STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, )

)

Petitioner, )

and )

)

FLORIDA AUDOBON SOCIETY, )

)

Intervenor, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 82-2718

) KEY LARGO INVESTORS, INC., d/b/a ) CARYSFORT YACHT CLUB, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

A formal administrative hearing was conducted in this matter on April 6, 7, and 8, 1983, in Key West, Florida. The following appearances were entered:

For Petitioner: Kent Zaiser, Esquire

Joseph Belitzky, Esquire Assistant Attorneys General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

For Intervenor: Mr. Charles Lee, Vice President

Appeared as a non-attorney qualified representative

Florida Audubon Society 1101 Audubon Way

Maitland, Florida 32751

For Respondent: Michael Egan, Esquire

Key Largo Roberts, Egan & Routa, P.A. Investors, Inc. 217 South Adams Street d/b/a Carysfort Post Office Box 1386

Yacht Club Tallahassee, Florida 32302

For Respondent: Lucien C. Proby, Jr., Esquire Monroe County, Nelson Read, Esquire

Florida 310 Fleming Street

Key West, Florida 33040

This is an appeal brought by the Department of Community Affairs pursuant to Section 380.07, Florida Statutes, from a development order in the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern. The Monroe County Zoning Board issued a final order approving preliminary development plans and the final development

plans for Phase 1A of the Carysfort Yacht Club. Approval of the final development plan was appealed to the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners. The County Commission affirmed the development order. The Department of Community Affairs thereafter filed this appeal with the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission. The Adjudicatory Commission forwarded the matter to the office of the Division of Administrative Hearings on October 5, 1982.

The final hearing was originally scheduled to be conducted on January 18, 1983, by notice dated December 1, 1982. The parties stipulated and agreed to a continuance, and the hearing was rescheduled to be conducted as set out above by notice dated January 13, 1983. The Respondents filed motions to dismiss which were denied by orders entered December 2, 1982, and March 30, 1983. In accordance with Rule 28-5.205, Florida Administrative Code, the orders denying the motions to dismiss are incorporated into this Recommended Order for final disposition by the Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission.

The Respondent Key Largo Investors, Inc., called the following witnesses at the final hearing: Lyle A. Murray, a real estate investor and developer who is the president of Key Largo Investors, Inc.; James Shonkwiler, a consulting civil engineer; Michael Garretson, the director of the Division of Local Resource Management of the Department of Community Affairs; Robert Dennis, the Florida Keys representative for the Department of Community Affairs and formerly a biologist employed by Monroe County; and James Lewis, a real estate broker who was formerly the chairman of the Zoning Board of Monroe County. The Department of Community Affairs called the following witnesses: Kermit H. Lewin, the county administrator of Monroe County; Jeffery Doyle, the chief planner for Monroe County; Robert E. Dennis; Arthur H. Weiner, a consulting biologist; Glenn Boe, formerly the office manager of the Department of Environmental Regulation office in the Florida Keys; James Lewis; William Robert Alcott, an acting senior planner with the Department; Ed Davidson, the president of the Florida Keys Chapter of the Florida Audubon Society and a businessman in the dive-charter business; and James C. Nicholas, a consulting economist.

Hearing Officer's Exhibits 1 through 5, Joint Exhibits 1 through 6, Petitioner's (Department of Community Affairs') Exhibits 1 through 13, Intervenor's (Florida Audubon Society's) Exhibits 1 through 4, E's (Key Largo Investors, Inc.'s) Exhibits 1 through 33, and County Exhibit 1 were received into evidence at the hearing.

ISSUES

The ultimate issues to be resolved in this proceeding are whether the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission should grant or deny permission to Key Large Investors, Inc., to develop and what, if any, conditions and restrictions should be attached to development approval or denial. The Department of Community Affairs contends that Monroe County improperly approved the preliminary development plan and final development plan because the plans did not comply with the requirements of local ordinances and rules of the Florida Administration Commission and that the development plans were inconsistent with the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. Key Large Investors, Inc., contends that the appeal should be dismissed because it was not filed within the required time limits, that the Department of Community Affairs is estopped from maintaining the appeal, and that the development comports with local and state criteria. The Florida Audubon Society agrees with the contentions of the Department of Community Affairs, and Monroe County agrees with the contentions of Key Largo Investors, Inc.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Key Largo Investors, Inc. ("KLI" hereafter), owns approximately 129.2 acres of land in North Key Largo, Monroe County, Florida. The property is approximately three miles south of "Card Sound Road" and 5.5 miles north of U.S. Highway 1. It is divided by State Road 905; 84.5 acres of the parcel lying to the east of the highway, and 44.7 acres to the west. The property is within the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern. KLI is proposing to develop a residential and marina project on the property to be known as "Carysfort Yacht Club."

