STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
JOSEPH F. AND ROSE PEACOCK, )
MARRHEW C. AND LAURA MARTELL ) BRALY, AND RALPH AND BETTY MORRIS, )
)
Petitioners, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 95-3885GM
) 95-3886GM
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS ) 95-4027GM and THE CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE )
BEACH, )
)
Respondents, )
and )
) CHAUTAUQUA BEACHCOMBER, INC., )
)
Intervenor. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Following notice to all parties, Don W. Davis, a Hearing Officer for the Division of Administrative Hearings, held a final hearing in the above-styled case on October 26, 1995, in St. Augustine, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioners: Betty Morris, Pro Se
o/b/o Petitioners One First Lane
St. Augustine Beach, Florida 32084
For Respondent Terrell K. Arline, Esquire Department of Assistant General Counsel Community Department of Community Affairs Affairs: 2740 Centerview Drive
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
For Respondent Geoffrey B. Dobson, Esquire City of St. 66 Cuna Street, Suite B Augustine Beach: St. Augustine, Florida 32084
For Intervenor: George M. McClure, Esquire
Post Office Box 3504
St. Augustine, Florida 32085-3504
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
The issue in this case is whether the comprehensive plan amendment adopted by the City of St. Augustine Beach on April 3, 1995, through enactment of Ordinance Number 95-5 is in compliance pursuant to Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Pursuant to requirements of Section 163.3184(9), Florida Statutes, Petitioners filed separate Petitions challenging the plan amendment on August 2, 3, and 7, 1995.
The Petitions were transferred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the purpose of further administrative proceedings and assigned separate case numbers. Subsequently, the Petitions were consolidated for final hearing under DOAH Case No. 95-3885GM.
On October 3, 1995, Chautauqua Beachcomber, Inc., filed a Petition to Intervene. That Petition was granted.
Formal hearing was convened on October 26, 1995.
Petitioners presented testimony of seven witnesses and eight exhibits.
Respondent Department of Community Affairs (Department) presented testimony of one witness.
Respondent City of St. Augustine Beach (City) presented no witnesses.
Intervenor Chautauqua Beachcomber, Inc., (Intervenor) presented testimony of two witnesses.
Respondents and Intervenor jointly presented nine exhibits.
A transcript of the final hearing was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on November 15, 1995. Proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties have been reviewed and are addressed in the appendix to this recommended order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
On April 3, 1995, the City adopted the amendment by Ordinance Number 95-5, and submitted it to the Department for review pursuant to Section 163.3184(7), Florida Statutes.
On July 15, 1995, the Department issued a notice of intent to find the amendment in compliance. By August 7, 1995, all Petitioners had timely filed their challenges to the amendment's adoption by the City.
On October 3, 1995, Intervenor was granted leave to intervene and its motion to expedite these proceedings was granted.
The Department is the state land planning agency charged with responsibility for review of comprehensive plans pursuant to Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes.
Petitioners reside in the City of St. Augustine Beach, St. Johns County, Florida. All Petitioners own property adjacent to or within close proximity to the parcel which is the subject of the amendment. The parties stipulate that each Petitioner is an "affected person" as defined by Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and that each Petitioner presented oral and written objections and comments at the public hearings held on the amendment.
The City is a local government required to adopt a comprehensive plan pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes.
The amendment to the City's Future Land Use Map (FLUM) which is the subject of this proceeding involves a parcel of land approximately .11 of an acre in size. Located on the north side of "A" Street which runs between Highway AIA (Beach Boulevard) and the Atlantic Ocean, the parcel adjoins the western boundary of an existing parking lot for a restaurant called the Beachcomber. In the short distance between Highway AIA and the the restaurant are duplexes and apartments, inclusive of a parking lot. There is a residence on the subject parcel at present.
The Beachcomber was built before the comprehensive plan's adoption by the City and was designated on the FLUM as commercial in 1993.
The amendment would change the designation of the parcel on which the residence is located from Medium Density Residential to Commercial Use, subject to conditions. The purpose for the designation change is to permit Intervenor, owner of the Beachcomber and purchaser of the parcel, to demolish the residence and use the parcel for an additional eight spaces of restaurant parking.
