STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, )

)

Petitioner, )

and )

) CRAIG HENNIS, JIM MOORE and )

JEAN WONSER, ) DOAH CASE NO. 92-0012GM

)

Intervenors, )

)

vs. )

)

GILCHRIST COUNTY, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Following notice to all parties, Don W. Davis, a duly designated Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings, held a formal hearing in the above-styled matter in Trenton, Florida, on April 24-25, 1995.

APPEARANCES

For Department of Community Affairs:

Andrea D. England, Esquire Assistant General Counsel David L. Jordan, Esquire Deputy General Counsel

Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100

For Craig Hennis, Jim Moore, and Jean Wonser: Richard Grosso, Esquire

Prince A. Donnahoe IV, Certified Legal Intern

Nova Southeastern Civil Law Clinic 3305 College Avenue

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33314 For Gilchrist County:

Theodore M. Burt, Esquire Post Office Box 308 Trenton, Florida 32693

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue in this case is whether the Gilchrist County comprehensive plan and subsequent remedial amendments are "in compliance" pursuant to Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On June 1, 1991, Gilchrist County (County) submitted its proposed comprehensive plan to the Department of Community Affairs (Department) for review. The Department responded on September 13, 1991, by forwarding to the County an Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report. The ORC Report contained the Department's objections, comments and corrective recommendations concerning the proposed plan.

After considering the ORC Report, the County, on November 14, 1991, adopted its comprehensive plan by Ordinance No. 91-10. On January 2, 1992, the Department issued a Notice of Intent finding the adopted comprehensive plan not "in compliance" as that term is defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Thereafter the Department, pursuant to Section 163.3184(10), Florida Statutes, filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) a petition for administrative hearing. The case was assigned DOAH Case No. 92-0012GM. Subsequently, Craig Hennis, Jim Moore and Jean Wonser each were granted intervenor status in the case.

The Department and the County began settlement discussions which culminated in the execution of a Stipulated Settlement Agreement (Agreement) by the Department and County on November 19, 1993. Pursuant to the Agreement, the County adopted remedial amendments to its comprehensive plan by Ordinance Nos.

1. and 94-02. On January 13, 1994, the Department issued a Cumulative Notice of Intent finding the remedial amendments as well as the underlying comprehensive plan "in compliance."

   
   

   Pursuant to Section 163.3184(16)(f), Florida Statutes, the Department and County filed a Motion to Dismiss Formal Proceedings. On May 18, 1994, Hearing Officer Donald R. Alexander denied the motion because all parties had not agreed to dismiss the action. The May 18, 1994, Order directed the parties to advise the Hearing Officer of the remaining issues to be litigated, and whether those issues pertained to the amendments adopted pursuant to the Agreement or the comprehensive plan unaffected by the Agreement. On June 14, June 15, and June 17, 1994, the parties filed separate responses, advising that two issues remained to be litigated, one of which pertained to the amendments adopted pursuant to the Agreement, and one of which pertained to the plan unaffected by the Agreement.

   
   

   In the Prehearing Stipulation, all parties agreed that Intervenors had standing to bring this action, and that the proceeding was governed by Section 163.3184(9), Florida Statutes. During pre-hearing discussions with the Hearing Officer, the parties agreed that Intervenors carried the burden of proof in this proceeding.

   
   

   Intervenors were permitted at hearing to present testimony and evidence concerning the following claims:

   
   

   The Gilchrist County comprehensive plan as amended is not based on data and analysis and does not meet the requirements set forth in 163.3177(6), Florida

   Statutes, and Rules 9J-5.006, 9J-5.011, and 9J-5.013, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Specifically, Intervenors object to:

   
   

   1. the change in land use of the parcel of land known as the Waccasassa Flats from Preservation-1 category to Agriculture/Silviculture category, which allows one developmental unit to be built per 80 acres and one dwelling unit to be built per 160 acres where previously no developmental or dwelling units were allowed; and

      
      

   2. the change in land use of selected parcels of land bordering the Waccasassa Flats to Agricultural-5 land use, and the change in land use of selected parcels of land inside the northern portion of what has been considered the Waccasassa Flats from Preservation-1 to an agricultural designation.

      
      

      Intervenors called three witnesses and introduced two exhibits. The County called five witnesses and introduced six exhibits. The Department called three witnesses and introduced five exhibits. The parties introduced 43 joint exhibits. Six additional exhibits were jointly introduced by Intervenors and the Department.

