STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, )
)
Petitioner, )
and )
) HEARTLAND ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 91-1934GM
)
HIGHLANDS COUNTY, )
)
Respondent, )
and )
) LYKES BROS., INC., HIGHLANDS ) COUNTY CITRUS GROWERS ASSOCIATION, ) INC., HIGHLANDS COUNTY CATTLEMEN'S ) ASSOCIATION, and LAKE PLACID BOARD ) OF REALTORS, INC., )
)
Intervenors. )
) DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 93-6799GM
)
HIGHLANDS COUNTY, )
)
Respondent, )
and )
) SEBRING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ) and PRESTON H. COLBY, )
)
Intervenors. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER OF DISMISSAL
On March 23, 1994, the Department filed a Motion To Dismiss And Notice of Filing Cumulative Notice. No party has filed written opposition in the time allotted by F.A.C. Rule 60Q- 2.016. (Intervenor Heartland Environmental Council has filed a new petition under Section 163.3184(9), Fla. Stat. (1993), challenging the cumulative notice of compliance.)
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Administration Commission enter a final order of dismissal in this case. See Section 163.3184(16)(f), Fla. Stat. (1993). See also Recommended Order, Department of
Community Affairs, et al., v. DeSoto County, et al., DOAH Case No. 91-6039GM, entered January 19, 1993.
RECOMMENDED this 8th day of April, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida.
J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 8th fay of April, 1994.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Karen Brodeen, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0410
J. Ross Macbeth, Esquire County Attorney
2543 U.S. 27 South
Sebring, Florida 33872
Bert J. Harris, III, Esquire Swaine and Harris
212 Interlake Boulevard Post Office Box 548
Lake Placid, Florida 33852
Kris R. DeLaney, Pres./HEC Heartland Environmental Council Post Office Box 491
Lake Placid, Florida 33852-0491
William Mulloy, Esquire 7025 Manasota Key Road Englewood, Florida 34223
Michael Wm. Morell, Esquire
310 West College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1406
Jeff Futch, President Highlands County Farm Bureau 6419 U.S. Highway 27 South
Sebring, Florida 33870-5712
Sarah K. Childs, President Jim Wohl
Highlands County Cattlemen's Association 6417 U S 27 South
Sebring, Florida 33870
Jeanne Warner, President
Lake Placid Board of Realtors, Inc.
301 Interlake Boulevard Lake Placid, Florida 33852
Mark M. George
Sebring Development Corporation 9119 Brookpark Road
Parma, Ohio 44129
Preston H. Colby Post Office Box 1905
Sebring, Florida 33871
Joseph T. Clarke, President Abacus Building Contractors, Inc. Abacus Realty, Inc.
Post Office Box 2259
Lake Placid, Florida 33852
Clifford M. Ables, III, Esquire
457 South Commerce Avenue Sebring, Florida 33870
David K. Coburn, Secretary Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Executive Office of the Governor Attn: Kelly Tucker
Room 426
311 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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 REMAND
=================================================================
STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
and )
) HEARTLAND ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 91-1934GM
)
HIGHLANDS COUNTY, )
)
Respondent. )
)
and )
) LYKES BROS., INC., HIGHLANDS ) COUNTY CITRUS GROWERS ) ASSOCIATION, INC., HIGHLANDS ) COUNTY CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION, ) and LAKE PLACID BOARD OF )
REALTORS, INC., )
)
Intervenors. )
) DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 93-6799GM
)
HIGHLANDS COUNTY, )
)
Respondent. )
)
and )
) SEBRING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ) and PRESTON H. COLBY, )
)
Intervenors. )
)
ORDER
This cause came before the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Administration Commission ("Commission") on May 24, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida, pursuant to Sections 163.3184 and 163.3187,
Florida Statutes, for the issuance of a final order of dismissal pursuant to the Recommended Order of Dismissal entered on April 8, 1994, by J. Lawrence Johnston, Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings. For the reasons recounted below, we decline to issue the recommended order of dismissal and hereby remand the case back to the Division of Administrative Hearings for further proceedings as directed by this order.
On March 24, 1991, the Department of Community Affairs, ("Department"), published notice that the Highlands County Comprehensive Plan as adopted by Ordinance No. 91-1, was determined to be not in compliance within the meaning of Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, the 1985 Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act ("the Act").
Following that determination, the Department initiated proceedings by filing a petition with the Division of Administrative Hearings on January 27, 1992.
Lykes Bros, Inc., Highlands County Farm Bureau, Highlands County Citrus Growers Association, Inc., Highlands County Cattlemen's Association and Heartland Environmental Council subsequently filed petitions and were allowed intervenor status. A settlement agreement was eventually reached between the County and the Department, and additional intervenors, Lake Placid Board of Realtors, Inc., Sebring Development Corp., Preston H. Colby, Abacus Building Contractors, Inc., and Joseph T. Clark were allowed to enter the case.
On March 23, 1994, the Department filed a Motion to Dismiss and Notice of Filing Cumulative Notice to find the County Plan and remedial plan amendments in compliance and asked that the hearing officer dismiss the case. The County, Abacus Building Contractors, Inc., and Joseph T. Clark joined in the Department's motion. Thereafter, the hearing officer granted the motion and provided the recommended order that is now before the Commission. /1
Heartland Environmental Council, Inc., filed Written Objections to the Recommended Order of Dismissal and stated that the order of dismissal overlooked the fact that the Statute under which the motion for dismissal was filed, allows the Hearing Officer to dismiss as to the Department only. The statute, Section 163.3184(16)(f), F.S., reads in relevant part:
If the local government adopts a comprehen sive plan amendment pursuant to a compliance agreement and a notice of intent to find the plan amendment in compliance is issued, the state land planning agency shall forward the notice of intent to the Division of Administrative Hearings and the pending s.
120.57 proceeding shall be dismissed by the hearing officer as to the department.