The amendment is a small scale amendment pursuant to Section 163.3187, Florida Statutes.
It is the position of Petitioners that the amendment is inconsistent with a policy on buffers contained at L.1.3.3, page AB-4 of the City's Comprehensive Plan (Plan). The policy states the following:
For future development the City shall include
in the land development regulations the require- ment for a 15 foot vegetative buffer between noncompatible uses such as between commercial and residential land uses.
The amendment is silent with regard to buffers. The intervenor is required by the amendment to comply with all applicable land development regulations. A proposed site plan of Intervenor reveals buffers of 10 instead of 15 feet, but the Intervenor has not yet sought site plan approval.
Petitioners also maintain that the amendment's change in designation of the parcel from medium density residential to commercial property subject to restrictions constitutes an inconsistency with the Plan. Policy L.1.3.5., states "[c]ommercial development shall not be allowed in areas designated as residential on the Future Land Use Map."
As established by testimony of the Department's planning expert, Carol Collins, the amendment is a small expansion of "the existing commercial use." The expansion was viewed by Collins as intended to replace a parking area in front of the Beachcomber that was lost through erosion. She opined that "you can make a reasonable case for finding this amendment in compliance."
While the amendment may be considered inconsistent with one policy (Policy L.1.3.5.) of the Plan, in the opinion of Collins, the amendment is in compliance with the Plan as a whole.
Craig Thompson, certified planner and architect with an established expertise in comprehensive planning, opined at the final hearing that certain aspects of the Plan are furthered by the amendment. Specifically, the amendment supports the goal of encouraging tourism and addressing commercial needs beneficial to residents and tourists alike by providing parking for automobiles of Beachcomber patrons otherwise parked on the street. Further, although the Beachcomber is a grandfathered commercial use in a residential area, the enhanced parking will not be so great as to enlarge the commercial activity at the restaurant.
The Plan sets forth a growth management strategy on page L15 which recognizes the potential for future rezoning of parcels from residential to commercial and notes that such rezonings "should be restricted, consolidating areas where possible." As noted by Thompson's testimony, the use of property immediately behind the Beachcomber site for parking is consistent with the Plan's intent that commercial rezonings should be consolidated.
The amendment specifically states that the use of the parcel is restricted solely to parking of vehicles "or, if approved by Conditional Use Permit, residential purposes." Although designated as commercial by the amendment, expanded commercial development on the parcel, i.e., an expansion of the restaurant itself, is not authorized or contemplated.
Petitioners provided no independent testimony that fears of property devaluation of their nearby residences will be realized as a result of parking activity on the parcel. Other Petitioner concerns of after hours activity in the parking lot should be alleviated by the plans of Intervenor to strictly police the parking area and enforce its use for patron parking only, including closure of the lot when the Beachcomber is not open.
Petitioners' claim that the necessity for redesignation of the parcel is mooted in view of the future renourishment of the beach, as contemplated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and documented by a letter dated after adoption of the amendment. However, the contemplation of such future beach renourishment fails to establish that Beachcomber Restaurant parking would be permitted on the renourished beachfront.
The Plan, as amended, is in compliance with the regional plan and the state comprehensive plan.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over this matter. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
At issue in this proceeding is whether the plan amendment is "in compliance" with Part II of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code.
The term "[i]n compliance," as defined in Subsection 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, means the plan is consistent with applicable provisions of
Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, the state comprehensive plan, the regional policy plan, and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code.
This case arose under Subsection 163.3184(9)(a), Florida Statutes, following the DCA's notice of intent to find the plan amendment in compliance. Under that statute, the plan amendment shall be determined to be "in compliance" if the local government's determination of compliance is fairly debatable. Therefore, the action of the City (and DCA) must be approved "if reasonable persons could differ as to its propriety." B & H Travel Corporation v. Department of Community Affairs, 602 So. 2d 1362, 1365 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). In other words, Petitioners bear a heavy burden in proving the legitimacy of their claims.