      
      

      No transcript of the final hearing was provided by the parties. The parties requested and were granted additional time for the submittal of proposed findings of fact. Pursuant to Rule 60Q-2.031(2), F.A.C., the parties acknowledged waiver of provisions of Rule 28-5.402, F.A.C., relating to time requirements for the issuance of a recommended order.

      
      

      Proposed recommended orders were submitted by the parties and are further addressed in the appendix to this recommended order.

      
      

      FINDINGS OF FACT

      
      

      PARTIES

      Intervenors

      
      

      1. Craig Hennis, Jim Moore, and Jean Wonser own property in Gilchrist County, Florida, which is located in or near the area known as the Waccasassa Flats. Hennis, Moore, and Wonser submitted oral and written comments during the review and adoption proceedings. Hennis, Moore, and Wonser are "affected persons" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes.

         
         

         Gilchrist County

         
         

      2. Gilchrist County is a local government required to adopt a comprehensive plan pursuant to Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes The County is situated in North Central Florida. The County is bordered on the east by Alachua County; on the south by Levy County; on the west by Dixie and Lafayette Counties; and on the north by Suwannee and Columbia Counties. The County seat is the incorporated City of Trenton. The County contains many areas of natural resources including the Santa Fe River in the north, the Suwannee River in the west, numerous fresh water springs, and the Waccasassa Flats.

         
         

         Department

         
         

      3. The Department is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing local government comprehensive plans pursuant to Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes.

         Waccasassa Flats

         
         

      4. The Intervenors' challenge concerns the level of protection afforded the Waccasassa Flats (Flats). The Flats are approximately 56,000 acres in size in Gilchrist County and act as the source of the Waccasassa River, whose headwaters are located in Levy County. The Flats extend from northern Gilchrist County through Levy County to the Gulf of Mexico. The Flats are situated on a high limestone formation between two sand ridges. The Flats are a mosaic of uplands, wetlands, and sandhills composed primarily of commercial pine plantations, hardwood swamps, isolated strands of cypress domes, and shrubs and brush. Approximately 31,000 acres are forested uplands and forested flatwoods; 24,000 acres, forested wetlands and non-forested wetlands; and 1,000 acres, non- forested uplands. The water table in the Flats is generally near or above the surface, and is linked to a surficial aquifer, not the Floridan Aquifer, which is much deeper. The Flats act as a low to moderate water recharge area by collecting water, then slowly releasing it to surrounding areas. The Flats are not unlike many parts of North Central Florida, including northern Columbia County, eastern Alachua County, parts of Baker and Levy Counties, Nassau County, Lafayette County, eastern Hamilton County, western Madison County, Taylor County, and Dixie County.

         
         

      5. Within Gilchrist County, the Flats are privately owned and historically have been logged in large part by commercial silviculture companies. This activity continues today. A network of logging roads and fire lines have been cut through the Flats. Silviculture activities such as the clearcutting of large tracts of timber, replanting with non-native species of pine, and creating a monoculture pine forest, have degraded the ecosystem, fragmented wildlife habitat, and negatively impacted some species of wildlife and native vegetative communities in the Flats. For example, throughout most of the Flats native longleaf pine communities no longer exist. Many of the native hardwood hammocks have been cut to increase the land available for pine planting and harvesting. In addition, native cypress trees have been cut. While the Flats still function as a natural system, they are not a pristine system because of these past and current silviculture activities.

         
         

      6. The Division of Forestry in the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services recommended that 56,050 acres of the Flats be acquired by the State of Florida through the Conservation and Recreation Lands (CARL) program. The Flats have been on the CARL acquisition list since 1988: they were ranked ninth on the list in 1988 and thirty-third in 1993.

         
         

         WACCASASSA FLATS/DENSITY

         
         

      7. Intervenors assert that the Plan fails to adequately preserve and restore the natural resources associated with the Flats. Specifically, Intervenors claim that a density of one dwelling unit per 160 acres in the area designated Silviculture/Agriculture (S/A) on the County's FLUM does not preserve wildlife, wildlife habitat, native vegetative communities, and groundwater quality, nor restore wetlands in the Flats.

         
         

      8. Policy I.2.2 of the Plan establishes the densities in the S/A land use category at no more than one dwelling unit per 160 acres and no more than one development unit per 80 acres. The policy defines development units as:

         
         

         [] structures commonly associated with row crops, pasture, hunting or silviculture activities such as barns, outbuildings and sheds, vehicle storage, small mill operations, and small office structures. . .

