STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 94-2843DRI

)

JOHN F. MYERS, Owner and General ) Contractor; and MONROE COUNTY, ) FLORIDA, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was held in this case on March 16, 1995, at Key West, Florida, before Michael M. Parrish, a duly designated Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Sherry A. Spiers, Esquire

Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100

and

Stephanie M. Gehres, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2796 Overseas Highway, Suite 212

Marathon, Florida 32301-1859

For Respondent Chris Haughee, Esquire

John F. Myers: Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A.

216 South Monroe Street, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1859

Monroe County: No appearance

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

At issue in this proceeding is whether development orders (building permits) issued by Monroe County to John F. Myers are consistent with the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and land development regulations.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This is an appeal, pursuant to Section 380.07, Florida Statutes, to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission from development orders of Monroe County which granted the application of John F. Myers for building permits to construct a single-family residence on Lot 43, Lower Matecumbe Beach subdivision, Lower Matecumbe Key, Monroe County, Florida. The permits also

authorize development of a dock which the Department contends is inconsistent with the County's comprehensive plan and land development regulations.

At hearing, the Department called as witnesses: Kenneth B. Metcalf, accepted by stipulation of the parties as an expert in land use planning, and administration of the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern program; and Kathleen Paxton Edgerton, accepted by stipulation of the parties as an expert in marine biology and Florida Keys ecology. The Department's Exhibits No. 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 were received in evidence. Respondent Myers called as a witness Robert Smith, accepted as an expert in biology, Florida Keys Ecology, interpretation and application of environmental design criteria contained in the Monroe County land development regulations, and turtle nesting behavior. Respondent's Exhibits No. 1, 2, 14, and 15 were received in evidence.

In addition, and also pursuant to their Stipulation, the Department and Respondent Myers filed a Joint Composite Exhibit consisting of the resume of Robert Smith; excerpts of testimony of Kenneth Metcalf, Kathleen Edgerton, and Robert Smith regarding their qualifications and tenders as expert witnesses; and excerpts of testimony of Pat Wells, expert witness on identification of turtle nesting habitat and nesting behavior of marine turtles. The excerpts of testimony are from the transcript of proceedings in Department of Community Affairs v. Snowman, et al., FLWAC Case No. APP-93-94, DOAH CASE NO. 93-7165DRI, which involved the same land development regulation that is at issue in this proceeding.

The Department and Respondent Myers also submitted a Prehearing Stipulation which, among other things, reflects their agreement that the permits be revised in a manner that will resolve two of three issues raised in the Department's appeal. Those agreed revisions are described in the Conclusions of Law in this Recommended Order.

The Department and Respondent Myers have both withdrawn their respective motions seeking awards of attorneys fees.

Although duly noticed, Monroe County did not appear or participate in these proceedings.

The transcript of the hearing was filed on June 29, 1995, and the parties timely filed their proposed recommended orders on July 10, 1995. The parties' proposed findings have been addressed in the appendix to this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Findings based on parties' stipulations

1. John F. Myers is the owner of real property known as Lot 43, Block 3, Lower Matecumbe Beach subdivision, Lower Matecumbe Key, in unincorporated Monroe County, Florida.

   
   

2. Monroe County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and is responsible for issuing development orders for development in unincorporated Monroe County. Monroe County issued the development orders which are the subjects of this proceeding.

   
   

3. Petitioner Department of Community Affairs is the state land planning agency with the responsibility to administer the provisions of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, and regulations promulgated thereunder; and with authority to

   appeal any development order issued in an area of critical state concern to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission. Sections 380.031(18), 380.032, 380.07(2), Florida Statutes.

   
   

4. Most of Monroe County, including the subject property, is within the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern, as designated under Sections 380.05 and 380.0552, Florida Statutes. These statutory provisions require that Monroe County adopt and implement a comprehensive plan and land development regulations consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development. Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statutes, formerly Chapter 27F-8, F.A.C.

