90-003409DRI Fl-Ga Venture Group vs. City Of Ormond Beach (Hunter`s Ridge) Status: Closed Recommended Order on Thursday, March 21, 1991.

Summary: Development consistent with rule and statutory standards. Entitled to development order with conditions.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

FLORIDA-GEORGIA VENTURE GROUP, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 90-3409DRI

)

CITY OF ORMOND BEACH, )

)

Respondent, )

)

and )

)

EAST CENTRAL FLORIDA REGIONAL )

PLANNING COUNCIL, FLORIDA )

AUDUBON SOCIETY, CITIZENS FOR )

ORMOND BEACH, INC., and THE )

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, )

)

Intervenors. )

__________________________________)

)

NORTHEAST FLORIDA REGIONAL )

PLANNING COUNCIL and THE )

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY )

AFFAIRS, )

)

Petitioners, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 90-3410DRI

)

FLAGLER COUNTY COMMISSION and )

FLORIDA-GEORGIA VENTURE GROUP, )

)

Respondents, )

)

and )

)

FLORIDA AUDUBON SOCIETY and )

ANNIE JOHNSON AND THE FLAGLER )

CITIZENS FOR AFFORDABLE )

HOUSING, )

)

Intervenors. )

__________________________________)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was held in this case in Ormond Beach,

Florida, before the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its designated

Hearing Officer, Diane K. Kiesling. On October 22, 1990, the hearing commenced

and motions were heard. The formal hearing was then continued until October 23,

1990, at which time it was again continued to allow further settlement

negotiations. A motion hearing was held on October 23, 1990, at 6:30 o'clock

p.m. Based on the stipulations and joint request of the parties, a further

continuance was granted until December 1990. The formal hearing recommenced on

December 5-7, 1990, and the record was left open until December 14, 1990, for

filing of various stipulations agreed on by the parties.

APPEARANCES

FLORIDA-GEORGIA J. Doyle Tumbleson

VENTURE GROUP: Attorney at Law

Box A

150 South Palmetto Avenue

Daytona Beach, Florida 32114

DEPARTMENT OF Julia Johnson, Attorney

COMMUNITY AFFAIRS: David Russ, Senior Attorney

2740 Centerview Drive

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100

NORTHEAST FLORIDA Linda Loomis Shelley

REGIONAL PLANNING Attorney at Law

COUNCIL: 902 North Gadsden Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32303

CITY OF ORMOND BEACH: Fred S. Disselkoen, Jr.

Attorney at Law

Post Office Box 277

Ormond Beach, Florida 32175-0277

FLAGLER COUNTY Noah McKinnon

COMMISSION: Attorney at Law

595 West Granada Avenue

Ormond Beach, Florida 32075

EAST CENTRAL FLORIDA Gerald S. Livingston

and NORTHEAST FLORIDA Attorney at Law

REGIONAL PLANNING Post Office Box 2151

COUNCILS: Orlando, Florida 32802

ANNIE JOHNSON AND Jonathan Hewett

FLAGLER CITIZENS FOR Attorney at Law

AFFORDABLE HOUSING: Central Florida Legal

Services, Inc.

216 South Sixth Street

Palatka, Florida 32177

CITIZENS FOR ORMOND Timothy Keyser

BEACH, INC.: Attorney at Law

Post Office Box 92

Interlachen, Florida 32148

FLORIDA AUDUBON Charles Lee

SOCIETY: Senior Vice President

Florida Audubon Society

1101 Audubon Way

Maitland, Florida 32751

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

The ultimate issue is whether the Applicant, Florida-Georgia Venture Group,

is entitled to development orders for its proposed development of regional

impact, Hunter's Ridge, in Flagler County and the City of Ormond Beach, Florida.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

During the course of the proceedings, various settlements, agreements, and

stipulation have been entered into by most of the parties, which have resolved

most, but not all, of the issues originally raised in the petitions. First, the

Applicant agreed to a significant downsizing and reconfiguration of the project.