The directive of Policy L.1.3.5., proscribing commercial development in areas designated as residential on the Future Land Use Map appears in conflict with the amendment until the conditional nature of the amendment is considered. Then the more realistic and reasonable view pervades that the amendment permits only a change of designation from medium density residential to parking for a small number of automobiles with any future use of the parcel relegated to residential designation. Clearly, had the amendment changed the designation of the subject parcel to commercial without restrictions, a direct conflict incapable of alternative interpretations would be presented between requirements of the Plan and the amendment.
When viewed in the context of the Plan as a whole, the amendment's effect furthers certain aspects of the Plan and it is reasonable to accept that the amendment is consistent with the Plan's intent to consolidate and minimize commercial rezonings.
Accordingly, it is concluded that the evidence fails to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan amendment is inconsistent with the Plan as a whole.
Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order
determining the amendment to be in compliance.
DONE and ENTERED in Tallahassee, Florida, this 14th day of December, 1995.
DON W. DAVIS
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 14th day of December, 1995.
APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER
IN CASE NO. 95-3885GM, 95-3886GM & 95-4027GM.
In accordance with provisions of Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, the following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the parties.
Petitioners' Proposed Findings
(Petitioners' proposed findings were numbered 13-69.)
13.-14. Accepted.
Rejected, unnecessary.
Incorporated by reference.
Accepted with the addition of "subject to conditions" following the word "commercial" at the end of the 2nd sentence.
18.-21. Rejected as redundant, cumulative and subordinate to HO findings.
22.-23. Incorporated by reference.
24.-29. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. 30.-33. Incorporated by reference.
Rejected, conclusionary, subject to reasonable debate.
Rejected, subordinate.
Rejected, unnecessary.
Incorporated by reference.
38.-39. Rejected, out of context quotation, argumentative, subordinate to HO findings.
40.-42. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings.
43. Adopted.
44.-46. Rejected, not materially dispositive.
Rejected, materially, occurred after amendment adoption.
Rejected, speculative.
Rejected, unnecessary.
Rejected, subordinate to HO findings.
Incorporated by reference.
Rejected, unnecessary.
Rejected, credibility. 54.-55. Rejected, relevancy.
56. Incorporated by reference.
57.-58. Rejected, relevancy, subordinate to HO findings.
59. Rejected, conclusion of law.
60.-63. Rejected, relevancy, subordinate to HO findings. 64.-65. Adopted, not verbatim.
66.-67. Rejected, unnecessary.
68.-69. Rejected, argument, subordinate to HO findings.
Respondent Department's Proposed Findings
(Respondent Department's proposed findings were numbered 5-21.)
5.-12. Adopted, not verbatim.
13.-14. Rejected, relevancy, legal conclusion. 15.-18. Adopted, not verbatim.
19. Rejected, argument, no record citation. 20.-21. Incorporated by reference.
Intervenor's Proposed Findings
1.-4. Adopted, not verbatim.
5.-15. Incorporated by reference.
Rejected, conclusion.
Adopted, not verbatim.
Rejected, conclusion.
Adopted, not verbatim.
Incorporated by reference. 21.-23. Rejected, argument.
24. Adopted, not verbatim.
25.-26. Incorporated by reference. 27.-29. Incorporated by reference.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Terrell K. Arline, Esquire Dept. of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100
Geoffrey B. Dobson, Esquire
66 Cuna Street, Suite B
St. Augustine Beach, FL 32084
Mr. and Mrs. Joseph F. Peacock
6 "A" Street
St. Augustine Beach, FL 32084
Mr. and Mrs. Matthew Braly Three First Lane
St. Augustine Beach, FL 32084
Mr. and Mrs. Ralph Morris One First Lane
St. Augustine Beach, FL 32084
George M. McClure, Esquire
O. Box 3504
St. Augustine, FL 32085-3504
James F. Murley, Secretary Dept. of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100
Dan Stengle, General Counsel Dept. of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this Recommended Order. All agencies allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will issue the final order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.