The Recommended Order does not elaborate on the issue of the intervenors status pursuant to the cited statute. Therefore, in order to give clarification to the parties, this proceeding is hereby remanded to the Division of Administrative Hearings to allow the Hearing Officer to state the grounds for
the dismissal as to intervenors, or further proceedings on the issues raised by intervenors.
DONE and ordered this 24th day of May 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida.
Teresa B. Tinker
for DAVID COBURN, Secretary Administration Commission
FILED with the Clerk of the Administration Commission this 25th day of May 1994.
CLERK, Administration Commission
ENDNOTES
/1 The record reflects that the Department inadvertently did not serve newly appointed counsel of record for Heartland when filing its motion to dismiss. Later, the Department provided an amended certificate of service reflecting the correct counsel for Heartland. On March 30, 1994, Heartland serviced its opposition to the motion to dismiss. The opposition was not received by the hearing officer until April 11, 1994, after the Recommended Order had already been issued. Even though the opposition was not timely filed with the hearing officer, it was mailed allowing sufficient days to be received in a timely manner, and other parties did receive the opposition before the expiration period. We therefore note that in reconsideration pursuant to this remand for further clarification, Heartland should be allowed its full opportunity to be heard.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and
correct copy of the foregoing was delivered to the following persons by United States mail this 25th May 1994.
COPIES FURNISHED
Honorable Lawton Chiles Honorable Robert Butterworth Governor Attorney General
The Capitol, PL05 The Capitol, PL01
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
Honorable Bob Crawford Honorable Gerald Lewis Commissioner of Agriculture Comptroller
The Capitol, PL10 The Capitol, PL09
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
Honorable Tom Gallagher Honorable Douglas Jamerson Treasurer Commissioner of Education
The Capitol, PL11 The Capitol, PL08
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
Honorable Jim Smith Gregory C. Smith, Esquire
Secretary of State Counsel to Governor & Cabinet
The Capitol, PL02 The Capitol, 210
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
Karen Brodeen, Esquire J. Lawrence Johnston Assistant General Counsel Hearing Officer
Department of Community Division of Administrative Affairs Hearings
2740 Centerview Drive The DeSoto Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0410 1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
J. Ross Macbeth, Esquire Bert J. Harris, III, Esquire County Attorney Swaine and Harris
2543 U.S. 27 South Post Office Box 548 Sebring, Florida 33872 Lake Placid, Florida 33852
Kris R. DeLaney, Pres./HEC William Mulloy, Esquire Heartland Environmental 7025 Manasota Key Road Council Englewood, Florida 34223 Post Office Box 491
Lake Placid, Florida 33852-0491
Michael Wm. Morell, Esquire Jeff Futch, President
310 West College Avenue Highlands County Farm Bureau Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1406 6419 U.S. Highway 27 South
Sebring, Florida 33870-5712
Sarah K. Childs, President Jeanne Warner, President
Jim Wohl Lake Placid Board of Realtors, Highlands County Cattlemen's Inc.
Association 301 Interlake Boulevard 6417 U.S. Highway 27 South Lake Placid, Florida 33852
Sebring, Florida 33870
Mark M. George Preston H. Colby Sebring Development Corp. Post Office Box 1905 9119 Brookpark Road Sebring, Florida 33871
Parma, Ohio 44129
Joseph T. Clarke, President Clifford Ables, III, Esquire Abacus Building Contractors, Inc. 457 South Commerce Avenue Abacus Realty, Inc. Sebring, Florida 33870 Post Office Box 2259
Lake Placid, Florida 33852
================================================================= RECOMMENDED ORDER OF DISMISSAL
(ON REMAND)
=================================================================
STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, )
)
Petitioner, )
and )
) HEARTLAND ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL, )
)
Intervenor, )
)
vs. )
) CASE NO. 91-1934GM
HIGHLANDS COUNTY, ) (AC CASE NO. ACC-94-027)
)
Respondent, )
and )
) LYKES BROS., INC., HIGHLANDS ) COUNTY CITRUS GROWERS ) ASSOCIATION, INC., HIGHLANDS ) COUNTY FARM BUREAU, and HIGHLANDS ) COUNTY CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION, ) and LAKE PLACID BOARD OF REALTORS, ) INC., )
)
Intervenors. )
)
) DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. )
)
HIGHLANDS COUNTY, )
)
Respondent, )
) CASE NO. 93-6799GM
and )
) SEBRING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ) and PRESTON H. COLBY, )
)
Intervenors. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER OF DISMISSAL (ON REMAND)
On April 8, 1994, a Recommended Order of Dismissal was entered in this case. It granted a Motion to Dismiss filed by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) and recommended dismissal of the above-captioned proceedings based on the DCA's cumulative notice of intent to find remedial amendments in compliance. It was based on the holding and rationale of the Recommended Order of Dismissal, Dept. of Community Affairs, et al., v. DeSoto County, et al., DOAH Case No. 91-6039GM, entered January 19, 1993, which was approved by the Administration Commission in its Final Order, entered February 2, 1994.
As in the DeSoto case, the issue raised in this case via the DCA's Motion to Dismiss turned on the interpretation given to Section 163.3184(16), Fla.
Stat. (1993), which was enacted as Chapter 92-129, Laws of Florida (1992). In particular, the pertinent part of Section 163.3184(16)(f) speaks to what happens when the DCA issues a cumulative notice of intent to find remedial amendments in compliance. In the DeSoto case, the parties did not offer any evidence as to the legislative intent behind this statute. In the absence of any extrinsic evidence on the legislative intent of Chapter 92-129, Laws of Florida (1992), e.g., the legislative history, the only way to attempt to discover the probable legislative intent was to examine the practical results that would flow from the possible choices.
On April 11, 1994, intervenor Heartland Environmental Council, Inc. ("HEC"), filed a Notice of Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, which reflected that it was served on March 30, 1994, and apparently was delayed in transit to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) docket. It included arguments from the alleged legislative history of Chapter 92-129, Laws of Florida (1992).