The current scope of the project is more fully described in the Findings of

Fact. All parties agreed that standing was not an issue and that certain

conditions must be applied. Those conditions are set forth in Florida-Georgia

Exhibit 14. The Joint Stipulation of the Florida Audubon Society, Florida-

Georgia Venture Group, Flagler County, and City of Ormond Beach, Florida-Georgia

Exhibit 9, reflects all parties', except Citizens for Ormond Beach, settlement

of all environmental issues. The terms of this settlement are incorporated into

and made a part of this Recommended Order.

Additionally, during the course of the hearing, the issues raised by Annie

Johnson and the Citizens for Affordable Housing were settled based on the

contents of Florida-Georgia Exhibit 3, which was also agreed to by all other

parties, except Citizens for Ormond Beach. Further, the Joint Stipulation of

the Department Of Community Affairs, Florida-Georgia Venture Group, and Flagler

County, dated January 7, 1991, settles all issues raised by the signatory

parties.

The issues which remain for consideration in this Recommended Order are

those raised by (1) the City of Ormond Beach regarding the impact on the capital

facilities of the city and whether the proposed project adequately addresses

those impacts and (2) the Citizens for Ormond Beach regarding (a) environmental

impacts, (b) density, (c) impacts on Ormond Beach capital facilities and

resources, and (d) affordable housing in the Ormond Beach portion of the

project.

Finally, the Joint Stipulation of Florida-Georgia Venture Group and the

City of Ormond Beach and the Joint Stipulation of Florida-Georgia Venture Group

and Flagler County were both filed on December 14, 1990. These two joint

stipulations contain agreed Decisions and Orders Granting the Application for

Development Approval for the Hunter's Ridge DRI, if the Recommended Order makes

a recommendation that the development approval be granted. These two stipulated

orders contain and are consistent with all of the agreed conditions and other

stipulations of all parties made throughout the course of these proceedings.

The City of Ormond Beach is not waiving its objections to the project and is not

stipulating that it should receive approval or approval without additional

conditions.

The Applicant, Florida-Georgia, presented the testimony of John Thomas

Beck, Gregory F. Golgowski, Michael D. Brown, Gerald E. Upson, and Richard

Jacobs. Florida-Georgia Exhibits 1-15 were admitted in evidence. Flagler

County presented the testimony of Kenneth E. Koch and had Flagler Exhibits 1-4

admitted in evidence. The City of Ormond Beach presented the testimony of

Michael Longfellow, Michael G. Gluskin, Richard Shearer, Ronald Jacobs, Paul

Lane, and David Day. Ormond Beach Exhibits 1-8 were admitted in evidence.

Finally, Citizens for Ormond Beach (Citizens) used the witnesses of the City of

Ormond Beach as its own and had Citizens Exhibits 2-8 admitted in evidence.

The transcript of the December 5-7, 1990, hearing was filed on January 11,

1991. The transcript of the October 22, 1990, portion of the hearing was filed

on January 22, 1991. No transcript was furnished of the motion hearings on

October 23, 1990. Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law were timely

filed by Florida-Georgia, the Department of Community Affairs, the City of

Ormond Beach, and Citizens for Ormond Beach. The other parties had settled all

issues through stipulations and elected not to file proposed recommended orders.

All proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law have been considered. A

specific ruling on each proposed finding of fact is made in the Appendix

attached hereto and made a part of this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Petitioner is Florida-Georgia Venture Group, 402 Clifton Avenue,

Holly Hill, Florida 32117, and its authorized agent is Thomas L. Durrance,

Managing Partner.

2. The Hunter's Ridge project lies within the jurisdiction of both the

Northeast Florida Regional Planning Council (NEFRPC) and the East Central

Florida Regional Planning Council (ECFRPC) and underwent concurrent review.

3. The Hunter's Ridge project as proposed in this proceeding is a proposed

planned unit development located in the unincorporated area of Flagler County

and in the City of Ormond Beach on approximately 5,037 acres.