      9. The density established under Policy I.2.2 is a low density. By requiring at least 160 acres before one residence can be built, development in the S/A category is discouraged and directed to other areas of the County where higher densities are permitted.

         
         

      10. The following uses and activities are established by Policy I.2.2 for lands classified as S/A:

          
          

          Lands classified in Silviculture/Agriculture shall be lands which are predominantly used for silviculture activities conducted in accordance with Policy V.2.16, limited agricultural uses as described below, dwelling units, development units, archery ranges, rifle, shotgun and pistol ranges, and hunting and fishing camps and uses customarily accessory and clearly incidental and subordinate to such uses.

          
          

      11. Policy I.2.2 describes the limited agricultural activities permitted in the S/A land use classification:

          
          

          Within the Silviculture/Agriculture land use classification, intensive agriculture uses shall be prohibited. Grazing of livestock on pasture lands shall be allowed and row crops planted on a rotational basis between

          the harvesting of timber and planting of trees as part of silviculture activities shall also be allowed. Row crop activity shall be limited to areas containing soils within hydrological Groups A and B as identified in Soil Survey of the County (U.S. Soil Conservation Service, September 1992) and shall maintain a 50-foot natural buffer around all wetlands.

          
          

      12. The Plan conserves and protects wetlands. In addition to restricting row crops to drier soils and requiring buffers between row crops and all wetlands (as described above), Policy I.2.2 provides:

          
          

          [] ditching or any other activity which would modify the natural hydrology and environmental character of Silviculture/Agriculture areas shall be prohibited, provided however, that trench irrigation shall be allowed in areas containing soils within hydrological Groups A and B as identified in Soil Survey of the County (U.S. Soil Conservation Service, September 1992) for row crops within Silviculture/Agriculture

          areas so long as such trench irrigation practices do not result in the conversion of wetlands to uplands.

          
          

      13. To further protect wetlands, Policy V.2.4 requires a 35-foot natural buffer around all wetlands, within which agricultural and residential uses are prohibited.

          
          

      14. Additionally, Policy V.2.8 prohibits development which alters the natural functions of wetlands where all structures can be clustered on the non- wetland portion of the site. Where that option does not exist, Policy V.2.8

          permits only minimal residential development activity and establishes other limitations on development, including the requirement that walking paths and driveways to residences use permeable fill and allow the uninterrupted flow of water.

          
          

      15. Wetlands are also protected by Policy V.2.16, which requires silviculture activities to follow the best management practices established in the 1993 Florida Department of Agriculture's "Silviculture Best Management Practices."

          
          

      16. These identified policies in the Plan conserve and protect wetlands in the Flats.

          
          

      17. Intervenors assert that development at the rate of one dwelling unit per 160 acres will "fragment" wildlife habitat in the Flats and thereby negatively affect wildlife associated with the Flats.

          
          

      18. The Flats is not a particularly significant habitat for threatened or endangered species, species of special concern, or rare species. The best available existing data shows that the habitat in the Flats is not used by many, if any, of these types of species. Development at the low density allowed in the S/A land use classification will not adversely impact either the habitat or the wildlife which might use that habitat. Some species may be positively impacted by the limited development activities allowed in the Flats under the Plan.

          
          

      19. While wading birds at times forage for food in the Flats, development at the low density allowed in the S/A land use category, with the various wetlands protection policies in the Plan, will not adversely affect utilization of the Flats by these bird populations.

          
          

      20. An individual animal may be negatively impacted by limited development of one dwelling unit per 160 acres, but the wildlife population as a whole will suffer no adverse impacts. Moreover, development at this density could cause less severe fragmentation and fewer negative impacts than are caused by current silviculture practices which have been utilized in the Flats for decades.

          
          

      21. Policy V.2.8, relating to residential development in wetlands, limits clearing or removal of native vegetation and provides some protection to the Flats. Such clearing or removal may not exceed more than one-half acre per five acres.

