894 F.2d 1497 52 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 239 , 52 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 39,663 William BIGGE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALBERTSONS, INC., Defendant-Appellee. Nos. 88-3468, 88-3721. United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. Feb. 12, 1990. Richard Siwica, Egan, Lev & Siwica, Orlando, Fla., for plaintiff-appellant. Miranda Franks Fitzgerald, Maguire, Voorhis & Wells, P.A., Orlando, Fla., for defendant-appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. ..

This proceeding concerns Lakepointe project, a development of regional impact (DRI) which was approved, with conditions, by Orange County. The developer contests certain of the conditions imposed by the County in its approvals of the DRI and the related rezoning. More specifically, the Petitioner has alleged that the County acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner, and contrary to the essential requirements of law by: eliminating free-standing commercial uses from the project and requiring that all commercial activities be internalized within office buildings and included within the office square footage; imposing a 10,000 square feet per acre limitation on all office development and reducing the total square footage from 805,000 to 756,000 square feet; limiting structures to 35 feet in height; requiring that all office buildings within the project be designed with "residential scale and character"; reducing the residential density and limiting the residential development to single family detached units on the north portion of the project in lieu of the multi-family, attached units proposed by Petitioner; and imposing uplands buffer requirements that reduce the amount of acreage available for development. Petitioner seeks to have the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission enter a modified development order eliminating these conditions. Orange County and the City of Maitland contend that the challenged conditions are reasonable, given the facts and circumstances surrounding the project, and that they are consistent with the requirements of law. Certain ancillary issues raised by the parties were eliminated through rulings of the hearing officer during the proceeding. Petitioner sought to present extensive evidence that the process by which the County arrived at its conditions of approval was improper as it relied unduly on the demands of the City of Maitland whose jurisdictional boundaries abut the project. Petitioner claims that the City and County reached an agreement on the project which was illegal as it did not comply with the provisions of section 163.3171, F.S. Although some evidence was permitted, and the issue is addressed in this recommended order, the issue is deemed irrelevant. As more fully explained in the conclusions of law, the de novo nature of this proceeding cures the procedural defects claimed by Petitioner. For a similar reason, the hearing officer denied a joint motion in limine by Orange County and the City of Maitland that would have precluded Petitioner from presenting any evidence related to conditions to which it did not expressly object at the December 14, 1987, public hearing conducted by the County.Procedural issues moot by de novo scope of hearing. Petitioner entitled to contest all conditions in development order. Conditions amended to delete some limitations

Respondent is found to have a corporate name deceptively similar to that of Petitioner. Recommended that Department of State revoke name registration of Respondent.

The issue in the case is whether the Commercial designation of a five-acre parcel on the Future Land Use Map of the Seminole County comprehensive plan, as amended, complies with the requirements of the Wekiva River Protection Act, Chapter 369, Part III, Florida Statutes (1989).Plan designation of commercial does not necessarily violate Wekiva River Protection Act's restrictions regarding intensity and impact on adjacent preserve.

The issue to be resolved in this proceeding is whether the petition of Debra, Inc., for the establishment of a community development district should be granted or denied. Petitioner contends that it meets all the criteria set out at Section 190.005(1)(c), Florida Statutes, for the formation of such a district and that the Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission should adopt a rule establishing the community development district requested in the petition. Orange County contends that the economic impact statement offered by Petitioner is inadequate to support the adoption of a rule, and that Petitioner has failed to meet the substantive requirements of the statute.Petitioner's economic development plan had an inadequate economic impact statement for issuing the requested rule. Deny petition.