rezoning action currently proposed.

986However, staff has determined, and the Comprehensive

993Plan dictates, that in order to review the planning parcel

1003holistically the Conservation districts must be included as

1011a part of the PD rezoning. The very nature of the proposed

1023development, where " neighborhoods weave in and out of

1031the enviro nment" suggests that PD District and the CON

1041districts must be evaluated as integral parts of overall

1050Gainesville 121 Planned Development .

1055The City Plan Board approved a motion recommending approval of the rezoning

1067petition and replaced the staff's two conditions with one recommended condition.

1078The recommended condition stated that "[t]he rezoning of Gainesville 121 to

1089Planned Development doe s not become effective until a Management Plan that

1101addresses continued silviculture activities is adopted for the Conservation

1110Management Areas located within the PD." The rezoning petition was scheduled

1121and advertised to be heard by the City Commission o n January 18, 2018 .

1136Petitioner's agent disputed whether the rezoning petition it had prepared included

1147requests to rezone areas to PD and CON zoning , as advertised. Thus , the item was

1162removed from the City Commission's January 18, 2018, agenda .

1172The recor d correspondence reflect ed that the City expected to review the PD

1186re zoning and CON zoning for Gainesville 121 concurrently . See ROA 2515 - 2520 ,

12012530, and 2533. On May 16, 2018, Petitioner submitted a proposed CMP that the

1215City reviewed and provided comment s. Petitioner responded to those comments on

1227July 27, 2018. The City review of the proposed CMP continued for several months,

1241apparently through retained consultants. Finally, in March 2019, Petitioner met

1251with City staff. The meeting was followed by two l etters in which Petitioner agreed

1266to modify the proposed CMP to exclude silviculture as a perpetual use in the

1280approved CMA. Petitioner's second letter dated June 3, 2019, was particularly

1291concerned that the advertised City Commission agenda item for a June 6, 2019,

1304public hearing needed clarification. See ROA 2537 - 2538 . The letter also reflected

1318that Petitioner did not expect to apply for CON re z oning until after CMP approval .

1335See ROA 2537 - 2538 .

1341The Ga inesville 121 PD rezoning issue was not addressed until the City

1354Commission 's July 18, 2019, meeting. On July 18, 2019, the City Commission hear d

1369a set of options presented by City staff:

13771. Direct staff to prepare a City - initiated land use

1388amendment and related rezoning petition to designate the

1396entire property to the City of Gainesville Agricultural

1404land use and the accompanying Agricultural zoning

1411district; or

14132. take no action to extend the deadline whereby the PUD

1424land use portion of the site would r evert to an

1435Agricultural land use designation; or

14403. direct staff to begin the process for advertising a public

1451hearing on the PD zoning application for a future

1460Commission meeting.

1462The City Commission approved option number one. Petitioner availed itsel f of the

1475judicial process to force the City to schedule a hearing on its rezoning petition. The

1490quasi - judicial hearing was scheduled for December 5, 2019. A new City staff report

1505was prepared for the December 5, 2019, hearing. Th e new staff report noted

1519co ntinuing concerns with the proposed CMP with regard to perpetual silviculture

1531activities. The new staff report presented the City staff 's analysis of the rezoning

1545petition in light of applicable LDC rezoning criteria. The new staff report did not

1559make a re commendation. Instead, it presented three options for consideration by

1571the Commission: deny, approve with conditions, or approve.

1579At the December 5, 2019, hearing, the City Commission heard evidence and

1591argument from Petitioner's representatives, the City's interim director,

1599Andrew Persons, and members of the public . After conducting the hearing, the

1612Commission voted to deny the rezoning petition and its decision was reduced to a

1626written order rendered on January 16, 2020.

1633On January 23, 2020, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal under LDC

1645section 30 - 3.58 seeking administrative review of the City's denial of its rezon ing

1660petition .

