Petitioner: LOST TREE VILLAGE CORPORATION
Respondent: CITY OF VERO BCH AND DEPARTMENTOF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
Judges: LARRY J. SARTIN
Agency: Department of Community Affairs
Locations: Vero Beach, Florida
Filed: Nov. 10, 1992
Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Wednesday, September 15, 1999.
Latest Update: May 31, 2001
_/G4F
19-77 Ay’
DCA FINAL ORDER NO. DCA99-GM-057A
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
LOST TREE VILLAGE CORPORATION,
Petitioner, ae S.
DOAH Case No. 90-5021GM: Li
vs. a a
INDIAN RIVER SHORES and the ; ms
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, ~ --
Respondents.
a
LOST TREE VILLAGE CORPORATION,
Petitioner,
DOAH Case No. 92-6784GM
vs.
CITY OF VERO BEACH and the
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS,
Respondents.
— /
FINAL ORDER
This matter involves petitions filed by Lost Tree Corporation (“Lost Tree”) which
challenge the findings of the Department of Community Affairs (“the Department’’) that the
comprehensive plans adopted by the City of Vero Beach (“City”) and the Town of Indian River
Shores (“Town”) are “in compliance,” as that term is defined in Subsection 163.3184(1)(b),
Florida Statutes (“F.S.”). After the petitions were filed, the cases were consolidated by order of
the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) of the Division of Administrative Hearings (‘DOAH”). A
single proceeding regarding both plans was held under Subsection 163.3184(9), F.S.
DCA FINAL ORDER NO. DCA.99-GM-057A
The ALJ held a final administrative hearing and entered a Recommended Order which was
forwarded to the Department of Community Affairs (“the Department”) for further disposition
pursuant to Subsection 163.3184(9), F.S. Lost Tree, the Town, and the Department filed
exceptions to the Recommended Order. Lost Tree also filed responses to the exceptions filed by
the Town and the Department.
The ALJ recommended that a final order be entered finding the City’s plan in compliance.
He also recommended that the Town’s plan be found not in compliance because of his finding and
conclusion that Policy 1.1.1.6 was inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan. In its
Exceptions to the Recommended Order, the Department’s legal counsel argued that the ALJ erred
by not construing the State Comprehensive Plan as a whole in reaching that conclusion, as
required by Subsection 163.3177(10)(a), F.S. The Secretary of the Department agreed with that
exception and entered an Order of Remand in which the ALJ was requested to conduct further
proceedings as necessary to evaluate consistency of the Town’s comprehensive plan with the
State Compreherssive Plan construed as a whole.
The ALJ accepted the remand and entered a Supplemental Recommended Order in which
he concluded “that Policy 1.1.1.6 of the Town’s plan is not ‘in compliance’ because it is
inconsistent with the state comprehensive plan...”
Exceptions to the Supplemental Recommended Order were filed by the Town and by the
Department. Lost Tree filed responses to those exceptions, along with a motion to extend the
time to file those responses. The deadline to file responses had already expired, but the Town and
the Department did not oppose the requested extension of time. As the motion is unopposed and
DCA FINAL ORDER NO. DCA99-GM-057A
the request is directed at a non-jurisdictional deadline, the motion is granted.
Following issuance of the Supplemental Recommended Order, the parties engaged in
lengthy settlement negotiations and, by mutual consent, extended the deadline for final agency
action. The parties no longer are actively discussing settlement and now await entry of the
appropriate orders.
On November 7, 2000, the Town filed a Request for Judicial Notice in which it asked the
Department to take judicial notice of a Nineteenth Judicial Circuit Court order granting Lost
Tree’s quiet title action against the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund for
submerged lands around some of the islands located within the Town. The Town maintains that
the decision is relevant to the instant case “with regard to rules of the Board of Trustees of the
Internal Improvement Trust Fund as to what permits, permissions, and easements were allowed to
be given to the Trustees over sovereign submerged lands with regard to the development of
unbridged islands.” In the Request’s concluding paragraph, the Town urges that the ALJ’s
findings with regard to Rules 18-21.003.-.004, Florida Administrative Code, are inapplicable
because the court ruled that the submerged lands were in private ownership. The: Town does not
identify the specific findings it wishes the Department to reject or the legal authority under which
the Department may reject those findings. It also has not moved to reopen the record or for a
second remand to DOAH. No response to the Request for Judicial Notice has been filed with the
Department.
If the Department were to grant the Town’s Request, that act would equate with
reopening the record and overturning findings made by the ALJ without benefit of an evidentiary
DCA FINAL ORDER NO. DCA®9-GM-05 7A
hearing as to the final judgment’s effect on the issues in this case. Such a ruling would be
fundamentally unfair and would be beyond the Department’s legal authority. The Department
considered the option of remanding the matter to DOAH, however this option was rejected
because the final judgment does not apply to all of the bridgeless islands within the Town’s
boundaries. Accordingly, the ALJ’s findings regarding Rules 18-21.003-.004 would still apply to
other islands within the Town whose boundaries were not under scrutiny in the Nineteenth
Judicial Circuit Court case. The Request for Judicial Notice is denied.
Burden of Proof
Sections 163.3184(9)and(10), Florida Statutes establish the burden of proof on the person
challenging a local government’s adopted comprehensive plan. Two standards of proof are
established under the Act. The appropriate standard is determined by whether the proceeding
arises after the initial determination by the Department that a plan is or is not ‘in compliance.’ In
these cases, the Department determined the plans of the City and Town to be ‘in compliance.’
Therefore, Section 163.3184(9), Florida Statutes, determines the standard of proof.
According to Section 163.3184(9), Florida Statutes, the local plan or plan amendment
shall be determined to be ‘in compliance’ if the local government’s determination of compliance is
fairly debatable. Therefore, Lost Tree is required to prove “beyond fair debate” that the
challenged provisions of the plans of the City and Town are not in compliance.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Administrative Procedure Act, Chapter 120, F.S., directs state agencies to accept the
ALJ's findings of fact and conclusions of law except under certain limited circumstances.
pepe mm era) NS 8 I ae
DCA FINAL ORDER NO. DCAD9-GM-05 7A
Section 120.57(1)(J), F.S., provides the standard of review of findings of fact in the
Recommended Order. It provides, in relevant part:
Rejection or modification of conclusions of law may not form the basis for
rejection or modification of findings of fact. The agency may not reject or modify
the findings of fact unless the agency first determines from a review of the entire
record, and states with particularity in the order, that the findings of fact were not
based upon competent substantial evidence or that the proceedings on which the
findings were based did not comply with essential requirements of law.
Section 120.57(1)(), Fla. Stat. (2000).
The Department cannot reweigh the evidence considered by the ALJ. The Department
cannot reject findings of fact made by the ALJ unless there is no competent, substantial evidence
in the record to support the findings. See Heifetz v. Department of Business Regulation, 475
So0.2d 1277 (Fla. 1" DCA 1985), Bay County School Board v. Bryan, 679 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 1"
DCA 1996), construing a provision substantially similar to Section 120.57(1)(Z), F.S. (2000).
The Department may reject or modify the ALJ's conclusions of law, but only those,
_conclusions of law over which it has substantive jurisdiction and interpretation of
administrative rules over which its has substantive jurisdiction. When rejecting or
modifying such conclusion of law or interpretation of administrative rule, the
agency must state with particularity its reasons for rejecting or modifying such
conclusion of law or interpretation of administrative rule and must make a finding
that its substituted conclusion of law or interpretation of administrative rule is as
or more reasonable than that which was rejected or modified.
Section 120.57(1)(), Fla. Stat. (2000).
The Department has substantive jurisdiction over the conclusions of law herein stricken.
The Department finds that its revised conclusions of law are as, or more reasonable than, those
rejected or modified. In each ruling on exceptions, the Department further explains its rationale
for the acceptance, rejection, or revision of the challenged conclusion of law.
5
Findings of Fact 152 and 153, and Conclusions of Law 218, 224, 226, 230, and 231
DCA FINAL ORDER NO. DCA99-GM-05 7A
RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS
The Town’s Exceptions to the Recommended Order
These Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law relate to Town Policy 1-1.1.6, which
provides in relevant part:
No development shall occur on unbridged islands within the Indian
River Lagoon pursuant to Policy 1-2.6. Unless the federal and state
permitting agencies having jurisdiction approve road and bridge
permits required to establish satisfactory access and grant dredge
and fill permits, then in such case Policy 1-2.6.2 cites performance
standards which provide a management approach that allows for the
reasonable use of such isolated islands assuming compliance with
all other applicable laws and ordinances. The policy mandates
approval of the road and bridge permits by the state and /or federal
agencies having jurisdiction prior to granting of final Town pian
approvals, development orders, or permits.
Finding of Fact 152 states that the data and analysis support this restriction. That finding further
states that “[tJhe evidence, however, proved that access to the Inner and Outer Islands located
within the Town’s jurisdiction cannot be provided by bridge.”
Based on the perceived inability to build a bridge under any circumstance, the ALJ
proceeded to determine in Findings of Fact 152, 153, 182, and 183 and Conclusions of Law 218,
224, 226, 230, and 231 that the Town’s Policy 1-1.1.6 was not supported by adequate data and
analysis, and was inconsistent with Goal (15)(a) of the State Comprehensive Plan. That goal,
contained in Subsection 187.201(15)(a), Florida Statutes, states:
Florida shall protect private property rights and recognize the existence of
legitimate and often competing public and private interests in land use
regulations and other government action.
