Agenda

Back to Calendar Return

County Attorney's Report 14. 1.

BCC Regular Meeting

Information

Meeting Date:	12/06/2018
Issue: Jacqueline Rogers v. Escambia County and Department of Economic Opportunity - DOAH Case Nos.: 18-2103GM and 18-2109GM
From:	Meredith Crawford
Department:	County Attorney's Office
CAO Approval:

RECOMMENDATION:

Recommendation Concerning Jacqueline Rogers v. Escambia County and Department of Economic Opportunity: DOAH Case Nos.: 18-2103GM and 18-2109GM

That the Board accept for information the attached Final Order of Administrative Law Judge Francine M. Ffolkes, State of Florida, Division of Administrative Hearings, in the matter of Jacqueline Rogers v. Escambia County and Department of Economic Opportunity, DOAH Case Nos.: 18-2103GM and 18-2109GM, in which Judge Ffolkes found in favor of Escambia County and Department of Economic Opportunity and held that the Escambia County Ordinance 2017-65, as amended by the Remedial Ordinance No. 2018-30, the Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial (HC/LI) zoning district is consistent with the 2030 County Comprehensive Plan.

BACKGROUND:

On January 16, 2018, Jacqueline Rogers petitioned the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) contesting that Ordinance No. 2017-65 which amended the Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial (HC/LI) zoning district was inconsistent with the County Comprehensive Plan.

On August 2, 2018, the County amended Ordinance No. 2017-65 by the adoption of a remedial ordinance, Ordinance No. 2018-30. Ordinance No. 2018-30 removed industrial uses from the permitted uses of HC/LI when located in MU-S.

DEO agreed with the County that Ordinance No. 2018-30 remedied any inconsistency. However, the Petitioner maintained that the County LDC remained inconsistent.

On August 14, 2018, a final hearing was held before the Division of Administrative Hearings. The Administrative Law Judge determined that the Petitioner did not prove beyond fair debate that Section 3-2.11 of the County LDC, as amended by the Ordinance and Remedial Ordinance was inconsistent with the County Comprehensive Plan. Further, the ALJ specifically held that the Ordinance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.

BUDGETARY IMPACT:

N/A

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS/SIGN-OFF:

N/A

PERSONNEL:

N/A

POLICY/REQUIREMENT FOR BOARD ACTION:

N/A

IMPLEMENTATION/COORDINATION:

N/A

Attachments
Final Order