4. The portion of the Hunter's Ridge project located in the unincorporated

area of Flagler County consists of approximately 3,800 acres, of which 1,940

acres will be preserved as conservation area. The portion to be developed in

the unincorporated area of Flagler County is approximately 1,860 acres,

consisting of 1,702 residential units, plus commercial, recreational, and other

uses.

5. The portion of the Hunter's Ridge project located in the City of Ormond

Beach consists of approximately 1,237 acres, of which 327 acres will be

preserved as conservation area. The portion of the property in Ormond Beach to

be developed is approximately 910 acres, consisting of 982 residential units,

plus commercial, recreational, and other uses. Of the residential units to be

developed in the City of Ormond Beach, 109 residential units were approved by

the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) under a preliminary development

agreement.

6. The Board of County Commissioners of Flagler County held a public

hearing on the DRI/ADA on July 13, 1989, which was continued to October 12,

1989, to November 2, 1989, to January 11, 1990, and to January 25, 1990. On

January 25, 1990, the Board of County Commissioners of Flagler County passed and

adopted a Development Order for the Hunter's Ridge DRI, which Development Order

was recorded in Official Records Book 0423, Page 0669 through 0728, Public

Records of Flagler County, Florida.

7. The City Commission of the City of Ormond Beach held a public hearing

on the DRI/ADA on August 15, 1989, which was continued to September 5, 1989, to

September 19, 1989, to October 3, 1989, to October 17, 1989 and to January 30,

1990.

8. At the public hearing on January 30, 1990, the City of Ormond Beach

adopted Resolution 90-20 denying the DRI/ADA for the portion of the Hunter's

Ridge DRI located in the City of Ormond Beach.

9. The DCA, pursuant to Section 380.07, Florida Statutes, and Rules 42-

2.002 through 42-2.011, Florida Administrative Code, timely filed a Notice of

Appeal and Petition for Administrative Hearing with the Florida Land and Water

Adjudicatory Commission (FLWAC), whereby DCA appealed the Development Order

adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Flagler County.

10. The Applicant, pursuant to Section 380.07, Florida Statutes, and Rules

42-2.002 through 42-2.011, Florida Administrative Code, timely filed a Notice of

Appeal and Petition for Administrative Hearing with FLWAC, whereby the Applicant

appealed the denial of approval by Ormond Beach.

11. This cause came before FLWAC on May 22, 1990, for consideration of the

Appeals and the Petitions for Administrative Hearing; FLWAC ordered that this

matter be forwarded to Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) for assignment

of a hearing officer and further proceedings.

12. At the Administrative Hearing conducted by DOAH, on December 5-7,

1990, the Applicant amended its DRI/ADA to reduce the size of the project and to

reallocate land uses, densities, and other components of the project. The

current scope of the project is reflected in Florida-Georgia Exhibits 1-5, 9,

and 14.

13. As amended by the Applicant, the proposed project now consists of the

following uses in Flagler County: 11.61 acres of Village Retail Office; 5.71

acres of Village Office; 16.68 acres of Light Industrial; 197.18 acres of

Village Services/Recreational; 90.89 acres of Parks and Schools; 64.52 acres of

Multi-Family Residential (with Upland Buffer); 259.34 acres of Wetlands; 146.93

acres of Roads, Drainage, and Retention; 52.90 acres of Lakes; 130.00 acres of

Golf Course; 57.25 acres of Utility Easement; and 130.00 acres of Single Family

Residential. The total number of dwelling units permitted in the County is 220

townhouses and villas and 145 apartments and condominiums.

14. As amended by the Applicant, the proposed project now consists of the

following uses in the City: 192.00 acres of Village Services/Recreational;

30.61 acres of Parks and Schools; 14.51 acres of Multi-Family Residential (with

Upland Buffer); 174.54 acres of Wetlands; 110.95 acres of Roads, Drainage, and

Retention; 28.65 acres of Lakes; 17.32 acres of Utility Easement; and 341.42

acres of Single Family Residential (with Upland Buffer). The total number of

dwelling units permitted in the City are 932 single family units and 50

townhouses and villas.