DCA FINAL ORDER NO. DCA99-GM-057A
Findings of Fact 150, 151, and 152 support the Town’s policy of prohibiting development
without bridge access. In Finding of Fact 152 the ALJ finds:
Existing data and analysis concerning the impacts of hurricanes on
low-lying areas and the difficulty of providing emergency services to
unbridged, isolated islands support the Town’s decision to limit
development of unbridged islands in the Indian River Lagoon until
adequate access to the islands was arranged if such access could be
provided. The evidence, however, proved that access to the Inner
and Outer Islands located within the Town’s jurisdiction cannot be
provided by bridge.
However, the ALJ does not identify what evidence he relies on in reaching the finding that bridge
access cannot be provided to islands within the Town’s jurisdiction.
Upon review of the record, the finding that bridge access cannot be provided does not
appear to be based on any competent, substantial evidence received into the recorcd. Rather, the
finding that the Town’s policy to limit development on unbridged islands until there is bridge
access is not ‘in compliance’ appears to be based on an assumption not reflected in the
Recommended Order or the factual record that the state and federal permits for bridge access are
not legally attainable. At one point in the final hearing, Lost Tree’s legal counsel argued that he
should be allowed to ask a question of a witness because of the relevancy of a Board of Trustees
rule that greatly restricts bridge access over submerged sovereign lands. (Transcript, pages 1778-
1780) However, legal argument does not rise to the level of testimony upon which findings of
fact may be based and no rule citation was provided to the ALJ and other parties for further
consideration on that matter.
DCA FINAL ORDER NO. DCA99-G-057A
What little testimony there was on this issue was sparse and does not support this finding
under the competent, substantial evidence standard. Mr. Howard Landers, an expert witness for
Lost Tree, was asked the general question whether there was “any possible way that Lost Tree
can develop the inner islands?” without any specific connection to the bridge access issue. He
simply responded “No” with no explanation, whereupon the line of questioning changed.
(Transcript, page 1780) Earlier, however, Mr. Landers offered an opinion specifically on bridge
access permitting and stated that “permitting is a bit more onerous” for a bridge from the inner to
the outer islands, thus suggesting that there is no absolute prohibition for bridge access.
(Transcript, page 1425) Les Solin, the former City Planning Director and planning consultant for
the Town, testified that bridge development on the outer islands would be a “long time away” due
to federal and state law. (Transcript, page 732) This testimony indicates that obtaining permits
for bridge access is difficult, but not impossible. The record, therefore, lacks foundation for the
critical factual finding that access cannot be provided by bridge.
In light of this ruling, the consistency of Policy 1-1.1.6 with the State Comprehensive
Plan, specifically Goal (15)(a), must be revisited. As there is no competent, substantial evidence
in the record that bridge access cannot be provided, there also is no competent, substantial
evidence to support the statements in Finding of Fact 152 that “Policy 1-1.1.6 is, in effect, an
absolute bar to development” and conflicts with Goal (15)(a).
In addition to this ruling, it is noted that Town Policy 1-1.1.3 is applicable to the subject
properties. The policy includes a transfer of development rights provision for environmentally
sensitive lands. Under that provision, development rights may transfer to “contiguous receiving
5 5am EN mine i ne 2
DCA FINAL ORDER NO. DCA99-GM-057A
areas with a maximum density of no greater than one and one-half (1.5) times the applicable
density designated on the Comprehensive Plan.” Even if state and federal permitting for bridge
access were proved impossible, the ability to transfer development rights to other properties
appears to enable the plan to meet the requirement for consistency with the State Comprehensive
Plan, including Goal (15) (a). Florida courts recognize that the technique of transferring
development rights can be used by a local government to provide property owners economically
viable use of their property. See Glisson v. Alachua County, 558 So.2d 1030 (Fla. 1st DCA
1990); City of Hollywood v. Hollywood, Inc., 432 So.2d 1332 (Fla. 4 DCA 1983).
Based on the above, the exceptions are granted and several revisions to the Recommended
Order are hereby ordered. The last three sentences of Finding of Fact 152 are stricken as they
are not supported by competent, substantial evidence. Findings of Fact 153 is revised to read:
“Lost Tree failed to prove that Policy 1-1.1.6 conflicts with the State Comprehensive Plan when
construed as a whole. Subsection 163.3177(10)(a) and Chapter187, Florida Statutes.” The first
sentence in Finding of Fact 182 is revised to read: “The City’s policy does not prevent all
development of islands within its jurisdiction.” Finding of Fact 183 is stricken as it is not
supported by cornpetent, substantial evidence. Conclusion of Law 218 and the last sentence in
Conclusion of Law 224 are stricken. Conclusion of Law 226 is revised to read: “The evidence
fails to prove that either the Town or the City failed to take into consideration this goal of the
State Comprehensive Plan.” Conclusion of Law 230 shall read: “Lost Tree failed to prove
beyond fair debate that any provision of the Town’s Adopted Plan or the City’s Remedial Plan is
inconsistent with Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code.” Conclusion of Law 231 is revised
DCA FINAL ORDER NO. DCA99-GM-05 7A
to read: “The evidence in these cases fails to prove beyond fair debate that the Town’s Adopted
Plan or the City’s Remedial Plan is not “in compliance” as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b),
Florida Statutes.”
The rejection and revision of these conclusions of law is necessary because it would not be
reasonable to adopt them in light of the above rulings on underlying findings of fact. There is no
competent, substantial evidence for the factual premises of those conclusions.
The Town’s Exceptions to the Supplemental Recommended Order_
Finding of Fact 3
The Town argues that there is no competent, substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s
finding that the Town’s plan fails “to protect private property rights.” The ALJ’s finding assumes
a series of facts not in the record. Those assumed facts cannot be reasonably inferred from the
record, The first assumption is that the rules of the Board of Trustees of the Internal
Improvement Trust Fund, specifically Rule 18-21.004, F.A.C., operate as an absolute prohibition
to bridging. There is no competent, substantial evidence in the record to support that assumption.
In fact, the rule on its face is not an absolute prohibition. See Rule 18-21.004(1)(g), F.A.C.
Second, even if the Trustees’ rule was an absolute bar to bridging, it applies only where bridging
will occur over sovereign submerged lands. Again, no competent, substantial evidence exists in
the record regarding this issue.' There also is no evidence in the record that Lost Tree
| In fact, the Town points out in its exceptions that Lost Tree had filed a quiet title action
in local circuit court asserting ownership of sovereign submerged lands key to bridging to some of
the islands. Losi Tree Corp. v. Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, Case
No. 990093 (Fla. 19" Circuit). Lost Tree does not dispute this assertion in its Response to
Exceptions to Supplemental Recommended Order.
10
DCA FINAL ORDER NO. DCA99-GM-05 7A
unsuccessfully sought such an exception. There is no competent, substantial evidence upon
which to find that Lost Tree’s property rights were effectively eliminated. Again, the Town
points to its transfer of development rights provision in its comprehensive plan as additional
information to disoute the ALJ’s finding. Further, a determination that the Town’s
Comprehensive Plan “effectively eliminates Lost Tree’s property rights” is both beyond the factual
record and legal jurisdiction of this proceeding. That broad statement borders on a determination
of inverse condemnation, an issue which cannot be determined in this proceeding and would hinge
on factual determinations not at issue herein. The exception is granted and the finding is stricken.
Finding of Fact 4
The Town argues that the ALJ did not comply with the directive of the Order of Remand
and the requirements of law when he failed to make supplemental findings of fact in which he
considered and balanced provisions of the State Comprehensive Plan in addition to Goal 15(a). In
Supplemental Finding of Fact 4, the ALJ states that the evidence proved that the cther State
Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives support a limitation on the density for development on
the islands, but that it also “failed to prove that those goals and policies support a total limitation
on development.”
There is no competent, substantial evidence upon which to support the ALJ’s findings
that Policy 1-1.1.6 effectively eliminates Lost Tree’s property rights and conflicts with the State
Comprehensive Plan. Based on other rulings in this order regarding Policy 1-1.1.6, there is no
provision in the Town’s plan which conflicts with any provision of the State Comprehensive Plan.
Thus, as a matter of law, the Town’s plan cannot be construed to be inconsistent with the State
11
DCA FINAL ORDER NO. DCAD9-GM-057A
Comprehensive Plan.
The Town also argues that the ALJ erroneously required the Town to balance provisions
within the State Comprehensive Plan. The Town reasons that because this is a de novo
proceeding, the focus on whether a local plan is in compliance lies within the four corners of the
plan, not the intentions of the local governing body. The Town is correct. At issue is whether
the local comprehensive plan is consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan. The Town’s
ultimate decision on what to adopt into its plan is subject to de novo review. It was incumbent
upon the ALJ and the Department to construe the local plan in determining whether the requisite
balance with the State Comprehensive Plan was met. The ALJ’s findings are not iriconsistent with
that standard, however. The exception is denied.
Conclusions of Law 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13
In these exceptions, the Town adopts the arguments it raised in its exceptions to Findings
of Fact 3 and 4. The above rulings as to those exceptions are adopted herein. It is further noted
that Town Policy 1-1.1.3 includes a provision that protects private property rights by allowing the
transfer of development rights from environmentally sensitive land to other property. Based on the
rulings on the Town’s exceptions to Finding of Fact 3, the exceptions to Conclusions of Law 8,
11, 12, and 13 are granted. As those conclusions of law are not based on any findings supported
by competent, substantial evidence, it would be unreasonable not to strike those conclusions.