   
   

5. Monroe County has adopted a comprehensive plan, effective September 15, 1986, which complies with the Principles for Guiding Development and which has been approved by the Department in Chapter 9J-14, F.A.C., and by the Administration Commission in Chapter 28-29, F.A.C. The Monroe County comprehensive plan is implemented by and through its adopted land development regulations, codified primarily in Chapter 9.5, Monroe County Code (MCC).

   
   

6. On December 10, 1993, Monroe County issued to Respondent Myers seven

   (7) building permits, each numbered 9230005763, for development of a 4,418 square foot single-family residence with 1,363 square feet of porches, and a 2,300 square foot ground slab. The permits also authorize development of a 183 square foot retaining wall, 38 pilings, and a "dock 183 sq. ft x 8ft." on the subject property. The permits were rendered to the Department on December 14, 1993.

   
   

7. The open water shoreline on the subject property has accreted.

   
   

8. Included in the environmental standards of the Monroe County land development regulations is Section 9.5-345, Monroe County Code, entitled "Environmental design criteria," which provides, in relevant part:

   
   

   Disturbed Lands: All structures developed, used or occupied on land which are [sic] classified as disturbed on the existing conditions map shall be designated, located and constructed such that:

   * * *

   (3) On lands classified as disturbed with beach berm:

   * * *

   b. No beach-berm material is excavated or removed and no fill is deposited on a beach berm;

   * * *

   f. No structure shall be located within fifty

   (50) feet of any portion of any beach-berm complex which is known to serve as an active nesting or resting area of marine turtles, terns, gulls or other birds;

   
   

9. Lower Matecumbe beach is an active nesting area for marine turtles. Loggerhead turtles, the primary marine turtles which nest on Atlantic beaches in the Keys, are a threatened species under the federal Endangered Species Act.

   
   

10. There are thirty beaches in the Florida Keys which consist of loggerhead nesting habitat. The beach on Lower Matecumbe Key, including that

    portion of the beach which fronts on Mr. Myers' property, is a known turtle nesting beach that is ranked as the second most heavily nested beach in the Keys.

    
    

11. The Monroe County comprehensive plan recognizes the beaches on Lower Matecumbe Key as known loggerhead turtle nesting beaches. Pursuant to the comprehensive plan, the County has prepared endangered species maps as a tool to be utilized in identifying known turtle nesting areas.

    
    

12. Surveys of turtle nesting behavior in the Florida Keys are accomplished through a network of volunteers. The nesting survey information obtained from this volunteer network provides very general locations with varying degrees of accuracy depending on the number and ability of the volunteers and the extent to which they can obtain access to privately owned beach front property. Because of the limitations in the survey data, it is not generally possible to determine whether turtles have nested on a particular lot. Marine turtles most commonly nest within the first 50 feet landward of the mean high tide line, although they have been known to go farther upland. Because of the compressed beach and berm habitat in the Keys, loggerhead turtles have been known to nest in grassy vegetation and woody vegetation more than 50 feet landward of the mean high water line.

    
    

13. Mr. Myers' property is properly designated as "disturbed lands" and there exists on this property a "beach-berm complex" which is known to serve as an active nesting area of marine turtles within the meaning of Section 9.5-345, Monroe County Code. The setback requirement found in Section 9.5-345, Monroe County Code, applies to this development. Consequently, no structure may be located within fifty (50) feet of any portion of the beach-berm complex which is known to serve as an active nesting area of marine turtles.

    
    

14. Section 9.5-4(B-3), Monroe County Code, contains the following definition that is pertinent to this proceeding:

    
    

    (B-3) "Beach berm" means a bare, sandy shore- line with a mound or ridge of unconsolidated

    sand that is immediately landward of, and usually parallel to, the shoreline and beach. The sand is calcareous material that is the remains of marine organisms such as corals, algae and molluscs. The berm may include forested, coastal

    ridges and may be colonized by hammock vegetation.

