FLORIDA LAND AND WATER ADJUDICATORY COMMISSION
AGENDA

December 18, 2001

1. Consideration of an appeal filed by Bay Point Club, Inc., regarding Bay County's denial of an Application for a Non-Substantial Deviation Amendment to the Development Order in the Bay Point Yacht and Country Club Development of Regional Impact; a petition to intervene filed jointly by K. Earl Durden, David Allen Spencer, Harry B. Sipple, III, Unal Tutak, David W. Hill, Lucy N. Hilton, and William F. Fusselman; and, a petition to intervene filed by Bay Point Community Association, Inc. (FLWAC Case No. APP-01-005).

On October 12, 2001, Petitioner, Bay Point Club, Inc., filed a notice and petition for appeal of Bay County's denial of an Application for a Non-Substantial Deviation Amendment to the Development Order in the Bay Point Yacht and Country Club Development of Regional Impact (DRI). Petitioner's Non-Substantial Deviation Amendment would have authorized revisions to the existing Bay Point Yacht and Country Club DRI Development Order by combining Parcels F and 12 to develop 136 residential condominium units and modifying the specific recreational uses originally approved for Parcels 9 and 10 from tennis and a clubhouse to designation of the parcels for general recreational uses.

Petitioner alleges that Bay County Commissioners, in a 2 to 2 vote, denied Petitioner's application on the basis that it was a substantial deviation. Petitioner asserts that the application is not a substantial deviation and is consistent with Bay County's Comprehensive Plan. Petitioner requests referral of the appeal to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) for assignment of an Administrative Law Judge and further proceedings.

On October 31, 2001, Bay County filed an Answer to Petition to Appeal DRI Development Order indicating, "…the Board was advised by counsel that if the decision of the Board was appealed, the County would be a party to the litigation and the position of the County before the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission or an administrative law judge would be to simply relay the facts of the quasi-judicial hearing and the County would not aggressively defend the appeal because the vote of the Board did not give staff guidance as to the position of the Board..."

A joint Petition for Leave to Intervene was filed on November 7, 2001, by K. Earl Durden, David Allen Spencer, Harry B. Sipple, III, Unal Tutak, David W. Hill, Lucy N. Hilton, and William F. Fusselman asserting substantial interests and inconsistencies with the Bay County Comprehensive Plan. In addition, a Petition to Intervene was filed on November 8, 2001, by Bay Point Community Association, Inc., (BPCA) asserting substantial interests and inconsistencies with the Bay County Comprehensive Plan. On December 3, 2001, Bay Point Club, Inc., filed a Response in Opposition to both petitions to intervene objecting to potential intervenors' claims of substantial interests and standing to intervene.

RECOMMENDATION:

A Staff Recommendation will be distributed separately.

BACK-UP:

Bay Point Club's Notice and Petition for Appeal received on October 12, 2001.

Bay County's Answer to Petition to Appeal DRI Development Order received on October 31, 2001.

K. Earl Durden, David Allen Spencer, Harry B. Sipple, III, Unal Tutak, David W. Hill, Lucy N. Hilton, and William F. Fusselman's Petition for Leave to Intervene received on November 7, 2001.

Bay Point Community Association's Petition to Intervene received on November 8, 2001.

Bay Point Club's Response in Opposition to Petition for Leave to Intervene of Earl Durden, et al., and Petition to Intervene of BPCA received on December 3, 2001.

Draft Order to be distributed separately.