Accordingly, Conclusions of Law 8 and 13 are stricken in their entirety, and the final sentence of
Conclusion of Law 11 is stricken. Conclusion of Law 12 is revised to read:
The goals and objectives of the State Comprehensive Plan support the density for
development of the islands at issue within the Town’s jurisdiction and the
12
DCA FINAL ORDER NO. DCA99-G91-057A
limitations imposed on that development by Policy 1-1.1.6.
Based on the rulings on the Town’s exceptions to Finding of Fact 4, the Town’s
exception to Conclusion of Law 9 is denied.
The Department’s Exceptions to the Recommended Order
Finding of Fact 9
This finding states that “(t]he Town is located wholly on the Barrier Island.” The
Department correctly notes that there are other areas that lie within the Town’s boundaries which
do not lie on the island. The exception is granted and this portion of Finding of Fact 9 is stricken
as being unsupported by competent, substantial evidence.
Finding of Fact 19
This finding states: “The City is immediately to the south and southwest of the Town,
partly on the Barrier Island and partly on the mainland.” The second part of that sentence is
inconsistent with other findings which correctly find that there are other islands which lie within
the City’s boundaries. The exception is granted and the finding is revised to read: “The City is
immediately to the south and southwest of the Town.”
Findings of Fact 27, 34, 43, 53, 59, 67, 75, 76, 186, and 187; Conclusion of Law 210
These exceptions are directed at findings of fact that pertain to Lost Tree’s ownership of
land, and to the portion of Conclusion of Law 210 which states “for undeveloped islands in which
Lost Tree owns an interest...” The Department maintains that Lost Tree had the burden to prove
the precise boundaries of its properties within the City and the Town because Lost Tree stated in
its petitions and Amended Prehearing Stipulation that its issues were limited to areas owned by
13
DCA FINAL ORDER NO. DCA99-G-057A
Lost Tree. However, the Department conceded at the final hearing that the extent of Lost
Tree’s ownership was not a substantive issue. After the Department's concession, Lost Tree
offered no further testimony concerning ownership. (Transcript, Vol XV, pages 1846-51)
The exceptions also seem to suggest that Lost Tree must establish the extent of its
property holdings even if its pleadings had not limited its issues to Lost Tree properties. In
support of this contention, the Department cites Subsection 163.3164(16), F.S., which defines
“parcel of land ” as:
any quantity of land capable of being described with such definiteness that its
locations and boundaries may be established, which is designated by its owner or
developer as land to be used, or developed as a unit or which has been used or
developed as a unit.
The Department further notes that the term “parcel of land” is used in various sections of
Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. The exceptions do not, however, identify any statute or
rule that would necessitate a determination of boundaries in this particular proceeding.
Based on a review of the transcript and of the Recommended Order, it appears that the
ALI considered Lost Tree’s ownership of land within the City and Town boundaries only for
purposes of determining whether Lost Tree had legal standing as a party. For purposes of
determining whether Lost Tree was an “affected person” within the meaning of Subsection
163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes, the ALJ correctly held that Lost Tree need only show that it
owned some amount of land within the municipalities’ boundaries, in which case the exact
location and boundaries of its land holdings would be irrelevant. For purposes of establishing that
Lost Tree owns some amount of land within the Town and the City in order to prove standing,
DEX 8, which is a map of Lost Tree's holdings in the Indian River Islands, provides enough
14
DCA FINAL ORDER NO. DCA99-GM-057A
information from which to reach the approximations in Findings of Fact 27, 34, 43, 53, 59, 67,
75, and 76. Accordingly, those findings are found to be based on competent, substantial
evidence. Findings of Fact 186 and 187, and Conclusion of Law 210 are based on those
underlying findings, and also are supported by competent, substantial evidence. The exceptions
are denied.
Findings of Fact 152, 153, 182, and 183, and Conclusions of Law 218, 224, 226, and 231
These exceptions are directed at findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding Town
Policy 1-1.1.3. They are similar to the exceptions filed by the Town which are discussed and
granted above. The Department’s exceptions are similarly granted.
Conclusions of Law 215 and 230
In Conclusion of Law 215, the ALJ cites to data and analysis requirements. contained in
9J-5.005 (2), F.A.C. Conclusion of Law 230 states:
Lost Tree failed to prove beyond fair debate that any provision of the Town’s
Adopted Plan, except Policy 1-1.1.6, or the City’s Remedial Plan are inconsistent
with Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code.”
The Department argues that there can be no conclusion regarding consistency with any
portion of Chapter 9J-5 because there was no official recognition taken of those rules, nor were
they offered into evidence. Under the Department's theory, Lost Tree had the burden to place
into evidence, or seek official recognition of, the two versions of Chapter 9J-5 which were in
effect at the time of each plan’s adoption. (The parties agreed in the Amended Prehearing
Stipulation that the law in effect at the time the Town adopted its comprehensive plan and when
the City adopted its remedial amendment would apply to the respective plans. Findings of Fact
15
ree WOOO RP pm oe
DCA FINAL ORDER NO. DCA$)9-GM-057A
92 and 117, respectively, note that the Town’s plan was adopted on May 16, 1990, and the City’s
remedial amendment was adopted on July 21, 1992.) However, the Department’s legal counsel
waived this objection at the final hearing when the City’s attorney raised the issue of the need for
official recognition of Chapter 9J-5. (Transcript, Volume X, pages 1101-1102)
The Department’s exceptions also suggest that the ALJ may have applied an incorrect
version of Chapter 9J-5 due to the failure of any party to provide him with a physical copy of it.
The only portion of Chapter 9J-5 that was discussed in the Recommended Order is Rule 9J-5.005
(2). The history of Rule 9J-5.005, as set forth at the end of that rule, states that the rule was
amended on the following dates: “10-20-86, 11-22-89, 3-23-94, 5-18-94, 3-21-99.” The rule,
which includes the general data and analysis requirements described in Conclusion of Law 210,
indicates that it was not changed between the date the Town adopted its pian and the date the
City adopted its remedial amendment.
In order to clarify the record, the undersigned hereby takes official recognition of Chapter
9J-5, F.A.C.; Chapter 163, Part II, F.S.; and Chapter 187, F.S., as they were in effect on the dates
the parties stipulated in the Amended Prehearing Stipulation. The exception is denied.
The epartment’s Exceptions to the Supplemental Recommended Order
Finding of Fact 2, and Conclusions of Law 5 and 6
The Department first takes exception to the finding that the Department should have
known that by alleging the inconsistency of Policy 1-1.1.6 with Subsection 187.201(15)(a), F.S.,
Lost Tree intended to prove that the policy was inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan
construed and applied as a whole. It appears that the petition’s allegations were sufficient to
16
DCA FINAL ORDER NO. DCA99-GM-057A
place the parties on notice as to the issue of consistency with the State Comprehensive Plan.
The exception also asserts that the finding is not in accordance with the essential
requirements of the law because of the ALJ’s erroneous restatement of Subsection
163.3177(10)(a), F.S., in which he finds, in effect, that a single local comprehensive plan
provision may be applied in isolation from the State Comprehensive Plan. This finding is
mislabeled a finding of fact; it is more properly a conclusion of law. The Department must be
guided by the true nature of a finding or conclusion, not its title. See Pillsbury v. DHRS, 705
So.2d 32 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Kinney v. Department of State, 501 So.2d 129 (Fla. 5*® DCA
1987). Subsection 163.3177(10)(a), F.S., requires that the entire local plan, as well as the State
Comprehensive Plan, be construed and applied as a whole. This subsection states in pertinent
part:
(a)...For the purposes of determining consistency of the local plan with the state
comprehensive plan or the appropriate regional policy plan, the state or regional
plan shall be construed as a whole and no specific goal and policy shall be
construed or applied in isolation from the other goals and policies in the plans.
Subsection 163.3177(10(a), Florida Statutes.
Thus, it was erroneous for the ALJ to find that “... Lost Tree intended, by alleging that the
policy was inconsistent with one goal of the state comprehensive plan, to prove that the policy
was, therefore, inconsistent with the state comprehensive plan as construed and applied as a
whole.” Accordingly, the second exception to Finding of Fact 2 is granted. As this portion of the
finding is a misstatement of the law, it is deemed to be a conclusion of law, not a finding of fact.
Based on a more reasonable interpretation of Subsection 163.3177(10)(a), F.S., this
determination is revised as a conclusion of law as follows:
17
DCA FINAL ORDER NO. DCA99-GM-05 7A
Although Lost Tree did not specifically allege that the Town’s plan was
inconsistertt with the state comprehensive plan as construed and applied as a
whole, the Department should have known that Lost Tree, by alleging that Policy
1-1.1.6 was inconsistent with one goal of the state comprehensive plan, intended
to allege that the Town’s plan was inconsistent with the state comprehensive plan
construed and applied as a whole.
Conclusions of Law 5 and 6 are similar to Finding of Fact 2. They also hold the
Department to constructive knowledge of the correct interpretation and application of the law to
this proceeding despite the wording of the petition. The exceptions are denied. Consistent with
the ruling on Finding of Fact 2 in the preceding paragraph, the second sentence of Conclusion of
Law 6 is revised so as to afford a more reasonable and accurate interpretation of Subsection
163.3177(10)(a), F.S., as follows:
Therefore, it is reasonable to find that the Department was aware that Lost Tree
alleged and intended to prove that, as required by Subsection 163.3177(10){a),
Florida Statutes, the Town’s plan was inconsistent with the State Comprehensive
Plan as a whole.