Since the Administration Commission had exclusive jurisdiction, the Administration Commission was made aware of the late-filed Notice of Opposition to Motion to Dismiss. On essentially the same grounds argued in its late-filed Notice of Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, HEC also argued before the Administration Commission that the proceedings should not be dismissed.
Meanwhile, the DCA had referred HEC's Petition for Administrative Hearing challenging the remedial amendments to DOAH, where it was given DOAH Case No. 94-2095GM. On May 16, 1994, while the Recommended Order of Dismissal still was pending before the Administration Commission, a Notice of Hearing was issued in DOAH Case No. 94-2095GM, scheduling final hearing for the week of August 29, 1994.
On May 26, 1994, the Administration Commission entered an Order remanding the DCA's Motion to Dismiss in the above-captioned cases for consideration of the arguments in HEC's late-filed Notice of Opposition to Motion to Dismiss.
On June 30, 1994, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting final hearing in the above-captioned cases to coincide with the final hearing in Case No. 94- 2095GM during the week of August 29, 1994. The hearing officer, at least, envisioned that the above-captioned cases would go to hearing, along with DOAH Case No. 94-2095GM, on HEC's contentions that the Highlands County comprehensive plan, as twice amended, is not "in compliance." The hearing officer also envisioned that proper extrinsic evidence on the legislative intent of Chapter 92-129, Laws of Florida (1992), e.g., the legislative history, could be presented as a part of the final hearing, and that the DCA's Motion to Dismiss, on remand from the Administration Commission in the above-captioned cases, could be ruled upon in the recommended order entered after the final hearing in these
cases. Finally, it also was envisioned that, to the extent necessary in light of the ruling on the DCA's Motion to Dismiss, the HEC's burden of proof could be ruled upon in the recommended order entered after the final hearing in these cases.
A joint telephone prehearing conference was held in the above-captioned cases and in DOAH Case No. 94-2095GM on August 8, 1994. During the prehearing conference, at least some of the parties to the above-captioned cases professed confusion regarding the issues to be tried at final hearing, as well as concerns that requiring them to go to final hearing as scheduled would violate their rights to due process. Regardless of the reasons for the confusion and due process concerns, it became apparent that these cases probably would not be ready for final hearing on August 29, 1994. Meanwhile, no party objected to continuing the final hearing and, if necessary, holding a separate evidentiary hearing on the DCA's Motion to Dismiss. It was decided to continue the final hearing until the week of October 24, 1994, and to hold a separate evidentiary hearing on the DCA Motion to Dismiss on September 1, 1994, if the parties were not able to stipulate to the extrinsic evidence on the legislative intent of Chapter 92-129, Laws of Florida (1992), so that the DCA Motion to Dismiss could be determined without the necessity of an evidentiary hearing. Whether or not such a hearing was necessary, the parties were given until Friday, September 9, 1994, to file all written legal argument on the DCA Motion to Dismiss.
On September 1, 1994, the DCA, the County and the HEC filed a Stipulation as to the extrinsic evidence on the legislative intent of Chapter 92-129, Laws of Florida (1992), e.g., the legislative history, and the parties agreed to the cancellation of the separate evidentiary hearing. All of the parties have had ample opportunity to file written argument on the DCA's Motion to Dismiss, and all of the written arguments have been fully considered.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
In the above-captioned cases, the parties now have exhaustively investigated the legislative history of Chapter 92-129, Laws of Florida (1992), and have presented it in the form of their Stipulation. Unfortunately, it is concluded that, in this case, the legislative history does not clearly disclose the legislative intent.
On January 22, 1992, Senator Grizzle introduced Senate Bill 1882, a 23-page set of amendments to the Section 163.3181, et seq., Fla. Stat. (1991). In pertinent part with respect to this case, it provided that, when the DCA issues a cumulative notice of intent to find remedial amendments in compliance, "the pending proceeding under s. 120.57 concerning the plan or plan amendment shall be dismissed by the hearing officer."
After referral to committee, a Senate Staff Analysis dated February 18, 1992, made it clear that the intent was that "the administrative proceeding will be dismissed." There were no pertinent changes in the 27-page CS/SB (CS/SB) 1882 that was reported on February 25, 1992.
On March 11, 1992, HB (HB) 2559 was introduced. It was 41 pages in length. In pertinent part, it provided that "the pending s. 120.57 proceeding concerning the plan or plan amendment shall be dismissed by the hearing officer as to the department."
On second reading in the Senate on March 13, 1992, the CS/SB 1882 was amended, without any explanation why, by striking the entire bill after the
enacting clause and inserting, wholesale, the language of the 41-page HB 2559. The addition of "as to the department" to the pertinent language was not highlighted in any way. The 19-page House Committee on Community Affairs Final Bill Analysis dated March 13, 1992, makes no mention of the pertinent provision at all. The bill was then read for a third time, was passed by the Senate on the unanimous vote of 37 members, and was ordered engrossed and certified to the House. The House concurred on the unanimous vote of 116 members.
It is concluded that no inference can be drawn from the legislative history as to the legislature intent. There is no indication that the attention of any Senator or Representative was drawn to the differences or changes in the pertinent language. No inference can be drawn that the Senate's wholesale adoption of the language of HB 2559 was anything more than a means of enacting what was perceived to be, essentially, the same provisions contained in the CS/SB 1882.
APPLICATION OF DESOTO RATIONALE
Subsection (16), entitled "Compliance Agreements," was added to the statute as part of Section 7, Chapter 92-129, Laws of Florida (1992). It is apparent that, in general, it essentially attempts to clarify and streamline the procedures to be followed in the event the DCA and the local government agree to resolve one or more of the issues raised in proceedings under Section 163.3184(9) or (10) involving the local government's adopted comprehensive plan or plan amendment.
Paragraphs (a) through (d) of subsection (16) deal with the procedure by which a "compliance agreement" is reached and by which remedial action is taken to implement the compliance agreement. Paragraph (a) requires that the compliance agreement "shall list each portion of the plan or plan amendment which is not in compliance, and shall specify remedial actions which the local government must complete within a specified time in order to bring the plan or plan amendment into compliance, including adoption of all necessary plan amendments."