   
   

2. The Department of Community Affairs is the state land planning agency designated to undertake statewide comprehensive planning.

   
   

3. Members of the Florida Audubon Society participate in fishing, nature study, scientific research, and other such activities in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project. Members of the Society believe that the proposed development would adversely affect their interests by eliminating, disturbing, or otherwise adversely affecting their ability to engage in such activities.

   
   

4. The proposed project lies within Monroe County, Florida. Monroe County is the local government agency which issued the development order respecting the proposed development.

   
   

5. KLI filed an application with Monroe County for preliminary development plan approval for the Carysfort Yacht Club The staff of the Monroe County Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the plans and other submissions, and the Board conducted a public hearing on February 26, 1981. The Board took no action at that time, but continued the matter until a meeting conducted on March 27, 1981, so that KLI could provide additional information. On March 27, the matter was again continued. A public hearing was conducted by the Planning and Zoning Board on April 24, 1981. In considering the application for preliminary development approval, the Planning and Zoning Board had KLI's application before it. The application included an "Environmental Designation Survey," a "Community Impact Statement," and additional documentation. At its April 24, 1981, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board approved the preliminary development plan. The only condition imposed by the Board was a requirement that KLI back fill a marina that had been dredged on the site by a prior owner. The Board's order approving the preliminary development plan was never formally transmitted to the Department of Community Affairs. Personnel of the Department were aware of the decision, but had not been formally advised of it.

   
   

6. KLI applied to the Monroe County Planning and Zoning Board for final development plan approval for Phase 1A of the proposed project. The Zoning Board met on February 25, 1982, and approved the plans through its Resolution MD 81-3-19. On March 9, 1982, a copy of this order was transmitted to the Department of Community Affairs. In accordance with the Monroe County Code, the Florida Keys Citizens Coalition appealed the Zoning Board order to the County Commission. On or about August 9, 1982, the County Commission denied the Coalition's appeal. Reconsideration was requested and denied on or about August 23, 1982. On September 24, 1982, the Department of Community Affairs filed an appeal with the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission. These proceedings ensued.

7. The preliminary development plans initially submitted to the Monroe County Planning and Zoning Board provided for approximately 700 dwelling units on both sides of State Road 905. While it is not clear from the documents, it appears that the Planning and Zoning Board intended to approve only those portions of the preliminary development plans that provided for development on the east side of the roadway. KLI has, for now, abandoned plans to develop on the west side of the roadway. The plans provide for construction of a total of

   512 dwelling units on the 84.5 acres lying to the east of State Road 905. KLI is proposing to develop the project in three stages -- 203 dwelling units would be constructed during Phase 1, 188 units during Phase 2, and 121 units during Phase 3. In its application for final development plan approval which generated this proceeding, KLI is seeking approval to develop a substage of Phase 1, which it has designated Phase 1A.

   
   

8. The KLI property which lies to the east of State Road 905 borders on the Atlantic Ocean. The land had been cleared and partially developed before KLI purchased it. A harbor and an upland lake had been dredged. In Phase 1A of the development, KLI is proposing to construct 31 dwelling units along the Atlantic Ocean adjacent to the harbor. The plans also provide for constructing roadways and parking facilities, drainage structures, sewage treatment structures, a water distribution system, and recreational amenities. Neither the preliminary development plans nor the final development plans for Phase 1A explicitly provide that the developer will bear the cost of the infrastructure (roadways, water distribution systems, wastewater treatment facilities, and recreational amenities) of the development. The development plans, however, appear to assume that the developer would maintain these costs.

   
   

9. At the time that KLI purchased this property, the portion of the property to the west of State Road 905 was dominated by a native hardwood hammock. Approximately 8 acres of the property to the east of State Road 905 were dominated by such a hammock. KLI, or someone acting on its behalf, illegally cleared a portion of the hammock on the west of State Road 905. It will take more than 10 years for the hardwood hammock to reestablish itself completely, but that process is now occurring. Of the approximately 8 acres of hardwood hammock that remain on the east of State Road 905, KLI proposes to ultimately clear all but approximately 1 1/2 to 2 acres. That remaining hammock would be divided by an access road. It does not appear that clearing the hardwood hammock on the east side of State Road 905 is a necessary portion of Phase 1A of the development. There are two small wetland communities on the site to the east of State Road 905 which KLI proposes to preserve in a natural, although diked, condition.