Findings/Conclusions Regarding a “Taking” of Lost Tree’s Property: Findings of Fact 3 and 4:
and Conclusions of Law 7, 8, 11,12, and 13
The Department takes issue with the ALJ’s determination that Lost Tree’s property rights
were effectively eliminated. As stated above in the rulings on Findings of Fact 152, 153, 182, and
183, and Conclusions of Law 218, 224, 226, 230, and 231 of the Recommended Order, there is
no competent, substantial evidence that bridge access cannot be provided to the Irmer and Outer
Islands within the Town’s jurisdiction. The lack of competent, substantial evidence to support
the findings in the Supplemental Recommended Order that Town Policy 1-1.1.3 failed to protect
Lost Tree’s private property rights was discussed in the above ruling on the Town’s exception to
18
DCA FINAL ORDER NO. DCA®9-GM-05 7A
Finding of Fact 3 of that order. For the reasons expressed in that ruling, this exception is
similarly granted. Findings of Fact 3 and 4, and Conclusions of Law 7, 8, and 13 are stricken.
The last sentence in Conclusion of Law 11 also is stricken. Conclusion of Law 12 is revised to
read:
The goals and objectives of the State Comprehensive Plan support the density for
development of the islands at issue within the Town’s jurisdiction and the
limitations imposed on that development by Policy 1-1.1.6.
Conclusions of Law 9, 10, and 11
In these conclusions of law, the ALJ concludes that Subsection 187.101, F.S., of the State
Comprehensive Plan is intended by the Legislature to provide guidance to local governments. The
Department argues that those conclusions provide too narrow an interpretation of the law.
In Paragraph 9, the ALJ states that the State Comprehensive Plan provides guidance to
the Town, but not to Lost Tree. That is a reasonable interpretation of the law. Private property
owners are not bound by the State Comprehensive Plan as local governments are in developing
their comprehensive plans in order to ensure they meet the minimum criteria of Subsection
163.3184(1)(b), F.S.
Conclusions of Law 10 and 11 are not as exclusionary as the Department suggests, and
merely reiterate that the State Comprehensive Plan provides guidance to local governments. They
do not in any way state or suggest that the State Comprehensive Plan is a useful tool only to local
governments. The: exceptions are denied. (This ruling does not affect the preceding ruling on
Conclusion of Law 11 in which the last sentence of that Paragraph 11 is stricken based on other
grounds.)
19
DCA FINAL ORDER NO. DCA99-GM-057A
Lost Tree’s Exceptions to the Recommended Order
Finding of Fact 26
Lost Tree challenges the last sentence in this finding which describes a small, unnamed
island as being “similar in characteristics to the Inner and Outer Islands, except that it is much
smailer.’ Lost Tree contends that the vegetation on and around the small island is very different
from the vegetation found on and around the other islands; the only evidence as to similarity
between the islands is the nature of their creation through dredging of the Intracoastal Waterway.
There is evidence in the record to show that the islands share common vegetation and
have similar soil characteristics. On page 2-156 of DEX 4, all of the spoil islands within Indian
River County are described as having some amount of mangrove vegetation, Australian pine, and
Brazilian pepper vegetation. Each of the spoil islands is characterized in the applicable plan’s data
and analysis as predominantly consisting of quartzipsamment soil. (LEX 33, Figure 1-4; LEX 45,
Map 1-12; and LEX 40) The ALJ's general statement regarding the characteristics of the smaller
island is supported by competent, substantial evidence. The exception is denied.
Finding of Fact 41
Lost Tree takes issue with the portion of this finding which states “[t]he lagoon is partly
shoaled and partly filled with mangrove.” According to Lost Tree, the record reflects that the
lagoon is fringed with mangroves, not partly filled with them.
On page 24 of the Environmental Assessment of Indian River Lagoon Properties the
description of Alligator Island includes the statement that “...the southern end of the parcel
contains an isolated lagoon which is fringed with Red, White, and an occasional Black
20
DCA FINAL ORDER NO. DCA99-G-057A
mangrove.” (DEX 22) The report does not describe the lagoon as partly filled with mangroves.
As there is no evidence that the waters of the lagoon are partly filled with mangroves of any kind,
at any time, the finding that the lagoon is “partly filled with mangrove” is not supported by
competent, substantial evidence. The exception is granted and the third sentence in this finding is
revised to read: “The lagoon is partly shoaled.”
Finding of Fact 65.
Lost Tree files an exception to the portion of Finding of Fact 65 which states that island
IR-29 consists “mainly of Brazilian pepper, Australian pine, and mangroves.” Lost Tree objects
to the inference that mangroves comprise a main constituent of the vegetation on IR-29, because
the evidence shows that mangroves comprise only ten percent of the vegetation. The record
citation provided by Lost Tree, DCA Exh. 4, page 2-124, states in pertinent part:
Dominant Terrestrial Vegetation
Brazilian pepper (35%), red mangrove (10%), Australian pine (10%), black
mangrove (8%), Florida privet (6%), 61 species total
Based on this information, red and black mangroves combined comprise eighteen percent
of the 61 terrestrial species on the island, not ten percent as argued by Lost Tree. The total of
those mangroves, Brazilian pepper, and Australian pine represent a total of 63 percent of the
island’s terrestrial species. It is not incorrect to state that the island consists mainly of those three
types of vegetation. The exception is denied.
Finding of Fact 66
Lost Tree argues that this finding incorrectly determines that seagrasses exist along the
western shore of island IR-29. This exception and its supporting record citation to a map entitled
21
DCA FINAL ORDER NO. DCA99-GM-057A
“Spoil Island IR29” refer to IR-29. However, Finding of Fact 66 discusses only island IR-28. It
does not mention IR-29. The exception is denied.
Finding of Fact 73
Lost Tree disputes the first sentence in this finding which states:
Vegetation on the Fourth Outer Island consists mainly of Brazilian pepper,
Australian pine, and mangroves.
According to Lost Tree, this sentence gives the misleading impression that mangroves are
a main constituent of the vegetation because the record shows “this island consists mainly of
Brazilian pepper and Australian pine, and that mangroves only exist in clusters along the
shoreline, 15' deep at most.”
Regardless of how sparse the mangrove vegetation is on the island, its combination with
Brazilian pepper and Australian pine (which Lost Tree concedes in its exception are the two main
constituents of the vegetation) makes it part of a dominant vegetation triumvirate. Furthermore,
this portion of the finding is not misleading as to the lushness of mangrove vegetation when
construed with the following sentence in the same finding which reads: “Mangroves exist in
clusters along the shore of the island.” The exception is denied.
Finding of Fact 82
Lost Tree takes exception to the first and last sentences in the following finding:
Vegetation on Fritz Island consists mainly of Brazilian pepper, Australian pine, and
mangroves. A large shoal is located along the south western side of the island.
Extensive seagrasses exist in this area.
As to the first part of its exception, Lost Tree argues the record does not “support an
inference that mangroves are a main constituent of the vegetation on Fritz Island.” This exception
22
DCA FINAL ORDER NO. DCA99-GM-05 7A
is based on a misreading of the finding. The fact that mangroves exist only along the shoreline, as
Lost Tree notes the record shows, does not exclude mangroves from being considered along with
Brazilian pepper and Australian pine as part of a grouping of dominant vegetation on the island.
The finding does not suggest that mangroves alone are a main constituent of vegetation as Lost
Tree contends.
The exception to the last sentence also is based on an incorrect reading of the finding.
Lost Tree misreacls that sentence as referring to extensive seagrass beds around Fritz Island. It
argues that “[t]he only competent substantial evidence states that only the southwest portion of
the submerged shoreline contains sea grass beds, but the remaining submerged land adjacent to
the island is unvegetated.” The second sentence in Finding of Fact 82 makes clear that the
reference to exterisive seagrasses applies only to the south western portion of the island, not the
entire island. The exception is denied.
Findings of Fact 85 and 86
Lost Tree takes exception to the statements in Finding of Fact 85 that Hole in the Wall
Island, North Sister Island, South Sister Island, and Gifford Island share “very similar
characteristics to the Inner and Outer Islands,” and “[t]he most significance difference between
these islands and those in the Outer and Inner Islands is that they all are significantly smaller
islands.” The exception to Finding of Fact 86 raises the same objection to those statements being
made about Little Prang Island, IR-32, IR-33, and several other small islands that lie within the
City’s boundaries.
In these findings, the ALJ does not indicate which characteristics he is comparing when he
23
DCA FINAL ORDER NO. DCA®9-GM-057A
states that the islands share very similar characteristics. The information contained in DEX 4 and
22 shows that each island has some amount of mangrove vegetation. On page 2-1 56 of DEX 4 it
is noted that all of the spoil islands in Indian River County have some amount of mangroves,
Australian pine, and Brazilian pepper. Each of the spoil islands also consists of a large percentage
of quartzipsamment soil. (LEX 33, Figure 1-4, LEX 45, Map 1-12; and LEX 40) As there is
competent, substantial evidence to support the exception as to the first sentences in Findings of
Fact 85 and 86 is denied.
Lost Tree’s exceptions to the findings as to size in Findings of Fact 85 and 36 is well taken
only as to Finding of Fact 85. As Lost Tree correctly notes, Hole in the Wall Island is not
significantly smaller than the Outer and Inner Islands. On page 11 of DCA Exhibit 22 that island
is described as having a total tract acreage of 162.3 acres. That figure is larger than the acreage
figures of some of the Outer and Inner Islands described in earlier findings. The record supports
findings that the other islands described in Findings of Fact 85 and 86 are significantly smaller
than the Outer and Inner Islands. There is no competent, substantial evidence to support the
finding as to sizes in Finding of Fact 85. The exception is granted as to the second sentence in
Finding of Fact 85 and denied as to the second sentence in Finding of Fact 86. The second
sentence in Finding of Fact 85 is revised to read: With the exception of Hole in the Wall Island,
the most significant difference between these islands and the Inner and Outer Islands is that they
are all significantly smaller islands.