    
    

15. According to the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, the biota characteristic of beach systems in the Keys occur in up to four distinct generalized zones or associations, assemblages of plants and animals that have adapted to the environmental conditions of that zone. The zones on Keys beaches are described by Volume I of the Comprehensive Plan as follows:

    
    

    The strand-beach association is dominated by plants that are salt tolerant, root quickly, germinate from seed rapidly, and can withstand wave wash and shifting sand. Commonly found species include Sea Purslane (Sesuvium portulacastrum), Railroad Vine

    (Ipomoea pescaprae), Beach Grass (Panicum amarulum), Sea Oats (Uniola paniculata), Sea Lavender (Tournefortia gnapholodes), Coastal Ragweed (Ambrosia hispida) Bay Cedar (Suriana maritma),

    Cenchrus and Chamaesyce. On most Keys beaches this association occurs only at the base of the berm since the beach zone is very narrow. These plants also occupy the most seaward portion of the berm and continue some distance landward.

    * * *

    The next zone, "strand-dune" association begins with a steep and distinct increase in slope upward from the beach. This sloping portion of the berm receives the effects of the highest spring tides as well as storm-generated wave wash. The berm may be elevated only several inches or as much as several feet above the level of the beach and may extend landward hundreds of feet as a flat-topped plateau or beach ridge.

    
    

    The foreslope of the berm, or beach ridge, is vegetated primarily by the above-listed species of beach association. Grasses and herbaceous plants, which serve to stabilize this area, are most common. Proceeding landward, these pioneer species are joined by other species.

    * * *

    The strand-scrub association is generally considered a transition zone between strand-dune and hammock forest. Shrubs and occasional trees occur more frequently here and become more abundant as one proceeds landward. Species often found include Seagrape, . . . Wild Sage (Lantana involucrata), [and] Gray Nicker. . . . The most landward zone

    on the berm is occupied by tropical hardwood hammocks.

    
    

16. On September 11, 1986, Monroe County issued building permit no. 20360 to John Brockway, Respondent Myers' predecessor in title, for development of a single-family residence on the subject property. The permit was issued prior to the effective date of the current Monroe County comprehensive plan and land development regulations, and prior to adoption of the setback provision in Section 9.5-345(o)(3)f., Monroe County Code, which is the subject of this proceeding. The Department of Community Affairs did not challenge the Brockway permit.

    
    

17. In 1990, the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund issued to John and Patricia Brockway a deed for sovereignty submerged lands adjacent to the subject property.

    
    

18. The County-approved site plans for the subject permits indicate that excavation for a stormwater swale will occur seaward of the proposed residence. Mr. Myers has no intent to excavate a stormwater swale seaward of the proposed residence. The subject building permits and approved plans shall be revised to eliminate the stormwater swale and demonstrate the means by which stormwater runoff will be addressed, as required by the Monroe County Code. Based upon this agreement, the Department will not pursue its allegation that the permits are inconsistent with section 9.5-345(0)(3)b., Monroe County Code, and considers that issue to be resolved by this agreement.

    
    

19. The parties agree that that portion of the subject permits which authorizes development of a dock on Lot 43 is acceptable, and a dock may be

    developed on Lot 43, so long as the permits are amended to specify that (a) the dock shall be developed adjacent to Lot 43 on an existing dredged channel and not on the jetty or open water shoreline, and (b) development of the dock is conditioned upon the Owner obtaining permits for a principal use.

    
    

    Findings based on evidence at hearing

    
    

20. The subject property is generally triangular in shape. It fronts on a cul-de-sac on the northeast side. Along the west side of the property is a dredged channel and a jetty or riprap revetment. Along the south side the property fronts on the Atlantic Ocean. On the east side of the property is a single-family residence.

    
    

21. The subject property is undeveloped except for a fill pad or fill pile established some time ago around the cul-de-sac to the western side of the property.