================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER
=================================================================
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
JOSEPH F. and ROSE PEACOCK, MATTHEW C. and LAURA MARTELL BRALY, and RALPH and BETTY MORRIS,
Petitioners,
DOAH CASE NOS. 95-3885GM
vs. 95-3886GM, 95-4027GM
FINAL ORDER NO. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS DCA 96-319-FOF-GM and THE CITY OF
ST. AUGUSTINE BEACH,
Respondents,
CHATAUQUA BEACHCOMBER, INC.,
Intervenor.
/
FINAL ORDER
BACKGROUND
The issue before the Agency issuing this final order, the Department of Community Affairs, is whether the City of St. Augustine Beach comprehensive plan amendment, adopted by Ordinance No. 95-5 on April 3, 1995, is in compliance.
The Department of Community Affairs (hereinafter "Department") preliminarily found the plan amendment in compliance on July 15, 1995.
On August 2, 3, and 7, pursuant to s163.3194(9), Florida Statutes, JOSEPH
F. and ROSE PEACOCK, MATTHEW C. and LAURA MARTELL BRALY, and RALPH and BETTY MORRIS (hereinafter "Petitioners") independently filed petitions for formal administrative hearings in which they alleged that the comprehensive plan amendment adopted by the City of St. Augustine Beach (hereinafter "City") pursuant to Ordinance No. 95-5 was not in compliance. The petitions were
forwarded by the Department to the Division of Administrative Hearings for formal administrative proceedings. The petitions were subsequently consolidated under DOAH Case No. 95-3885GM.
On October 3, 1995, CHAUTAUQUA BEACHCOMBER filed a Petition to Intervene, which was granted. A formal administrative hearing was held by Hearing Officer Don W. Davis on October 26, 1995, in St. Augustine, Florida. A transcript of the hearing was filed on November 15, 1995.
On December 14, 1995, the Hearing Officer issued his Recommended Order which was received by the Department on December 19, 1995. The Hearing Officer recommended that the plan amendment be found in compliance. The Recommended Order is attached hereto as Exhibit A, and is incorporated by reference. This final order is issued pursuant to the provisions of s163.3184(9)(b), Florida Statutes.
Exceptions to the Recommended Order were jointly and timely filed by Petitioners. No exceptions, or responses to Petitioners' exceptions, were filed by Respondents or Intervenor.
Section 120.57(1)(b)10., Florida Statutes, of the Administrative Procedure Act, provides, in pertinent part:
The agency may adopt the recommended order as the final order of the agency. The agency in its final order may reject or modify the conclusions of law and interpretation of administrative rules in the recommended order. The agency may not reject or modify the findings of fact, including findings of fact that form the basis for an agency statement, unless the agency first determines from a review of the complete 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.
Thus, the Agency may reject findings of fact in the Recommended Order only if those findings of fact are not supported by competent, substantial evidence. The Agency may accept the findings of fact in the Recommended Order, however, and reject the Hearing Officer's conclusions of law. Alles v. Department of Professional Regulation, 423 So.2d 624 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Seiss v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 468 So.2d 478 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Reedy Creek Improvement District v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 486 So.2d 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Bustillo v. Department of Professional Regulation, 561 So.2d 610 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).
EXCEPTIONS OF PETITIONERS JOSEPH F. and ROSE PEACOCK, MATTHEW C. and LAURA MARTELL BRALY, and RALPH and BETTY MORRIS.
Exception number 1. Petitioners take exception to Finding of Fact number
12 in which the Hearing Officer found that the amendment was silent with regard to buffers. Petitioners argue that the Hearing Officer's finding overlooks the express requirement in the plan amendment that the property owner's site plan
conform to all applicable provisions of the City's comprehensive plan and all applicable land development regulations.
The implication of Petitioners' exception is that the Hearing Officer erred by failing to affirmatively find that the buffer requirements in the City's comprehensive plan control the minimum buffer size for the amendment, in the absence of any buffering provisions in the amendment itself.