15. Generally speaking, the portions of the development within the County

which are to be developed are in Township 41 South, Range 31 East, Section 22

and the east half of Section 21; Section 15 and the east half of Section 16,

with the exception of a golf course in Section 15, constitute an area that, if

it is to be developed in the future, will require a substantial deviation

approval from all concerned agencies.

16. Pursuant to stipulation of the Applicant and Flagler County, an area

approximating Section 15 and the east half of Section 16 will be redesignated

under the Flagler County Comprehensive Plan as Agricultural, with a permitted

residential density of not more than one unit per five acres.

17. Pursuant to stipulation, Sections 17 and 20 and the west halves of

Sections 16 and 21, along with most of the portions of Sections 29 and 30 north

of State Road 40, will be deeded to a public or public interest agency, with the

Applicant retaining the right to conduct silviculture with best management

practices except in those wetland areas of the property designated for

conservation.

18. The parties, with the exception of Citizens, have stipulated that

Florida-Georgia Exhibit 5 constitutes the necessary affordable housing

conditions for the project.

19. The affordable housing provisions of the proposed project are

consistent of the requirements of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, Rule 9J-2,

Florida Administrative Code, and the State Comprehensive Plan.

20. The affordable housing conditions adequately address affordable

housing needs of the project consistent with all local government, state, and

regional requirements and regulations.

21. The Applicant, the Florida Audubon Society, Flagler County and the

City of Ormond Beach, have stipulated that the conditions contained in their

Joint Stipulation, filed as Florida-Georgia Exhibit 9 satisfactorily resolve all

issues concerning wetlands, wildlife habitat, and endangered species.

22. The soils on the project will support the proposed development.

23. During review of the DRI/ADA by the RPCs, Volusia County submitted

comments and recommendations to ECFRPC. The comments and recommendations of

Volusia County were considered by ECFRPC when it adopted its recommended

conditions of approval.

24. The conservation area proposed by the Applicant represents a

significant contribution to conservation and wildlife.

25. The proposed Development Orders and Conditions of Approval adequately

address the regional impacts of the project on the environment and natural

resources.

26. The proposed Development Orders and Conditions of Approval include

measures intended to address impacts upon, and to protect, the Little Tomoka

River.

27. The proposed Development Orders and Conditions of Approval provide for

preservation and conservation of wetlands.

28. The proposed Development Orders and Conditions of Approval provide

flexibility for protection of environmentally sensitive areas.

29. The proposed plan of development reflects a development that provides

adequate environmental protection.

30. The proposed project will have no adverse environmental impacts in the

City of Ormond Beach.

31. The proposed Development Orders and Conditions of Approval provide

protection for the Little Tomoka River, preventive measures regarding stormwater

discharge and stormwater treatment, and mitigative, water quality treatment

methods in the surface drainage system, if any degradation is found at a later

date.

32. The proposed Conditions of Approval require that all construction

within the project be protected against flooding.

33. The project has sufficient safeguards to prevent construction within

flood prone areas.

34. Minimum floor elevations for flood plain purposes will be controlled

by FEMA flood plain designations and by local rules and regulations, and will be

established on a case by case basis for the Hunter's Ridge project.

35. The proposed Conditions of Approval addressing transportation impacts

and facilities are consistent with the provisions of Chapter 380, Florida

Statutes, with the provisions of Rule 9J-2, Florida Administrative Code, and

with the State Comprehensive Plan.

36. The proposed Conditions of Approval ensure that the Hunter's Ridge

project will not have an adverse impact on regionally significant roadways,

including State Road 40.

37. The proposed Conditions of Approval will ensure that the regional

highway network will function at the desired level of service during the project

buildout.

38. The proposed Conditions of Approval are consistent with the provisions

of Section 380.06(12), Florida Statutes, relating to transportation impacts.

39. The proposed Conditions of Approval adequately address the

transportation concerns of Flagler County.

40. The proposed Conditions of Approval adequately address the

transportation impacts on the City of Ormond Beach.

