The Issue At "issue" in this hearing was a petition to amend Rule 42X-1, Florida Administrative Code, to expand the boundaries of the Fiddler's Creek Community Development District (CDD) by approximately 137 acres and simultaneously contract the boundaries by approximately 137 acres (for approximately no net change in overall total acreage), and to change its name by adding the numeral 1.
The Issue The issue on appeal is whether, pursuant to Clearwater Code of Ordinances Section 4-505, to sustain or reverse, with or without conditions, the decision of the Community Development Board on June 20, 2003, denying Cepcot Corporation's application to build a convenience store with two islands for pumping gas.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner The Cepcot Corporation (Cepcot) owns real property located at 657 Court Street in the downtown zoning district of the City of Clearwater (Property). On December 17, 2002, Cepcot filed a Flexible Development Application for a comprehensive infill redevelopment project (Application) on the Property. At the time of the proposal, the Property, which comprises 0.95 acres, was developed with a restaurant in a building that was the former Clearwater train station, a thrift store, and a park. The Application proposes the demolition of these improvements and their replacement with a 3200 square-foot convenience store and two gas pump islands. The Property fronts Chestnut Street to the south, East Avenue to the east, and Court Street to the north. The surrounding area is developed with office uses to the west and south, a privately owned utility plant to the north, and warehouse uses to the east. Upon the completion of the Memorial Causeway bridge, which is presently under construction, traffic to the beach will use Court Street and traffic from the beach will use Chestnut Street. In response to questions and suggestions from Respondent's staff, Cepcot revised the proposed site plan several times. The Application is presently complete. Respondent's Planning Department prepared a Staff Report, which finds that the proposed project does not meet certain requirements and recommends denial of the Application on several grounds. On June 17, 2003, Respondent's Community Development Board (CDB) considered the Application. CDB denied the Application and issued a development order explaining the reasons for denial as follows: The proposal is inconsistent with the adopted Community Development Code, the Comprehensive Plan, 1995 Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, and the Downtown Design Guidelines. The proposed automobile service station is not a permitted use within the downtown district. Approval of the proposed use may encourage other like uses and may be detrimental to downtown redevelopment. The proposal does not comply with the Flexible Development criteria as a comprehensive infill redevelopment project per Section 2-803. The proposal is not in compliance with the other standards in the Code including the general applicability criteria for Section 3-913. Most of the reasons cited for denial involve Respondent's Community Development Code (CDC), which is the land development regulations. The Property is in the Downtown District. CDC Section 2-901 states: "The intent and purpose of the Downtown District is to establish a mixed use downtown where citizens can work, live, and shop in a place which is the economic, governmental, entertainment and cultural focal point of a liveable city." CDC Section 2-902 sets forth the permitted uses within the Downtown District, and CDC Chart 2-100 lists permitted uses by zoning district. The proposed uses are not among the permitted uses for the Downtown District (or the Tourist District, to which portions of the record refer). CDC Section 2-903.C sets forth the following ten criteria to be applied in determining if the proposed use qualifies as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project (CIRP) that may qualify an otherwise non-permitted use: The development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is otherwise impractical without deviations from the use, intensity and development standards; The development of the parcel proposed for development as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project will not reduce the fair market value of abutting properties; The uses within the comprehensive infill redevelopment project are otherwise permitted in the City of Clearwater; The uses or mix of uses within the comprehensive infill redevelopment project are compatible with adjacent land uses; Suitable sites for development or redevelopment of the uses or mix of uses within the comprehensive infill redevelopment project are not otherwise available in the City of Clearwater; The development of the parcel proposed for development as an comprehensive infill redevelopment project will upgrade the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development; The design of the proposed comprehensive infill redevelopment project creates a form and function which enhances the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole; Flexibility in regard to lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street parking are justified by the benefits to community character and the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole; Adequate off-street parking in the immediate vicinity according to the shared parking formula in Division 14 of Article 3 will be available to avoid on-street parking in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development; The design of all buildings complies with the Downtown District design guidelines in Division 5 of Article 3. CDC Section 3-913.A sets forth the General Applicability criteria. CDC Section 3-913.A.1 states: "The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density, and character of adjacent properties in which it is located." CDC Section 3-913.A.5 states: The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development."
