STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

RE: ESTABLISHMENT BY RULE OF ) THE BROOKS OF BONITA )

SPRINGS COMMUNITY ) Case No. 97-3367 DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT )

)

REPORT TO THE FLORIDA LAND AND WATER ADJUDICATORY COMMISSION

Pursuant to Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes, Robert

E. Meale, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, conducted a local public hearing in Bonita Springs, Florida, on October 14, 1997.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Kenza van Assenderp

Young, van Assenderp & Varnadoe, P.A. Post Office Box 1833

Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1833

For Lee County: Dawn E. Perry-Lehnert

Assistant Lee County Attorney Post Office Box 398

Fort Myers, Florida 33902-0398 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue is whether the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission should promulgate a rule establishing the Brooks of Bonita Springs Community Development District.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

By Petition for Rulemaking to Establish a Uniform Community Development District dated July 2, 1997, Petitioner requested the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission to adopt a rule to

establish a uniform community development district.

Following notice, a local public hearing took place in Fort Myers, Florida. Members of the public attending the hearing were two residents of Bonita Springs, Florida.

Petitioner presented five witnesses and offered into evidence Petitioner’s Composite Exhibit 1 and Petitioner’s Composite Exhibit 2, A through L, all of which were admitted. The names and addresses of the witnesses are listed in Appendix A, and the exhibits are listed in Appendix B.

The transcript was filed on November 26, 1997.

Petitioner and Lee County filed a proposed report, which the administrative law judge has largely adopted as the report. No one filed any written post-hearing statements.

1. Summary of Record

   
   

   1. Petition

      
      

      1. On July 2, 1997, Petitioner Long Bay Partners, L.L.C. filed with the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (FLWAC) a Petition for Rulemaking to Establish a Uniform Community Development District (Petition) and submitted the Petition with attachments to Lee County.

      2. The Petition proposes the establishment of the Brooks of Bonita Springs Community Development District (the Brooks). The Petition alleges that the land to be served by the proposed

         community development district (CDD) is located in Lee County and consists of approximately 1249 acres. The Petition states that the land is bordered on the north by undeveloped land south of Williams Road, on the south by San Carlos Estates, on the east by undeveloped land west of Interstate 75, and on the west by Seminole Gulf Railroad, which runs parallel to, and just east of,

         U.S. Route 41. Petition Exhibit 1 reveals that the land to be served by the proposed CDD is a single, contiguous parcel without enclaves.

      3. The Petition alleges that the owners of all of land to be included in the proposed CDD have given written consent to the establishment of the Brooks of Bonita Springs CDD. Petition Exhibit 3 contains documentation constituting written consent of these landowners.

      4. The Petition names five persons to serve on the initial Board of Supervisors.

      5. Petition Exhibit 4 locates the two stormwater outfalls on the property within the proposed CDD. There are presently no main trunk waterlines or sewer interceptors on the property.

      6. Petition Exhibit 5 states a proposed timetable and schedule of estimated costs for the construction of the proposed facilities. Total costs projected for the construction period of 1997-2004 are $24,358,800 for roadways, utilities, earthwork, water management, roadway lighting, wetland restoration and

         mitigation and off-site improvements. The largest projected sums are for earthwork ($6.8 million) and roadway ($6.5 million).

      7. Petition Exhibit 6-A is the future land use map (FLUM) of the Lee County Comprehensive Plan. The FLUM designates the land within the proposed CDD as “Rural.” Petition Exhibit 6-C is a letter from the Department of Community Affairs determining that the Lee County Comprehensive Plan is in compliance.

      8. Petition Exhibit 7 is a Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs.

      9. Last, the Petition alleges that Petitioner paid $15,000 to Lee County on July 9, 1997, as filing fees, for the request to FLWAC that it promulgate a rule to establish the Brooks.

      10. On August 12, 1997, the Lee County Commission held the optional local public hearing on the proposed CDD. At the conclusion of the optional local public hearing, Lee County adopted and filed a resolution in support of the proposed CDD.