          
          

      22. Requirements of Policy V.3.4 that the County cooperate with other governmental entities, research and interest groups to conserve and protect unique vegetative communities within the County, affords protection to wildlife, wildlife habitat, and native vegetative communities. Also, Policies V.3.4, V.4.1, and V.4.2 require the County to cooperate with the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission in monitoring and inventorying wildlife and wildlife habitats, including cooperating in the application, and compliance with, all federal and state regulations pertaining to endangered and rare species. Policy

          V.4.3 also requires consultation with the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission prior to the issuance of a development order where there is an indication that such issuance would result in an adverse impact to any endangered or rare species.

          
          

      23. The low density permitted in the Flats, in conjunction with wetlands protection and other identified policies in the Plan, will conserve and protect

          wildlife, wildlife habitat, and existing native vegetative communities, and maintain the overall integrity of the natural resources in the Flats.

          
          

      24. Intervenors assert that placement of septic tanks within the Flats have the potential to contaminate the underlying groundwater.

          
          

      25. Contamination from a septic tank from a residential development at a rate of one dwelling unit per 160 acres will have no significant impact on groundwater quality. Scientific studies show that any adverse impact of effluent from a septic tank system, or even a malfunctioning septic tank, is dissipated within 50 feet. As a result, the placement of septic tanks in the Flats at the designated density required by the Plan will not adversely impact the groundwater quality.

          
          

      26. In addition to the Plan's protection of groundwater quality as a result of the maximum density in the S/A land use classification of one dwelling unit per 160 acres and one development unit per 80 acres, protection also results from the previously-identified policies relating to wetlands protection.

          
          

      27. A comprehensive approach to conserving and protecting the natural resources associated with the Flats has been established by the County through all the above-referenced policies. The Plan relies on the low density established for the S/A land use classification, as well as various planning controls. These controls limit the type and extent of uses allowed in the S/A land use classification and protect wetlands, and require cooperation with other governmental entities to ensure the conservation and protection of wildlife, wildlife habitat, native vegetative communities, and groundwater quality in the Flats.

          
          

          BOUNDARY DESIGNATIONS FOR SILVICULTURE/AGRICULTURE AND AGRICULTURE-5 LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS

          
          

      28. Intervenors assert that the County's designation of the S/A and Agriculture-5 (Ag-5) land use classifications are inappropriate and do not follow the boundaries of the Flats.

          
          

      29. Although the Flats are approximately 56,000 acres in Gilchrist County, there is no definitive boundary for the Flats.

          
          

      30. Prior to the 1991 adoption of the County's comprehensive plan, the Flats were zoned Preservation-1 (P-1). The lands zoned P-1 prior to 1991 now are classified by the Plan as S/A. The size of the S/A category is slightly larger than the P-1 zone.

          
          

      31. The subject of boundaries of the Flats was addressed in Gilchrist Timber Company v. Gilchrist County, Florida, Case No. 88-156-CA (Eighth Judicial Circuit, August 21, 1989). In that case, the circuit court determined that the County did a "commendable and legally defensible task in following section lines, quarter section lines and existing uses in setting the boundaries [of the P-1 zoning category]. These lines must be somewhere and those made in this case are quite reasonable."

          
          

      32. Much of the land surrounding the Flats was zoned General Flood Plain-1 (GFP-1) or General Flood Plain-2 (GFP-2) prior to the 1991 Plan adoption; the vast majority of that land now is classified by the Plan as Ag-5.

      33. In determining the boundaries of the S/A and Ag-5 land use classifications for the FLUM in the adopted Plan, the County reviewed its zoning map, conducted site visits, and utilized updated maps and information prepared by state, federal, and regional agencies. These maps included the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Flood Insurance Rate Map (1988); the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's National Wetlands Reconnaissance Survey (1981); the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service's Soil Associations map (1991); and the Florida Sinkhole Research Institute's Potential for Groundwater Pollution of the Floridan Aquifer (1988). This information was the best available data and analysis which existed at the time the Plan and remedial amendments were adopted. These maps depict the boundary of the resources within the Flats, but cannot be used to definitely establish the boundaries of the Flats.

          
          

      34. Policy I.2.2 establishes the density for the Ag-5 land use classification as one dwelling unit per 40 acres. This is a low density which discourages development in the Ag-5 category, and directs development to other areas of the County which have higher densities. The density in this land use classification thereby serves to limit negative impacts from development to surrounding areas, including the Flats.

          
          

      35. As a buffer between the Flats and surrounding agriculture lands, the Ag-5 areas protect natural resources in the Flats from the potential adverse impacts of agricultural activities and higher densities and intensities of development permitted outside the Flats. Buffering in this way is a professionally-accepted planning tool for protecting natural resources.

