STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
WILLIAM A. BURKE, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 91-0372DRI
) BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ) OF DeSOTO COUNTY, FLORIDA, )
)
Respondent, )
)
and )
) DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS ) and M. LEWIS HALL, JR., M. LEWIS ) HALL, III, DON T. HALL, FRANK D. ) HALL and STEVEN V. HALL, )
)
Intervenors. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, the above-styled matter was heard before the Division of Administrative Hearings by its duly designated Hearing Officer, Daniel M. Kilbride, on August 27-28, 1991, in Arcadia, Florida. The following appearances were entered:
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Charlie Stampelos, Esquire
William Wiley, Esquire MCFARLAIN, STERNSTEIN, WILEY & CASSEDY, P.A.
600 First Florida Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
For Respondent: Gary Vorbeck, Esquire
Fred Bechtold, Esquire VORBECK & VORBECK
207 East Magnolia Avenue Arcadia, Florida 33821
For Intervenor: L. Kathryn Funchess DCA Asst. General Counsel
Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
For Intervenor: M. Lewis Hall, Jr., Esquire Halls HALL & HEDRICK
Republic National Bank Building
150 Southeast Second Avenue Suite 1400
Miami, Florida 33131 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
Whether a proposed development of regional impact (DRI), known as "Countryside Retirement Resort" is consistent with the statutory criteria set forth in Section 380.06(14), Florida Statutes (1989), and is entitled to a development order.
Whether the application for development approval and request for rezoning was properly denied by the DeSoto County Board of Commissioners.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
On or about January 23, 1989, William Burke filed an Application for Development Approval (ADA), for a DRI to be located on a 240 acre site in DeSoto County, Florida. Two sufficiency responses were also submitted. The ADA and sufficiency responses were submitted to the Central Florida Regional Planning Council and other agencies including, but not limited to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), Florida Departments of Transportation (FDOT), Environmental Regulation, and DeSoto County which participated in the ADA review process.
In June 1989, Burke filed a "Request for Rezoning Action" with DeSoto County. The request was made to rezone the site from Agricultural - 5 (A-5) to a Planned Unit Development (PUD).
The request was submitted pursuant to the 1981 Local Comprehensive Plan, Ordinance 81-03, and Zoning Ordinance 81-10. On May 1, 1990, the DeSoto County Zoning and Planning Commission unanimously approved the request for rezoning.
The ADA and sufficiency responses, as well as the Request for Rezoning, were considered by the Board of County Commissioners of DeSoto County (Board or DeSoto County) on June 26 and July 24, 1990, and reconsidered on November 10, 1990. The Board issued a "Final Order Denying Request for Rezoning" and a "Resolution Rendering the Denial of a Development Order under Chapter 380, Florida Statute."
On October 1, 1990, Burke timely filed a Notice of Appeal and Appropriate Petition with the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (FLWAC), which referred the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings for hearing.
Burke and DeSoto County filed separate Prehearing Statements. Burke requested a de novo hearing regarding the factual and legal issues raised by Burke and DeSoto County. Following hearing on the motion, the request was granted. The Halls and Department of Community Affairs (DCA) established they will be substantially affected by these proceedings, and were permitted to intervene.
On the 6th day of March, 1991, Burke filed an Amended Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing, to which DeSoto County filed an Answer and Affirmative Defenses. Burke filed a Reply to the Affirmative Defenses.
On June 4, 1991, a hearing was held on Respondent's Motion to Determine Applicable Comprehensive Plan. It was found that the new DeSoto County Comprehensive Plan adopted April 23, 1991, was relevant and applicable to these proceedings as part of the criteria set forth in Section 380.06(14), Florida Statutes.
At hearing, Burke presented the testimony of seven witnesses: George Stahlman; Richard Bass, AICP, accepted as an expert in land use planning and regulation, transportation planning, and traffic engineering; Lewis Ambler; W.
Marsh; Raymod Quay; and Earl Langfang. Prefiled direct testimony of Richard Bass and Richard Doyle was adopted by each witness, and accepted into evidence. Exhibits 1 through 12, 14 through 23, 25 through 36 were admitted in evidence. Exhibits marked for identification A through J were proffered, but have not been considered.
DeSoto County presented the testimony of five witnesses: Frederick Nutt; Nanette Hall, P.E., accepted as an expert in traffic engineering; Dave Nathe, accepted as an expert in traffic engineering and landfills; Ronald Milburn, accepted as an expert in land use planning; and Robert Duane, accepted as an expert in land use planning. The prefiled direct testimony of Nanette Hall, David Nathe, Ronald Milburn and Robert Duane was adopted and accepted into evidence. Ten exhibits were admitted in evidence, and seven exhibits were proffered, but not admitted.
The Department of Community Affairs presented the testimony of Robert Pennock, who was accepted as an expert in land use planning, and whose prefiled direct testimony was adopted and admitted into evidence.
The Halls presented the testimony of Dr. Richard Hall, and offered no exhibits.
On November 8, 1991, Petitioner filed a Motion for Official Recognition of the "Statement of Intent to Find Comprehensive Plan Not in Compliance" issued by the Department of Community Affairs on September 12, 1991. After review of Respondent's response, filed November 25, 1991, and being fully advised, the motion is GRANTED.
On November 19, 1991, Intervenors Hall filed a Motion for Recognition on the editorial in the Tampa Tribune, dated August 30, 1991. Said motion is DENIED, and the material has not been considered.
The transcript of the hearing was filed on October 9, 1991, and the parties were granted leave until November 8, 1991, to file proposed recommended orders. Each party has timely submitted proposed orders. They have been given careful consideration, and adopted where supported by the preponderance of evidence. My specific rulings on each parties proposed findings of fact are contained in the Appendix attached hereto.
Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined:
FINDINGS OF FACT
Petitioner, William Burke, is the developer of the Countryside Retirement Resort, a proposed development of regional impact, (DRI), located in DeSoto County, Florida.
Sunrise Farms, a Florida general partnership, is the owner in fee simple of the site, but is not a party in this matter.
Respondent, DeSoto County Board of County Commissioners, is a local government with jurisdiction over the proposed project site. It is responsible for the administration of the DeSoto County Comprehensive Plan, land development regulations, and zoning code.
On August, 15, 1990, after a duly-noticed public hearing, the Board of Commissioners of DeSoto County denied Burke's Application for Development Approval and Request for Rezoning.
On April 23, 1991, the Board of Commissioners of DeSoto County, pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (1989), and the rules promulgated thereunder, adopted its current comprehensive plan.
Intervenor, Department of Community Affairs, is the state land planning agency with the power and duty to enforce and administer Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. The Department is also authorized to appeal DRI development orders issued by local governments pursuant to Section 380.07, Florida Statutes, and has demonstrated a substantial interest in the outcome of this proceeding.
Intervenors, M. Lewis Hall, Jr., M. Lewis Hall, III, Don T. Hall, Frank
D. Hall and Steven V. Hall, are landowners near the subject site, and are substantially effected persons.
The proposed site of the project is located on Highway 31, approximately ten miles from the City of Arcadia, at the SW 1/4 and W 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of Section 1, Township 39 South, Range 25 East, DeSoto County Florida
The project has been named Countryside Retirement Resort (Countryside), and is a proposed PUD intended as an Adult Residential Community which is designed to contain, at build-out, a maximum of 1440 park model residential homesites and 60 transient RV spaces on approximately 239.71 acres.