      11. Petitioner duly advertised the local public hearing conducted by the Division of Administrative Hearings on

          October 14, 1997, in an appropriate local newspaper in the four weeks immediately prior to the local public hearing. Publication dates were September 15, 22, and 29, and October 6, 1997.

   2. Evidence from the Local Public Hearing

      
      

      1. Stephen Means, a professional engineer, endorsed the proposed CDD as the best means of managing and financing district

         systems, facilities, and services. He found the land to be of sufficient size, compactness, and contiguity to support a functional, interrelated community. Mr. Means noted that there are two water control structures within the proposed CDD that are owned privately by the landowner, but that these structures will not be inconsistent with the systems, facilities, and services to be provided by the proposed CDD.

      2. Mr. Means explained that Bonita Springs Utilities, a private provider of water and sewer, has the franchise right to the area that will be served by the proposed CDD and that Petitioner will obtain water and sewer from this company. Mr. Means found no services or facilities with which the establishment and operation of the CDD would be inconsistent.

      3. Mr. Means indicated that the land, which remains undeveloped, is being used for agriculture. He testified that there are some existing wetlands on the site, but that most of the site has been cleared. Mr. Means testified that the drainage facilities on-site are designed for agriculture, not community development. He indicated that the CDD would use as much of the existing agriculture drainage structures as possible; however, unusable agricultural facilities would be replaced by community development drainage facilities.

      4. John Gleeson is the vice-president and general manager for Bonita Bay Properties, Inc., which is the managing member for

         Petitioner. Mr. Gleeson testified Petitioner sought the creation of a community development district as an efficient method to plan, construct, finance, and operate infrastructure for the Brooks.

      5. Mr. Gleeson stated that the San Carlos Estates development to the north is an older residential development, and Fountain Lakes is a ten-year-old residential development across

         U.S. Route 41. He testified that north of the CDD is Estero High School, some residential development, and a mobile home development called the “Corkscrew Woodlands.” (Petition Exhibit 1 depicts “Corkscrew Hammocks” between Estero High School and “Corkscrew Woodlands”; “Corkscrew Hammocks” is also the name of a residential development.) Mr. Gleeson testified that commercial uses were south of the Brooks, especially in the strip along U.S. Route 41. Mr. Gleeson added that there is agricultural activity on the approximately 500 acres between the railroad tracks and

         U.S. Route 41.

         
         

      6. Barbara Cawley, a professional planner, related the six statutory factors, set forth below, to the establishment of the proposed CDD. She testified that the existing land use is rural, with the historical use as agricultural, primarily in the form of native-range cattle grazing on largely cleared land.

      7. Ms. Cawley indicated that the proposed CDD would not require any amendment to the FLUM because the proposed development

         is consistent with the map. She explained that Lee County and the Department of Community Affairs have approved the proposed land use through rezoning and issuance of a development order for a development of regional impact. Thus, Ms. Cawley concluded that the proposed CDD is consistent with the state and local plans.

      8. Ms. Cawley testified that the land area of the proposed CDD is an infill site with development to the north, south, and west. Ms. Cawley noted that the new Florida Gulf Coast University is to the east of the Interstate 75, so there is some development to the east side of the proposed CDD past the interstate.

         However, Ms. Cawley acknowledged that Interstate 75 has restricted development to the east, and there has not been a proliferation of interstate interchanges.

      9. Ms. Cawley testified that it is difficult to apply the state comprehensive plan to individual development proposals because the state plan is directed toward larger-scale land uses. However, the character of the Brooks as infill and its proximity to trip-interceptors, such shopping, restaurants, brokerage firms, banks, and golf courses, renders the proposed development consistent with the state comprehensive plan.