41. The proposed Conditions of Approval dealing with public facilities are

consistent with the provisions of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, consistent with

the provisions of Rule 9J-2, Florida Administrative Code, and consistent with

the State Comprehensive Plan.

42. If the conditions for providing public facilities are not met by the

Applicant, development must cease.

43. The proposed Conditions of Approval dealing with public facilities are

consistent with the concurrency requirements of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes.

44. The proposed Development Orders and Conditions of Approval adequately

address the regional impacts of the project on public services and facilities.

45. The proposed plan for development of the Flagler County portion of the

project provides for all required public facilities and services.

46. The Applicant will have to subsidize any deficits in providing public

services.

47. The Applicant has agreed to make contributions intended to assist

Flagler County in providing public services to residents of areas outside of the

Hunter's Ridge project.

48. Solid waste is not an issue in Flagler County.

49. The proposed Conditions of Approval for the Flagler County portion of

the project provide three options for wastewater treatment.

50. The proposed Conditions of Approval for the Flagler County portion of

the project require that the project must stand on its own and must provide

water supply and wastewater treatment without cost to the rest of the residents

of Flagler County.

51. The Flagler County portion of the project requires 1,200 to 1,500

dwelling units to provide a self-contained, self-supporting, self-sufficient

development which will not require subsidy by other Flagler County taxpayers.

52. The good mix of land uses contained in the proposed plan for

development will help the tax base of Flagler County and avoid a deficit during

the buildout of the project prior to construction of 1,200 to 1,500 dwelling

units.

53. The tax base, the values, and the assessments for the proposed project

will provide sufficient funds to support the development.

54. The proposed Conditions of Approval for the Flagler County portion of

the project provide for voluntary contributions by the Applicant in excess of

what is required by local ordinance.

55. The dedication and donation of the golf course and conservation areas

to Flagler County are voluntary contributions by the Applicant.

56. The Ormond Beach portion of Hunter's Ridge project will not require a

separate police patrol zone.

57. The Ormond Beach Police Department can provide acceptable response

times for the portions of the project within the City.

58. The public safety site to be dedicated by the Applicant will benefit

the City and the Police Department and will be helpful in rendering public

safety services to the citizens of Ormond Beach.

59. The Ormond Beach portion of Hunter's Ridge project will provide needed

revenue to provide needed Police Department services.

60. The Ormond Beach Police Department can adequately provide public

safety services for the Hunter's Ridge area and respond to public safety needs

within a reasonable amount of time.

61. The City of Ormond Beach is capable of providing potable water service

to the project.

62. Impact fees generated by the project will be sufficient to fund water

supply and wastewater capital facilities needed to serve the project.

63. The City has adopted the West Ormond Plan to provide utilities to the

Hunter's Ridge project.

64. The Applicant has dedicated to the City a westerly wellfield site

which will be needed for the entire city in the future, even if the Hunter's

Ridge project is not developed.

65. The City of Ormond Beach does not lose money on water and sewer fees.

66. If the homes built in the Ormond Beach portion of the Hunter's Ridge

project approximate the assessed values of existing homes within the city, there

will be no revenue strain on the operating budget of the City of Ormond Beach.

67. The average sale price for homes in the Hunter's Ridge project will be

higher than the current average sale price within the City of Ormond Beach.

68. The Hunter's Ridge project will not place an economic strain on the

City of Ormond Beach.

69. Future growth in the City of Ormond Beach will pay for itself in terms

of capital needs.

70. The fiscal problems of the City of Ormond Beach are not unique, but

are similar to those occurring throughout the state.

71. Increased property values from the Hunter's Ridge project will help

the city's fiscal problems in the long run.

72. The City of Ormond Beach has a great deal of ad valorem capacity to

meet service needs and operating budgets.

73. The Hunter's Ridge DRI will make significantly more contributions to

public services and facilities than traditional subdivisions.

74. The reduced project as proposed for approval in this proceeding

contributes a greater amount of money toward public facilities.

75. The public safety site to be dedicated in the Ormond Beach portion of

the project is adequate to serve the fire fighting needs of the project and the

surrounding areas.