The 1440 permanent park model resort homes are to be offered as a "turn-key" package to insure architectural control and adherence to project design. Park model homes are prefab, factory-built units, which are not susceptible to being moved again. The units in each phase will have a single bedroom, and the estimated price for all phases is $55,000, including the lot and lot preparation.
Gross density for the project is 6.0 and 6.25 units per acre, based upon 1440 (park model homes) and 1500 (including 60 RV spaces) units, respectively.
The development is privately funded and includes all streets, utility systems, public safety services, community buildings, recreational facilities, and general community amenities.
The project area is currently zoned A-5 or improved pasture agricultural, with one dwelling unit per five acres permitted. To the north, the property is zoned A-10, citrus grove agricultural. To the south, the property is zoned improved pasture-agricultural, A-5.
The Petitioner proposes to dedicate the 40 feet along the South side of the property to DeSoto County for street purposes. Adjacent to the public dedication will be a 40 foot project buffer for fencing, landscaping, and stormwater containment.
The main entrance is to be located at State Road 31, approximately 1,000 feet North of Pine Island Street. Turn lanes are to be provided to minimize any potential detriment to the flow of traffic on the state roadway.
As requested by County staff, forty feet of additional right-of-way has been set aside for the future widening of Pine Island Street. In addition to the 40 foot right-of-way for Pine Island Street (approximately 3.66 acres), access and improvements at all intersecting streets will be made. The additional traffic, sewer and potable water impacts will be provided for by the developer. A secondary access from Pine Island Street runs east from SR 31 approximately two miles, and dead ends at the Hall Ranch.
The adjoining 40 foot buffer strip features, in addition to security fencing, a perimeter drainage swale and earthen mounds with landscaping that will screen the community from the public roadway. The buffer strip is not intended for future road purposes. The 40 foot buffer will be placed around the perimeter of the site. The buffer will consist of earthen berms and landscaping to protect the community from the outside, and the outside from the community, to make it as self-supporting and self-contained as possible.
A 6.5 acre tract in the southwestern corner of the site has been reserved to provide for the commercial institutional needs of the residential community. Anticipated commercial uses include a general store (providing food, hardware, and dry goods), personal service shops, professional office space, and a motel (58 units) with a restaurant. Institutional uses include an arts and crafts building, a volunteer fire station equipped with a "quick response" vehicle, and office space for use by the sheriff's office, a second floor residence apartment for the community manager, the project's water treatment plant, and a helipad for emergency medical services.
A general utility area, including maintenance building, the wastewater treatment plant, and a dry storage area for boats and RV's will be located in the Southeast corner of the property, buffered from adjoining properties and from the internal community. The project will also feature an 18 hole executive golf course with a pro shop and aquatic driving range, a multi-use clubhouse, four lighted tennis courts, six neighborhood swimming pools, and a series of mini-parks.
The Petitioner's intent is to design the resort to function as a relatively self-contained and readily identifiable neighborhood of the County.
The project calls for an on-site sewage treatment plant with tertiary filtration attached to the plant. At build-out, the plans call for the plant to treat approximately 315,000 gallons of sewage per day.
A total of 8.99 acres of both man-made and natural wetlands were identified on the site. The project complies with applicable regulations with respect to preservation of wetlands. Approximately 27.75 acres of wetlands are to be created, and approximately 22.95 acres of proposed lakes will exist at completion.
The project conforms with applicable regulations with respect to water use. The project's drinking and irrigation water will be served from on-site wells. An on-site water treatment plant will also be built.
Adequate provisions are made for hurricane shelters and evacuations measures.
The project conforms with applicable regulations with respect to air emissions.
The project conforms with applicable regulations with respect to vegetation and wildlife. The entire site is cleared of natural vegetation and managed as improved pasture. The project site as well as adjoining land is not unique agricultural land. The project will not significantly deplete the agricultural community adjacent to the project or in the general neighborhood. Estimates from 1982 indicate that 236,722 total acres of pasture exist in DeSoto County. Removal of the project site from cattle production represents a total of .097% of the total pasture acreage in the County.
Approximately 96% (230 acres) of the existing site is improved pasture land for cattle grazing while 6.9 acres or less than 3% of the project's site covers wet prairie.
No natural wildlife corridors exist between the subject parcel and any surrounding natural lands.
There are no significant historical or archeological sites or corridors considered likely to be present within the project area.
Approval of the project would add to the tax revenue base of DeSoto County.
The DeSoto County landfill is designed to meet the needs of the County until the year 2000 based on its projected increase of population. The proposed project at buildout, prior to the year 2000, falls below the projected increases of population. The projected increase in population by the year 2000 ranges from 4300 to 5800 with the proposed project generating a theoretical maximum increase in population of 3,000 persons if all units were occupied on a year round basis. The landfill will have adequate capacity to meet the demand from the project.
No unusual or industrial or hazardous wastes will originate on-site.
A 1.75 acre site has been reserved for the sewage treatment plant in the Southeast corner of the subject property. Sludge is scheduled to be disposed of by a licensed hauler.
A tertiary wastewater treatment plant is to be provided in all phases of development. The wastewater is to be filtered and highly disinfected to provide treatment effluent for irrigation purposes. The plant will be situated on approximately 3/4 of an acre including surrounding open space and buffer areas.
The utility site is of sufficient size to provide treatment of waste water for the entire development.
All on-site facilities (collection treatment) are to be operated and maintained by the homeowner's association in accordance with the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation operating permits.
On-site treatment and disposal facilities are being proposed that will be capable of serving the entire development.
The proposed drainage system for the project is consistent with applicable regulations.
The water supply system proposed for the development complies with applicable regulations.
Florida Power and Light Company has sufficient capacity to provide electrical service to the project.
While the project will contribute property taxes to the educational system, the development will not have a negative impact on the DeSoto County District School System, since this project will be an adult community, and no school-age children are contemplated.
94.18 acres, or almost 40% of the development site, are to be devoted to recreation uses and open space.
A helipad will be constructed to enhance MedVac emergency services to the project and the surrounding area.
DeSoto Memorial Hospital is licensed for 82 beds, and provides emergency services. DeSoto Memorial Hospital is a community not-for-profit facility, serving the DeSoto County area and located in Arcadia, Florida. Health Care and medical services are available at the Hospital and the Arcadia area to meet the needs of the Countryside residents.
The county operated ambulance (EMS and ALS certified) offers 15 to 20 minute response time from its headquarters station on State Road 70, a distance of 7 miles, via SR 31.
Fire protection services for the project are to be provided by the public safety department of DeSoto County. The nearest fire station is located at State Road 70 and Airport Road about seven miles north of the property. Under normal traffic conditions, response time is estimated to be approximately
10 to 12 minutes.
The county's fire protection services are to be enhanced by the construction of an auxiliary fire station on-site.
The Petitioner proposes to develop a volunteer fire department from among the residents of the project with emphasis on fire, emergency medical, quick response fire truck and a building for sheltering in the event of a disaster or potential emergency (portable electric, water, restrooms, kitchen and proper square footage to accommodate the residents of the development) would serve as a benefit to the County on SR 31.