          
          

      36. The natural resources associated with the Flats will receive adequate protection through the Plan policies referenced earlier, regardless of whether they fall within the S/A or Ag-5 land use classification.

          
          

      37. The data and analysis used by the County to delineate the boundaries of the S/A and Ag-5 land use classifications was the best available existing data, was relevant and appropriate. The Plan's classification of certain lands as S/A and Ag-5 was reasonable and based on sound planning principles.

          
          

          NEEDS ASSESSMENT

          
          

      38. Intervenors allege that the future population projections in the Plan do not demonstrate a need for additional density in the Flats in order to meet the future residential needs of Gilchrist County.

          
          

      39. Pursuant to Plan Policy I.2.2, a density of one dwelling unit per 160 acres in the S/A land use category would allow a maximum of 232 dwelling units to be built in the Flats.

          
          

      40. Under Plan Policy I.2.2, the current density allowed in Ag-5 is one dwelling unit per 40 acres. A comparison of the adopted FLUM with the prior zoning map reveals that over 5,000 acres are designated Ag-5 which were formerly zoned GFP-2 prior to the Plan's adoption. Under the old GFP-2 zoning category, a maximum of 5,000 dwelling units could have been built. Under the current Ag-5 land use classification, no more than 160 dwelling units could be built.

          
          

      41. Through the Plan's adoption, the densities established for the combined S/A and Ag-5 land use classifications result in an overall reduction in

          density allowed in the Flats and surrounding areas. Moreover, the densities permitted in these areas do not result in adverse impacts to natural resources in the Flats.

          
          

      42. The County's designation of densities in the S/A and Ag-5 land use classifications is reasonable and appropriate and based on data and analysis in the Plan.

          
          

          CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

          
          

      43. Pursuant to Sections 120.57(1) and 163.3184(9), Florida Statutes, DOAH has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter in this proceeding.

          
          

      44. The purpose of this proceeding, pursuant to Section 163.3184(9), Florida Statutes, is to determine whether the Gilchrist County Comprehensive Plan and subsequent remedial plan amendments are "in compliance."

          
          

      45. "In compliance" means that the underlying comprehensive plan and remedial plan amendments must be consistent with the requirements of Section 163.3177, Florida Statutes, the State Comprehensive Plan, the North Central Florida Regional Policy Plan, and Rule 9J- 5, F.A.C. See Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. 1/

          
          

      46. Pursuant to Section 163.3184(9), Florida Statutes, the Gilchrist County Comprehensive Plan, as amended on January 13, 1994, by Ordinance Nos. 94- 01 and 94-02, shall be determined to be "in compliance" if the determination of compliance is fairly debatable. See e.g., B & H Travel Corporation v. Department of Community Affairs, 602 So. 2d 1362, 1365 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) ("That standard is a deferential one that requires affirmance of the local government's action if reasonable persons could differ as to its propriety."); Zemel v. Lee County and Department of Community Affairs, 15 FALR 2735, 2767 (Department of Community Affairs, June 22, 1993).

          
          

      47. Section 163.3177(6)(d), Florida Statutes, requires that a local government adopt a conservation element for the conservation, use, and protection of natural resources. The Gilchrist County Comprehensive Plan conserves and protects natural resources associated with the Flats. Intervenors have failed to show beyond fair debate that the Plan does not meet this requirement.

          
          

      48. Section 187.101(3), Florida Statutes, provides that the State Comprehensive Plan "shall be construed and applied as a whole, and no specific goal or policy" in the Plan shall be construed or applied in isolation from the rest of the Plan.

          
          

      49. Section 187.201(10) expresses the state goal that unique natural habitats and ecological systems shall be protected and acquired, and degraded natural systems shall be restored to a functional condition. The state plan does not impose on Gilchrist County the unobtainable goal of preserving the Flats or restoring the Flats to a pristine condition that has not existed for decades.

          
          

      50. The Gilchrist County Comprehensive Plan meets the goal of the State Comprehensive Plan by protecting and conserving the unique natural habitats and functioning ecological systems which exist in the Waccasassa Flats.

      51. Future realization of Intervenors' desire that the Flats be preserved through purchase by the State of Florida's CARL program is not affected by adoption of the current Gilchrist County Comprehensive Plan.