      10. Ms. Cawley also found that establishment of the proposed CDD was not inconsistent with the Lee County Comprehensive Plan. She indicated that the land is extremely compact and is of sufficient size and contiguity to function as a separate community

          development for a local government such as the proposed CDD. She opined that the CDD is the best alternative to provide the types of government services proposed to be supplied by the Brooks. She cautioned that it would not be economically practical for the county to provide these services due to the distance between the Brooks and the relevant public facilities.

      11. Ms. Cawley testified that the CDD would not be incompatible with the uses and capabilities of the land area. She described the wetlands areas within the boundary of the proposed CDD as isolated and assured that Petitioner would cooperate with the South Florida Water Management District in planning the development. She indicated that there is no significant land use issue associated with this property that would cause it not to function as a community development for the community development district.

      12. Mr. Stanley Geberer, an economist employed by Fishkind and Associates, summarized the costs associated with the proposed financing and management of infrastructure by the Brooks. He estimated that the costs to the State of Florida would be less than $10,000, consisting mostly of budget filings and annual examinations of budget statements. For construction, Mr. Geberer estimated total CDD capital borrowing of about $33 million. Distributed among about 3000 dwelling units, the cost-per-unit would be about $10,000. Based on marketing concerns, Petitioner

          will likely pay about half of this sum at the time of individual sales, and the remaining half, in the form of 20-year bonds, would represent an annual financial burden of about $500 per unit. Mr. Geberer estimated that the expenses of operations and maintenance for land within the CDD will be variable, depending on the exact facilities constructed by the CDD, but should approximate annually

          $200 per unit. As for Lee County, Mr. Geberer opined that the

          
          

          $15,000 filing fee amply compensated the county for its costs.

          
          

      13. James Ward is a principal with the firm of Gary

          
          

          L. Moyer, P.A., which is a management consulting firm representing over 60 CDDs throughout Florida. Mr. Ward testified that he had been personally involved in the management of approximately 15 of these CDDs and one general purpose local government. He stated that he manages eight CDDs in Southwest Florida.

      14. Mr. Ward testified that he does not see any problems in administering or managing the CDD. He stated that the Brooks is amenable to governance by the CDD.

      15. Lee County did not present any testimony and did not controvert any of the evidence.

      16. Two members of the public actively participated in the public hearing. Both individuals resided in Bonita Springs, which is south of the proposed CDD. Both individuals, Michael DeSantis of 24167 Golden Eagle Lane and Angelo Pepe of 24199 Golden Eagle Lane, reside in the San Carlos Estates area. After having an

          opportunity to review the documents and speak with Petitioner’s representatives, Messrs. DeSantis and Pepe raised some issues more appropriately considered later in the permitting process, but endorsed the Brooks.

2. Summary of Law

   
   

   1. General

      
      

      1. Under Section 190.003(6), Florida Statutes (all references to “Section” are to Florida Statutes), a “community development district” is

         a local unit of special-purpose government which is created pursuant to this act and limited to the performance of those specialized functions authorized by this act; the boundaries of which are contained wholly within a single county; the governing head of which is a body created, organized, and constituted and authorized to function specifically as prescribed in this act for the delivery of urban community development services; and the formation, powers, governing body, operation, duration, accountability, requirements for disclosure, and termination of which are as required by general law.

      2. Section 190.011 enumerates the general powers of CDDs. These powers include the power of eminent domain inside the district and, with the approval of the governing body of the applicable county or municipality, outside the district for purposes related solely to water, sewer, district roads, and water management.

      3. Section 190.012 lists special powers of CDDs. Subject

         to the regulatory power of all applicable government agencies, CDDs may plan, finance, acquire, construct, enlarge, operate, and maintain systems and facilities for water management; water supply, sewer, and wastewater management; district roads meeting minimum county specifications; and certain projects within or without the district pursuant to development orders from local governments. After obtaining the consent of the applicable local government, a CDD may have the same powers with respect to the following “additional” systems and facilities: parks and recreation, fire prevention, school buildings, security, mosquito control, and waste collection and disposal.