On April 23, 1991, the Board of County Commissioners for DeSoto County adopted Ordinance 91-03, a new comprehensive plan for the County. Included are goals, objectives and policies in the Future Land Use Element of the Plan.
The Future Land Use Element, Goal L. Objective L2 of the DeSoto County Comprehensive Plan, provides that:
Development orders and/or permits for future development and redevelopment activities shall be issued only if public facilities necessary to meet level of service standards, adopted as part of the Capital Improvements Element of this Plan, are available concurrent with the impacts of development.
The Future Land Use Element, Policy L2.5 of the DeSoto County Comprehensive Plan, provides that:
No local development order or permit will be issued unless the County determines that the appropriate level of service standards can be met for: drainage; potable water; recreation and open space; solid waste disposal; traffic circulation; and waste water treatment.
Traffic Circulation Element, Goal T of the DeSoto Comprehensive Plan, provides that the goal of the traffic element of the Plan will be to "provide for a safe, efficient and economical traffic circulation system."
To implement Goal T, Objective T1 provides that, "DeSoto County shall provide a safe and efficient transportation system, and shall establish minimum criteria and standards to ensure the effective functioning of all public roadways within its jurisdiction."
The proposed development site accesses State Road 31, a north/south, two-lane minor arterial roadway connecting the City of Arcadia with the City of Fort Myers. SR 31 is currently at a Level of Service (LOS) of B, or better. The DeSoto County Comprehensive Plan, Policy T1.1, has established a peak season/peak hour level of service standard of D or better for SR 31. The Five- Year Schedule of Capital Improvements in the DeSoto County Comprehensive Plan does not provide for the improvement of SR 31.
The average daily traffic maximum volumes established by the Department of Transportation for a LOS D on a minor arterial, such as State Road 31, is 15,000 trips per day.
Four separate traffic studies were performed regarding the potential impacts of the proposed development on State Road 31. The first two studies were performed by Mr. Gordon Meyers of Ink Engineering, Inc., the third by Mr. Richard Doyle of Tampa Bay Engineering, Inc., and the fourth by Ms. Nanette Hall of Florida Transportation Engineering, Inc.
The study area included segments of SR 31 and the intersection of SR
31 and SR 70, as well as, SR 31 and SR 760-A.
SR 70 runs east-west and expands from a two lane roadway to a four lane major arterial at the intersection of SR 70 and SR 31.
CR 760-A is a two-lane rural major collector extending westerly from SR 31, just north of the G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital, to US 17, which provides access to the Punta Gorda area and Interstate 75.
The Department of Transportation has three traffic counting stations on State Road 31 from which reliable traffic data has been collected since 1984. The location of these traffic counting stations are as follows: Station #26, is located just south of the intersection between State Road 31 and State Road 70; Station #4, is located approximately halfway between the site of the proposed development and State Road 70, north of the intersection between State Road 31
and County Road 760A; Station #31, is located south of the intersection between State Road 31 and County Road 760A, and north of the proposed site of the proposed development. All four studies made projections as to the anticipated increase in traffic volume at these stations should the proposed development be approved.
The four traffic studies obtained the following projections for the anticipated traffic volumes and corresponding LOS's that would exist at the traffic counting stations upon build out of the proposed development summarized in the table below:
LOCATION FIRST STUDY SECOND STUDY THIRD STUDY FOURTH STUDY (MEYER) (MEYER) (DOYLE) (HALL)
Station #31 12,474/LOS D 7,610/LOS C 12,474/LOS D 13,466/LOS D Station #4 13,557/LOS D 9,250/LOS C 10,080/LOS D 15,384/LOS E Station #26 15,172/LOS E 9,380/LOS C 10,341/LOS D 17,111/LOS E
Of the four traffic studies performed, the projections of the fourth (Hall) study were the most reliable. It was the only study to use historic data available on State Road 31 in the Calculation of a growth rate for background traffic volume, and did not suffer from the methodological flaws that existed in the other studies.
The fourth (Hall) traffic study indicated that the proposed development at build out would cause large sections of State Road 31 to exceed its level of service established by the DeSoto County Comprehensive Plan, and reduce the level of service below D.
The fourth (Hall) study also projected the traffic impacts of the proposed development if developed in two phases, the results (expressed in average daily traffic and peak hour/peak season impacts) of which are summarized in the table below:
LOCATION PEAK HOUR/PEAK SEASON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
PHASE I PHASE II PHASE I PHASE II Station #31 892/LOS C 1,394/LOS D 9,062/LOS C 13,466/LOS D Station #4 1,033/LOS D 1,544/LOS E 10,732/LOS D 15,384/LOS E Station #26 1,183/LOS D 10,341/LOS D 12,397/LOS D 17,111/LOS E
Countryside has never requested phased approval for the project.
The fourth (Hall) traffic study indicated that even if approval were given for "Phase I" alone, a major portion of the LOS D capacity of the roadway (approximately 80% to 85% of the capacity) would be used up, reducing the possibilities for further development of those sections of State Road 31 between the proposed development and State Road 70.
The proposed development will not meet the appropriate level of service for traffic circulation.
Land Use Element Policy L6.8 of the DeSoto County Comprehensive Plan provides that:
Residential development in a Rural/Agricultural area shall not exceed a maximum density of one dwelling unit per ten gross acres.
In a Rural/Agricultural area, the lowest order of commercial goods and services which serve the daily needs of nearby residents may be permitted only on arterial or collector roadways. Commercial areas in a Rural/ Agricultural area shall be appropriately buffered, shall not exceed 3 acres in size,
shall not exceed impervious surface lot coverage of 70 per cent, and shall be no less than 2 miles from other commercial development in a
Rural/Agricultural area or in other future land use categories.
Industrial uses within a Rural/Agricultural area may be permitted only when such activity is related to the extraction or processing of minerals; or when related to agriculture; or
is of a scale and nature that would not be acceptable in Town Center. Other industrial uses, such a power plants or manufactured or processing facilities may be permitted, and shall have access to a collector or arterial roadway, shall meet all local regulations, and shall be appropriately buffered from surrounding land uses, including agricultural uses.
Within a Rural/Agricultural area, the approval of residential development shall acknowledge that the protection of agricultural
lands is a primary function of a Rural/Agricultural area, and that land management activities associated with agricultural uses may be incompatible with residential development.
However, such management activities are considered to be an essential element of the protection of successful operations on agricultural lands and the continuation of such activities shall take precedence.
Future Land Use Element, Goal L. - Objective L3 of the DeSoto County Comprehensive Plan, provides that "DeSoto County shall promote compatible future land use patterns."
The current DeSoto County Comprehensive Plant, Future Land and Use Element, Objective L6, provides:
Objective L6: As a part of this plan, DeSoto County's Future Land Use Map series shall be applied only in conjunction with the policies of this element and other elements of the DeSoto County Comprehensive Plan, and shall generally illustrate and coordinate the appropriate distribution of residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, preservation, public and utility facility land uses to effectively
manage the projected population growth of the County.
The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and the Plan's policies are used to effectively manage the projected population growth of the County. The Countryside project is not depicted, in terms of an appropriate land use category, on the FLUM.