Paragraphs (e) and (f) of subsection (16) deal with the procedures to be followed once the local government has adopted the remedial amendments it has decided are necessary under the compliance agreement to bring the plan or plan amendment into compliance. For purposes of resolving the issues at hand, paragraphs (e) and (f) are of paramount importance and must be closely examined in an effort to determine the legislative intent.
Paragraph (e)
Paragraph (e) provides:
The state land planning agency, upon receipt of a plan amendment adopted pursuant to a compliance agreement, shall issue a cumulative notice of intent addressing both the compliance agreement amendment and the plan or plan amendment that was the subject of the agreement, in accordance with subsection (8).
It is concluded that the legislative intent of this paragraph was for the "cumulative notice of intent" to address the plan or plan amendment which was the subject of the underlying proceeding, as further amended by the remedial, or compliance agreement, amendment(s).
Paragraph (f)
Paragraph (f) provides:
If the local government adopts a comprehensive plan amendment pursuant to a compliance agreement and a notice of intent to find the plan amendment in compliance is issued, the state land planning agency shall forward the notice of intent to the Division of Administrative Hearings and the pending s. 120.57 proceeding concerning the plan or plan amendment shall be dismissed by the hearing officer as to the department. Any affected person may challenge the plan or plan amendment which is the subject of the cumulative notice of intent by filing a petition with the agency as provided in subsection (9). If the local government adopts a comprehensive plan amendment pursuant to a compliance agreement and a notice of intent to find the plan amendment not in compliance is issued, the state land planning agency shall forward the notice of intent to the Division of Administrative Hearings, which shall consolidate the proceeding with the pending proceeding and immediately set a date for hearing in the pending s.
120.57 proceeding. Affected persons who are not a party to the underlying s.
120.57 proceeding may challenge the plan amendment adopted pursuant to the compliance agreement by filing a petition pursuant to subsection (9) or (10).
First Sentence of Paragraph (f)
The unfortunate choice of language in the first sentence of paragraph (f) raises the baffling question: what does it mean that "the pending s. 120.57 proceeding concerning the plan or plan amendment shall be dismissed by the hearing officer as to the department?" No sense can be made of this peculiar phrasing, in and of itself, for a proceeding cannot be dismissed as to less than all of the parties to it. Does it mean that the proceeding should be dismissed? Then why the words, "as to the department?" 1/ Does it mean that the DCA simply should be dropped as a party? Then why does the statute refer to dismissal of the proceeding?
As previously discussed, the parties in the DeSoto case did not offer any evidence as to the legislative intent behind this baffling language. In this case, the parties investigated and presented the legislative history, but it does not clarify the legislative intent. In the absence of clear indication of the legislative intent, the only way to attempt to discover the probable legislative intent remains to examine the practical results that would flow from the possible choices.
To conclude that the language meant that the proceeding survives, but that the DCA is dropped as a party, one also would have to conclude either that the Legislature does not want the DCA to be able to support the position it takes in a cumulative notice of intent, or that the Legislature wanted to require the DCA to file a petition to intervene in order to do so. Neither conclusion would make much sense.
In addition, such an interpretation of the statute would open the possibilities not only for different and conflicting burdens of proof and persuasion at final hearing, but also for different and conflicting final orders, on the compliance status of the plan or plan amendment, as amended by the remedial (i.e., the compliance agreement) amendment(s). If the underlying proceeding were to survive, intervenors previously aligned with the DCA in the pending proceeding would retain the benefit under Section 164.3184(10), Fla.
Stat. (1993), of having to prove their petitions to intervene by just a preponderance of the evidence. In addition, under subsection (10)(b), the
Administration Commission must issue the final order. But, under the second sentence of subsection (f), challenges to the plan or plan amendment, as amended by the remedial (i.e., the compliance agreement) amendment(s), would have to be made by filing an original petition under subsection (9). See below. In proceedings under subsection (9), the DCA can enter the final order if it determines that the plan or plan amendment under consideration is in compliance. (If the DCA determines that the plan or plan amendment under consideration is not in compliance, it submits the recommended order to the Administration Commission for final agency action.) In addition, any affected person filing an original petition, as well as any intervenor, challenging the cumulative notice of intent under Section 163.3184(9) and (16)(f), Fla. Stat. (1993), would bear the more difficult burden of having to prove the petition to the exclusion of fair debate. Parties originally intervenors in the pending proceeding would bear different burdens of proof and persuasion on the same kinds of issues, depending on whether they were raised in the petition to intervene in the pending proceeding or in a challenge to the remedial (i.e., the compliance agreement) amendment(s). It should not be concluded that the Legislature intended such a chaotic result.
There is no reason to think that the Legislature intended for intervenors previously aligned with the DCA in the pending proceeding to escape the heavier burden of proof and persuasion in challenges to the plan or plan amendment, as amended by the remedial (i.e., the compliance agreement) amendment(s). Those intervenors only were accorded the benefit of the easier burden in the first place because they were aligned with the DCA; after the compliance agreement and cumulative notice of intent, their positions become adverse to those of the DCA. As a result of the compliance agreement and cumulative notice of intent, those intervenors find themselves in precisely the position of petitioners under Section 163.3184(9), Fla. Stat. (1993), and logically should bear the same burden of proof and persuasion. 2/
In addition to conflicting burdens of proof and persuasion that can result, another vexatious problem would be created if the new compliance agreement statute is interpretated to mean that the pending proceeding survives. While intervenors previously aligned with the DCA in the pending proceeding would retain the benefit under Section 164.3184(10), Fla. Stat. (1993), of having to prove their petitions to intervene by just a preponderance of the evidence, it is clear that at least some of those issues will be eliminated by the remedial (i.e., the compliance agreement) amendment(s). Separating the issues that will survive from those that will be eliminated could prove to be extremely difficult and time-consuming.
It does not seem reasonable to conclude that, in its apparent effort to clarify and streamline the settlement process in these proceedings, the Legislature would have intended to create new difficulties of these proportions.