    
    

22. The purpose of the setback requirement in Section 9.5-345(o)(3)f., Monroe County Code, is to provide a habitat buffer to protect marine turtles from direct and indirect impacts of development, such as lighting impacts, noise, and clearing activities behind structures when people use their back yards. Buffers are a commonly used planning technique for both planning purposes and environmental purposes.

    
    

23. The beach berm on the subject property has not moved over time. The shoreline has accreted in recent years and therefore the mean high tide line has moved seaward. This accretion provides additional habitat for marine turtles and affects the setback measurement when it is expressed as a number of feet from mean high water, as both parties have done in this case. However, the fact that a shoreline is either accreting or eroding is not relevant to a determination of the location of the beach berm.

    
    

24. The parties agree that the berm is identified, at least in part, by a visual assessment of the increase and decrease in elevation of the property.

    
    

25. A berm is essentially a rise in elevation which, moving landward from the water, rises up to a high point then begins to drop back off gradually until one reaches the adjacent grade or the natural grade beyond the berm. When the grade flattens out, that is generally the landward extent of the berm.

    
    

26. The greater weight of the evidence shows that the landward extent of the beach berm complex on Respondent's property, and the area commonly utilized by marine turtles as nesting habitat are each approximately 50 feet landward of the mean high water line depicted on the June 1994 survey of Respondent's property. Expressed as a measurement from mean high water, the setback required by Section 9.5-345(o)(3)f., Monroe County Code, on Respondent's property is approximately 100 feet.

    
    

27. A variance from the setback provision in Section 9.5-345(o)(3)f., Monroe County Code, is not authorized. However, a variance from the front yard setback may be available to Respondent if he wishes to develop the particular single-family residence shown on the plans approved with the subject permits.

    
    

28. The Monroe County comprehensive plan, Vol. I, Background Data Element, Section (3) entitled "Community Character," provides:

    A principal focus of growth management is the protection and enhancement of quality of life. Community character is a fundamental element of the circumstances described as quality of

    life. Community character refers to the nature of an area and can be described in terms of both

    the natural and the built environment. For example, the character of an undeveloped area is determined by the natural environment and is characterized by extensive open space and other environmental

    values. In contrast, the character of a city is defined by the built environment and the quality of life depends upon the design and effect of buildings.

    * * *

    . . . . In the Keys there are readily identifiable community characters that can be defined by the nature and extent of various land uses per community. These community character types are: Native, Sparsely Settled, Sub-Urban, Urban Transition and Urban.

    
    

29. The comprehensive plan goes on to describe each type of community character, and includes a lengthy discussion of the criteria for determining community character. These criteria include land use, design of man-made elements including intensity of buildings and the nature of open spaces, landscaping, and social interactions and experiences. Setbacks are not mentioned in the list of criteria for determining community character or in the descriptions of the various community character types.

    
    

30. Regardless of whether other homes in the neighborhood meet the setback requirement in Section 9.5-345(o)(3)f., Monroe County Code, requiring Respondent to do so will not affect the community character of the neighborhood as defined in the Monroe County comprehensive plan.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

31. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to, and the subject matter of, these proceedings. Sections 120.57(1) and 380.07(3), Florida Statutes.

    
    

32. This is a timely appeal pursuant to Section 380.07, Florida Statutes, from development orders of Monroe County granting Respondent's application for building permits to develop a single-family residence and dock on Lot 43, Matecumbe Ocean Bay subdivision, Lower Matecumbe Key, Monroe County, Florida. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, the propriety of Monroe County's action must be reviewed de novo. Young v. Department of Community Affairs, 625 So.2d 831 (Fla. 1993); Transgulf Pipeline Co. v. Board of County Commissioners, 438 So.2d 876 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).

    
    

33. The Department has the ultimate burden of persuasion in this case. Young, supra. The Department also has the initial burden of going forward with evidence that the development order is not in accordance with Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, and the Monroe County land development regulations. Id.

34. Section 380.05(16), Florida Statutes, provides that no person shall undertake any development within an area of critical state concern except in conformity with Chapter 380, Florida Statutes.