The Future Land Use Map indicates that the project site is located in an R/A (Rural/Agricultural) land use designation with a maximum allowable density of one residential unit per ten acres. The density of the proposed project is in excess of six dwelling units per acre.
The 1991 DeSoto Comprehensive Plan, data and analysis section, indicates that there are 2,765 approved, unconstructed recreational vehicle (RV) sites in nine undeveloped, but approved RV parks, covering 448 acres. The Plan indicates that these approved RV sites will meet the anticipate need through the year 2000.
The 1991 Plan estimates that 427 seasonal residents (usually retirees), will be added to the seasonal population of the County between 1990- 2000. Based on two persons per dwelling unit and six dwelling units per acre, only 214 units of new RV residential development will be needed between 1990 and 2000.
The existing approved, but unconstructed RV sites, exceed the projected need almost thirteen times. The proposed DRI would add an additional 1500 units, resulting in 4,051 more units than the projected need.
Policy L3.3 of the DeSoto County Comprehensive Plan provides that:
Land uses which are potentially incompatible either due to type of use or intensity of use, shall be buffered from one another through the provision of open space, landscaping, berms, alternative site design or other suitable means. Land development regulations shall establish criteria for appropriate buffering between adjacent land uses.
Policy L3.4 of the DeSoto County Comprehensive Plan provides that, "where the application of such measures as identified in Policy L3.3 cannot mitigate the incompatibility between proposed and existing land uses, the proposed land use shall be disapproved."
The proposed development is not functionally related to the surrounding agricultural activities and numerous incompatibilities between the land uses shall arise as adjacent landowners conduct agricultural activities such as application of pesticides and fertilizers and other activities which produce smells, sprays, dust, noises and other externalities incompatible with residential use. The incompatibility of this project with existing land uses cannot be eliminated under the proposed buffers of berms, landscaping, and fencing proposed in the ADA.
To implement Goal L. Objective L4 of the DeSoto County Comprehensive Plan, Policy L4.1 provides that:
The DeSoto County Comprehensive Plan and implementing land development regulations, to be adopted by August 1, 1991, shall include provisions that permit or require a variety of land development techniques that discourage sprawl while protecting natural resources including:
Establishment of mixed use future land use categories in the DeSoto County Comprehensive Plan to provide residential, commercial and employment opportunities in close proximity;
Clustering of development to protect natural resources, open space and agricultural uses, provide for access management to arterial or collector roadways, provide for appropriate buffering, and make efficient use of public facilities and services;
Establishment of guidelines or incentives to encourage infill development in the Town Center, Mixed Use Corridor and Suburban Residential areas, which may include . . .
There is a clear intent in the DeSoto County Comprehensive Plan to discourage urban sprawl. "Urban sprawl" is defined in the plan as "scattered, untimely, poorly planned urban development that occurs in urban fringe and rural areas and frequently invades lands important for environmental, agricultural and natural resource protection. Urban sprawl typically manifests itself in one or more of the following ways: 1) leapfrog development; 2) ribbon or strip development; and 3) large expanses of low-density, single-dimensional development."
The proposed development is an example of the leapfrog development type of urban sprawl. It provides for residential development far beyond the projected needs of the surrounding area. It is located far from the nearest urban centers and is surrounded by rural land uses. The proposed development would create an urban level of density and intensity of use within a rural area. It is not a well balanced mixed use development. It is not compatible with, nor functionally related to, the surrounding uses, and is designed to be cutoff and separated from those uses.
The proposed development cannot be considered a "rural village." It does not support surrounding agricultural activities, but is, in fact, incompatible with surrounding land uses.
Because of its location and lack of multiple uses, this development will encourage lengthy commuting, contrary to the policies of the state comprehensive plan to continue to reduce per capita energy consumption, Section 187.201(12), Florida Statutes.
The proposed project is not an efficient development because of its location away from existing facilities and services, shopping and employment, contrary to the policies of the state comprehensive plan to encourage efficient development and direct development toward areas which will have the capacity to service new population and commerce, Section 187.201(21), Florida Statutes.
The State Comprehensive Plan, Section 18, "Public Facilities," provides that Florida shall protect the substantial investments in existing public facilities. This project conflicts with this policy, as investments in existing public facilities are best protected by directing growth to nearby locations to efficiently use those facilities, Section 187.201(18), Florida Statutes.
The proposed project also conflicts with the state comprehensive plan policy related to governmental efficiency, which encourages the replacement of
small scale economically inefficient local public facilities with more economical regional facilities. The project proposes to establish small facilities, rather than efficiently utilize larger facilities, Section 187.201(21), Florida Statutes.
Section 380.08(3), Florida Statutes provides:
(3) If any governmental agency denies a development permit under this chapter, it shall specify its reasons in writing and indicate in writing any changes in the development proposal that would make it eligible to receive the permit.
The Board of Commissioners, in issuing its denial of the Countryside Retirement Resort specified its reasons for denial and identified changes which would make it eligible for approval as follows:
The proposed development known as "Countryside Retirement Resort" is not consistent with the DeSoto County Comprehensive Plan, nor the DeSoto County Land Use Regulations.
The proposed development does not make adequate provision for public facilities needed to accommodate the impact of the proposed development.
There are no known changes that would make the proposed development eligible to receive approval due to the inappropriateness of the requested zoning.
The DeSoto County Zoning Ordinance, Section 14.5(a), provides that among factors to be considered in a rezoning is "whether the proposed change would be contrary, and would have an adverse effect on the Comprehensive Plan."
The DeSoto County Zoning Ordinance, Section 14.5(b), provides that among the factors to be considered in a rezoning is "the existing land use pattern." The existing land use pattern in the area is agricultural. The proposed development would create a medium density residential enclave within the existing land use pattern of agricultural use.
The DeSoto County Zoning Ordinance, Section 14.5(c), provides that among the factors to be considered in a rezoning is "the possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts." The proposed development would be an isolated district of high intensity residential land use surrounded by agricultural and low intensity residential land uses.
The DeSoto County Zoning Ordinance, Section 14.5(d), provides that among the factors to be considered in a rezoning is "the population such as schools, utilities, street, etc." The existing allowable density in this area of DeSoto County is 1 unit per 10 acres. The proposed development would increase this to 6 units per acre. Response time for police, fire, and rescue services would be poor if provided by existing facilities and personnel. Persons needing essential services that could only be provided in the City of Arcadia would have at least a twenty minute round trip. The County would experience a greater burden in providing services to the proposed development than it would if the development were located closer to the City of Arcadia.
The DeSoto County Zoning Ordinance, Section 14.5(f), provides that among the factors to be considered in a rezoning is "whether changed or changing
conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary." There are no changed or changing conditions in the area which would make it necessary to amend the zoning or the Comprehensive Plant.
The DeSoto County Zoning Ordinance, Section 14.5(g), provides that among the factors to be considered in a rezoning is "whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions of the neighborhood." The proposed development would create a high density residential development, urban type land use in an area of DeSoto County which heretofore enjoyed a rural character.
The DeSoto County Zoning Ordinance, Section 14.5(h), provides that among the factors to be considered in a rezoning is "whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or otherwise affect public safety." The proposed development would create traffic congestion, and would adversely affect public safety.