Finding of Fact $7
Lost Tree contends that there is no competent, substantial evidence to support the second
24
DCA FINAL ORDER NO. DCA99-GM-057A
sentence in this finding relating to Prang Island which reads:
Therefore, the City did not believe that it could reduce the already approved
development of the island through the land use designation for the island acopted
in the City’s plan.
In support of this exception Lost Tree argues that the only evidence in the record to
support this finding is the City Attorney’s concern that the City could not apply ordinance
R1AAA to that island because of “equitable estoppel” concerns. Lost Tree further maintains that
the City Attorney's legal opinion was incorrect. The validity of that opinion is not relevant to this
finding, however. The finding merely seeks to explain why the City chose not to reduce density
on the island by land use designation.
However, Lost Tree is correct that the finding is not supported by competent, substantial
evidence. Former City Mayor Macht testified that density was not an issue for Prang Island for
the proposed plan, and that the City had to approve the preliminary plat because of its
grandfathered status. (Transcript Vol. 1, pages 75-84) There was no testimony or other evidence
that the reason density was not an issue at the comprehensive pian level was because the City
believed that approval of the preliminary plat would bind the City’s hands as to land use
designations for the island. The exception is accepted and the second sentence in this finding is
stricken.
Findings of Fact 134, 135, and 136
Finding of Fact 134 describes environmentally important features on the Inner and Outer
Islands, and notes that there may also be other environmentally sensitive areas in the Town.
Finding of Fact 134 determines that those features alone would justify the land use densities on
25
DCA FINAL ORDER NO. DCA99-GM-057A
the islands. It further finds that the fact the islands do not have any available access or
transportation linkage also would provide a basis for those land use designations. In Finding of
Fact 136 the ALJ finds that both of those conclusions are supported by data and analysis.
Lost Tree’s collective exception to these three findings is based on its position that the
“Residential Conservation/Environmentally Sensitive Lands” land use category is overly
restrictive. The exception does not argue that there is insufficient evidence to support the
statements in Finding 134 as to the existence of environmentally important features on the Inner
and Outer Islands and possibly elsewhere in the Town. Instead, the arguments are directed at the
conclusions in Findings of Fact 135 and 136.
Lost Tree first argues that there are similar environmental features found in other portions
of the Town which do not have such land use and density restrictions, and, therefore, the islands
should not be given greater land use protections than what is found elsewhere in the Town.
There are no findings of fact to support Lost Tree’s premise that there are similar features
elsewhere in the Town. The Department cannot make any such additional findings. Further, that
argument fails to recognize the possibility that there could be more than one land use approach to
certain environmental limitations. A local government does not necessarily have to adopt the
same approach to similar situations throughout its jurisdiction.
Contrary to Lost Tree’s assertions, there is competent, substantial evidence to support the
findings. The Town plan’s data and analysis (LEX 45, especially pages I-18 through I-20)
identifies environmental features on the islands. It is not necessary that the data and analysis also
show the potential impacts that various land use controls would have on those features, as Lost
26
DCA FINAL ORDER NO. DCA99-GM-057A
Tree argues. Once a local government identifies environmental features which are required by
Chapter 9J-5, F.A.C., to be protected in the plan, it need not quantify potential impacts; rather, its
task is to design plan provisions to avoid or offset those impacts. Such implementing plan
objectives and policies can be written without specific information as to expected impacts.
Common sense raay be applied in reasonably inferring that reduced density will result in reduced
impacts.
With regard to the ALJ’s statements about access and transportation linkage, Lost Tree
states that there is no evidence that reducing density would have any impact on those concerns.
That argument is based on a misreading of those findings as purporting to describe a causal
relationship between densities and access/transportation linkage. Those findings merely state that
the Town found that the islands have no immediately available access or transporzation linkage.
That statement is supported by page I-20 of the Town plan’s data and analysis, which notes that
the islands have no transportation linkage to the mainland. (LEX 45) The exception is denied.
Finding of Fact 139
Lost Tree agrees with the ALJ’s finding that the Town plan’s data and analysis is incorrect
with respect to ‘the consideration of ‘historical’ wetland elevations,” but disagrees with the ALJ’s
further finding that this “statement, when construed as a whole, supports the Town’s decision to
reduce the density of development allowed on the Inner and Outer Islands.” In this exception,
Lost Tree incorrectly assumes that the reference to construing as a whole refers only to that
statement. The ALJ cites to two pages in the data and analysis as providing discussion of those
islands. The ALJ does not state what is incorrect with the statement, but it is clear from the first
27
DCA FINAL ORDER NO. DCA99-G91-057A
sentence in the finding that he is relying on two pages of the data and analysis as to his conclusion
as a whole. Lost Tree’s exception only refers to two sentences on page I-20 of the data and
analysis. Accordingly, the rest of the data and analysis has not been impugned, and the finding is
supported by competent, substantial evidence. The exception is denied.
Finding of Fact 140
This exception is directed at the two last sentences in this finding which coriclude that the
data and analysis “support the Town’s concern about the location of the Inner and Outer Islands
in the Preserve” and the other findings of fact concerning the characteristics of those islands. In
support of its argument that there is no competent, substantial evidence upon which to base those
statements, Lost Tree refers to its exception to Findings of Fact 85 and 86, which describe
characteristics of the islands. As explained in this order in response to that exception, those
findings, except the statement in Finding of Fact 85 as to relative size, are supported by
competent, substantial evidence. The exception is denied.
Finding of Fact 141
This finding reiterates earlier findings relating to the Inner and Outer Islands’
characteristics and the approval of the Town’s land use designation of those islands. Lost Tree
adopts its previous exceptions as the basis for this exception. The rulings on those exceptions
similarly are adopted for purposes of this exception. The exception is denied.
Finding of Fact 142
Lost Tree takes exception to the finding that the maps of the Town’s plan show the
existence of seagrass beds, wetlands, conservation areas, and shoreline mangroves, and the further
28
DCA FINAL ORDER NO. DCA99-GM-05 7A
finding that those maps are consistent with the land use designations for the Inner and Outer
Islands. The plan’s maps include depictions of wetlands, conservation areas, shoreline
mangroves, and indicators of marine grassbeds. Map 1-12 on page I-27 of the goals, objectives
and policies notes that an on-site investigation is required to verify specific grassbeds. As to all of
the features depicted on the map, not just the grassbeds, the detail is very general, and the extent
and specific location of the features cannot be determined from the maps alone. Only a general
identification and depiction of environmental features on the future land use series is required by
Subsection 163.3177(6)(d), F.S., and Rule 9J-5.006(4)(b), F.A.C.
Lost Tree also raises the issue that the maps show the mangroves as comprising merely
fringes along the islands. The maps depict shoreline mangroves and the finding makes no
representation as to their extent or quality. Shoreline mangroves would include fringing
mangroves. As the maps depict environmentally important areas, the Town’s reduced land use
designations for the islands is adequately based on those maps. The exception is Genied.
Finding of Fact 146
Lost Tree takes exception to the finding that “{t]he Town gave full consideration to
private property interests.” That finding is supported by competent, substantial evidence. The
need to both protect the environment and allow private development was recognized by the Town
in its data and analysis (LEX 45, page I-21), and discussed in depth at Town Council meetings on
April 27, 1990, May 4, 1990, and May 16, 1990 (LEX 45, 97 and 97). The exception is denied.
Finding of Fact 147
This exception is based on Lost Tree’s contention that the treatment in the Town’s plan of
29
DCA FINAL ORDER NO. DCA99-GM-057A
the Inner and Outer Islands is inconsistent with its treatment of similar property within the Town.
In this finding, the ALJ notes that Lost Tree did not prove such disparate treatment. The
exception cites to portions of the transcript that specifically discuss Gem Island and John’s Island.
As this finding further notes, Gem Island and John’s Island are not similar properties because they
already have a transportation link to the barrier and also have already been approved for
development. Lost Tree does not dispute the evidentiary basis as to that portion of the finding.
Lost Tree also contends that the Inner and Outer Islands are not similar to other islands in
terms of environmental significance. In support of that argument, Lost Tree refers to its
exception to Findings of Fact 85 and 86, which this order rejects. The exception is denied.
Finding of Fact 151
Lost Tree disputes this finding which concludes that it is more difficult to evacuate
unbridged islands in case of a hurricane. On page I-21 of the Town’s data and analysis (LEX 45),
the susceptibility of the islands to Category I hurricanes is noted. It is further concluded that “any
development options should be restricted to the lowest reasonable thresholds in order to protect
against loss of life and to protect the general safety, health, and welfare.”
As evacuation is transportation intensive, it is reasonable for an ordinary person to
conclude that the population on an unbridged island would be more difficult to evacuate given the
absence of roads to the mainland. Professional planner Lester Solin testified that it is common
sense that evacuation by boat is slower than evacuation of an area that is linked by a system of
roads. (Transcript, page 750) The exception is denied.