      4. Section 190.005(1) provides that the sole means for establishing a community development district of 1000 acres or more shall be by rule adopted by FLWAC granting a petition for the establishment of a CDD. (Section 190.005(2) provides that,

         for proposed CDDs of less than 1000 acres, the county in which the proposed CDD is situated may establish a CDD under the same requirements discussed below.)

      5. Section 190.005(1)(a) requires that a petition be filed with FLWAC. The petition must describe by metes and bounds the area of the proposed CDD with a specific description of any real property to be excluded from the district. The petition must set forth that the petitioner has the written consent of the owners of all of the real property in the proposed CDD, or has control by

         “deed, trust agreement, contract or option” of all of the real property. The petition must designate the five initial members of the board of supervisors of the proposed CDD and the district’s name. The petition must contain a map showing current major trunk water mains and sewer interceptors and outfalls, if any.

      6. Section 190.005(1)(a) also requires that the petition propose a timetable for construction an estimate construction costs. The petition must designate future general distribution, location, and extent of public and private uses of land in the future land use element of the appropriate local government. The petition must contain an economic impact statement.

      7. Rule 42-1.008, Florida Administrative Code, requires that the petitioner also provide a copy of the local government’s growth management plan.

      8. Section 190.005(1)(b) requires that the petitioner submit a copy of the petition, with a $15,000 filing fee, to the county and to each municipality whose boundaries are within or

         
         

         contiguous to the proposed CDD. The petitioner must serve a copy of the petition on those local governments, as well.

      9. Section 190.005(1)(c) permits the county and each municipality described in the preceding paragraph to conduct a public hearing on the petition. Such local governments may then present resolutions to FLWAC as to the proposed CDD.

      10. Section 190.005(1)(d) requires an administrative law judge to conduct a local public hearing pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. The hearing “shall include oral and written comments on the petition pertinent to the factors specified in paragraph (e).” Section 190.005(1)(d) specifies that the petitioner publish notice of the local public hearing once a week for the four successive weeks immediately prior to the hearing.

   2. Factors for Granting or Denying Petition

      
      

      1. Section 190.005(1)(e) provides that FLWAC

         
         

         consider the entire record of the local hearing, the transcript of the hearing, resolutions adopted by local general- purpose governments as provided in paragraph (c), and the following factors and make a determination to grant or deny a petition for the establishment of a community development district:

         
         

         1. Whether all statements contained within the petition have been found to be true and correct.

            
            

         2. Whether the creation of the district is inconsistent with any applicable element of the effective local government comprehensive plan.

            
            

         3. Whether the area of land within the proposed district is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one functional interrelated community.

            
            

         4. Whether the district is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by the district.

         5. Whether the community development services and facilities of the district will be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities.

            
            

         6. Whether the area that will be served by the district is amenable to separate special-district government.

            
            

3. Summary of Evidence Under Applicable Law

   
   

   1. General Law

      
      

      1. Petitioner satisfied the procedural requirements for the establishment of a CDD by paying the $15,000 filing fee, filing a petition in the proper form and with the required attachments, submitting a copy to the petition to Lee County, and publishing statutory notice of the local public hearing.

   2. Six Factors of Section 190.005(1)(e)

      
      

      1. Truth of Statements in Petition

1. The statements in the Petition are correct.

   
   

   2. Consistency of Proposed District with Local and State Comprehensive Plans

   
   

2. No provision of the Lee County or state comprehensive plans prohibits the creation and establishment of a CDD at this

   
   

   location. Thus, creation of the Brooks would not contravene any express plan provisions prohibiting the creation and use of CDDs.

3. However, a finding that the proposed CDD would not be inconsistent with the state and local plans requires more than a

   finding that these plans do not prohibit the creation of the proposed CDD. This factor requires analysis of whether the proposed CDD would be inconsistent with the operative provisions of these plans, including the local government’s FLUM.