The DeSoto County Zoning Ordinance, Section 14.5(l), provides that among the factors to be considered in a rezoning is "whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations." The proposed development would have an adverse impact on adjacent properties as property owners attempt to develop their properties. This development would drastically reduce the reserve capacity of State Road 31, and adjacent property owners would find it increasingly difficult and expensive to meet the Levels of Service required by the Comprehensive Plan.
The DeSoto County Zoning Ordinance, Section 14.5(m), provides that among the factors to be considered in a rezoning is "whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of a special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare." The proposed development would not constitute the grant of a special privilege if approved, since the developer is seeking approval of a PUD.
The DeSoto County Zoning Ordinance, Section 14.5(n), provides that among the factors to be considered in a rezoning is "whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning." There is no reason why the property on which the proposed development is to be located could not be used for what it zones, agricultural usage.
The DeSoto County Zoning Ordinance, Section 14.5(o), provides that among the factors to be considered in a rezoning is "whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County."
The proposed development is out of the scale with the needs of the County and the immediate neighborhood. The neighborhood is designated at a maximum density of 1 unit per 10 acres. This development would be at a density of 6 units per acre.
The DeSoto County Zoning Ordinance, Section 14.5(p), provides that among the factors to be considered in a rezoning is "whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed uses in districts already permitting such use." There was no showing that other sites in DeSoto County could not be developed at this time.
The DeSoto County Zoning Ordinance, Section 9.3, Planned Unit Development Districts (PUD), provides in part that it is the intent of the PUD Ordinance "to provide an optional alternative zoning procedure so that planned developments may be instituted at appropriate locations in the County in accord
with the planning and development objectives of the County." The proposed development is not in an appropriate location, nor is it in accord with the planning and development objectives of the County.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this proceeding pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
Countryside Retirement Resort is a development of regional impact (DRI), and required to undergo DRI review prior to the initiation of any development activity pursuant to the provisions of Section 380.06(6), Florida Statutes. Local and regional review have been completed, and the Petitioner's request for a development order has been denied. Petitioner timely appealed that decision to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (FLWAC) pursuant to the provision of Section 380.07, Florida Statutes (1989).
Although Section 380.07(2)(3), Florida Statutes, terms this proceeding an "appeal", and encourages "submission of appeals on the record made below" before the local government, it is not such a proceeding. It is in fact a de novo adjudicatory hearing, held pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. (Section 380.07(3), Florida Statutes). Pursuant to the provisions of 380, review of the ADA and the petition for rezoning has been shifted to FLWAC, and is an application to a higher authority for a development order. Manatee County v. Estech General Chemicals Corporation, 402 So.2d 1251, 1253 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981), Young v. Department of Community Affairs, 567 So.2d 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).
The burden of proof and the ultimate burden of persuasion is on the Petitioner to show his entitlement to the development order he seeks. Young v. Department of Community Affairs, 567 So.2d 2, 3 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1990).
Respondent, Board of County Commissioners, in its proposed order, proposes that the proper standard for review for this tribunal of the criteria set forth in Section 380.06(14)(b), is the "strict scrutiny" standard adopted by the Third District Court of Appeal in Machado v. Musgrove, 519 So.2d 629 at 632 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1987), re. den. 529 So.2d 694 (Fla. 1988), and other cases cited therein consistent with the local government comprehensive plan,. However, Petitioner is mistaken. The standard of review adopted by the Third District applies to the appellate court, if this matter is appealed, pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. The correct standard of review for the finder-of-fact is the greater weight of evidence. Cf. Coscan Florida, Inc., v. Metropolitan Dade County, 586 So.2d 80 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
The criteria for evaluation of a DRI is set forth in Section 380.06(14), Florida Statutes, as follows:
(14) CRITERIA OUTSIDE AREAS OF CRITICAL STATE CONCERN. - If the development is not located in an area of critical state concern, in considering whether the development shall be
approved, denied, approved subject to conditions, restrictions or limitations, the local government shall consider whether, and the extent to which:
The development unreasonably interferes with the achievement of the objectives of an adopted
state land development plan applicable to the area;
The development is consistent with the local comprehensive plan and local land development regulations; and
The development is consistent with the report and recommendations of the regional planning agency submitted pursuant to subsection (12).
The development is consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan. In consistency determinations the plan shall be construed and applied in accordance with s. 187.101(3).
Section 380.06(14), Florida Statutes, must be read together with Section 163.3194(1)(a), Florida Statutes, which provides that:
After a comprehensive plan, or element, or portion thereof, has been adopted in conformity with this act, all development undertaken by, and all actions taken in regard to development orders by, governmental agencies in regard to land covered by such plan or element shall be consistent with such plan or element as adopted.
The term of "consistency" is defined in Section 163.3194(3)(a), Florida Statutes, which provides that:
A development order or land regulation shall be consistent with the comprehensive plan if the land uses, densities or intensities, and other aspects of development permitted by such order or regulation are compatible with and further the objectives, policies, land uses, and densities or intensities in the comprehensive plan, and if it meets all other criteria enumerated by the local government.
In his concurring opinion in City of Cape Canaveral v. Mosher, 467 So.2d 468 at 471 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), Judge Cowart gave the term consistency a working definition which squares with the statute:
The Word "consistent" implies the idea or existence of some type or form of model, standard, guideline, point, mark or measure as a norm and a comparison of items or actions against that norm. Consistency is the fundamental relation between the norm and the compared item. If the compared item is in accordance with, or in agreement with, or
within the parameters specified, or exemplified, by the norm, it is "consistent" with it, but if the compared item deviates or departs in any direction or degree from the parameter of the norm, the compared item or action is not "consistent" with the norm.
The proposed DRI is inconsistent with the DeSoto County Comprehensive Plan, in that it encourages urban sprawl. It is inconsistent with surrounding land uses, and is an intrusion of an urban use in a rural area. It allows for the development of residential units which far exceed the projected need. It is inconsistent with the policies which seek to provide an adequate level of service for traffic circulation on State Road 31.
The proposed DRI is inconsistent with State Comprehensive Plan, because its location will promote lengthy commuting, thereby increasing energy consumption; it does not utilize existing public facilities; it will reduce land area currently used for agriculture; and does not provide the full range of services to accommodate growth in an environmentally acceptable manner.
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 380.08(3), Florida Statutes, the DeSoto County Board of Commissioners properly specified its reasons for denial in writing and indicated that no changes to this development proposal would make it eligible to receive a permit. See: Coscan, Fla., Inc. v. Metropolitan Dade County, 586 So.2d 80,83 (Fla. 3rd. DCA 1991).
Pursuant to the criteria set forth in Machado v. Musgrove, 519 So.2d 629 at 632 (Fla. 1st. DCA 1987), the request for rezoning for Countryside Retirement Resort, a development of regional impact, was properly denied by the DeSoto County Board of Commissioners.
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is therefore,
RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission denying of the application for development approval of Petitioner, and upholding the decision of the DeSoto County Board of County Commissioners to deny the request for rezoning for the Countryside Retirement Resort.
DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
DANIEL M. KILBRIDE
Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
(904)488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of January, 1992.
