Disapproval of Monroe County development order allowing proposed hotel and marina for insufficient traffic studies and density exceeding that allowed

Whether proposed Rule 9J-14.006 is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.Proposed rule rejecting change in land use designation valid, and doctrine of equitable estoppel not applicable in challenge to proposed rule

Certain petitioner proved that the department should have approved their map amendments because they are consistent with the principles for guiding development

Whether Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation, should issue a permit to Respondent, Vroom International, for the construction This action commenced with the filing by Respondent, Vroom International, Inc. (Vroom) with the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) of an application for a permit to construct a 425-foot-long private pier for a condominium in Islamorada. On May 19, 1980, DER gave notice of its intent to issue the permit, and Arthur B. Choate (Petitioner or Choate), an adjoining property owner, filed his timely objection and request for formal hearing. The Petitioner contends that the permit should be denied since Vroom had not obtained the necessary approval to place the pier on State submerged lands and that the construction of the pier "would impact adversely upon the aquatic and marine natural resources and water quality and navigation in the area." (Petitioner's Recommendations contained in its Proposed Findings and Conclusions). Although this case is styled "Choate" as the Petitioner, the parties agreed that co-Respondent, Vroom, has the burden of proof. The issue is whether or not DER should issue the requested permit to Vroom. At the hearing, DER presented the testimony of two of its employees and Exhibits R #1-8, Vroom presented the testimony of a Vroom representative and the contracting builder of the pier, and the Petitioner testified. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact have been included in this Recommended Order, except for those that were irrelevant, immaterial or conclusory statements. Proposed findings were due on September 19th; therefore, Vroom's, received on October 14th, are considered late filed.Petitioner's challenge to the proposed permit failed. Reasonable assurance given and permit should issue for pier construction.