    
    

35. In addition, in conformity with and in furtherance of the purposes of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act requires that Monroe County permit only that development which is consistent with the Monroe County comprehensive land use plan. Sections 163.3161(2) and 163.3194(1), Florida Statutes. See also Sections 163.3201 (requiring that land development regulations implement and be consistent with the local government's comprehensive plan), 163.3215(1), and 163.3213(1), Florida Statutes.

    
    

36. The Legislature has "statutorily determined that development in the Florida Keys area [of Critical State Concern] will have an adverse impact if not in accordance with chapter 380, the local development regulations, and the local comprehensive plan." Young, supra, at 834.

    
    

37. Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, the Department has demonstrated by competent, substantial evidence that development of a single- family residence, as authorized by Monroe County under building permits no. 9230005763, does not comply with the Monroe County comprehensive plan and land development regulations, and consequently is not in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes.

    
    

38. Earlier in this proceeding the Respondent raised estoppel defenses against the Department based on several different theories. None of those estoppel theories are argued in the Respondent's proposed recommended order. Accordingly, they do not merit lengthy discussion here. It is sufficient to note that the evidence in this proceeding is insufficient to establish any basis for an estoppel against the Department.

    
    

39. Where, as here, a land owner is not able to develop his property pursuant to the previously issued permits, the Division is required to specify changes to the development proposal that would make it eligible to receive the permits. Section 380.08(3), Florida Statutes.

    
    

40. Respondent may develop a single-family residence on his subject property if his plans are modified, and the subject permit is revised or a new permit is issued, as follows:

    
    

    1. Any structure to be developed on the property shall be set back 100 feet from the mean high water line depicted on Respondent's June 1994 survey in order to meet the setback requirement in Section 9.5-345(o)(3)f., Monroe County Code.

    2. The County-approved site plans for the subject permits indicate that excavation for a stormwater swale will occur seaward of the proposed residence. Respondent Myers has no intent to excavate a stormwater swale seaward of the proposed residence. Accordingly, the

       parties have stipulated that the subject building permits and approved plans shall be revised, or new permits may be issued, to eliminate the storm- water swale and demonstrate the means by which

       stormwater runoff will be addressed, as required by the Monroe County Code.

    3. The parties have further stipulated that that portion of the subject permits which author-

izes development of a dock on Lot 43 is acceptable, and a dock may be developed on Lot 43, so long as the permits are revised, or new permits are issued, to specify that (1) the dock shall be developed adjacent to Lot 43 on an existing dredged channel and not on the jetty or open water shoreline, and

(2) development of the dock is conditioned upon the Owner obtaining permits for a principal use.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission enter a final order denying permission to develop under Monroe County building permits no. 9230005763 as issued on December 10, 1993.

It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order state that Respondent will become eligible for permits if his development plans are modified as provided in paragraph 40 of the Conclusions of Law.

DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of August 1995 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

MICHAEL M. PARRISH

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 15th day of August 1995.

APPENDIX

The following are the specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties.

Findings proposed by Petitioner: Paragraphs 1 through 7: Accepted.

Paragraph 8: Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law, rather than a

proposed finding of fact.

Paragraphs 9 through 14: Accepted.

Paragraphs 15 and 16: Rejected as statements of position or legal argument, rather than proposed findings of fact. (The statements in these paragraphs are essentially correct, but they are not proposed findings of fact.)

Paragraphs 17 through 20: Rejected as further statements of position or legal argument, rather than proposed findings of fact. (To the extent necessary,

the parties' positions are addressed in the conclusions of law portion of this Recommended Order.)

Paragraph 21: Accepted. (This is a stipulated "fact".)

Paragraphs 22 through 24: Accepted, with some minor clarification. Paragraphs 25 through 34: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details.

(Most of the details proposed in these paragraphs are supported by the evidence and all were considered in the formulation of the ultimate findings of material fact, but none of these details need to be included in the findings of fact in this Recommended Order. The findings proposed in paragraph 33 are rejected for the additional reason that they are supported only be uncorroborated hearsay evidence.)