1662S TANDARD OF R EVIEW

1667This appeal is an admi nistrative remedy governed by the City's LDC. The

1680undersigned may eit her affirm the o rder or remand the decision back to the City

1696Commission with specific issues for the City Commission to address. Section 30 - 3.58

1710of the City's LDC also sets forth the foll owing appeal criteria:

1722The hearing officer shall affirm the board decision unless

1731an appealing party with standing demonstrates that any

1739one of the following three requirements was not met. The

1749hearing officer shall use established Florida law as it

1758rel at es to this standard of review.

17661. The appealing parties were afforded procedural due

1774process, which includes:

1777a. Notice of the board hearing that is the subject of

1788the appeal;

1790b. A fair hearing before an impartial decision -

1799maker;

1800c. An opportunity to be heard and present evidence

1809at the hearing; and

1813d. The opportunity to cross - examine any witnesses.

18222. The reviewing board observed the essential

1829requirements of law.

1832a. A departure from the essential requirements of

1840law is something more than m ere legal error. A decision

1851made according to the form of the applicable law and the

1862rules prescribed for rendering it, although it may be

1871erroneous in its conclusion as applied to the facts, is not

1882an act that amounts to a departure from th e essential

1893req uirements of law.

1897b. The hearing officer shall examine the seriousness

1905of any error and exercise discretion only when there has

1915been a violation of a clearly established principle of law

1925that results in a miscarriage of justice.

19323. The reviewing board' s decision was supported by

1941competent substantial evidence.

1944a. Competent substantial evidence means such

1950evidence that may establish a substantial basis from

1958which the fact at issue can be reasonably inferred, or

1968material and relevant evidence that a rea sonable mind

1977could accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The

1986opinions and recommendations of experts, including city

1993staff, are deemed expert testimony and constitute

2000competent substantial evidence. Citizen testimony during

2006any public comment portion of a hearing may constitute

2015competent substantial evidence if it is fact - based and not

2026a mere generalized statement of support or opposition.

2034b. The hearing officer may not reweigh the evidence

2043or substitute his or her judgment for that of the reviewing

2054board, but rather shall rule upon only whether the

2063reviewing board's decision was supported by any

2070competent substantial evidence.

2073S UMMARY OF A RGUMENTS AND A NALYSIS

2081Due Process

2083Petitioner argued that it was denied procedural due process because the CMP

2095was inappropriately considered together with the rezoning petition rather than

2105given a separate notice and hearing. However, the ROA clearly show s that the City

2120staff, Plan Board, and Commission expected to review the PD re zoning and CON

2134zoning for Gaines ville 121 concurrently. The record also shows that Petitioner was

2147made aware of this expectation. The City's interpretation of its LDC also supports

2160its position. Specifically, LDC section 30 - 8.11C, the portion of the LDC that protects

2175natural resources, r equires rezonings to be reviewed for compliance with the LDC

2188provisions protecting regulated natural resources. See Las Olas Tower Co. v. City of

2201Ft. Lauderdale, 742 So. 2d 308, 312 (Fla. 4 th DCA 1 999)(reflecting that reviewing

2216court should defer to the interpretation given by the local government of its own

2230code).

2231Petitioner also argued that the City Commission was not an impartial decision -

2244maker. In this regard, courts have set a high bar for a showing that an elected

2260official lacked impartiality. Fo r example, the official has to show a bias so pervasive

2275that a lack of impartiality was abundantly clear. See Seminole Entertainment, Inc.

2287v. City of Casselberry, 811 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 5 th DCA 2001)(reflecting that due

2302process was violated where petitioner was denied cross - examination of principal

2314witness, and mayor's evidentiary rulings reflected a bias so pervasive as to violate

2327basic fairness).

2329Elected officials have a presumption of honesty and integrity with their decision -

2342making power. See Hortonvill e Jt . Sch . Dist. No. 1 v. Hortonville Educ. Ass'n, 426

2359U.S. 482 (1976). An elected official is not impartial simply because they took a

2373position, even in public, on a policy issue related to the dispute in the absence of a

2390showing that the official is not capable of judging a controversy fairly. Id at 493 .