4. Generally, the creation and establishment of a CDD serves various provisions of comprehensive plans by the efficient provision of certain infrastructure (i.e., the infrastructure to be provided by the proposed CDD), typically concurrent with the impacts of development. This consistency determination is important. But if it were all that was required to satisfy the consideration of the factors on consistency with state and local comprehensive plans, this factor would mean very little, as all CDDs exist basically for the provision of infrastructure.

5. The establishment of a CDD conveys upon a nongovernmental entity special powers to finance and manage facilities that traditionally have been provided by government. The existence of these powers may accelerate or even permit residential and commercial development of previously undeveloped areas. The CDD process does not lend itself to a detail consideration of the consistency between establishing the CDD and various provisions of relevant local government comprehensive plans. Typically, there are no adversaries in a CDD hearing, and the evidentiary record does not approach the complexity of the evidentiary record of a growth management hearing. For these

   reasons, the consistency determinations in a CDD case cannot approach the detail of consistency determinations in a growth management case, but this does not mean that such consistency determinations are inapposite. The second factor of the CDD case requires a consistency determination; necessarily, though, the consistency determination is less rigorous than it is in a vigorously contested growth management case.

6. Goal 1 of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Lee County comprehensive plan is to “maintain and enforce a Future Land Use Map . . . in order to protect natural and man-made resources, provide essential services in a cost-effective manner, and discourage urban sprawl.”

7. The FLUM designates the land to be included in the Brooks as Rural. The subject land is at the center of a large block of Rural land running between U.S. Route 41 on the west and Interstate 75 on the east. This larger block extends roughly one mile north and two miles south beyond the boundaries of the subject land.

8. However, the areas immediately north and south of this large Rural area are urbanized. To the north is an area south of San Carlos Park, which is an established residential and commercial area. This area is mostly Suburban with some Urban Community. To the south is the Bonita Springs area, which is

   residential and commercial and designated mostly Urban Community and Central Urban.

9. According to the FLUM, the center of the subject land is occupied by parts of long, contiguous wetlands. The shape of these wetlands suggests that they connect the predominantly wetland area of the southeast corner of a vast (almost one-fifth of the County) area designated Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource immediately east of Interstate 75 with the wide wetland fringe of Estero Bay a couple of miles to the west of the subject land.

10. The FLUE identifies five Non-Urban Areas, of which one is Rural. In general, according to FLUE Objective 1.4, Non-Urban Areas are those areas “not anticipated for urban development at this time.” FLUE Policy 1.4.1 provides:

    The Rural areas are to remain predominantly rural--that is, low density residential, agricultural uses, and minimal non-residential land uses that are needed to serve the rural community.

    These areas are not to be programmed to receive urban-type capital improvements, and they can anticipate a continued level of public services below that of the urban areas. Maximum density in the Rural area is one dwelling unit per acre (1 du/acre), except as may be permitted under the Planned Development District Option.

11. FLUE Policy 1.7.2 explains that the “Development of Regional Impact overlay shows all of the property in Lee County subject to development orders as developments of regional impacts.

    Map 1, page 3 of 4, shows the areas that are, as of May 25, 1994,

    
    

    covered by developments of regional impact. The subject land is not depicted as covered by a development order.

12. FLUE Objective 1.8 describes the Planned Development District Option, which gives greater densities to landowners of land designated Rural if the development is “totally independent of county-subsidized facilities and services” and does “not result in harmful environmental/natural resource, economic, fiscal, infrastructure/services, or public safety impacts.” The Planned Development District Option allows the landowner to develop at densities up to the Urban Community designation (without bonuses).

    Although FLUE Policy 1.1.4 seems to allow a maximum density of ten units per acre (10:1), Table 1 clearly states that the maximum density, without bonuses, is 6:1 for the Urban Community designation.