Petitioners state correctly that the City's existing comprehensive plan provisions should control on this issue. Section 163.3194(1)(a), Florida Statutes, mandates that once a comprehensive plan is adopted, all subsequent development must be consistent with that plan. To the extent a subsequent plan amendment does not change the provisions in the adopted plan, any development undertaken pursuant to that amendment must be consistent with the provisions adopted in the plan. Thus,. Petitioners' contention that it was error not to affirmatively find that the development authorized by the amendment be in conformity with the plan is without merit.
The requirement that all development conform to the mandates of the adopted plan is implicit in the Hearing Officer's finding; the buffer requirements contained in the City's adopted plan apply to any development authorized by the amendment. Finding of Fact number 12 simply states that the plan amendment is silent with respect to buffers, and that the developer of the site must comply with the City's land development regulations. The Hearing Officer's finding is supported by competent, substantial evidence in the form of the language of the amendment itself, the evidence in the record, and the law.
PETITIONERS' EXCEPTION NUMBER 1 is DENIED.
Exception number 2. Petitioners assert that the City's land development regulations are irrelevant to the Hearing Officer's compliance determination. In the context of a Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, compliance proceeding, Petitioners are correct. However, the relevance of this exception is questionable. Petitioners have not identified a finding of fact or conclusion of law to which this exception applies. The only reference in the Recommended Order to the City's land development regulations is a statement by
the Hearing Officer in Finding of Fact number 12 that the amendment requires the developer of the site to adhere to the City's land development regulations.
There is nothing in the record, or the Hearing Officer's statement, that indicates that the City's land development regulations were a factor in the Hearing Officer's recommendation of compliance. Petitioners' have not provided a basis to overrule the Hearing Officer's statement in Finding of Fact number 12.
PETITIONERS' EXCEPTION NUMBER 2 is DENIED.
Exception number 3. Petitioners' contend that a site plan for the proposed amendment authorizes a buffer of 10 feet, which contravenes the requirement in the City's adopted plan for a buffer of 15 feet. As noted in Finding of Fact number 12, the amendment is silent on the issue of buffers. Moreover, the site plan is not incorporated as part of the amendment. The amendment establishes the land use change for the site, and imposes certain conditions as specified in the amendment, but these conditions are unrelated to buffers.
The proposed design standards contained in the site plan Petitioners' reference as part of the record (Petitioner's Exhibit 6), are irrelevant to the issue of the amendment's compliance with the requirements of Chapter 163, Part
II, Florida Statutes. The design standards for the site, including minimum buffering requirements mandated by the City's comprehensive plan (and land development regulations) would be an issue properly considered at the time of site plan review, prior to the issuance of a development order by the City. The amendment addresses the land use change authorized for this site; it does not include design or development standards beyond those specified within the amendment itself.
PETITIONERS' EXCEPTION NUMBER 3 is DENIED.
Exception number 4. Petitioners take issue with the Hearing Officer's Finding of Fact number 16. Their exception is merely a conclusory statement that the Hearing Officer's findings are "unreasonable." Given the deference that must be given to a hearing officer's findings of fact, Petitioners' have failed to demonstrate that Finding of Fact number 16 is not based upon competent, substantial evidence, or that the proceedings failed to meet the essential requirements of law. There is no basis, therefore, to overrule the Hearing Officer's findings.
PETITIONERS' EXCEPTION NUMBER 4 is DENIED.
Exception number 5. Petitioners' take exception to the Hearing Officer's Finding of Fact number 18. They assert that the amendment improperly creates a special exception to the plain language of the City's plan. Petitioners specifically reference Policy L.1.3.5., which prohibits commercial development in areas designated as residential on the City's Future Land Use Map. Their contention appears to be that the amendment improperly creates a special condition or exception to this policy.
Although the clear intent of Policy L.1.3.5. is to prevent the intrusion of commercial development into residential areas of the City, it does not prohibit the City from expanding a preexisting commercial use to satisfy other City needs, for example, off-street parking. This is particularly true where the site is only .11 acres in size, is located in an area of the City which caters primarily to tourists, and will be limited to being used as a parking lot. The special uses or exceptions referenced by Petitioners do not override Policy
L.1.3.5. are conditions of the permit; they only limit or define the uses allowed on what is now a commercial site. The remaining provisions of the plan, including the limitations imposed by Ordinance No. 95-05, continue to apply to any future development which may occur.