APPENDIX
The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties.
Petitioner's proposed findings of fact. Accepted in substance:
paragraphs - 1(in part),2,3,6(in part),7(in part),16,17,18,19,20(in
part),21,22(in part),23,24,26,27(in part),28,29(in part),30, 31,32,33,36(in part),37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,46(in part),49 (in part),50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61 (in part),62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69 (in
part),71,72 (in part),73,74,75(in part),76,81,92,95(in part),96(in part),98,99,100,101,105,106(in part),108,109(in part),112(in part)
Rejected as against the greater weight of evidence: paragraphs - 4,5,6(in part),(in part),8,15,47,48,72(in
part),77,78,79,80,82,83,84,88,89,102,104,106(in part),107,109(in
part),110,111,112(in part),113,114
Rejected as irrelevant, immaterial, or subsumed:
paragraphs - 9,10,11,12,13,14,20(inpart),22(in part),25,27(in part),29(in part),34,35,36(in part),45,46(in part),49(in part),61(in part),69(in part),70,73,75(in part),85,86,87,90,91,97,103
Rejected as argument or conclusions of law:
paragraphs - 93,94,95(in part),96(in part) Respondent's proposed findings of fact.
Accepted in substance:
paragraphs - 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18 (in part),19(in part),26,27,28,29,30,32(in part),36,37,38,39,40, 41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70
,71,72,74,75,76(in part),77(in part),78,79,80,81, 82,84,85,86,87
Rejected as against the greater weight of evidence: paragraph - 83
Rejected as irrelevant, immaterial, or subsumed:
paragraphs - 18(in part),19(in part),20,21,22,23,24,25,37 (in part),55(in part),56(in part),57(in part),73
Rejected as argument or conclusions of law:
paragraphs - 14,31,32(in part),33,34,35,55(in part),56(in part),57(in part),76(in part),77(in part)
Intervenor Department of Community Affairs' proposed findings of fact Accepted in substance:
paragraphs - 1,2,3,4,5,6,7(in part),8,9,10,11,12,13,15,16,17,18,19,20,21(in
part),22(in part),23(in part),24,25,26,27,28,29
Rejected as against the greater weight of evidence: paragraphs - 7(in part)
Rejected as argument or conclusion of law:
paragraphs - 14,21(in part),22(in part),23(in part) Intervenors Halls' proposed findings of fact.
Intervenors Halls did not submit separate proposed findings, but adopted the proposals submitted by the Respondent.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Charlie Stampelos, Esquire William Wiley, Esquire MCFARLAIN, STERNSTEIN, WILEY & CASSEDY, P.A.
600 First Florida Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Gary Vorbeck, Esquire Fred Bechtold, Esquire VORBEC, & VORBECK
207 East Magnolia Avenue Arcadia, Florida 33821
Kathryn Funchess Asst. General Counsel
Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Lewis Hall, Jr., Esquire HALL & HEDRICK
Republic National Bank Building
150 Southeast Second Avenue Suite 1400
Miami, Florida 33131
William E. Sadowski Secretary
Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
G. Steven Pfeiffer, Esquire General Counsel, Dept. of Community Affairs
2740 Centerview Drive
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Douglas M. Cook, Director Planning & Budgeting
Exec. Office of the Governor The Capitol, PL-05
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to the 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 consult with the agency that will issue the final order in this case concerning their 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.
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| May 07, 1992 | Letter to DMK from M. Lewis Hall, Jr. (re: expressing thanks for favorable decision recommending approval of the decision of the Board of County Commissioners) filed. |
| Mar. 20, 1992 | (Respondent/Intervenors) Notice of Adoption of Desoto County's Response filed. |
| Jan. 27, 1992 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 8/27-28/91. |
| Nov. 25, 1991 | Respondent Desoto County's Response to Petitioner's Motion For Official Recognition filed. |
| Nov. 19, 1991 | (Respondent/Intervenors) Motion for Official Recognition; Notice of Adoption of Proposed Order of Respondent, Board of County Commissioners of Desoto County, Florida filed. |
| Nov. 08, 1991 | (Petitioner) Motion for Official Recognition; Closing Argument on Behalf of William A. Burke; Proposed Recommended filed. |
| Nov. 08, 1991 | Respondent's Memorandum of Law Regarding The Applicable Standard of Review For Plan Consistency filed. |
| Nov. 08, 1991 | Respondent`s Notice of Filing Proposed Recommended Order, Closing Argument and Memorandum of Law Regarding The Applicable Standard of Review For Plan Consistency; Proposed Recommended Order of Respondent Board of County Commissioners of Desoto County, Fl |
| Nov. 07, 1991 | Department of Community Affairs' Proposed Recommended Order filed. |
| Oct. 17, 1991 | Memorandum to All Counsel of Record from Charles Stampelos (re: filing PRO etc) filed. |
| Oct. 09, 1991 | Transcript (Vols 1&2) filed. |
| Sep. 05, 1991 | Subpoena Duces Tecum w/Return of Service (6) filed. (From William Wiley) |
| Aug. 27, 1991 | Final Hearing Held Aug. 27-28, 1991; for applicable time frames, refer to CASE STATUS form stapled on right side of Clerk's Office case file. |
| Aug. 27, 1991 | Respondents Request for Oral Argument filed. |
| Aug. 26, 1991 | (Intervenors) Amended Prehearing Statement filed. |
| Aug. 26, 1991 | Respondent's Motion to Exclude Testimony of Petitioner's Witnesses filed. |
| Aug. 23, 1991 | (Petitioner) Motion to Exclude Witness filed. (From William B. Wiley) |
| Aug. 23, 1991 | (Respondents) Motion to Determine Applicable Standard of Review For Plan Consistency of Proposed Development and Supporting Memorandum filed.(From Frederick A. Bechtold) |
| Aug. 22, 1991 | Order (Respondents Motion to Strike is GRANTED, but is DENIED as to other witnesses) sent out. |
| Aug. 22, 1991 | Prehearing Statement filed. (From L. Kathryn Funchess) |
| Aug. 22, 1991 | (Petitioner) Prehearing Statement w/Att. 1-2 filed. |
| Aug. 22, 1991 | Respondent's Motion in Limine; Prehearing Statement w/Appendix-A; Respondent Board of County Commissioners of Desoto County's Second Supplemental Preliminary Witness List filed. (From Frederick A. Bechtold) |
| Aug. 21, 1991 | (Petitioner) Notice of Telephonic Hearing filed. (From Charles A. Stampelos) |
| Aug. 21, 1991 | (Petitioner) Motion to Strike and Preclude Intervenors (Hall) Expert and Non-Expert Witnesses and Exhibits filed. |
| Aug. 16, 1991 | Intervenors (Hall) Expert Witness List filed. (From M. Lewis Hall, III) |
| Aug. 15, 1991 | Petitioner's Response to Respondent's Second Request for Admissions filed. (From William B. Wiley) |