On the other hand, if the Legislature intended for the pending proceeding to be dismissed, none of the problems just described would arise. If either the intervenors in the prior proceeding, or affected persons not previously involved in that proceeding, file petitions under Section 163.3184(9) and (16)(f), Fla.
Stat. (1993), challenging the cumulative notice of intent, the burdens of proof and persuasion for all the new petitioners, as well as any intervenors in the new proceeding, clearly would be as set out in Section 163.3184(9).
It is entirely logical and appropriate for the pending proceeding to be dismissed upon issuance of the cumulative notice of intent. Regardless whether all parties agree to the compliance agreement, by the time the cumulative notice
of intent is issued, the prior proceeding becomes moot. The effect of the compliance agreement and the local government's remedial (i.e., the compliance agreement) amendment(s), is to change the very subject matter at issue. This is somewhat analogous to the effect of a license applicant's withdrawal of an application and reapplication--opponents have no vested right to continue to litigate the withdrawn application. And, since the new Section 163.3184(16) is procedural in nature, there is no reason why it should not apply to all pending, as well as future, proceedings. 3/
Second Sentence of Paragraph (f)
Still referring to situations when an "in compliance" cumulative notice of intent issues, the second sentence of paragraph (f) means that, if the cumulative notice of intent is to find the plan or plan amendment which was the subject of the underlying proceeding, as amended by the remedial (i.e., the compliance agreement) amendment(s), "in compliance," any challenges to the plan or plan amendment, as amended by the remedial (i.e., the compliance agreement) amendment(s), would have to be made by filing an original petition under subsection (9).
Last Sentence of Paragraph (f)
It is concluded that the last sentence was intended to apply whether the cumulative notice of intent is to find the plan or plan amendment which was the subject of the underlying proceeding, as amended by the remedial (i.e., compliance agreement) amendment(s), to be in compliance, or to find it to be not in compliance. If the former, affected persons not a party to the underlying proceeding would file an original petition under subsection (9); if the latter, they would file a petition to intervene under subsection (10).
THE DCA'S INTERPRETATION
As previously mentioned, the Administration Commission in its Final Order, entered February 2, 1994, adopted the holding and rationale of the DeSoto Recommended Order of Dismissal. The DCA also has adopted the DeSoto holding and rationale. See Final Order, Dept. of Community Affairs v. Santa Rosa County, DOAH Case No. 90-7706GM and 93-4980GM (DCA No. 94-353-FOF-CP), entered August
17, 1994. Cf. also Final Order, Dept. of Community Affairs v. City of Jacksonville/Duval County, DOAH Case No. 90-7496GM (DCA No. 94-258-FOF-CP), entered February 24, 1994 (including, "[f]or future reference," dicta that the DCA adopts the DeSoto holding and rationale).
RECOMMENDED ORDER OR FINAL ORDER?
Section 163.3184(16)(f), Fla. Stat. (1993), provides that the "proceeding .
. . shall be dismissed by the hearing officer . . .." But Section 163.3184(10)(b), Fla. Stat. (1993), provides that the hearing officer assigned to the case shall submit a recommended order to the Administration Commission for final agency action. It is concluded that, when read in pari materia with subsection (10)(b), subsection (16)(f) means that the hearing officer should recommend dismissal.
RECOMMENDATION
Accordingly, it is recommended that the Administration Commission enter a final order dismissing the above-captioned proceedings.
RECOMMENDED this 14th day of September, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida.
J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 September, 1994.
ENDNOTES
1/ It might be possible that, by using the words "as to the department," the Legislature was intending to describe a proceeding under Section 163.3184(10). It also is possible that the words were inserted by mistake.
2/ It was recognized that contrary dicta may be found in the Recommended Order, Dept. of Community Affairs, et al. v. Hillsborough County, DOAH Case No. 89- 5157GM, entered December 8, 1992. Similarly, other hearing officers since have made contrary rulings. But one of those rulings recently was reversed in the Final Order, Dept. of Community Affairs v. Santa Rosa County, DOAH Case No. 90- 7706GM and 93-4980GM (DCA No. 94-353-FOF-CP), entered August 17, 1994. In
another of those cases, dicta in the DCA's final order adopted the DeSoto holding and rationale "[f]or future reference." Final Order, Dept. of Community Affairs v. City of Jacksonville/Duval County, DOAH Case No. 90-7496GM (DCA No.
94-258-FOF-CP), entered February 24, 1994. In addition, the procedural complications foreseen in the DeSoto Recommended Order of Dismissal have come to pass in the cases in which the hearing officer ruled contrary to DeSoto.
3/ Cf. footnote 3, above.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Karen Brodeen, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0410
J. Ross Macbeth, Esquire County Attorney
2543 U.S. 27 South
Sebring, Florida 33872
Bert J. Harris, III, Esquire Swaine and Harris
212 Interlake Boulevard Post Office Box 548
Lake Placid, Florida 33852
William Mulloy, Esquire 7025 Manasota Key Road Englewood, Florida 34223
Michael Wm. Morell, Esquire
310 West College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1406
Jeff Futch, President Highlands County Farm Bureau 6419 U.S. Highway 27 South
Sebring, Florida 33870-5712
Sarah K. Childs, President Jim Wohl
Highlands County Cattlemen's Association 6417 U S 27 South
Sebring, Florida 33870
Jeanne Warner, President
Lake Placid Board of Realtors, Inc.
301 Interlake Boulevard Lake Placid, Florida 33852
Mark M. George
Sebring Development Corporation 9119 Brookpark Road
Parma, Ohio 44129
Preston H. Colby Post Office Box 1905
Sebring, Florida 33871
Joseph T. Clarke, President Abacus Building Contractors, Inc. Abacus Realty, Inc.
Post Office Box 2259
Lake Placid, Florida 33852
Clifford M. Ables, III, Esquire
457 South Commerce Avenue Sebring, Florida 33870
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
All parties have the right to submit to the Administration Commission written exceptions to this Recommended Order of Dismissal. All agencies allow each party at least ten days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should consult with the Administration Commission concerning its rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this Recommended Order of Dismissal.