The Issue The issue is whether the Petition to Establish the Southeastern Community Development District (Petition) meets the applicable criteria set forth in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes (2006),1 and Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 42-1. The purpose of the hearing was to gather information in anticipation of quasi-legislative rulemaking by the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (Commission).
The Issue The sole issue to be addressed is whether the Petition to establish the Durbin Crossing Community Development District meets the applicable criteria set forth in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code.
The Issue At issue in this case is whether the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (FLWAC) should grant the Petition to Amend the Boundaries of the Tomoka Community Development District filed on November 23, 2005 (Petition). The purpose of the Petition is to add 1,122 acres that were intended to be included in the Community Development District (CDD, or District) when it was created in October 2003 but were omitted through the inadvertent use of an erroneous legal description.
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether Pioneer Community Development District (“Pioneer”) is entitled to an individual environmental resource permit (“ERP”) from St. Johns River Water Management District (“District”) for construction of a proposed road.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner Tomm Friend is a resident and landowner in Volusia County. He uses the Doris Leeper Spruce Creek Preserve (“Preserve”) for kayaking, canoeing, biking, horseback riding, and observation of flora and fauna. Petitioner Derek LaMontagne is a resident and landowner in Volusia County. He uses the Preserve for hiking, biking, and nature photography. Petitioner/Intervenor Turnbull Bay Community, Inc. (“Turnbull Bay”), is a Florida non-profit corporation. Its mission is to promote a sense of community and preserve the quality of life enjoyed by its residents. It was stipulated that a substantial number of Turnbull Bay’s members use the Preserve for hiking, biking, fishing, canoeing, kayaking, and nature photography. Petitioner/Intervenor Friends of Spruce Creek Preserve, Inc. (“Friends, Inc.”) is a Florida non-profit corporation. Its purpose is to promote the acquisition of lands for the Preserve and promote long-term protection and sound management of the Preserve. It was stipulated that a substantial number of Friends, Inc.’s members use the Preserve for hiking, biking, fishing, canoeing, kayaking, and nature photography. Respondent Pioneer is a Community Development District (“CDD”) created by the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (“FLWAC”) under chapter 190, Florida Statutes. Pioneer is the applicant for the ERP. Respondent District is an independent special district of the State of Florida created, granted powers, and assigned duties under chapter 373, Florida Statutes, including powers and duties related to the regulation of construction activities that affect wetlands. The proposed road is within the boundaries of the District. The Proposed Road Pioneer proposes to construct an extension of Williamson Boulevard from its current terminus near Airport Road southward to Pioneer Trail. The road would be constructed on property owned by Pioneer in the City of Port Orange. Pioneer’s interest in constructing the road is to facilitate the development of the property. Long-term plans by Volusia County have called for the phased extension of Williamson Boulevard to the far south part of the County. The road would serve County objectives of creating an alternate route between the cities of Port Orange and New Smyrna Beach to relieve traffic on I-95, and connecting Williamson Boulevard to a large development in the south called Farmton. Pioneer entered into an agreement with Volusia County to design, engineer, and finance the construction of the road. After completion, the road would be purchased by the County. In the ERP application, the proposed road is described as “2.3 miles of county roadway within a 130-foot right-of-way . . . in order to accommodate four travel lanes with on-road bike lanes, [a] closed drainage system, [a] 22-foot wide curbed and grassed median, and a minimum 5-foot wide sidewalk on each side of the road. The existing two-lane roadway south of Airport Road will be widened to four lanes.” Existing Site Conditions The parcel of land through which the road would be built is approximately 722 acres. It consists primarily of mesic pine forest uplands and cypress swamp wetlands. The parcel is along the west side of I-95, east of Pioneer’s existing Cypresshead residential development. Across I-95 is the Preserve. The parcel is within the Spruce Creek Hydrologic Basin. The wetlands located on the west side of the parcel are in “near-pristine” condition. They have healthy hydric periods and ecological functions. These high value wetlands would be avoided by the proposed road alignment. The wetlands located on the east and south sides of the parcel are of lower quality because of human disturbance, including past silvicultural activities. These wetlands are partially drained and their ecological functions are diminished. All of the wetlands on the parcel currently drain to Spruce Creek, some through culverts under I-95. Petitioners contend a section of the old “Kings Highway” runs across the parcel and is a historical resource