| Aug. 13, 1991 | Order Granting Motion to Intervene sent out. (for Intervenors Hall) |
| Aug. 13, 1991 | Order sent out. (respondent's motion for summary recommended order denied) |
| Aug. 13, 1991 | Petitioner's Supplemental Witness List filed. (From Charles A. Stampelos) |
| Aug. 12, 1991 | Department of Community Affairs' Notice of Filing Expert Testimony w/Expert Testimony of Robert Pennock & Exhibits 1&2 filed. (From L. Kathryn Funchess) |
| Aug. 12, 1991 | Respondent Board of County Commissioners of Desoto County's Supplemental Preliminary Witness List filed. |
| Aug. 12, 1991 | Expert Witness Testimony of Robert L. Duane For Respondent, Board of County Commissioners; Expert Witness Testimony of Nanette Hall for Respondent, Board of County Commissioners of Desoto County, Florida w/Exhibit-1 filed. (From Gary A. Vorbeck) |
| Aug. 12, 1991 | Respondent's Notice of Filing Expert Witness Testimony; Expert Witness Testimony of David Nathe For Respondent, Board of County Commissioner of Desoto County, Florida; Expert Witness Testimony of Ronald K. Milburn For Respondent, Board of County Commissio |
| Aug. 06, 1991 | Petitioner's Response to Respondent's First Request for Admissions filed. (From William B. Wiley) |
| Aug. 01, 1991 | Notice of Service of Answers to the Department of Community Affairs` First Interrogatories & attachment filed. (From William B. Wiley) |
| Aug. 01, 1991 | Petitioner's Response to Department of Community Affairs' First Request for Production of Documents & attachment; Notice of Service of Answers to the Department of Community Affairs' Second Interrogatories & attachment rec'd (From William B. Wiley) |
| Aug. 01, 1991 | Petitioner's Response to Respondent's Second Request for Production of Documents & attachment filed. (From William B. Wiley) |
| Jul. 29, 1991 | Petitioner's Notice of Filing Expert Testimony; Expert Testimony of Richard W. Bass, AICP For Petition, William A. Burke; Expert Testimony of Richard T. Doyle, AICP, P. E. For Petitioner, William A. Burke filed. (From Charles A. Stampelos) |
| Jul. 26, 1991 | Petitioner's Notice of Filing Affidavit w/Affidavit in Support of Petitioner's Response to Respondent's Motion For Summary Recommended Order w/Exhibit-A filed. (From William B. Wiley) |
| Jul. 25, 1991 | (Respondent) Notice of Service of Answers to Petitioner`s Second Interrogatories filed. (From Frederick A. Bechtold) |
| Jul. 23, 1991 | Department of Community Affairs' Notice of Service of Answers to Petitioner's Interrogatories and Request For Production w/attached Department of Community Affairs' Response to Order of June 7, 1991 filed. (From L. Kathryn Funchess) |
| Jul. 22, 1991 | Petitioner`s Response in Opposition to Motion For Summary Recommended Order w/Exhibits 1&2 filed. (From William B. Wiley) |
| Jul. 22, 1991 | Petitioner's Supplemental Response to Intervenors Amended Motion For Leave to Intervene filed. (from William B. Wiley) |
| Jul. 19, 1991 | Amendment to Affidavit in Support of Respondent's Motion For Summary Recommended Order & attachment filed. (From Frederick Nutt) |
| Jul. 17, 1991 | Respondent's Second Request for Admissions filed. |
| Jul. 17, 1991 | Subpoena Duces Tecum Forms (13) & cover letter from F. Bechtold filed. |
| Jul. 16, 1991 | Petitioner's Response to Intervenors' Amended Motion for Leave to Intervene filed. |
| Jul. 12, 1991 | Subpoena Duces Tecum w/Affidavit of Service (8) filed. (From William B. Wiley) |
| Jul. 11, 1991 | Respondent's Request for Oral Argument; Motion For Summary Recommended Order; Affidavit in Support of Respondent's Motion For Summary Recommended Order w/Exhibit-A filed. (From Frederick A. Bechtold) |
| Jul. 10, 1991 | Amended Motion For Leave to Intervene or, In the Alternative, Verified Petition For Leave to Intervene; Amended Motion For Leave to Intervene filed. (from M. Lewis Hall, III) |
| Jul. 10, 1991 | Notice of Service of Respondent's Request for Admissions w/Respondent's Request for Admissions filed. (From Gary A. Vorbeck) |
| Jul. 09, 1991 | Order sent out. (Petitioner's motion for rehearing, denied). |
| Jul. 08, 1991 | Respondent's Reply to Petitioner's Motion For Rehearing filed. (From Frederick A. Bechtold) |
| Jul. 03, 1991 | Order sent out. (Re: Respondent's Motion for protective order denied). |
| Jul. 02, 1991 | (DeSoto County) Notice of Service of Interrogatories to Plaintiff filed. |
| Jul. 02, 1991 | Respondent's Second Request for Production of Documents to Petitioner, William A. Burke filed. |
| Jun. 28, 1991 | Petitioner's Response in Opposition to Motion For Protective Order & attachments filed. (from William Wiley) |
| Jun. 27, 1991 | Petitioner's Motion For Rehearing filed. (From William B. Wiley) |
| Jun. 27, 1991 | Department of Community Affairs' Preliminary Witness List; Intervenor's First Request for Production of Documents to Petitioner, William A.Burke; Notice of Service of Intervenor's First Interrogatories to Petitioner, William A. Bu rke filed. (From L. Kath |
| Jun. 27, 1991 | Desoto County Discovery Response; Index of Citations Contained In Motion For Protective filed. |
| Jun. 27, 1991 | Respondent Board of County Commissioners of Desoto County, Florida' Preliminary Witness List filed. (From Gary Alan Vorbeck) |
| Jun. 26, 1991 | Petitioner's Preliminary Witness List filed. (From William B. Wiley) |
| Jun. 25, 1991 | Amended Notice of Taking Deposition filed.(from William B. Wiley) |
| Jun. 24, 1991 | Respondent's Request for Oral Argument and Reply to Petitioners's Request for Oral Argument; Index of Citations Contained In Motion For Protective Order filed. (From Frederick A. Bechtold) |
| Jun. 24, 1991 | (Respondent) Motion For Protective Order filed. (From Frederick A. Bechtold) |
| Jun. 20, 1991 | Notice of Service of Petitioner`s Second Interrogatories to Respondent, Board of County Commissioners of Desoto County, Florida; Petitioner`s Second Request for Production of Documents to Respondent, Board of County Commissioners of Desoto County, Florida |
| Jun. 20, 1991 | Petitioner's First Interrogatoris to Intervenor, Department of Community Affairs; Notice of Service of Petitioner's First Interrogatories to Intervenor, Department of Community Affairs; Petitioner's First Request for Production of Documents to Intervenor, |
| Jun. 19, 1991 | Amended List of Exhibits w/cover ltr filed. (From Patricia Mulieri) |
| Jun. 18, 1991 | Order sent out. (re: ruling on motion to determine applicable comprehensive plan) |
| Jun. 13, 1991 | Notice of Taking Deposition filed. (from Charles A. Stampelos) |
| Jun. 12, 1991 | Order sent out. (Re: Petitioner's Motion to Compel, denied). |