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| May 12, 1995 | DOAH file returned to the Agency Dept of Community Affairs-DH. |
| Feb. 24, 1995 | Final Order of Dismissal filed. |
| Dec. 12, 1994 | (Heartland Environmental Council, Inc.) Notice of Withdrawal of Written Objections To Recommended Order Filed By Heartland Environmental Council, Inc. filed. |
| Dec. 08, 1994 | Final Order of Dismissal filed. |
| Nov. 30, 1994 | Notice of Commission Meeting (from D. Coburn) filed. |
| Oct. 07, 1994 | CC: Written Objections of Abelow and Dollinger to The Recommended Order of Dismissal (on Remand) filed. |
| Sep. 26, 1994 | Respondent Highlands County`s Memorandum in Support of Recommended Order of Dismissal (On Remand) filed. |
| Sep. 23, 1994 | Written Objections of Heartland Environmental Council, Inc. to the Recommended Order of Dismissal Filed on September 14,1994 filed. |
| Sep. 14, 1994 | Recommended Order of Dismissal on Remand sent out. CASE CLOSED. |
| Sep. 09, 1994 | Respondent Highlands County`s Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss filed. |
| Sep. 02, 1994 | (Highlands County) Statement Pertaining to Hearing; Notice of Time and Place of Meeting (re: planning issues; set for 8/31/94; 10:00am; Sebring) filed. |
| Sep. 01, 1994 | Stipulation (with attachments) filed. |
| Aug. 30, 1994 | Respondent Highlands County`s Motion to Strike filed. |
| Aug. 25, 1994 | (Joseph Abelow and Matthew Dollinger) Petition for Leave to Intervene w/Exhibit-1 filed. |
| Aug. 24, 1994 | (Joseph Abelow and Matthew Dolinger) Petition for Leave to Intervene filed. |
| Aug. 23, 1994 | Respondent Highlands County`s Response to Notice of Opposition to Amended Motion to Strike filed. |
| Aug. 22, 1994 | Respondent Highlands County`s Response to Notice of Opposition to Amended Motion to Strike filed. |
| Aug. 17, 1994 | Notice of Opposition to Amended Motion to Strike filed. (From William Mulloy) |
| Aug. 12, 1994 | Highlands County's Amended Motion to Strike filed. |
| Aug. 11, 1994 | Highlands County's Amended Motion to Strike filed. |
| Aug. 09, 1994 | Order Continuing Final Hearing, Setting Motion Hearing, and Establishing Prehearing Requirement sent out. (hearing rescheduled for October 24, through October 28, 1994; 10:00am; Sebring) |
| Aug. 04, 1994 | Department of Community Affairs' Unilateral Prehearing Statement filed. |
| Jul. 29, 1994 | Notice of Telephone Prehearing Conference sent out. (set for 8/8/94; 10:00am) |
| Jul. 11, 1994 | Amended Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 8/29/94; 10:00am; Sebring) |
| Jun. 30, 1994 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 8/29/94; 10:00am; Sebring) |
| Jun. 30, 1994 | CASE RE-OPENED, per Hearing Officer. |
| Jun. 28, 1994 | Notice of Opposition to Motion to Strike filed. |
| Jun. 17, 1994 | (Respondent) Motion to Strike; Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss filed. |
| Jun. 08, 1994 | Notice of Supplemental Authority (from W. Mulloy) filed. |
| May 26, 1994 | Order (from D. Coburn) filed. |
| May 12, 1994 | Notice of Commission Meeting filed. (From David K. Coburn) |
| Apr. 20, 1994 | Written Objection of Hearland Environmental Council, Inc. To The Recommended Order of Dismissal Filed April 8, 1994 filed. |
| Apr. 11, 1994 | (Intervenor) Notice of Opposition to Motion to Dismiss filed. |
| Apr. 08, 1994 | Recommended Order of Dismissal sent out. CASE CLOSED, Department filed a Motion to Dismiss and Notice of Filing Cumulative Notice. |
| Apr. 06, 1994 | (Heartland Environmental Council, Inc.) Amended Petition filed. |
| Mar. 31, 1994 | Letter to DCA & DOAH from Highlands County Cattleman`s Assn. (re: notice of address change) filed. |
| Mar. 25, 1994 | (Petitioner) Notice of Errata and Amended Certificate of Service filed. |
| Mar. 23, 1994 | (Petitioner) Motion to Dismiss and Notice of Filing Cumulative Notice filed. |
| Mar. 22, 1994 | Order Setting Aside Dismissal of Intervention and Striking Motion to Dismiss sent out. |
| Mar. 21, 1994 | Letter to JLJ from Joseph T. Clarke (re: seeking resolutions) filed. |
| Mar. 15, 1994 | Order Continuing Final Hearing and Requiring Status Report sent out.(hearing date to be rescheduled at a later date; parties to file status report within 30 days) |
| Mar. 11, 1994 | CC Notice of Appearance; Heartland Environmental Council, Inc. Witness and Exhibit List (amended/TAGGED) filed. (From William Mulloy) |
| Mar. 09, 1994 | Order Granting Leave to Intervene sent out (Intervenors: Abacus Building Contractors; Joseph T. Clarke) |
| Mar. 09, 1994 | (Petitioners) Motion to Set Aside Order Dismissing Petition to Intervene and to Strike Motion to Dismiss Filed by Department of Community Affairs filed. |
| Mar. 08, 1994 | (Petitioner) Motion for Continuance and Notice of Motion Hearing filed. |
| Mar. 03, 1994 | Amended Petition for Administrative Hearings (for 93-6799GM) filed. |
| Feb. 15, 1994 | Order Dismissing Petition to Intervene sent out. |
| Feb. 03, 1994 | Order Dismissing Petition sent out. (Joseph T. Clarke and Abacus Building Contractors, Inc.) |
| Feb. 01, 1994 | (Petitioner) Motion to Dismiss; Status Report and Notice of Prehearing Conference filed. |