that would be adversely affected by construction of the proposed road. However, Pioneer conducted an archaeological and historical survey of the parcel and determined the proposed road project would have no effect on cultural resources either listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. What Petitioners refer to as “Kings Highway” is the “Fort Kingsbury to Smyrna Road.” The survey concluded that this road no longer has historical physical integrity or can “convey its historical significance.” The Division of Historical Resources within the Florida Department of State reviewed the survey findings and concurred. Impacts to Wetlands A little more than 79 acres will be impacted by the proposed road, including 22.2 acres of wetlands. The proposed road would not follow a straight line. An alignment was chosen to minimize impacts to wetlands. Pioneer’s consultants explored approximately a dozen different alignments for the road before selecting the current proposed alignment. The alignment extends east from its current terminus toward I-95, then runs south approximately parallel to I-95, and then turns back to the southwest to connect to Pioneer Trail. More than a third of the proposed road’s path would occur in disturbed land that was cleared, filled, and is regularly mowed under a power line and otherwise hugs I-95. The east edge of the road would lie within 100 to 125 feet of the west margin of the I-95 pavement. There are “stub-outs” planned for the road in anticipation of future streets. They are proposed for locations that avoid the need for additional wetland impacts. Petitioners argue the road should be limited to two lanes because that would reduce wetland impacts. However, Williamson Boulevard north of Airport Road is a four-lane road. The segment of Williamson from Airport Road to its current terminus is two-lane, but was built on a wide right-of-way in anticipation of a future expansion to four-lanes. The County’s plans for Williamson Boulevard call for four lanes all the way to the ultimate southern terminus at Farmton. Petitioners suggested that building an elevated pier- supported road would lessen wetland impacts. However, Petitioners did not present persuasive evidence that such a design was necessary or practicable. They presented no details. Mitigation of Impacts Pioneer proposes to purchase a total of 44.6 wetland mitigation bank credits to mitigate for the 22.2 acres of wetland impacts that would be caused by construction of the road and stormwater management system. The credits would be purchased from two separate wetland mitigation banks: the Farmton North Mitigation Bank and the Port Orange Mitigation Bank. These mitigation banks support wetland resources similar to those that would be impacted by the road. Petitioners contend that, because the mitigation banks are not in the Spruce Creek Hydrologic Basin, Pioneer would not be providing adequate mitigation. The mitigation banks are located within the Halifax River Mitigation Basin, also known as drainage basin #17. This mitigation basin includes the Spruce Creek Hydrologic Basin and Pioneer’s parcel. Pioneer presented persuasive evidence that its mitigation would provide regional ecological value. Petitioners did not dispute that the credits from these two wetland mitigation banks would provide greater long-term ecological value than the wetlands impacted by the proposed road. The Stormwater Management System Under Pioneer’s proposal, the water management functions performed by the wetlands that would be impacted by the road would be replaced by the proposed stormwater system. Runoff from the road would be collected and conveyed via curbs, gutters, inlets, and piping into the stormwater system. Several culverts would be built beneath the road to maintain the existing flow of water and prevent on-site and off- site flooding. The proposed system meets the design standards in the Environmental Resource Permit Applicant’s Handbook (“Applicant’s Handbook”), including regular and special design criteria intended to prevent degradation of water quality, as discussed in the next section. Water Quality Petitioners contend that pollutants from the road’s construction and operation would degrade the water quality of Spruce Creek. Because Spruce Creek is designated by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) as an Outstanding Florida Water (“OFW”), the District’s permitting regulations require applicants to provide reasonable assurance that, in addition to the treatment required for discharges to non-OFWs, the system provides 50 percent additional treatment volume and residence time for runoff. Pioneer’s proposed stormwater management system would provide the 50 percent additional treatment volume and residence time before discharging off-site. The proposed project is also subject to special criteria applicable within the Spruce Creek Hydrologic Basin. Pioneer is required to provide reasonable assurance that the stormwater management system will retain more than three inches of runoff from the directly-connected impervious surface area within the Most Effective Recharge Area. The proposed system includes dry retention facilities designed to meet this requirement. DEP is responsible for the total maximum daily load (“TMDL”) program for the State. The program develops TMDLs for water bodies that have impaired water quality. DEP lists Spruce Creek as suffering impairment by nutrients, specifically for phosphorus and fecal coliform bacteria. When a proposed