PETITIONERS' EXCEPTION NUMBER 5 is DENIED.
Exception number 6. Petitioners' contend that Finding of Fact number 19 regarding decreased property values and after hours activities at the site is unsupported by the amendment or any binding instrument. With regard to decreased property values, the Hearing Officer found that Petitioners' failed to present any testimony supporting their allegation that the construction of the parking lot would devalue their property. This finding is supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record.
With regard to after hours activities that may occur at the site and Intervenor's testimony that such activity will be minimized, the Hearing Officer's reference to these after hours activities is immaterial to the issue of compliance. However, because the Hearing Officer's conclusion is supported in the record, the Department cannot overturn Finding of Fact number 19.
PETITIONERS' EXCEPTION NUMBER 6 is DENIED.
Exceptions number 7 and number 8. Petitioners' exceptions number 7 and number 8 challenge the Hearing Officer's rejection of paragraphs 24-29, 42, 50, 60-63, and 66-67, of their Recommended Order. These exceptions do not challenge either findings of fact or conclusions of law in the Recommended Order, but take exception to the grounds the Hearing Officer states for rejecting Petitioners' recommendations in their Proposed Recommended Order. The rejected paragraphs are neither findings of fact or conclusions of law and, therefore, are not subject to challenge by exception.
PETITIONERS' EXCEPTIONS NUMBER 7 and NUMBER 8 are DENIED.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact are supported by competent, substantial evidence. The Department adopts the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Department rejects the Hearing Officer's subordinate legal conclusion that for purposes of determining the consistency of a plan amendment, the plan amendment is to be construed in the context of the local government's comprehensive plan as a whole. A plan amendment that is consistent with the requirements of ss163.3177, 163.3178, and 163.3191, with the state comprehensive plan, with the regional policy plan, and with Chapter 9J-5, F.A.C., is in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes.
There is no statutory basis to find a plan amendment not in compliance because it is not consistent with the comprehensive plan as a whole. The Hearing Officer's overall legal conclusion, however, is correct. Petitioners were required to show to the exclusion of fair debate that the City's plan amendment was not in compliance, and the Hearing Officer correctly concluded Petitioners failed to meet this burden.
WHEREFORE, the Department of Community Affairs adopts the Recommended Order of the Hearing Officer, except as otherwise stated herein, and issues this Final Order determining that the City of St. Augustine Beach comprehensive plan amendment that is the subject of this proceeding is in compliance.
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
Parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this Recommended Order. All agencies allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You Should contact the agency that will issue the final order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.
DONE and ORDERED this 17th day of January, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida.
FILING AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT
FILED, on this date, with the designated Department Clerk, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged.