          
          

      52. The Act requires local governments to submit comprehensive plans which met the various requirements set forth in the Act. Section 163.3161 et seq., Florida Statutes Among these is the requirement that the plan be clearly based on appropriate data. Section 163.3177(10)(e), Florida Statutes The data must be the best available existing data. Rule 9J-5.005(2), F.A.C. In adopting a comprehensive plan consistent with the Act, the County is not required to explain why it decided to create certain land use classifications which may differ from those that existed prior to the adoption of the Plan. Rather, the Plan must clearly be based on the best available existing and appropriate data at the time of plan adoption. Intervenors have failed to demonstrate beyond fair debate that the Gilchrist County Comprehensive Plan is not clearly based on the best available existing and appropriate data.

          
          

      53. The densities established for the S/A land use classification are reasonable and appropriate.

          
          

      54. The boundaries of the S/A and Ag-5 land use classifications are reasonable and appropriate.

          
          

      55. Intervenors have failed to show beyond fair debate that the Plan, as amended, fails to conserve and protect natural resources in the Flats, or that the Plan is not based on data and analysis.

          
          

      56. Intervenors have failed to demonstrate beyond fair debate that the Gilchrist County Comprehensive Plan, as amended, is not consistent with the requirements of Section 163.3177, Florida Statutes, the State Comprehensive Plan, the North Central Florida Regional Policy Plan, and Rule 9J-5, F.A.C.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Department of Community Affairs enter a Final Order finding the Gilchrist County Comprehensive Plan as subsequently amended to be "in compliance."

DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of May, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

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 23rd day of May, 1995.

ENDNOTES

1/ Sections 163.3178 and 163.3191, Florida Statutes, are contained within the definition of "in compliance" but are not relevant to this proceeding.

APPENDIX

The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties.

Intervenors Proposed Findings:

1.-2. Accepted.

3. Rejected, relevance.

4.-5. Accepted.

6.-7. Qualified by expert testimony that the area is not unique.

8. Subordinate to HO findings.

9.-10. Accepted only to extent that the Flats are on the Carl list. Weight of the evidence supports finding that the Flats would be better served by the present plan than continuation of past practices.

11. Rejected, weight of the evidence.

12.-16. Accepted.

17.-20. Subordinate to HO findings and weight of the evidence.

21. Accepted.

22.-23. Subordinate to HO findings.

24. Rejected, weight of the evidence supports finding that the present fragmentation can only be decreased by the modest densities proposed by the plan.

25.-26. Reject, relevance.

27.-32. Subordinate to HO findings.

1. Reject, speculative.

2. Reject, to extent possible, the plan does this. 35.-37. Generally accepted.

38.-41. Subordinate to HO findings.

1. Accepted.

2. Accepted, but not verbatim.

3. Rejected, speculative.

45.-46. Accepted.

1. Subordinate to HO findings.

2. Rejected, weight of the evidence.

3. Rejected, relevance.

50.-51. Rejected, weight of the evidence.

1. Accepted.

2. Rejected, weight of the evidence. 54.-55. Subordinate to HO findings.

56.-57. Rejected, speculation.

58.-59. Subordinate to HO findings.

60. Rejected, speculation.

61.-63. Rejected, in the context of the modest density proposed and the existing damage from silvaculture practices, these conclusions as to future fragmentation are speculative.

1. Rejected, weight of the evidence.

2. Rejected, speculative, relevance. 66.-67. Rejected, speculative.

68.-69. Rejected, weight of the evidence. 70.-74. Subordinate to HO findings.

75. Rejected, unnecessary to result reached.

County And Department Proposed findings:

1.-6. Accepted, not verbatim.

7.-8. Rejected, unnecessary. 9.-43. Accepted, not verbatim.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Andea D. England, Esq. David L. Jordan, Esq. Dept. of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Dr.

Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100

Richard Grosso, Esq. Prince A. Donnahoe IV,

Certified Legal Intern

Nova Southeastern Civil Law Clinic 3305 College Ave.

Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33314

Theodore M. Burt, Esq.

P. O. Box 308 Trenton, FL 32693

(Copies Furnished to Continued) Linda Loomis Shelley, Secretary 2740 Centerview Dr.

Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100

Dan Stengle, Esq.

2740 Centerview Dr.

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 consult with the agency that will issue the final order in this case concerning their rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this recommended order. Any exceptions to this recommended order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.

Docket for Case No: 92-000012GM

Orders for Case No: 92-000012GM