receiving water body is listed by DEP as nutrient-impaired, the District will typically require the permit applicant to provide calculations of pre- and post- development loading of the listed nutrient(s). The applicant must then also calculate the removal efficiency of its proposed stormwater treatment system to show the project will not contribute to the impairment of the receiving water. Pioneer calculated pre- and post-development phosphorus loading of Spruce Creek and determined that the phosphorus removal capabilities of the proposed stormwater management system would be sufficient to ensure that construction and operation of the road would not contribute to the nutrient impairment in Spruce Creek. Roads do not generate fecal coliform bacteria. Therefore, the proposed road would not contribute to the fecal coliform bacteria impairment in Spruce Creek. Petitioners contend the proposed road would adversely affect Spruce Creek by altering levels of chloride, nitrogen, dissolved oxygen, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. The ERP rules do not require specific analyses of these constituents. Petitioners did not present persuasive evidence that the construction or operation of the road would cause measurable changes in the concentrations of these constituents in Spruce Creek. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law, Petitioners’ contention that the stormwater management system will not adequately protect water quality is an attempt to rebut the presumption that compliance with the District’s design standards provides reasonable assurance that state water quality standards will be met. Petitioners' evidence fell short of rebutting the presumption. Secondary and Cumulative Impacts Petitioners contend that the proposed road is integrally related with the construction of a new I-95 interchange at Pioneer Trail, and the impacts to wetlands caused by the State or Federal Government’s construction of the interchange should have been taken into account as secondary impacts of Pioneer’s road project. There is no current funding agreement in place for the construction of the interchange. The interchange is still in the early stages of review. Volusia County believes that even without an interchange, the extension of Williamson Boulevard to Pioneer Trail is a justified transportation project. Petitioners contend that the proposed alignment of the road, turning back to the southwest away from I-95 before connecting to Pioneer Trail, is proof that the road was designed to accommodate the interchange. However, the alignment at the south end was designed to avoid the raised section of Pioneer Trail which passes over I-95, as well as existing electrical power lines and a utility station. This proposed alignment also avoids impacts to wetlands directly south of Pioneer Trail in the future extension of Williamson Boulevard by the County. CDD Conditions Petitioners contend that “[a] foundational issue that must be answered in order to address the ultimate issue is whether [Pioneer] has met the conditions for its establishment as a Community Development District.” The condition that the Petitioners believe Pioneer has violated comes from the following statement contained in the Recommended Order presented to FLWAC in the proceeding related to Pioneer’s application to establish the CDD: Based on the record evidence, as supplemented and corrected, the Petition appears to meet all statutory requirements, and there appears to be no compelling reason not to grant the Petition, as supplemented and corrected, and establish the proposed Pioneer Community Development District by rule, unless establishment would be at odds with State plans to purchase the 450 acres east of I-95. In re: Petition for Rule Creation – Pioneer Community Development District, Case No. 05-1852 (Fla. DOAH Sept. 21, 2005; FLWAC July 5, 2006). First, this recommendation was not adopted by FLWAC as part of the rule establishing the Pioneer CDD. Second, the parcel of land that was the subject of the recommendation is located east of I-95. Petitioners did not show how Pioneer’s proposed road would impair the State’s ability to acquire that parcel. Petitioners did not call any knowledgeable State employee as a witness to confirm Petitioners’ claim that the proposed road would impede the State’s acquisition efforts.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the St. Johns River Water Management District enter a final order approving the issuance of the ERP to Pioneer, with the conditions set forth in the Technical Staff Report dated November 3, 2014. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of March, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of March, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: Christopher Thomas Byrd, Esquire The Byrd Law Group 3505 Lake Lynda Drive, Suite 200 Orlando, Florida 32817 (eServed) Kealey A. West, Esquire St. Johns River Water Management District 4049 Reid Street Palatka, Florida 32177 (eServed) Wayne E. Flowers, Esquire Lewis, Longman and Walker, P.A. 245 Riverside Avenue, Suite 150 Jacksonville, Florida 32202-4931 (eServed) Hans G. Tanzler, III, Executive Director St. Johns River Water Management District 4049 Reid Street Palatka, Florida 32177 (eServed)
The Issue The issue in this proceeding was whether the Petition to Establish the Harmony Ranch Community Development District (Petition) meets the applicable criteria in chapter 190, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 42-1.