76. The public safety site to be dedicated in the Ormond Beach portion of

the project gives the city flexibility in providing fire fighting services if

the road network connecting the project with Shadow Crossings and Breakaway

Trails is in place and will enable the city to better serve Shadow Crossings and

Breakaway Trails.

77. The roadway network for the Hunter's Ridge project will provide

interconnections with Shadow Crossings and Breakaway Trails for the provision of

police, fire, and emergency services.

78. The Hunter's Ridge project will have no impact on solid waste in the

City of Ormond Beach.

79. The Hunter's Ridge project will have no impact on the vehicular needs

of the City of Ormond Beach Department of Public Works.

80. The Hunter's Ridge project will have no adverse impact on road

maintenance in the City of Ormond Beach.

81. The proposed Hunter's Ridge DRI is consistent with the requirements of

Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, the requirements of Rule 9J-2, Florida

Administrative Code, and the requirements of the State Comprehensive Plan.

82. The Hunter's Ridge DRI meets all regional requirements.

83. The Hunter's Ridge DRI does not represent "leap frog development," nor

does it constitute "urban sprawl."

84. The density of 982 dwelling units for the Ormond Beach portion of the

Hunter's Ridge project is consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan and the

requirements of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes.

85. Reducing the density proposed for the Ormond Beach portion of the

project from 982 residential units to 882 residential dwelling units would not

necessarily be considered an improvement to furthering the plan concept.

86. The Hunter's Ridge DRI is consistent with the plans and policies of

the Regional Planning Councils.

87. As to the portions within Flagler County, the Hunter's Ridge DRI:

a) Is consistent with the provisions of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes;

b) Is beneficial to Flagler County;

c) Is consistent with the Flagler County Comprehensive Plan;

d) Is consistent with the NEFRPC report and recommendations;

e) Is superior to existing zoning;

f) Provides better development and more planning opportunities than non-

DRI approaches to development; and,

g) Provides adequate controls for the development of Hunter's Ridge.

88. The Ormond Beach portion of the project:

a) Is consistent with the provisions of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes;

b) Is consistent with the Ormond Beach Comprehensive Plan and all City

ordinances and regulations;

c) Adequately mitigates against adverse impacts through the Conditions of

the proposed Development Order.

89. To the extent that the opinions of some witnesses, primarily Mr. Grace

and Mr. Shearer, have not been adopted in these Findings of Fact, they are

deemed to be unreliable or lacking in substantial weight or persuasive value.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

90. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction of the

parties to and subject matter of these proceedings. Sections 120.57(1) and

380.07(3), Florida Statutes.

91. In DRI proceedings, the developer or applicant has the burden of

persuasion and the burden of going forward. Young v. Department of Community

Affairs, 567 So.2d 2 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1990).

92. The development of Hunter's Ridge pursuant to the conditions and

stipulations of the parties is consistent with the provisions of Section

380.06(14) and (15), Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-2.025, Florida Administrative

Code. The development will not interfere with the achievement of the objectives

of an adopted state land development plan applicable to the area. The overall

development will be rendered consistent with the local comprehensive plans and

local land development regulations. Further, the development is consistent with

the State Comprehensive Plan.

93. The development orders, as modified by the stipulations and

conditions, adequately describe the development which is being approved,

specifying and describing acreage attributable to each use. These development

orders, subject to the appropriate conditions, are those contained in the Joint

Stipulations between Florida-Georgia and the City of Ormond Beach and Flagler

County. Copies are attached to the original of this Recommended Order for ease

of reference, but are not attached to the copies since all parties already have

copies of same.