James F. Murley Secretary
Department of Community Affairs
PAULD P. FORD 1/1/96 2740 Centerview Drive
For Jane R. Bass DATE Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Department Clerk
COPIES FURNISHED:
Don W. Davis Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
Geoffrey B. Dobson, Esquire
66 Cuna Street, Suite B
St. Augustine Beach, Florida 32084
Mr. and Mrs. Joseph F. Peacock
6 "A" Street
St. Augustine Beach, | Florida | 32084 |
Mr. and Mrs. Matthew Three First Lane St. Augustine Beach, | Braly Florida | 32084 |
Mr. and Mrs. Ralph Morris One First Lane
St. Augustine Beach, Florida 32084
George M. McClure, Esquire
P. O. Box 3504
St. Augustine, Florida 32085-3504
Stephanie Gehres, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2199
TerreIl K. Arline, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2199
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Feb. 16, 1996 | AGENCY APPEAL, ONCE THE RETENTION SCHEDULE OF -KEEP ONE YEAR AFTER CLOSURE- IS MET, CASE FILE IS RETURNED TO AGENCY GENERAL COUNSEL. -ac |
| Jan. 23, 1996 | Final Order filed. |
| Dec. 14, 1995 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 10/26/95. |
| Nov. 22, 1995 | Petitioner`s Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order (for Hearing Officer signature) filed. |
| Nov. 20, 1995 | Notice of Adoption By Respondent City of St. Augustine Beach of The Proposed Recommended Order of The Department of Community Affairs And Chautauqua Beachcomber, Inc. filed. |
| Nov. 20, 1995 | Intervenor's Proposed Recommended Order filed. |
| Nov. 17, 1995 | Department of Community Affairs Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order filed. |
| Nov. 15, 1995 | (Transcript) ; Notice of Filing Transcript w/cover letter filed. |
| Oct. 26, 1995 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Held. |
| Oct. 10, 1995 | Amended Notice of Hearing As To Location sent out. (hearing set for 10/26/95; 9:00am; St. Augustine) |
| Oct. 06, 1995 | (George M. McClure) Amended Petition of Chautauqua Beachcomber, Inc. w/cover letter filed. |
| Oct. 05, 1995 | Order of Prehearing Instructions sent out. |
| Oct. 05, 1995 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 10/26/95; 9:00am; St. Augustine) |
| Oct. 03, 1995 | Order sent out. (Petition to Intervene by Chautauqua Beachcomber is Granted) |
| Oct. 03, 1995 | (Respondent) Notice of Conflict filed. |
| Oct. 02, 1995 | Petitioners Motion for Default; Recommended Order (For Hearing Officer Signature);Petitioners` Reply to Proposed Intervenor`s Response to Order filed. |
| Sep. 22, 1995 | (Intervenor) Additional Response of Proposed Intervenor in Response to Order; Affidavit w/cover letter filed. |
| Sep. 11, 1995 | (Petitioners) Objection to Motion to Expedite; Objection to Petition to Intervene w/cover letter filed. |
| Sep. 11, 1995 | Order sent out. (prospective intervenor's motion to expedite is rendered moot) |
| Sep. 06, 1995 | Order sent out. (motion granted) |
| Sep. 05, 1995 | Petitioners Response to Initial Order w/cover letter filed. |
| Sep. 05, 1995 | (Petitioners) Motion for Extension of Time; Cover Letter filed. |
| Aug. 28, 1995 | Letter to DRA from J. Peacock (RE: advising Hearing Officer that this is a duplicate case) filed. |
| Aug. 28, 1995 | (Geoffrey Dobson) Consent of the City of St. Augustine Beach to Intervention and Expedition filed. |
| Aug. 25, 1995 | (Petitioner) Notice of Withdrawal filed. |
| Aug. 23, 1995 | Department of Community Affairs' Response to Motion to Expedite filed. |
| Aug. 23, 1995 | Petition to Intervene (from George M. McClure); (Intervenor) Motion to Expedite; Cover Letter filed. |
| Aug. 22, 1995 | Amended Order sent out. (because it appears that the first three petitions are duplicative of the fourth, petitioner's counsel is directedto review the matter and advise the undersigned whether the cases areduplicative and if so which may be closed) |
| Aug. 22, 1995 | Letter. to Hearing Officer from J. Peacock and R. Peacock re: Reply to Initial Order filed. |
| Aug. 21, 1995 | Letter to Hearing Officer from Laura M. Braly and Matthew C. Braly Re: Response to your Order filed. |
| Aug. 17, 1995 | Order sent out. (Consolidated cases are: 95-3885GM, 95-3886GM, 95-4027GM, 95-4028GM) |
| Aug. 14, 1995 | (Initial) Order sent out. |
| Aug. 10, 1995 | Letter to A. Cole from D. Conn (re: notice of appearance) filed. |
| Aug. 08, 1995 | Notification card sent out. |
| Aug. 03, 1995 | Agency Referral Letter; Petition For Review Of Notice Of Intent filed. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Jan. 17, 1996 | Agency Final Order | |
| Dec. 14, 1995 | Recommended Order | Propsed plan amendment is reasonable and in compliance. |
