The issue is whether the Type B site plan for the 78-unit townhome/condominium project known as Park Terrace Townhomes should be approved.The type B site plan for a 78-unit townhome project complies with the applicable criteria in the City`s Land Development Code. Petitioner did not rebut the evidence presented by the develper and the City. Recommend approval with additional conditions.

The St. Johns River Water Management District (the "District") alleges in Case Number 97-4389 that Respondent, Modern, Inc. ("Modern"), excavated two ditches in wetlands without a permit, that the excavation was not exempt from a permit, and that Modern committed related acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint. The District proposes alternative plans for corrective action. Modern and its co-respondents ("Respondents") contend that the excavation was not required to have a permit because either it was not an activity covered by the permitting statutes or it was exempt. In addition, Respondents charge that the proposed agency action is based on an unadopted rule that does not satisfy the requirements of Section 120.57(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1997). (All chapter and section references are to Florida Statutes (1997) unless otherwise stated.) In Case Numbers 97-4390, 97-4391, 97-4392, and 97-4393, Respondents challenge an Emergency Order issued by the District to stop the drainage of wetlands. Respondents contend that the Emergency Order is facially insufficient, that there was no emergency, and that the corrective action has worsened conditions. The issue in each of the rule challenge cases is whether an existing rule or an agency statement is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority within the meaning of Sections 120.52(8) and 120.56(1). Case Numbers 98-0426RX and 98-1180RX challenge Rule 40C-4.041 pursuant to Section 120.56(3). Case Number 98-1182RX challenges Rule 40C-4.051 pursuant to Section 120.56(3). Case Numbers 98-0427RU and 98-1181RU challenge an agency statement pursuant to Section 120.56(1) and (4). (Unless otherwise stated, all references to rules are to rules published in the Florida Administrative Code as of the date of this Recommended Order.) The parties identify approximately 57 issues in their respective Proposed Recommended Orders and Proposed Final Orders ("PROs" and "PFOs", respectively). Those issues relevant to the proceeding conducted pursuant to Section 120.57(1), including Section 120.57(1)(e), are addressed in this Recommended Order. The remaining issues are addressed in the Final Order issued on the same date as the date of this Recommended Order.Respondents who excavated ditches without a permit did not qualify for maintenance exemptions. Respondents must restore ditches. Emergency Order authorized weirs should not be quashed. Portions of agency statement and rule are invalid.

Whether Petitioner should be ordered to pay reasonable costs and attorney's fees to Respondent, and, if so, the determination of the amounts of costs and attorney's fees.Supplement to Recommended Order in Case No. 96-3037. Persistent filing of applications in face of previous denial without change in circumstances constitutes filing for improper purpose.

Whether Petitioner is entitled to certification as a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) pursuant to Section 339.0805, Florida Statutes, and Rule Chapter 14-78, Florida Administrative Code?Applicant is not entitled to Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) certification where proof is insufficient to establish that applicant's sole owner was socially and economically disadvantaged.

Whether Petitioner is entitled to certification as a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise pursuant to Section 339.0805, Florida Statutes, and Rule Chapter 14-78, Florida Administrative Code?Applicant is not entitled to Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) certification as supplier of concrete pipe because it was neither a small business concern nor a regular dealer.

Whether Petitioner timely filed a request for formal hearing. Whether Petitioner is entitled to reinstatement of two outdoor advertising sign permits which expired for non-renewal of permit fees.Request for formal hearing not timely filed; permits expired; not entitled to reinstatement of outdoor advertising sign permit.

The issue in this case is whether Reinaldo Gutierrez committed the violations alleged in Load Report Citation number 119441L, and, if so, the amount of the penalty which should be imposed.Commercial motor vehicle was overweight and penalty of 5 cents per pound overweight should be assessed.

The issue in this case is whether American Engineering and Development Corporation committed the violations alleged in Load Report and Field Receipt Number 49975L and, if so, the amount of the penalty which should be imposed.Tractor/trailer combination and hydraulic excavator weigh 53,400 pounds over statutory weight limit; $2,670 fine proper.

Whether Petitioner qualifies for recertification as a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise under Rule 14-78.005(7), Florida Administrative Code.Petitioner failed to demonstrate that it was a small business concern; Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) application denied.

Whether Petitioner violated federal placarding requirements, as alleged in Safety Report and Field Receipt 066486 (hereinafter also referred to as "Citation 066486") issued by the Department of Transportation's Office of Motor Carrier Compliance (hereinafter referred to as the "Department")? If so, should the penalty assessed against Petitioner be in any way modified?$250 fine for violation of federal placarding requirements was appropriately imposed where placards on truck with flammable materials substanially faded.