94. The development consistent with the referenced development orders

adequately mitigates the adverse impacts of the DRI upon the environmental and

natural resources of the region. The project ensures that the development will

efficiently use and will not unduly burden water, sewer, solid waste disposal,

or other necessary public facilities, including public transportation

facilities. The development will adequately mitigate any adverse impacts of the

DRI upon the ability of people to find adequate housing reasonably accessible to

their places of employment. Further, the Hunter's Ridge development is

consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan and with the State Land Development

Plan. Finally, the development complies with all criteria established by the

Regional Planning Councils having jurisdiction over the project.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is

RECOMMENDED that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission enter a

Final Order and therein:

1. Adopt the development order with conditions as set forth in the Joint

Stipulation of Florida-Georgia Venture Group and the City of Ormond Beach.

2. Adopt the development order with conditions as set forth in the Joint

Stipulation of Florida-Georgia Venture Group and Flagler County.

DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida.

______________________________________

DIANE K. KIESLING

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550

[phone]

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of

Administrative Hearings this 21st

day of March, 1991.

APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER

The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2),

Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in

this case.

Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact

Submitted by Florida-Georgia Venture Group

1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance

as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding

of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1-5(1-5); 12-14(6-8); 16-

19(9-12); 20(18); 22-25(19-22); 27-38(23-34); 40-89(35-83); 91(84); 92(85);

94(86); 97(87(; and 98(88).

2. Proposed findings of fact 26, 39, 90, 93, 95, and 96 are subordinate to

the facts actually found in this Recommended Order.

3. Proposed findings of fact 6-11 and 21 are unnecessary.

4. Proposed finding of fact 15 is irrelevant.

Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact

Submitted by Department of Community Affairs

1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance

as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding

of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 8-12(13-17).

2. Proposed findings of fact 1, 2, and 13-17 are subordinate to the facts

actually found in this Recommended Order.

3. Proposed findings of fact 3-7 are unnecessary.

Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact

Submitted by the City of Ormond Beach

1. Proposed findings of fact 1, 8, 10-17, 21, 33-36, 38-40, 43, 46, and 49

are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order.

2. Proposed findings of fact 2-7, 19, 20, 22, 23, 37, 47, 48, and 50 are

irrelevant.

3. Proposed findings of fact 9, 18, 24-32, 41, 42, 44, 45, 51, and 52 are

unsupported by the credible, competent and substantial evidence.

Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact

Submitted by the Citizens for Ormond Beach

1. Proposed findings of fact 7, 9-11, 13-19, 21-25, 35, 47, and 49-52 are

subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order.

2. Proposed findings of fact 8, 12, 20, 26-32, 34, 42, and 57 are

irrelevant.

3. Proposed findings of fact 33, 36-39, 43-46, 48, and 53-56 are unsupported

by the credible, competent and substantial evidence.

4. Proposed findings of fact 1-6, 40, and 41 are unnecessary.

COPIES FURNISHED:

J. Doyle Tumbleson, Attorney at Law

Kinsey Vincent Pyle Professional

Association

150 South Palmetto Avenue, Box A

Daytona Beach, FL 32114

Fred S. Disselkoen, Jr.

Attorney at Law

City of Ormond Beach

Post Office Box 277

Ormond Beach, FL 32175-0277

Gerald S. Livingston

Attorney at Law

Post Office Box 2151

Orlando, FL 32802

Timothy Keyser, Attorney at Law

Post Office Box 92

Interlachen, FL 32148

Jonathan Hewett

Attorney at Law

Central Florida Legal Services, Inc.

216 South Sixth Street

Palatka, FL 32177

David Russ, Senior Attorney

Julia Johnson, Attorney

Department of Community Affairs

2740 Centerview Drive

Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100

Charles Lee

Senior Vice President

Florida Audubon Society

1101 Audubon Way

Maitland, FL 32751

Linda Loomis Shelley

Attorney at Law

Dixon, Blanton & Shelley

902 North Gadsden Street

Tallahassee, FL 32303

Noah McKinnon

Attorney at Law

595 West Granada Avenue

Ormond Beach, FL 32075

Douglas M. Cook, Director

Planning and Budgeting

Florida Land and Water

Adjudicatory Commission

Executive Office of the Governor

The Capitol, PL-05

Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this Recommended

Order. All agencies allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit

written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit

written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will issue the final

order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions

to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be

filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.