2406Petitioner's assertion of impartiality points to the City Commission 's decision to

2418separately direct City staff to initiate an application to consider changing the land

2431use and zoning designations for the Weyerhaeuser Property. Without more, this

2442argument fails to overcome the presumption of honesty and integrity accorded to

2454the officials that make up the City Commission. Also, case law establishes that a

2468local government may consider its own petition f or land use changes and that of the

2484property owner at the same time. See City of Gainesville v. Cone, 365 So. 2d 737

2500(Fla. 1 st DCA 1978).

2505Essential Requirements of Law

2509The issue of whether the City complied with the essential requirements of the

2522law is synonymous with whether the City "applied the correct law." Haines City

2535Cmty. Dev. v. Heggs , 658 So. 2d 523, 530 (Fla. 1995). The bulk of Petitioner's

2550argument is disagreement with the determinations of the City as it applied the

"2563correct law," i.e., the rezoning criteria of LDC section 30 - 3.17A through J, and the

2579additional criteria for PD rezonings in LDC section 30 - 3.17A through J. Under the

2594standard of review, "[a] decision made according to the form of the applicable law

2608and the rules prescribed for rendering it, although it may be erroneous in its

2622conclusion as applied to the facts, is not an act that amounts to a departure from

2638the essential requirements of law. "

2643Petitioner argue d that the City depart ed from the essential requirements of law

2657by considering the CMP in conjunction with the PD rezoning petition. As previously

2670discussed, the City staff's interpretation of the LDC criteria and communications

2681with Petitioner, w ere consistently that the PD re zoning and CON zoning for

2695Gainesville 121 would be reviewed concurrently.

2701Petitioner also assert ed that the City staff's written analysis and the City's

2714denial improperly applies provisions of the Comp Plan. Here again, Petitioner fails

2726to recognize that the rezoning petitio n is required to be found consistent with the

2741Comp Plan. See § 163.3194, Fla. Stat.; Franklin Cty. v. S.G.I. Ltd., 728 So. 2d 1210

2757(Fla. 1 st DCA 1999)(holding a local government may disapprove a development

2769application if it finds that it is inconsistent with any of the objectives or policies in

2785its comprehensive plan).

2788Thus, the City's denial made according to the form of the applicable l aw and the

2804rules prescribed for rendering it, was not an act that amount ed to a departure from

2820the essential requirements of law.

2825Competent Substantial Evidence

2828Petitioner argued that the City ' s denial was not supported by competent

2841substantial evidence in three main areas: (1) the conclusions regarding the CMP; (2)

2854the conclusions regarding auto - centricity and transportation choices; and (3) the

2866conclusions regarding urban sprawl and sustainable, compact, and dense

2875development.

2876Competent substantial evidence does not refer to the quality, character,

2886convincing power, or even the weight of the evidence. See Scholastic Book Fairs,

2899Inc., Great Am. Div. v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 671 So. 2d 287, 289 n.3

2913(Fla. 5 th DCA 1996). Rath er, c ompetent substantial evidence means such evidence

2927that may establish a substantial basis from which the fact at issue can be

2941reasonably inferred, or material and relevant evidence that a reasonable mind could

2953accept as adequate to support a conclusion . See De Groot v. Sheffield, 95 So. 2d 912,

2970914 (Fla. 1957). This administrative review is limited to determining whether any

2982competent substantial evidence exists in the record to support the City's decision.

2994See Lee Cty. v. Sunbelt Equities, II, Ltd., P' ship, 619 So. 2d 996, 1003 (Fla. 2d DCA

30121993). In addition, the undersigned may not reweigh the evidence or substitute her

3025judgment for that of the City. See Lantz v. Smith, 106 So. 3d 518, 521 (Fla. 1 st DCA

30442013).