13. FLUE Goal 2 is to “provide for an economically feasible plan which coordinates the location and timing of new development with the provision of infrastructure by government agencies, private utilities, and other sources.” FLUE Objective 2.1 is to promote “[c]ontiguous and compact growth” to “contain urban sprawl, minimize energy costs, conserve land, water, and natural resources, minimize the cost of services, [and] prevent development patterns where large tracts of land are by-passed in

    favor of development more distant from services and existing communities.”

14. FLUE Objective 2.2 is to direct new growth to the parts of the Future Urban Areas “where adequate public facilities exist or are assured and where compact and contiguous development patterns can be created.” Policy 2.2.2 warns that the FLUM depicts land uses projected through 2010, so that not all such densities or uses are immediately appropriate.

15. FLUE Goal 9 is to “protect existing and potential agricultural lands from the encroachment of incompatible land uses.” However, FLUE Policy 9.1.1 provides that the plan does not “permanently prohibit the conversion of agricultural uses to other land uses.”

16. Map 11 indicates that the subject land is in a large “generalized boundary” for a future community park. The size of the depicted area leaves no doubt that the depicted area is much larger than would be the actual park, which might be located on property other than the subject property.

17. Map 20 in the Lee County Comprehensive Plan reveals that the subject land is in a contiguous agricultural parcel of over

    100 acres in non-urban future land use categories. The subject land is in one of the few such parcels that are not designated Density Reduction/Groundwater Reduction or Open Lands, which restrict development tightly.

18. If there is a development order that vests certain development rights in Petitioner, then the consistency determination is perhaps a foregone conclusion, absent an explicit prohibition in a local government comprehensive plan against using CDDs. It is impossible to say if such a development order applies in this case because Petitioner has not produced a copy of it.

19. If there is no such development order, the record in this case does not establish that the development facilitated by establishing the Brooks is inconsistent with operative provisions of the Lee County comprehensive plan. The land is designated Rural, but the Lee County comprehensive plan allows the development of significant residential densities for such land. Although the planning timeframe for the FLUM extends this Rural designation for another 13 years, the areas north and south of the subject land are designated for urban development. The plan lacks an existing land use map, but evidence establishes that much of the land to the north and south has already been developed. Although the development of the subject land would result in the loss of a viable agricultural use, little in the Lee County comprehensive plan protects such a use.

20. Although the state comprehensive plan more effectively protects agricultural land, there is no greater likelihood, based on the present record, that the establishment of the Brooks would be inconsistent with the state comprehensive plan.

21. Establishment by Rule of a proposed district is not inconsistent with the Lee County or state comprehensive plan.

    3. Whether Size, Compactness, and Contiguity of Proposed District Is Sufficient to be Developable as One Functional Interrelated Community

    
    

22. The size, compactness, and contiguity of the proposed CDD land area are sufficient for it to be developable as one functional interrelated community.

    4. Whether Proposed District is Best Alternative Available for Delivering Community Development Services and Facilities to Area to be Served

    
    

23. The proposed CDD is probably the best alternative presently available for delivering community development services and facilities at this time to the area of the proposed CDD.

    5. Whether Proposed District’s Community Development Services and Facilities will be Compatible with Capacity and Uses of Existing Local and Regional Community Development Services and Facilities

    
    

24. The services and facilities provided by the proposed CDD will be compatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities.

    6. Whether Area to be Served by Proposed District is Amenable to Separate Special-District Government

    
    

25. The area to be served by the proposed CDD is amenable to a separate special-district government.

DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of December, 1997, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

Petitioner’s Witnesses: John Gleeson

Vice President

Long Bay Partners, L.L.C.

Barbara Cawley Wilson, Miller

Steven Means Wilson, Miller

Jim Ward

ROBERT E. MEALE

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675

Fax Filing (850) 921-6847

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of December, 1997.

APPENDIX A

10300 Northwest Eleventh Manor Coral Springs, Florida 33071

Fishkind and Associates, Inc. 12424 Research Parkway, Suite 275

Orlando, Florida 32826

APPENDIX B

Petitioner’s Exhibits

Petitioner’s Composite Exhibit 1. Petitioner’s Composite Exhibit 2.

Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 2A.

1. General location map.

2. Boundary map of the development to be serviced by the Brooks.

3. Boundary map of the land area to be included within the jurisdiction of the Brooks.

4. Lee County FLUM.

Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 2B: Petition with its exhibits.

1. Petition.

2. Petition Exhibit 1 showing the location of land area to be serviced by the Brooks.

3. Petition Exhibit 2 indicating metes and bounds legal descriptions.

4. Petition Exhibits 3-A and 3-B indicating written consent by property owners/optionees.

5. Petition Exhibit 4--Outfalls Map.

6. Petition Exhibit 5--Estimate of proposed timetables and related costs of construction and provision of District services and facilities.

B-7a Petition Exhibit 6-A--FLUM.

B-7b Petition Exhibit 6-B--Lee County comprehensive plan. B-7c Petition Exhibit 6-C--Florida Department of Community

Affairs letter dated July 13, 1990, accompanying objections, recommendations, and comments.

B-7d Petition Exhibit 6-D--Florida Department of Community Affairs’ Notice of Intent to Find Plan Amendments in Compliance.

B-8 Petition Exhibit 7--Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs.

Petitioner's Exhibit 2C: Copy of receipt for $15,000 check representing the filing and processing fee paid by Petitioner.

Petitioner's Exhibit 2D: Document Transmittal Receipt from John

M. Gleeson to Lee County Board of County Commissioners dated July 2, 1997, submitting the petition to the County.

Petitioner’s Exhibit 2E: Board of Lee County Commissioners Resolution No. 97-08-12 supporting establishment of the Brooks with attached staff report.

Petitioner's Exhibit 2F: Letter from Ken van Assenderp dated July 2, 1997, transmitting the petition to Dr. Robert B. Bradley, Secretary, Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission.

Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 2G:

1. Letter of notification dated July 16, 1997, from Dr. Robert B. Bradley, Secretary, Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission to James Murley, Secretary, Department of Community Affairs for review of the petition.

2. Letter of notification September 16, 1997, from Dr. Robert B. Bradley, Secretary, Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission to Wayne Daltry, Executive Director, Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council for review of the petition.

Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 2H.

1. Letter dated July 16, 1997, from Dr. Robert B. Bradley, Secretary, Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission transmitting the petition, certifying compliance, to Sharyn Smith, Director, Division of Administrative Hearings.

2. Letter dated July 14, 1997, from Ken van Assenderp to Sharyn Smith, Director, Division of Administrative Hearings, pursuant to Rule 42-1.008(2), Florida Administrative Code, and Section 190.005(1)(d).

Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 2I.

1. September 15, 1997, affidavit and tear sheet from the News-Press constituting proof of publication for the first week of notice.

2. September 22, 1997, affidavit and tear sheet from the News-Press constituting proof of publication for the second week of notice.

3. September 29, 1997, affidavit and tear sheet from the News-Press constituting proof of publication for the third week of notice.

4. October 6, 1997, affidavit and tear sheet from the News- Press constituting proof of publication for the fourth week of notice.

Petitioner's Exhibit 2J: Copy of the Lee County comprehensive plan.

Petitioner's Exhibit 2K: Copy of the state comprehensive plan as it appears codified in Chapter 187, Florida Statutes (1996).

COPIES FURNISHED:

Dr. Bob Bradley, Secretary

Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Executive Office of the Governor

1601 Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

Barbara Leighty, Clerk

Growth Management and Strategic Planning 2105 Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

Attorney James Rhea

Executive Office of the Governor Legal Affairs

209 Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001

Kenza van Assenderp

Young, van Assenderp & Varnadoe, P.A. Post Office Box 1833

Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1833

Dawn E. Perry-Lehnert Assistant Lee County Attorney Post Office Box 398

Ft. Myers, Florida 33902-0398

Docket for Case No: 97-003367

Orders for Case No: 97-003367