30
DCA FINAL ORDER NO. DCA99-GM-057A
Finding of Fact 152
This exception is directed at the portion of this finding which determines that there is data
and analysis to support the reduced density for unbridged, isolated islands due to the difficulty in
providing emergency services. Lost Tree concedes in its exception that “there is evidence and
data that suggests providing emergency services to unbridged islands is more difficult in the
absence of a bridge,” but argues that there is no evidence or data that reducing densities would
“combat that difficulty.” This exception is based on a misreading of the finding. The ALJ does
not suggest that reduced density would improve the provision of emergency services; he simply
finds that it is more difficult to provide emergency services to islands where there is no bridge, as
Lost Tree admits in this exception. The exception is denied.
Finding of Fact_168
This finding adopts by reference the ALJ’s findings of fact concerning the environmental
importance of the Inner and Outer Islands which apply to the Town’s jurisdiction and applies
them also to the portions of the Outer Islands which lie within the City’s jurisdiction. Lost Tree
adopts by reference its exceptions to those findings. The rulings on those exceptions are hereby
adopted by reference. The exception is denied.
Finding of Fact 170
Lost Tree excepts to the statements in this finding which assert that the land use densities
for the islands located within the City’s boundaries are supported by data and analysis. Those
islands which are owned by Lost Tree are designated “Environmentally Sensitive (“ES”).” ES
31
DCA FINAL ORDER NO. DCA99-GM-O57A
land uses are limited under Future Land Use Policy 5.3 to a maximum density of 0.2 unit per acre.
That policy also commits the City to a transfer of development rights procedure.
ES lands are defined in Section 1.3.2.2 of the City’ plan as follows:
...property having one or more of the following characteristics: undeveloped
islands, undeveloped waterfront; environmentally sensitive; immediately adjacent
to envirorunentally sensitive land or undeveloped waterfront; flora and fauna
typically associated with wetlands; or a habitat for rare, threatened or endangered
species or species of special concern.
Environmentally sensitive lands shall include areas meeting one or more of the
following criteria:
(f) Undeveloped islands within the Indian River Lagoon,
The islands owned by Lost Tree which lie within the City’s boundaries qualify under this
policy as “ES” because they are located within the Indian River Lagoon, are undeveloped, and
contain environmental features described in preceding findings of fact. Lost Tree does not dispute
that the islands fit: within the definition of “ES.” Contrary to Lost Tree’s assertions, it was not
necessary for the City to prepare data and analysis which show the impacts of various densities on
those environmenttal features. As the data and analysis depict those features and it. is reasonable
to infer that reducing development would reduce adverse impacts on those features, the density is
supported by competent, substantial evidence. The exception is denied.
Finding of Fact 175
This exception is similar to the one taken to Finding of Fact 170 and adopts those
arguments. Lost Tree argues that there is no data and analysis to support Policy 5.3 and related
Policies 5.7 and §.2, which set forth criteria for land development regulations to irnplement Policy
32
DCA FINAL ORDER NO. DCA.99-GM-05 7A
5.3. For the reasons discussed in the ruling to Finding of Fact 170, there is competent, substantial
evidence to support the approaches in these three policies. The exception is denied.
Finding of Fact 176
Lost Tree takes exception to the first sentence in this finding which states: “Lost Tree
failed to prove the ‘ES’ land use designation and development criteria are inconsistent with
Section 187.201(15)(a), Florida Statutes.” This is an ultimate finding of fact which is based on
preceding Findings of Fact 155-175. The exception is limited to the findings concerning the
density of one unit per five acres. The above rulings on exceptions to Findings of Fact 168, 170,
and 175 which underlie this finding are adopted by reference. The exception is denied.
Finding of Fact 178
Lost Tree alleges that this finding erroneously finds that Lost Tree failed to prove that the
land use densities and development criteria for its islands are inconsistent with those provided in
the City’s plan for other similar islands. The statements made in this finding are ultimate findings
of fact that are based on preceding findings. Finding of Fact 86 finds that the small, undeveloped,
and unbridged islands are similar to those in the Inner and Outer Islands. Finding of Fact 87 finds
that development rights on Prang Island were vested; thus it was within the City’s discretion to
assign that island a higher density to reflect the pre-approved development level. The tulings to
the exceptions filed by Lost Tree to Findings of Fact 86 and 87 are adopted by reference. The
\
exception is denied.
33
DCA FINAL ORDER NO. DCA99-G-057A
Findings of Fact 182 and 183
These two findings of fact uphold Policy 5.6 of the City’s Future Land Use Element,
which is referred to as the “no-bridgehead policy.” That policy prevents the use of any property
as a bridgehead to connect any undeveloped island within the City with the Barrier Island or the
mainland.
In support of Policy 5.6, the ALJ states in Finding of Fact 182 that it is based on the same
data and analysis that support the Town’s limiting the building of bridges to undeveloped islands.
He also states that his findings of fact with respect to data and analysis upholding the Town’s
bridge building limitation (Policy 1-1.1.6) also apply to this City policy. Finding of Fact 183
reiterates that finding. Lost Tree argues that the ALJ made no such findings, and there is no data
and analysis to support Policy 5.6.
The ALJ made findings in Findings of Fact 150-152 that Town Policy 1-1.1.6, which limits
bridge building, is supported by competent, substantial evidence. Throughout the Recommended
Order, the ALJ makes findings that there are sufficient data and analysis that the undeveloped
islands have features of environmental importance, and that data and analysis support the ES
densities. Those findings have not been overturned. The exceptions are denied.
Conclusions of Law 209, 210, 216, 229, 230, and 231
These conclusions of law reiterate findings of fact in which the ALJ determines that Lost
Tree did not meet its burden of proof on the various issues it raised in this proceeding. In this
exception, Lost Tree reargues exceptions it made to those findings of fact and reaffirms its
position that those findings are not based on competent, substantial evidence. As those
34
DCA FINAL ORDER NO. DCA99-GM-057A
exceptions to findings of fact were not granted, the findings which underlie these conclusions of
law remain standing. The exception is denied.
Conclusion of Law 217
Conclusion of Law 217 states that “[t]he evidence failed to prove beyond fair debate that
the bridgehead policy of the City was not supported by adequate and appropriate data and
analysis.” As in the above exception, Lost Tree attempts to overturn this conclusion of law by
rearguing its exceptions to the relevant findings of fact. As those findings of fact which pertain to
the City Policy 5.6, particularly Findings of Fact 180-184, were not rejected in this order, this
conclusion of law is upheld. The exception is denied.
Conclusion of Law 226
In this conclusion of law, the ALJ finds that Lost Tree failed to prove that either the City
or the Town failed to take into consideration the property rights goal of Subsection 187.201
(15)(a), F. S., of the State Comprehensive Plan except to the extent the Town adopted Policy 1-
1.1.6. In support of this exception, Lost Tree argues that this conclusion is not based on
competent, substantial evidence and refers to its exceptions to Findings of Fact 146 and 176.
Neither of those exceptions was granted above because those findings were determined to be
based on competent, substantial evidence. The exception is denied.
ORDER
Upon review and consideration of the entire record of the proceeding, including the
Recommended Order, the Exceptions to the Recommended Order, the Responses to the
Exceptions, the Supplemental Recommended Order, the Exceptions to the Supplemental
35
DCA FINAL ORDER NO. DCA99-GM-057A
Recommended Order, and the Responses to the Exceptions to the Supplemental Recommended
Order, it is hereby ordered that:
1.
DONE AND ORDERED on this2? day day g
As modified by this Final Order, the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the
Recommended Order and the Supplemental Recommended Order, other than those
rejected herein, are adopted;
The ALJ’s recommendation for the issuance of a final order finding the City’s plan
in compliance is accepted; and
The comprehensive plan of the City of Vero Beach is determined to be in
compliance; and
The ALJ’s recommendation for the issuance of a final order finding the Town’s
plan not in compliance is rejected; and
The comprehensive plan of the Town of Indian River Shores is determined to be in
conipliance.
Tallahassee, Florida 32390. 2100
NOTICE OF RIGHTS
To initiate an appeal of this order, a Notice of Appeal must be filed with the
Department’s Agency Clerk, 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-
2100, within thirty (30) days of the day this order is filed with the Agency Clerk. The
36
DCA FINAL ORDER NO. DCA99-GM-057A
Notice of Appeal must be substantially in the form prescribed by Florida Rule of Appellate
Procedure 9.900(a). A copy of the Notice of Appeal must be filed with the appropriate
District Court of Appeal and must be accompanied by the filing fee specified in Section
35.22(3), Florida Statutes.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by
yb ‘\ |
the method indicated to the following persons listed below on this 20 day of ay
2001. ; Qu See _
Paula Ford, Agency Clerk
EPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
2555 Shumard Oak Blvd.
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100
(850) 488-0410
Via U.S. Mail:
William L. Hyde, Esquire
Gunster, Yoakley, Valdes-Fauli FIUC 20D ACHGWLEBUL tot
& Stewart, P.A. FILED, c2 th:s data, with .na designated
Agency Ciark, receipt of which is hereby
215 South Monroe Street, Suite 830 knowiedged.
Tallahassee, Florida 32301 re ‘ , 20-5 5/80 i 0}
Miriam Snipes Dita
Chester Clem, Esquire Doputy agency Clerk
3333 20" Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Emest A. Cox, Esquire
Gunster, Yoakley, Valdes-Fauli
37
& Stewart, P.A.
777 South Flagler Drive
Phillips Point, Suite 500E
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Julie B. Schutta, Esquire
City of Vero Beach
Post Office Box 1389
Vero Beach, Florida 32961-1389
Ken Oertel, Esquire
Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez & Cole, P.A.