3045First, Petitioner argued that there was no competent substantial evidence to

3056support the City ' s finding that the PD rezoning petition and its proposed CMPs

3071allowed perpetual silviculture within portions of wetlands and wetland buffers and

3082conservation land use areas. The City determined that such allowance was

3093inconsistent and in conflict with the requirements of LDC sections 30 - 3.14B, C, and

3108H ; sections 30 - 3.17A, D, F, and G ; and specified policies in the Comp Plan. Even

3125though Petitioner expressed its willingness to modify the CMP proposal , such a

3137modification was not formally accomplished in a manner that allowed the City to

3150deem the CMP modified and conclude that the City staff 's concerns about perpetual

3164silviculture were resolved. City staff's analysis and opinions of record were directed

3176to and support the City's conclusions regarding the following applicable rezoning

3187criteria: the character of the district and its suitability for particular uses; the

3200proposed rezoning in relation to surrounding properties and other similar

3210properties; co nsistency with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Comp Plan;

3223external compatibility; usable open spaces, plazas, and recreations areas; and

3233environmental constraints.

3235Thus, competent substantial evidence supported the City 's determination that

3245th e PD rezoning and CON zoning petition was inconsistent with, and in conflict

3259with , the requirements of LDC sections 30 - 3.14B, C, and H ; sections 30 - 3.17A, D, F,

3277and G ; and specified policies in the Comp Plan .

3287Second, Petitioner argued that no competent s ubstantial evidence supported the

3298City's conclusion that the petition was auto - centric and lacked transportation

3310choices ; lacked external connections to basic needs and services ; allowed non -

3322clustered and non - compact development with insufficient developme nt density and

3334intensity ; and did not support the provision of new public transportation services

3346such as a new bus route to the area. The City determined th ese issue s caused

3363inconsistency with the rezoning criteria of LDC sections 30 - 3.14 A, B, and H, and

3379sections 30 - 3.17A, D, E , and J .

3388As the City pointed out in its argument, Petitioner cited to some of the same

3403evidence in the record that supported the City's conclusion. Petitioner then argued

3415for a different conclusion than the one reached by the City. As discussed above, the

3430undersigned may not reweigh the evidence or substitute her judgment for that of

3443the City. See Id.

3447Third, Petitioner argued that no competent substantial eviden ce supported the

3458City's conclusion that the petition was inconsistent with the City's established

3469policy goals of prohibiting urban sprawl ; directing the achievement of sustainable,

3480compact, and dense development patterns ; and requiring the protection and

3490promotion of transportation choices. City staff's analysis and expert opinions of

3501record support the City's conclusion .

3507Thus, competent substantial evidence supported the City's determination that

3516the petition was inconsistent with the City's establis hed policy goals of prohibiting

3529urban sprawl ; directing the achievement of sustainable, compact, and dense

3539development patterns ; and requiring the protection and promotion of transportation

3549choices.

3550D ISPOSITION

3552In this appeal, Petitioner failed to demons trate: (1) that Petitioner was not

3565afforded procedural due process ; (2) that the City failed to observe the essential

3578requirements of law ; and (3) that the City's decision was not supported by

3591competent substantial evidence. Therefore, the City Commission's denial of the PD

3602rezoning and CON zoning petition , PB - 17 - 65 ZON, is A FFIRMED .

3617D ONE A ND O RDERED this 5 th day of May , 202 1 , in Tallahassee, Leon County,

3635Florida.

3636S

3637F RANCINE M. F FOLKES

3642Administrative Law Judge

36451230 Apalachee Parkway

3648Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

3653(850) 488 - 9675

3657www.doah.state.fl.us

3658Filed with the Clerk of the

3664Division of Administrative Hearings

3668this 5 th day of May , 202 1 .