The Issue The issue before the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (“Commission”) in this proceeding is whether to grant the Petition of the Rivers Edge Community Development District and the Main Street Community Development District (“Petition”), to merge the boundaries of the Rivers Edge Community Development District (“Rivers Edge”) and the Main Street Community Development District (“Main Street”) (collectively, the “Districts” or “Petitioners”). Under Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes, the local public hearing was conducted for the purpose of taking testimony and public comment and receiving exhibits. This Report of the public hearing and the hearing record is made for the consideration of the Commission in its determination whether to adopt a rule to merge the Districts’ boundaries.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: All statements contained within the Petition have been found to be true and correct. The area encompassed by the proposed District is 30,637+- acres located within unincorporated areas of Glades and Hendry Counties, Florida (Exhibit 7). The external boundaries of the District are coterminous with the external boundaries of General Development Corporation's Port LaBelle development. Within these boundaries but excluded from the District are several out parcels that were never part of the original Villages of Port LaBelle development, as well as four Port LaBelle plat units where there are currently numerous property owners. The property within the District to be excluded from the community development district is described in Exhibit 10. General Development Corporation, a Delaware corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida, is the major landowner within the proposed District (Exhibits 8 and 9A). Four other property owners owning seven parcels within the proposed District have joined in the Petition (Exhibit 9B). Installment lot contract purchasers within the areas to be included within the District who had not received a Property Offering Statement from GDC indicating the possibility of the formation of a special taxing district were separately notified by mail of the time and place of hearing and provided with information on the functions of the proposed District. Out of a total of 10,270 letters sent, only six lot purchasers made further inquiries, and those inquiries were not related to the formation of the District, but were related to property values. (Testimony of Lawrence W. Mobley. Affidavit of Mark Billson, Exhibits 19A and B.) The area of land within the proposed District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developed as one functionally interrelated community. This finding is based in part on the fact that the area to be included within the proposed District contains approximately 30,637+- acres. Property within the proposed District includes "vested" areas and areas which have been and continue to be subject to Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, review and is planned to be developed as a functional, interrelated community with a variety of land uses, including commercial, institutional, residential, and recreational. The District is ultimately projected to include 49,646 dwelling units. The area encompassed by the proposed District was subject to a Master Application for Development Approval. The Master Land Use Plan depicting uses is shown in Exhibit 13A. Master Development Orders were issued by Glades and Hendry Counties in 1974, subject to further incremental review as detailed technical data became available (Exhibits 13A, B, C and D). In 1980, Development Orders were issued by Glades and Hendry Counties for Increment II (Exhibits 14A and B). Portions of the remaining property will be subject to further incremental review (Exhibit 15A). The area subject to further review contains approximately 13,690+- acres and includes residential villages and a town center as well as a variety of other land uses. The projected population for this area is 48,700 (Exhibit 15B). The proposed designation of the future general distribution, location and extent of public and private uses within the District is shown in Exhibit 15A. All mandatory elements of the local government comprehensive plans for both Glades and Hendry Counties have been adopted in compliance with the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act of 1975 (Exhibits 17A, 17A1, 17B and 17B1) The proposed creation of the District is not inconsistent with applicable elements of the State Comprehensive Plan. The proposed District is not inconsistent with the applicable elements of the Glades and Hendry Counties Comprehensive Plans, as evidenced by the fact that the Planning Director for each county has indicated that the establishment of the District is not incompatible with applicable elements of the local government comprehensive plans (Petitioner's Exhibits 18A and 18B). The five persons proposed to be the initial members of the board of supervisors who shall serve in that office until replaced by elected members as provided by Section 190.006, Florida Statutes, are: C. C. Crump Senior Vice President General