P.O. Box 1110
Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1110
Via Hand-Delivery:
Andrew Grayson, Esquire
Department of Community Affairs
2555 Shumard Oak Blvd.
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
DCA FINAL ORDER NO. DCA99-GM-057A
38
Docket for Case No: 92-006784GM
Issue Date |
Proceedings |
May 31, 2001 |
Final Order filed.
|
Nov. 13, 2000 |
Letter to K. Oertel from A. Grayson In re: counsel of record filed. |
Sep. 15, 1999 |
Supplemental Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. |
Jul. 09, 1999 |
Respondent Town of Indian River Shores` Supplemental Proposed Order filed. |
Jul. 09, 1999 |
Petitioner Lost Tree Village Corporation`s Proposed Order on Remand filed. |
Jul. 09, 1999 |
Department of Community Affairs` Proposed Recommended Order After Remand filed. |
Jun. 16, 1999 |
Order Accepting Remand and Reopening Files CASE REOPENED. |
May 18, 1999 |
Transcripts and Exhibits returned from the DCA filed. |
May 17, 1999 |
Order of Remand (Department of Community Affairs) filed. |
Mar. 22, 1999 |
(DCA) Order of Clarification filed. |
Mar. 12, 1999 |
Lost Tree Village Corporation`s Response to Town`s Exceptions; Lost Tree Village Corporation`s Response to Department`s Exceptions filed. |
Mar. 08, 1999 |
(DCA) Order of Clarification rec`d |
Feb. 19, 1999 |
Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 02/16-19/98 & 08/17-21/98. |
Dec. 23, 1998 |
Order Denying Motion to Stay sent out. |
Dec. 17, 1998 |
Department`s Response in Opposition to Joint Motion to Stay Issuance of Recommended Order (filed via facsimile). |
Dec. 15, 1998 |
Joint Motion to Stay Issuance of Recommended Order; Cover Letter (filed via facsimile). |
Nov. 20, 1998 |
Department`s Response in Opposition to Lost Tree`s Motion to Strike (filed via facsimile). |
Nov. 18, 1998 |
Petitioner`s Motion to Strike Portions of Respondent Department of Community Affairs` Proposed Recommended Order filed. |
Nov. 09, 1998 |
City of Vero Beach`s Emergency Motion for Continuance; Cover Letter filed. |
Nov. 05, 1998 |
Proposed Recommended Order of Lost Tree Village Corporation filed. |
Nov. 05, 1998 |
City of Vero Beach`s Emergency Motion for Continuance (filed via facsimile). |
Nov. 05, 1998 |
(Vero Beach) Notice of Hearing (filed via facsimile). |
Nov. 05, 1998 |
(Petitioner) Order (for judge signature) (filed via facsimile). |
Nov. 04, 1998 |
Department of Community Affairs` Proposed Recommended Orders; Disk filed. |
Nov. 04, 1998 |
Town of Indian River Shores` Proposed Recommended Order filed. |
Nov. 04, 1998 |
(DCA) Exhibits w/cover letter filed. |
Oct. 27, 1998 |
Letter to LJS from W. Hyde (RE: due date for PROs) (filed via facsimile). |
Oct. 26, 1998 |
(Indian River Shores) Notice of Withdrawal of Motion for Extension of Time to Submit Proposed Recommended Order filed. |
Oct. 21, 1998 |
(Indian River Shores) Motion for Extension of Time to Submit Proposed Recommended Order filed. |
Oct. 15, 1998 |
(Volume III) Transcript of Proceedings filed. |
Oct. 09, 1998 |
Transcript of Proceedings (Volume VII/tagged) filed. |
Oct. 09, 1998 |
(Volumes VIII thur XVI) Transcript filed. |
Sep. 01, 1998 |
Letter to LJS from Ross S. Burnaman (RE: notification that transcript has been ordered) (filed via facsimile). |
Aug. 24, 1998 |
Letter to E. Cox from A. Grayson Re: Confirming location of trial exhibits filed. |
Aug. 17, 1998 |
CASE STATUS: Hearing Held. |
Aug. 14, 1998 |
Lost Tree Village Corporation`s Response to Order to Show Cause Dated August 5, 1998 (filed via facsimile). |
Aug. 14, 1998 |
Department`s Third Request for Official Recognition (filed via facsimile). |
Aug. 05, 1998 |
Order Denying Motion to Dismiss and for A Summary Final Order sent out. |
Aug. 03, 1998 |
(DCA) Notice of Taking Deposition (filed via facsimile). |
Jul. 30, 1998 |
Department`s Response to City`s Motion to Dismiss and for a Summary Final Order (filed via facsimile). |
Jul. 29, 1998 |
Department`s Second Request for Official Recognition (filed via facsimile). |
Jul. 24, 1998 |
City of Vero Beach`s Motion to Dismiss and for a Summary Final Order filed. |
Jun. 09, 1998 |
Order of Continuance and Notice of Rescheduling of Formal Hearing sent out. (6/1/98 hearing cancelled & reset for Aug. 17-21 & 24-26, 1998; 9:30am; Vero Beach) |
May 28, 1998 |
Joint Motion for Continuance of Hearing (filed via facsimile). |
May 22, 1998 |
(DCA) Notice of Telephonic Hearing (filed via facsimile). |
May 21, 1998 |
(DCA) Motion for Continuance (filed via facsimile). |
Apr. 20, 1998 |
(Oertel Hoffman) Notice of Change of Address filed. |
Apr. 07, 1998 |
Notice of Continuation of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for June 1-5, 1998; 9:00am; Vero Beach) |
Mar. 30, 1998 |
March 27, 1997 Joint Motion for Continuance; Cover Letter (filed via facsimile). |
Feb. 26, 1998 |
Notice of Continuation of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for April 6-9, 1998; 9:00am; Vero Beach) |
Feb. 17, 1998 |
Subpoena Duces Tecum (From E. Cox) filed. |
Feb. 16, 1998 |
CASE STATUS: Hearing Partially Held, continued to April 6-10, 1998; 9:00am; Vero Beach. |
Feb. 16, 1998 |
(Petitioner) Notice of Service of Subpoena Ad Testificandum (filed via facsimile). |
Feb. 13, 1998 |
Order Closing File in case Number 90-2328GM, Granting Motion to Strike and Granting Motion for Official Recognition sent out. (NOTE: 90-5021GM & 92-6784GM pleadings to be filed in case #90-5021GM) |
Feb. 13, 1998 |
Case No/s: unconsolidated. 90-002328GM |
Feb. 12, 1998 |
(Signed by R. Burnaman, R. O`Hara, R. Sechen, K. Oertel) Amended Prehearing Stipulation filed. |
Feb. 11, 1998 |
(Signed by R. Burnaman, R. O`Hara,) Prehearing Stipulation filed. |
Feb. 09, 1998 |
Lost Tree`s Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of Dan Pennington filed. |
Feb. 09, 1998 |
City of Vero Beach`s Notice of Service of Answers to Interrogatories to Lost Tree Village Corporation filed. |
Feb. 09, 1998 |
(From E. Cox) Notice of Unavailability filed. |
Feb. 09, 1998 |
Department of Community Affairs` Notice of Service of Answers to Lost Tree`s Interrogatories (filed via facisimile) filed. |
Feb. 06, 1998 |
(From E. Cox) Third Amended Petition Challenging Determination of Compliance (Case No. 92-6784GM); Third Amended Petition for Administrative Hearing (Case No. 90-5021GM) filed. |
Feb. 06, 1998 |
Department of Community Affairs` Response to Lost Tree`s Request for Production of Documents (filed via facsimile). |
Feb. 05, 1998 |
Lost Tree`s Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of Brian Burnett; Lost Tree`s Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of Dan Pennington; Lost Tree`s Notice of Taking Deposition Tecum of John Outland filed. |
Feb. 05, 1998 |
(Town of Indian River Shores) Notice of Serving Answers to Interrogatories filed. |
Feb. 02, 1998 |
Department of Community Affairs Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of Howard Landers (filed via facsimile). |
Jan. 26, 1998 |
Lost Tree Village Corporation`s Response to Department of Community Affairs` Request for Production filed. |
Jan. 26, 1998 |
Lost Tree Village Corporation`s Notice of Service of Answers to Indian River Shores` Interrogatories to Lost Tree Village Corporation filed. |
Jan. 26, 1998 |
Lost Tree Village Corporation`s Notice of Service of Answers to Department of Community Affairs` Interrogatories to Petitioner Lost Tree Village Corporation filed. |
Jan. 23, 1998 |
Department`s Request for Official Recognition filed. |
Jan. 22, 1998 |
Department of Community Affairs` Motion to Strike (filed via facsimile). |
Jan. 22, 1998 |
Department of Community Affairs` Motion to Strike (filed via facsimile). |
Jan. 21, 1998 |
(From W. Hyde) Second Amended Petitoin Challenging Determination of Compliance (Case No. 92-6784GM) filed. |
Jan. 21, 1998 |
(From W. Hyde) Second Amended Petition for Administrative Hearing (Case No. 90-5021GM); Lost Tree Village Corporation`s Response in Opposition to Department of Community Affairs` Motion to Strike filed. |
Jan. 21, 1998 |
Department`s Notice of Telephonic Hearing (filed via facsimile). |
Jan. 20, 1998 |
Department of Community Affairs Amended Certificate of Service (filed via facisimile) filed. |
Jan. 16, 1998 |
Department of Community Affairs` Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of Michael Dennis; Subpoena Duces Tecum (from R. Burnaman); Department of Community Affairs` Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of Lost Tree Village Corporation filed. |