| Jan. 31, 1994 | Amended Petition for Leave to Intervene filed. (From Clifford M. Ables, III) |
| Jan. 24, 1994 | Second Amended Notice of Hearing (Adding Additional Days, As Needed) and change of room location sent out. (hearing set for 3/29/94; 9:00am; Sebring) |
| Jan. 13, 1994 | (Petitioner) Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction filed. |
| Jan. 13, 1994 | Amended Notice of Hearing (Adding Additional Days, As Needed) sent out. (hearing set for 3/29/94; 9:00am; Sebring) |
| Jan. 10, 1994 | Order on Petitions for Leave to Intervene sent out (Intervenors: Abacus Building Contractors, Inc., and Joseph T. Clarke) |
| Jan. 05, 1994 | (Joseph Abelow and Matthew Dollinger) Petition for Leave to Intervene filed. |
| Jan. 04, 1994 | Order Consolidating Cases sent out. (Consolidated cases are: 91-1934GM & 93-6799GM; hearing set for 3/29/94-4/6/94; 9:00am; Sebring) |
| Dec. 14, 1993 | Prehearing Order sent out. |
| Dec. 14, 1993 | Notice of Hearing and Status Report sent out. (hearing set for 3/29/94; 9:00am; Sebring) |
| Nov. 29, 1993 | (DCA) Notice of Filing w/Exhibit-A filed. |
| Nov. 18, 1993 | (Petitioner) Status Report filed. |
| Nov. 18, 1993 | (Petitioner) Status Report filed. |
| Nov. 15, 1993 | Order Granting Leave to Intervene sent out (Intervenor: Lake Placid Board of Realtors, Inc.) |
| Nov. 10, 1993 | (Lake Placid) Petition for Leave to Intervene w/cover ltr filed. |
| Nov. 09, 1993 | (Lake Placid Board of Realtors, Inc.,) Petition for Leave to Intervene filed. |
| Sep. 27, 1993 | Petition for Leave to Intervene (Sebring Bd. of Realtors) filed. |
| Jul. 19, 1993 | Petitioner Department of Community Affairs Response to Petition for Leave to Intervene filed. |
| Jul. 15, 1993 | Order Granting Leave to Intervene sent out. (for Abacus Building Contractors, Inc., and Abacus Realty, Inc.) |
| Jul. 12, 1993 | (Highlands County Builders Association, Inc.,) Petition for Leave to Intervene filed. (From W. Jeffrey Parker) |
| Jul. 09, 1993 | (Abacus Building Contractors, Inc., and Abacus Realty, Inc.,) Petition for Leave to Intervene filed. |
| Jun. 23, 1993 | Order Placing Case in Abeyance sent out. (Parties to file status report within 150 days & every 30 days thereafter) |
| Jun. 08, 1993 | DCAs and Highland's County's Motion for Abatement of Proceedings, Notice of Filing Stipulated Settlement Agreement and Notice of Compliancewith Sec. 163.3184(16), F.S.; Stipulated Settlement Agreement (HO hastagged exhibits) rec' d. |
| Mar. 22, 1993 | (Petitioner) Status Report filed. |
| Jan. 19, 1993 | Agreed Upon Status Report of Petitioner Department of Community Affairs, Respondent Highlands County and Intervenors Heartland Environmental Council, Inc., Lykes Bros., Inc., Highlands County Farm Bureau, Highlands County Citrus Growers Association, Inc., |
| Nov. 17, 1992 | Agreed Upon Status Report of Petitioner Department of Community Affairs, Respondent Highlands County and Intervenors Heartland Environmenalcouncil, Inc., Lykes Bros., Highlands County Farm Bureau, Highlands County Citrus Growers a ssociation, Inc., and Hi |
| Nov. 16, 1992 | Agreed Upon Status Report of Petitioner Department of Community Affairs, Respondent Highlands County and Intervenors Heartland EvironmentalCouncil, Inc. Lykes Bros., Inc., Highlands County Farm Bureau, Highlands County Citrus Grow ers associatin, Inc., an |
| Sep. 22, 1992 | Agreed Upon Status Report of Petitioner Department of Community Affairs, Respondent Highlands County and Intervenors Heartland Environmental Council, Inc., Lykes Bros., Inc., Highlands County Farm Bureau, Highlands County Citrus Growers Association, Inc. |
| Sep. 17, 1992 | Eighth Order for Status Report sent out. |
| Sep. 14, 1992 | Agreed Upon Status Report of Petitioner Department of Community Affairs, Respondent Highlands County and Intervenors Heartland Environmental Council, Inc., Lykes Bros., Inc., Highlands County Farm Bureau, Highland County Citrus Growers Association, Inc., |
| Jul. 27, 1992 | Seventh Order for Status Report sent out. (parties shall report the progress of settlement negotiations, and the status of this case within 45 days) |
| Jul. 27, 1992 | Highlands County's Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Schedule Hearing w/Exhibit-A filed. |
| Jul. 24, 1992 | Withdrawal of Motion to Set Hearing and Status Report of Petitioner Department of Community Affairs, Respondent Highlands County and Intervenors Heartland Environmental Council, Inc., Lykes Bros., Inc., Highlands County Farm Bureau, Highlands County Citr |
| Jul. 23, 1992 | Lykes' Response to Motion to Schedule Hearing filed. |
| Jul. 22, 1992 | Highlands County Citrus Growers Association, Inc`s Status Report and Response in Opposition to DCA`S Motion to Schedule Hearing w/Exhibits A-C filed. |
| Jul. 13, 1992 | (Petitioner) Motion to Schedule Hearing filed. |
| Jun. 09, 1992 | Sixth Order for Status Report sent out. (parties shall report the progress of settlement negotiations, and status of case within 45 days) |
| Jun. 08, 1992 | Agreed Upon Status Report of Petitioner Department of Community Affairs, Respondent Highlands County and Intervenors Heartland Environmental Council, Inc. Lykes Bros., Inc., Highlands County Farm Bureau, Highlands County Citrus Growers Association, Inc., |