| Jun. 12, 1991 | Letter to DMK from William B. Wiley (re: Mr. Borbeck`s ltr & Proposed Order) filed. |
| Jun. 10, 1991 | (Proposed) Order (unsigned) & cover ltr filed. (From Gary Alan Vorbeck) |
| Jun. 05, 1991 | Notice of Supplemental Authority; Desoto County, Florida Ordinance No. 91-03 filed. (From Gary Alan Vorbeck) |
| Jun. 04, 1991 | Order Granting Motion to Intervene sent out. (for Dept. of Community Affairs) |
| Jun. 03, 1991 | (Respondent) Notice of Supplemental Authority filed. (From Gary Alan Vorbeck) |
| Jun. 03, 1991 | Notice of Hearing filed. (From Gary Alan Vorbeck) |
| May 31, 1991 | (Petitioner) Notice of Telephonic Hearing filed. (From William Wiley) |
| May 28, 1991 | Petitioner`s Response and Memorandum in Opposition to Respondent`s Motion to Determine Applicable Comprehensive Plan w/Exhibits 1&2 filed. (from W. B. Wiley) |
| May 22, 1991 | Respondent's Response to Petitioner's Motion to Compel w/exhibit-A filed. (From Gary A. Vorbeck) |
| May 21, 1991 | CC Letter to Gary Alan Vorbeck from William B. Wiley (re: Thank-you for enlarging time to file Response & Motion) filed. |
| May 20, 1991 | Index of Citations Contained In Motion to Determine Applicable Comprehensive Plan and Meorandum of Law w/exhibits 1-9 filed. (From Gary Alan Vorbeck) |
| May 09, 1991 | Motion to Determine Applicable Comprehensive Plan and Memorandum of Law filed. (From Gary A. Vorbeck) |
| May 09, 1991 | Respondent's Request For Oral Argument and Reply to Petitioner's Request For Oral Argument; filed. |
| May 07, 1991 | Respondent's Request for Oral Argument and Reply to Petitioner's Request For Oral Argument; Motion to Determine Applicable Comprehensive Plan and Memorandum of Law filed. (From Gary Alan Vorbeck) |
| Apr. 30, 1991 | Petitioner's Request For Oral Argument; Motion to Compel w/Appendix 1-3 filed. (From William B. Wiley) |
| Apr. 26, 1991 | (Petitioner) Response to Hearing Officer's Order Regarding Hearing Dates filed. (from William B. Wiley) |
| Apr. 25, 1991 | Petitioner's Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Department of Community Affairs' Petition For Leave to Intervene filed. (from William B. Wiley) |
| Apr. 25, 1991 | (Respondent) Notice of Service of Answers to Interrogatories filed. (From Frederick A. Bechtold) |
| Apr. 16, 1991 | (Petitioner) Reply Desoto County's Affirmative Defenses filed. (From William B. Wiley) |
| Apr. 15, 1991 | Order Denying Motion to Intervene sent out. (for Hall). |
| Apr. 15, 1991 | Department of Community Affairs' Petition For Leave to Intervene filed. (From L. Kathryn Funchess) |
| Apr. 15, 1991 | Notice of Hearing and Initial Prehearing Order sent out. (hearing set for Aug 27-29, 1991; 10:30am; Arcadia) |
| Apr. 09, 1991 | Desoto County's Answer to Amended Petition of William A Burke and Affirmative Defenses filed. (From Gary Alan Vorbeck) |
| Mar. 27, 1991 | Order (motion GRANTED) sent out. |
| Mar. 27, 1991 | Letter to DMK from Daivd M. Maloney (re: commission being included into style of case) filed. |
| Mar. 26, 1991 | Notice of Hearing (by Telephone, March 27, 1991; 10:00 am); Motion for Protective Order; cc: Petitioners Request to Produce to Respondent, Board of County Commissioners of DeSoto County, Florida filed. |
| Mar. 22, 1991 | Petitioners Reply to Respondents Memorandum in Response to Petitioners Request for a De Novo Formal Hearing filed. |
| Mar. 21, 1991 | Notice of Telephonic Hearing sent out. (set for 3/27/91; 10:00am) |
| Mar. 19, 1991 | Petitioners First Set of Interrogatories to Respondent, Board of County Commissioners of Desoto County, Florida filed. |
| Mar. 19, 1991 | (Petitioner) Notice of Service of Petitioners First Set of Interrogatories to Respondent, Board of County Commissioners of Desoto County, Florida; Petitioners Request to Produce to Respondent, Board of County Commissioners of Desoto County, Florida filed. |
| Mar. 19, 1991 | (Petitioner) Motion for Leave to Serve Interrogatories in Excess of Thirty; Petitioners First Set of Interrogatories to Respondent, Board of County Commissioners of Desoto County, Florida filed. |
| Mar. 19, 1991 | Respondent Board of County Commissioners of Desoto County s Memorandum in Response to Petitioners Request for a De Novo Formal Hearing; Objection to Petitioners Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint for Formal Administrative Hearing filed. |
| Mar. 18, 1991 | Notice of Service of Petitioners Responses to Respondents First Set of Interrogatories; Petitioners Responses to Respondents First Set of Interrogatories filed. |
| Mar. 06, 1991 | (Petitioner) Request for Oral Argument; Memorandum of Law in Support of Petitioners Request for a De Novo Formal Hearing; Motion for Leave to File Amended Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing filed. |
| Mar. 06, 1991 | Amended Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing (Exhibits A-F) filed. |
| Feb. 18, 1991 | (M. Lewis Hall et al) cc: Motion for Leave to Intervene (Schedule A) ; And Cover Letter from L. Hall filed. |
| Feb. 14, 1991 | (Defendant) Notice of Service of Interrogatories to Plaintiff filed. (From Gary Alan Voarbeck) |
| Feb. 13, 1991 | (Petitioner) Response in Opposition to Motion For Leave to Intervene filed. (From William B. Wiley) |
| Feb. 11, 1991 | (M. Lewis Hall et al) Motion for Leave to Intervene (+ schedule A); Order Authorizing Intervention (for HO signature); & cover letter to DMK from L. Hall filed. |
| Feb. 07, 1991 | Defendant's Response to Court's Interrogatories filed. (From Gary Alan Vorbeck) |
| Feb. 06, 1991 | Petitioner's Response to Notice of Assignment and Order filed. (From William B. Wiley) |
| Feb. 05, 1991 | Defendant's Response to Court's Interrogatories filed. (From Gary Alan Vorbeck) |
| Jan. 31, 1991 | Stipulation For Substitution of Counsel & Cover Ltr filed. (From David L. Powell) |
| Jan. 31, 1991 | (Petitioner) Notice of Appearance filed. (from William B. Wiley) |
| Jan. 30, 1991 | Stipulation For Substitution of Counsel filed. (From David L. Powell) |
| Jan. 25, 1991 | Notice of Assignment and Order sent out. |
| Jan. 23, 1991 | PPF's sent out. |
| Jan. 16, 1991 | Agency referral letter; Notice of Appeal; Petition of William A. Burke (+ exh A-F); (2) Motion for Extension of Time; Stipulation for Extension of Time; (DeSoto Co) Notice of Appearance (from G. Vorbeck); DeSoto County's Answer to Petition of William A. B |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Jan. 27, 1992 | Recommended Order | Development of Regional Impact should be denied because it encourages urban sprawl; inconsistent with surrounding land uses; heavy traffic impact; inconsistent with state plan |