Paragraphs 35 and 36: Accepted in substance.

Paragraph 37: Rejected as a statement of position, rather than a proposed finding of fact.

Paragraphs 38 and 39: Accepted.

Paragraph 40: Rejected as constituting argument, rather than proposed findings of fact.

Paragraph 41: Accepted.

Paragraphs 42 and 43: Rejected as constituting argument, rather than proposed findings of fact.

Findings proposed by Respondent:

Paragraphs 1 through 14: Accepted. (These are all stipulated facts.) Paragraph 15: Accepted.

Paragraph 16: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details.

Paragraph 17: First and last sentences rejected as irrelevant. Middle sentence accepted.

Paragraph 18: First sentence accepted. Last sentence rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details.

Paragraph 19: Most of this paragraph is rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details or as irrelevant. Some portions are rejected as not fully supported by persuasive evidence.

Paragraph 20: First sentence rejected as too broadly worded to be meaningful. The last sentence is rejected as being a conclusion that is not warranted by the evidence.

Paragraph 21: Accepted.

Paragraph 22: First three sentences rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Last sentence accepted.

Paragraph 23: First sentence rejected as not fully supported by the evidence. The berm line is, in general, a gentle curve that for the most part runs parallel to the gentle curve of the shore line. Second sentence is rejected as irrelevant or as unduly repetitious.

Paragraph 24: Second sentence accepted. The remainder of this paragraph is rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details or as irrelevant.

Paragraph 25: The first sentence is rejected as not fully supported by the persuasive evidence; the evidence is too vague to support the use of the word "immediately" in this context. The second sentence is rejected as irrelevant.

The third, fourth, fifth, and sixth sentences are rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of the persuasive evidence.

Paragraph 26: The first four sentences are rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details because the greater weight of the evidence is consistent with the version put forth by the Petitioner's witnesses. Greater confidence has been placed in the measurements by the Petitioner's witnesses than in the conflicting measurements described by Respondent's expert witness. The fifth sentence is accepted in substance. The sixth and seventh sentences are rejected

as consisting of arguments or of conclusions that are contrary to the greater weight of the evidence.

Paragraphs 27 and 28: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details.

Paragraph 29: First two sentences rejected as argument. Third and fourth sentences rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and as apparently based on testimony that has been taken out of context or has been misunderstood. Fifth sentence rejected as argument. Sixth sentence rejected as an over-simplification. Seventh sentence rejected as an argument or conclusion that is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence.

Paragraph 30: Rejected as unnecessary summaries of testimony, rather than proposed findings of fact. Further, these summaries are, for the most part, either not fully supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence or are contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Some of these summaries also emphasize details that are apparently based on a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of selected portions of the evidence and ignore the greater weight of the evidence.

Paragraph 31: First sentence rejected as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. (To the contrary, it appears to be based on a misunderstanding or a misinterpretation of Mr. Metcalf's testimony.) The second, third, and fourth sentences are rejected as argument; specifically, argument that is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence.

Paragraph 32: Rejected as argument; specifically, argument that is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Sherry A. Spiers, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100

Stephanie M. Gehres, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2796 Overseas Highway, Suite 212

Marathon, Florida 32301-1859

Chris Haughee, Esquire

Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A.

216 South Monroe Street, Suite 200 Post Office Box 10555

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Randy Ludacer, Esquire

1. Fleming Street

   Key West, Florida 33040

   
   

   Carolyn Dekle, Director

   South Florida Regional Planning Council 3400 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 140

   Hollywood, Florida 33021

   
   

   Linda Loomis Shelley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive

   Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100

   Dan Stengle, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive

   Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100

   
   

   Bob Bradley, Secretary Florida Land & Water

   Adjudicatory Commission

2. 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 ten 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.

Docket for Case No: 94-002843DRI

Orders for Case No: 94-002843DRI