| Apr. 22, 1992 | Fifth Order for Status Report sent out. (parties shall report status of case within 45 days) |
| Apr. 21, 1992 | Agreed Upon Status Report of Petitioner Department of Community Affairs, Respondent Highlands County and Intervenors Heartland Environmental Council, Inc., Lykes Bros., Inc., Highlands County Farm Bureau, Highlands County Citrus Growers Association, Inc., |
| Mar. 09, 1992 | Order Granting Leave to Intervene sent out. (Highlands County Cattlemen's Association) |
| Mar. 03, 1992 | Fourth Order for Status Report sent out. (response due within 45 days) |
| Mar. 02, 1992 | (Highlands County Cattlemen`s Association) Petition for Leave to Intervene w/cover ltr filed. |
| Mar. 02, 1992 | Agreed Upon Status Report of Petitioner Department of Community Affairs, Respondent Highlands County and Intervenors Heartland Environmental Council, Inc., Lykes Bros., Inc., Highland County Farm Bureau and Highlands County Citrus Growers Association, Inc |
| Feb. 20, 1992 | Attachments (that should have bee included w/31 Jan. ltr) filed. |
| Feb. 07, 1992 | Notice of Change of Address and Telephone Number for Counsel for Intervenor Highlands County Citrus Growers Association, Inc. filed. |
| Feb. 07, 1992 | CC Letter to Heartland Environmental Council from Kris R. Delaney (re: statement) filed. |
| Jan. 17, 1992 | Third Order for Status Report sent out. (status report due within 45 days). |
| Jan. 16, 1992 | Agreed Upon Status Report of Petitioner Department of Community Affairs, Respondent Highlands County and Intervenors Lykes Bros, Inc., Highlands County Farm Bureau and Highlands County Citrus Growers Association Inc. filed. |
| Jan. 16, 1992 | Intervenor's Status Report filed. |
| Dec. 30, 1991 | (Highlands County Citrus Growers Assn Inc) Notice of Appearance filed. |
| Dec. 06, 1991 | Intervenor's Status Report filed. |
| Dec. 02, 1991 | Second Order for Status Report sent out. |
| Nov. 26, 1991 | Status Report filed. |
| Oct. 25, 1991 | Order for Status Report sent out. |
| Oct. 09, 1991 | Order Granting Intervention (for Highlands County Citrus Growers Association, Inc. & Highlands County Farm Bureau) sent out. |
| Oct. 02, 1991 | (Petitioner) Petition for Leave to Intervene filed. |
| Sep. 26, 1991 | Intervenor Lykes Bros., Inc`s Revised Witness List filed. |
| Sep. 19, 1991 | Order for Continuance and Status Report (Status Report due within 30 days) sent out. |
| Sep. 16, 1991 | (Respondent) Motion to Continue w/Atts. filed. |
| Sep. 12, 1991 | Intervenor Lykes Bros., Inc`s Exhibit List; Intervenor Lykes Bros., Witness List filed. (From John K. McClure) |
| Sep. 12, 1991 | Respondent`s Exhibits; Respondent`s Witness List filed. (From J. Ross Macbeth) |
| Sep. 12, 1991 | Respondent`s Answer to Petitioner`s First Set of Requests for Admissions to Respondent and Intervenors filed. (From J. Rose Macbeth) |
| Sep. 10, 1991 | Petitioner`s List of Witnesses; Petitioner`s Exhibits filed. |
| Sep. 10, 1991 | (Petitioner) Petition for Leave to Intervene filed. (From Jacqueline L. Fauls) |
| Sep. 06, 1991 | Petitioner`s Witness List; Petitioner`s Exhibits filed. (From Karen Brodeen) |
| Sep. 06, 1991 | CC Letter to David Russ from Jeffrey K. Ludwig (re: Extension for Responses to Interrogatories/Admissions Highlands County Comprehensive Plan) filed. |
| Aug. 27, 1991 | Order Granting Intervention (for Heartland Environmental Council) sent out. |
| Aug. 02, 1991 | Order Granting Intervention sent out. (for Lykes Bros., Inc.) |
| Jul. 31, 1991 | Petitioner for Leave to Intervene of the Heartland Environmental Council filed. (From Kris R. Delaney) |
| Jul. 29, 1991 | Letter to Karen Brodeen from J. Rose Macbeth (re: Extension to the response on Request for Admissions & Interrogatories) filed. |
| Jul. 24, 1991 | (Petitioner) Amendment to Lykes` Petition to Intervene filed. (From Bert J. Harris, III) |
| Jul. 10, 1991 | Lykes' Petition to Intervene filed. (From Bert Harris) |
| Jul. 05, 1991 | Petitioner`s First Set of Requests for Admissions to Respondent and Intervenors filed. (from Karen Brodeen) |
| Jul. 05, 1991 | Notice of Service of Interrogatories to Highlands County; Department of Community Affairs' Firt Set of Interrogatories to Highlands County filed. (From Karen Brodeen) |
| May 08, 1991 | Letter to JLJ from J. ross Macbeth (re: confirmation of hearing scheduled for 9/23/91) filed. |
| May 07, 1991 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for Sept. 23, 1991; 10:00am; Sebring). |
| May 07, 1991 | Prehearing Order sent out. (Parties' status report due Aug. 15, 1991). |
| Apr. 23, 1991 | Notice of Prehearing Conference (May 6, 1991; 10:30am) sent out. |
| Mar. 29, 1991 | Notice of Assignment and Initial Order sent out. |
| Mar. 28, 1991 | Notification card sent out. |
| Mar. 26, 1991 | Petition of the Department of Community Affairs w/exhibits A&B filed. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| May 25, 1994 | Remanded from the Agency | |
| Apr. 08, 1994 | Recommended Order | RO Dismissal. DCA cumulative not applies to plan as amended. If in compliance, pending proceeding should be dismissed. |