Jan. 16, 1998 |
Department of Community Affairs` Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of Michael E. Kiefer, Jr.; Subpoena Duces Tecum; Department of Community of Affairs` Notice of Taking Deposition of Helen E. Stone; Subpoena Ad Testificandum filed. |
Jan. 16, 1998 |
Department of Community Affairs` Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of John Miller; Subpoena Duces Tecum (from R. Burnaman); Department of Community Affairs` Notice of Taking Deposition of Robert P. Burnett; Subpoena Ad Testificandum filed. |
Jan. 14, 1998 |
Department of Community Affairs` Motion to Strike (filed via facsimile). |
Jan. 12, 1998 |
Lost Tree`s Notice of Service of Interrogatories to Respondent, City of Vero Beach filed. |
Jan. 12, 1998 |
Lost Tree`s Notice of Service of Interrogatories to Respondent, Department of Community Affairs; Lost Tree`s Notice of Service of Interrogatories to Respondent, Indian River Shores filed. |
Jan. 09, 1998 |
(Lost Tree Village Corp.) Amended Petition Challenging Determination of Compliance (Case No. 92-6784GM); Amended Petition for Administrative Hearing (Case No. 90-5021GM) filed. |
Jan. 07, 1998 |
Lost Tree`s Request for Production of Documents to Respondent, Department of Community Affairs (filed via facsimile). |
Dec. 24, 1997 |
Lost Tree`s Amended Re-Notice of Taking Deposition (adding Duces Tecum) (filed via facsimile). |
Dec. 22, 1997 |
Department of Community Affairs` Motion for Protective Order filed. |
Dec. 19, 1997 |
Department of Community Affairs Request for Production from Petitioner, Lost Tree Village Corporation; Department of Community Affairs` Notice of Voluntary Dismissal; Department of Community Affairs` Motion to Strike filed. |
Dec. 19, 1997 |
Department of Community Affairs Notice of Service of Interrogatories to Petitioner Lost Tree Village Corporation filed. |
Dec. 18, 1997 |
Order Designating Locaiton of Hearing sent out. |
Dec. 16, 1997 |
(Indian River Shores) Notice of Service of Interrogatories filed. |
Dec. 15, 1997 |
(8) Subpoena Duces Tecum (from E. Cox) filed. |
Dec. 15, 1997 |
(2) Lost Tree`s Re-Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum; Lost Tree`s Notice of Cancelling Deposition; Lost Tree`s Re-Notice of Taking Depositions filed. |
Dec. 12, 1997 |
Amended Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for Feb. 16-20 & 23-24, 1998; 9:00am; Vero Beach) |
Dec. 12, 1997 |
Pre-Hearing Order sent out. |
Dec. 10, 1997 |
Letter to E. Cox from A. Grayson Re: Notice of Deposition filed. |
Dec. 10, 1997 |
(From K. Oertel) Notice of Appearance filed. |
Dec. 08, 1997 |
(9) Lost Tree`s Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum filed. |
Nov. 24, 1997 |
Lost Tree`s Notice of Taking Depositions filed. |
Nov. 07, 1997 |
Respondent`s, Town of Indian River Shores, Response to Order Granting Request That a Formal Hearing Be Scheduled filed. |
Nov. 06, 1997 |
Lost Tree Corporation`s Response to Order of the Administrative Law Judge Dated October 16, 1997 (filed via facsimile). |
Nov. 03, 1997 |
Department of Community Affairs Response to Order of the Administrative Law Judge Dated October 16, 1997 (filed via facsimile). |
Oct. 31, 1997 |
(Respondent) Response to Order of the Administrative Law Judge Dated October 16, 1997 filed. |
Oct. 16, 1997 |
Order Granting Request That A Formal Hearing Be Scheduled sent out. (parties to file unavailable hearing dates by 11/7/97) |
Oct. 14, 1997 |
Department of Community Affairs` Rseponse to Lost Tree Village Corporation`s Request that a Formal Hearing Be Scheduled (filed via facsimile). |
Oct. 06, 1997 |
Lost Tree Village Corporation`s Request That a Formal Hearing Be Scheduled; Cover Letter filed. |
Jun. 23, 1997 |
Thirteenth Order of Continuance sent out. (parties to file status report by 12/4/97) |
Jun. 20, 1997 |
(From A. Grayson) Notice of Substitution of Counsel for Department of Community Affairs filed. |
Jun. 04, 1997 |
Notice of Appearance of Additional Counsel, Ernest A. Cox, for Lost Tree Village Corporation; June 4, 1997 Status Report & Motion for Continuance filed. |
Mar. 31, 1997 |
Notice of Substitution of Counsel for Department of Community Affairs filed. |
Jan. 28, 1997 |
Respondent's, Town of Indian River Shores, Status Report filed. |
Jan. 28, 1997 |
Respondent's, Town of Indian River Shores, Status Report filed. |
Jan. 27, 1997 |
Respondent's, City of Vero Beach, Motion for Six-Month Continuance filed. |
Jan. 24, 1997 |
Twentieth Order of Continuance sent out. (motion for continuance is granted; parties to file status report by 6/4/97) |
Jan. 10, 1997 |
(Lost Tree) Status Report & Motion for Continuance filed. |
Jan. 10, 1997 |
(Lost Tree) Status Report & Motion for Continuance filed. |
Dec. 02, 1996 |
Respondent's, City of Vero Beach, Status Report filed. |
Nov. 21, 1996 |
Nineteenth Order of Continuance sent out. (parties to file status report by 1/13/97) |
Nov. 18, 1996 |
Respondent's, Town of Indian River Shores, Status Report filed. |
Nov. 12, 1996 |
(Lost Tree) Status Report & Motion for Continuance filed. |
May 07, 1996 |
Eighteenth Order of Continuance sent out. (parties to file status report by 11/11/96) |
Apr. 30, 1996 |
(Lost Tree) Status Report & Motion for Continuance filed. |
Jan. 16, 1996 |
(Vero Beach) Status Report & Motion for Continuance filed. |
Dec. 14, 1995 |
Seventeenth Order of Continuance sent out. (hearing date to be rescheduled at a later date; parties to file status report by 5/1/96) |
Dec. 13, 1995 |
Notice of Substitution of Counsel for Department of Community Affairs filed. |
Dec. 08, 1995 |
(Petitioner) Status Report & Motion for Continuance filed. |
Aug. 07, 1995 |
Respondent's, Town of Indian River Shores, Status Report w/cover letter filed. |
Aug. 04, 1995 |
(Respondent) Status Report Motion for Continuance filed. |
Aug. 02, 1995 |
Sixteenth Order of Continuance sent out. (Parties to file status report by 12/11/95) |
Jul. 27, 1995 |
(Petitioner) Status Report & Motion for Continuance filed. |
Mar. 13, 1995 |
Respondent's, City of Vero Beach, Status Report filed. |
Mar. 03, 1995 |
Fifteenth Order of Continuance sent out. (Parties to file status report by 8/1/95) |
Mar. 02, 1995 |
Respondent's Town of Indian River Shores, Status Report filed. |
Feb. 22, 1995 |
(Lost Tree) Status Report & Motion for Continuance filed. |
Sep. 06, 1994 |
Order Continuing Hearing sent out. (hearing date to be rescheduled at a later date; parties to file status report by 2/28/95) |
Aug. 23, 1994 |
(Petitioner) Status Report & Motion for Continuance filed. |
Jun. 13, 1994 |
Notice of Substitution of Counsel for Department of Community Affairs filed. |
Apr. 05, 1994 |
Thirteenth Order of Continuance sent out. (hearing date to be rescheduled at a later date; parties to file status report by 9/6/94) |
Mar. 29, 1994 |
(Petitioner) Status Report & Motion for Continuance filed. |
Oct. 06, 1993 |
Twelfth Order of Continuance sent out. (hearing date to be rescheduled at a later date; parties to file status report by 4/1/94) |
Sep. 28, 1993 |
(Petitioner) Status Report & Motion for Continuance filed. |
Sep. 27, 1993 |
Respondent's City of Vero Beach, Status Report filed. |
Sep. 23, 1993 |
Respondent's, Town of Indian River Shores, Status Report filed. |
Sep. 23, 1993 |
Notice filed. (Notification of New Address from Sherman Smith) |
Aug. 04, 1993 |
Notice filed. (From Mary F. Smallwood) |
Apr. 01, 1993 |
Eleventh Order of Continuance sent out. (hearing date to be rescheduled at a later date; parties to file status report by 10-1-93) |
Mar. 30, 1993 |
(Lost Tree Village Corp) Status Report & Motion for Continuance filed. |
Dec. 21, 1992 |
Order Granting Motion To Consolidate And Motion For Continuance sent out. (Consolidated cases are: 90-2328GM, 90-5021GM, 92-6784GM) |
Dec. 15, 1992 |
Order Granting Motion For Continuance sent out. (hearing date to be rescheduled at a later date; parties to file status report by 4-1-93) |
Dec. 08, 1992 |
(Lost Tree) Motion to Consolidate (with DOAH Case No/s. 90-2328GM & 90-5021GM) filed. |
Dec. 08, 1992 |
(Petitioner) Motion for Continuance filed. |
Dec. 04, 1992 |
(Petitioner) Notice filed. |
Dec. 02, 1992 |
Parties Response to Notice of Assignment and Order filed. |
Nov. 23, 1992 |
Notice Of Assignment And Order sent out. |
Nov. 18, 1992 |
Notification card sent out. |
Nov. 13, 1992 |
Notice of Appearance filed. |
Nov. 10, 1992 |
Agency referral letter; Petition Challenging Determination of Compliance filed. |
Orders for Case No: 92-006784GM