3677C OPIES F URNISHED :

3682C. David Coffey, Esquire Sean M. McDermott, Esquire

3690C. David Coffey, P . A . City of Gainesville

3700300 East University Avenue, Suite 110 Office of the City Attorney

3711Gainesville, Florida 32601 200 East University Avenue, Suite 425

3720Gainesville, Florida 32601

3723David A. Theriaque, Esquire

3727S. Brent Spain, Esquire Daniel M. Nee, Esquire

3735Benjamin R. Kelley, Esquire City of Gainesville

3742Theriaque & Spain Office of the City Attorney

3750433 North Magnolia Drive Post Office Box 490, Mail Stop 46

3761Tallahassee, Florida 32308 - 5083 Gainesville, Florida 32627

3769Andrew W. Pe rsons, AICP, LEED GA

3776Interim Director

3778Post Office Box 490, Mail Stop 11

3785Gainesville, Florida 32627

3788N OTICE OF R IGHT TO J UDICIAL R EVIEW

3798Pursuant to Section 30 - 3.58 of the City of Gainesville Land Development Code, this

3813decision shall be final, and may be subject to judicial review as provided in law.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 11/12/2021
Proceedings: Transmittal letter from the Clerk of the Division forwarding records to Respondent.
PDF:
Date: 11/12/2021
Proceedings: Transmittal letter from the Clerk of the Division forwarding records to Petitioner.
PDF:
Date: 05/05/2021
Proceedings: DOAH Final Order
PDF:
Date: 05/05/2021
Proceedings: Final Order (hearing held July 21, 2020). CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 04/19/2021
Proceedings: Order Denying Respondent City Of Gainesville's Motion To Strike Petitioner's Memorandum Of Law Regarding Urban Sprawl.
PDF:
Date: 08/14/2020
Proceedings: Petitioner's Reply to Respondent City of Gainesville's Supplemental Response regarding Petitioner's Conservation Management Plan filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/13/2020
Proceedings: Petitioner's Response in Opposition to Respondent City of Gainesville's Motion to Strike Petitioner's Memorandum of Law regarding Urban Sprawl filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/07/2020
Proceedings: Respondent City of Gainesville's Supplemental Response regarding Petitioner's Conservation Management Plan filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/06/2020
Proceedings: Respondent City of Gainesville's Motion to Strike Petitioner's Memorandum of Law Regarding Urban Sprawl filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/05/2020
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Transcript.
PDF:
Date: 08/05/2020
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Transcript of Proceeding Held on July 21, 2020 filed.
Date: 07/21/2020
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
Date: 07/20/2020
Proceedings: Petitioner's Proposed Exhibits filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
PDF:
Date: 07/17/2020
Proceedings: Petitioner's Memorandum of Law regarding Urban Sprawl filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/12/2020
Proceedings: Notice of Oral Argument (hearing set for July 21, 2020; 10:00 a.m.; Tallahassee).
PDF:
Date: 05/22/2020
Proceedings: Status Report filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/23/2020
Proceedings: Order Placing Case in Abeyance (parties to advise status by May 25, 2020).
PDF:
Date: 04/20/2020
Proceedings: Joint Motion to Hold Case in Abeyance filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/19/2020
Proceedings: Order Canceling Hearing (parties to advise status by April 20, 2020).
PDF:
Date: 03/18/2020
Proceedings: City of Gainesville's documetns on flash drive filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/18/2020
Proceedings: Joint Emergency Motion to Postpone Oral Argument Scheduled for March 20, 2020, filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/17/2020
Proceedings: Video Recording of City Commission Meeting filed (on Flash Drive).
PDF:
Date: 03/16/2020
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Petitioner's Record on Appeal (Part 7) filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/16/2020
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Petitioner's Record on Appeal (Part 6) filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/16/2020
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Petitioner's Record on Appeal (Part 5) filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/16/2020
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Petitioner's Record on Appeal (Part 4) filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/16/2020
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Petitioner's Record on Appeal (Part 3) filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/16/2020
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Petitioner's Record on Appeal (Part 2) filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/16/2020