Development Corporation 1111 South Bayshore Drive Miami, --Florida -33131 (305) 350-1525 Arthur L. Harper, Jr. Vice President General Development Corporation 1111 South Bayshore Drive Miami, Florida 33131 (305) 350-1533 James E. Clark Assistant Vice President 1111 South Bayshore Drive Miami, Florida 33131 (305) 350-1531 Wayne L. Allen Vice President and General Counsel General Development Corporation 1111 South Bayshore Drive Miami, Florida 33131 (305) 350-1261 Lawrence W. Mobley Assistant Vice President General Development Corporation Highway 80 East Birchwood Boulevard LaBelle, Florida 33595 (813) 675-1712 The proposed name of the District is the Port LaBelle Community Development District. A map of the proposed District showing current major trunk water mains and sewer interceptors and outfalls have been provided in Exhibits 11A and B. No water distribution and collection systems are proposed to be constructed, operated or maintained by the District. Facilities are to be constructed by the District over a period of 40 years. The timetable for construction indicates that all facilities should be completed by the year 2020 (Petitioner's Exhibit 23). The total costs associated with the capital facilities to be constructed are estimated in good faith to be $5,433,000.00 (Exhibit 22). Glades County Resolution 80-9 (Exhibit 14A) and Hendry County Resolution 80-37 (Exhibit 14B) requested that the applicant, GDC, work together with each county to investigate the feasibility of establishing certain special taxing districts. As a result of these conditions, GDC filed a petition for establishing a community development district. The applicable local governments, the Board of County Commissioners of Glades and Hendry Counties have evidenced their support of Petitioner's request to have a District established by rule by passing Resolution 81-62, dated September 8, 1981, by Hendry County, and Resolution 81-17, dated September 14, 1981, by Glades County (Exhibits 20A and B, respectively). The District is the best available alternative for providing and delivering community services and facilities to the area to be serviced by the District. This finding is supported by the Resolutions of the Board of County Commissioners of Glades County and Hendry County acknowledging that neither county is presently in a position to provide any of the essential services required by a community of this size. The Community Development District will be able to provide reliable long-term maintenance of the services and facilities not otherwise provided by the counties or other appropriate units of local government (Exhibits 20A and B). The Barron Water Control District, a district established pursuant to Chapter 298, Florida Statutes, within the area of the proposed District, has also evidenced its support of Petitioner's request to establish a Community Development District by rule (Petitioner's Exhibit 21). The Community Development District will not be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. The area that will be served by the District is amenable to separate district government. This finding is supported by the foregoing findings of fact which establish that the nature, location, and size of the proposed Port LaBelle Community Development District would make it amenable to separate district government. Members of the public testifying at hearing had no complaints that related to the specifics of the petition filed in this cause. Instead, their concerns related to the wisdom of the Legislature in enacting Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, in the first instance, and the witnesses' desires that the Act be repealed as soon as possible. These concerns are, of course, outside the scope of issues properly involved in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law hereby submitted, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission grant the Petition of General Development Corporation, and adopt a rule which will establish the Port LaBelle Community Development District. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of July, 1982, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM E. WILLIAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of July, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Nancy H. Roen, Esquire General Development Corporation 1111 South Bayshore Drive Miami, Florida 33131 Ms. Miriam Schreiner Post Office Box 1288 LaBelle, Florida Mayor Joan Jefferson City of Stuart Stuart, Florida 33495 Robert Miller, Chairman Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council Post Office Box 2395 Stuart, Florida 33495 Honorable Bob Graham Governor, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Jim Smith Attorney General State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable George Firestone Secretary of State State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable William Gunter State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Gerald A. Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. John T. Herndon Director of the Office of Planning and Budget Executive Office of the Governor The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