Proceedings: Petitioner's Record on Appeal filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/16/2020
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Petitioner's Record on Appeal (Part 1) filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/16/2020
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Daniel M. Nee) filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/13/2020
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Oral Argument by Video Teleconference (Oral Argument is set for March 20, 2020; 1:30 p.m.; Gainesville and Tallahassee, FL; amended as to Video Teleconference).
PDF:
Date: 03/11/2020
Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance and Rescheduling Hearing (hearing set for March 20, 2020; 1:30 p.m.; Gainesville).
PDF:
Date: 03/11/2020
Proceedings: Petitioner's Emergency Motion to Postpone Oral Argument Scheduled for March 13, 2020 filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/10/2020
Proceedings: Order Denying Motion to Strike.
PDF:
Date: 03/06/2020
Proceedings: Respondent City of Gainesville's Response Brief filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/02/2020
Proceedings: Notice of Transfer.
PDF:
Date: 03/02/2020
Proceedings: Petitioner's Response in Opposition to Respondent's Motion to Strike filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/28/2020
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Affidavit of C. David Coffey, Esquire, in Support of Petitioner's Response in Opposition to Respondent's Motion to Strike filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/28/2020
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Benjamin Kelley) filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/28/2020
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (S Spain) filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/28/2020
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (David Theriaque) filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/26/2020
Proceedings: Respondent City of Gainesville's Motion to Strike Petitioner's Filing of Record on Appeal and Petitioner's Brief filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/25/2020
Proceedings: Petitioner Filing of Record on Appeal (ROA00133-ROA00133) filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/25/2020
Proceedings: Petitioner Filing of Record on Appeal (ROA00073-ROA00132) filed
PDF:
Date: 02/25/2020
Proceedings: Petitioner Filing of Record on Appeal filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/25/2020
Proceedings: Respondent City of Gainesville's Filing Record of Appeal (Part 3 of 3)
PDF:
Date: 02/25/2020
Proceedings: Respondent City of Gainesville's Filing Record of Appeal (Part 2 of 3) filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/25/2020
Proceedings: Respondent City of Gainesville's Filing Record of Appeal (Part 1 of 3) filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/25/2020
Proceedings: Petitioner Brief filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/12/2020
Proceedings: Order Incorporating Dates and Location Regarding Oral Argument (hearing set for March 13, 2020; 1:30 p.m.; Gainesville; amended as to Location).
PDF:
Date: 02/11/2020
Proceedings: Supplemental Response to Order Requiring Parties to Submit Mutually Agreeable Dates for Hearing and Set Location of Oral Argument filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/11/2020
Proceedings: Notice of Oral Argument in appeal of Order of City Commission Denying Application for Rezoning (hearing set for March 13, 2020; 1:30 p.m.; Gainesville).
PDF:
Date: 02/10/2020
Proceedings: Joint Response to Initial Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/04/2020
Proceedings: Order Requiring Parties to Submit Mutually Agreeable Dates for Hearing.
PDF:
Date: 02/03/2020
Proceedings: Initial Order.
PDF:
Date: 01/31/2020
Proceedings: Appellant's Presentation filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/31/2020
Proceedings: Staff's Presentation filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/31/2020
Proceedings: Rezoning Application with Staff Analysis filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/31/2020
Proceedings: City Commission's Written Decision filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/31/2020
Proceedings: Notice of Appeal filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/31/2020
Proceedings: Agency referral filed.

Case Information

Judge:
FRANCINE M. FFOLKES
Date Filed:
01/31/2020
Date Assignment:
03/02/2020
Last Docket Entry:
11/12/2021
Location:
Tallahassee, Florida
District:
Northern
Agency:
Contract Hearings
 

Counsels

Related Florida Statute(s) (1):