   
   

10. Hardwood hammocks such as exist in the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern are unique in North America. There is a long history of these terrestrial, botanical communities being diminished. Only a small portion of hardwood hammock area that was originally in the Keys remains. The finest examples of these communities that remain in the Florida Keys, and indeed in North America, are on Key Largo. Such communities serve numerous beneficial and environmental functions. They serve to retain soils, limit discharge of pollutants into surrounding water bodies, support wildlife communities, and protect wetlands from upland areas. Preservation of hardwood hammocks is aesthetically important, but is also important to protecting the environment of the Keys. The hammock areas provide food and shelter for a wide variety of animals, birds, and plants. At least 14 species of endangered, threatened, or rare species or species of special concern were observed on the project site.

    In addition, 7 species of birds that are either threatened, rare, or species of special concern; and 2 species of reptiles that are threatened are known to make

    use of the site for habitat. The portion of the property to the west of State Road 905 forms a part of the very limited habitat that exists for crocodiles in North America.

    
    

11. Development of the KLI property can be accomplished in such a manner as to minimally impact the important hardwood hammock and wetland areas. KLI does propose to leave wetland areas undisturbed. If the hardwood hammocks were also left undisturbed, threatened and endangered wildlife species could continue to use the site as habitat, and the various beneficent environmental functions that hardwood hammocks perform would not be KLIminated. To accomplish these ends, the portion of the property to the west of State Road 905 should not be developed. The hardwood hammock areas that have been illegally cleared should be allowed and encouraged to reestablish themselves. The hardwood hammock areas that still exist to the east of State Road 905 should not be disturbed.

    Roadways and other structures should be reconfigured so as to not cross the hardwood hammock areas, and they should not be cleared.

    
    

12. The harbor and upland lake that presently exist on the KLI site were constructed prior to KLI purchasing the site. The harbor was constructed in such a manner -- it is much too deep -- that it causes adverse water quality consequences in surrounding waters. As a condition for receiving approval of its preliminary development plans, KLI agreed to back fill the marina so that adverse water quality impacts would be reduced. KLI has pursued a permit to accomplish this operation from the Department of Environmental Regulation. The permit has been issued. If the back filling of the marina is not accomplished in conjunction with the proposed development, the adverse water quality consequences of the marina will be increased because more boat traffic will be brought to the marina as a result of development.

    
    

13. As a part of its overall development plans, KLI proposes to construct docks in the presently existing upland lake and to provide access for boats docked in the lake to the harbor through some sort of tram system. The developer also proposes to construct two additional upland lakes on the east side of State Road 905. These construction activities are not a part of Phase 1A of the proposed development. Utilizing the present upland lake as a docking facility and constructing two new upland lakes is likely to have adverse water quality consequences. Even if properly vegetated, it would be difficult to maintain good water quality in the lakes. water in the lakes interacts with surrounding water bodies through groundwater percolation. Therefore, surrounding water bodies and groundwater in the area are likely to be adversely impacted. The preliminary development plans do not include an explanation of how water quality in these upland lakes will be maintained. Without such assurance being provided, development of the upland lakes should not be approved.

    
    

14. KLI has plans to make a considerable expenditure to revegetate developed areas. KLI has told local zoning officials that it will revegetate the area with native species so that minimal fertilization will be required and so that the character of the area will be maintained. While there have been such statements made, it does not appear that any clear requirement to that effect has been imposed on KLI. It is appropriate that KLI's revegetation plans be required to utilize native vegetational species.

    
    

15. KLI has invested considerable sums of money in obtaining the property and in paying for professional engineering, architectural, and legal services. After Monroe County approved its preliminary development plans, KLI changed its financing arrangements in order to obtain additional money for planning and

    initial development efforts. The change in financing arrangements was less advantageous to KLI from the perspective of KLI backing out of the project if for any reason development does not occur. It appears that the decision to restructure the financing was made in part based upon a statement made by an attorney who worked for Monroe County. There is no evidence from which it could be concluded that any official of the Department of Community Affairs or of the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission made any representation of any kind to KLI or any of its representatives, neither does it appear that the attorney had actual or apparent authority to bind even Monroe County to any course of conduct.

    
    

16. It does not appear that the development proposed by KLI would adversely impact the provision of government services or require that any public facilities be expanded. Local officials appear assured that presently existing roadways, solid waste facilities, freshwater supplies, schools, and recreational facilities will not be overburdened as a result of the development. No evidence was presented at the hearing from which it could be concluded that the proposed project, either itself or in combination with other proposed projects, would unduly burden such public facilities.

    
    

17. The Department of Community Affairs has asserted that the procedures followed by the Monroe County Planning and Zoning Board and by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County do not comport with requirements of law. To the `extent that any such failures have been established, there is no evidence from which it could be concluded that either the fairness of the proceedings or the correctness of the action taken by local government officials was in any way impaired by the errors. It does appear that all persons who wished to address the local zoning board and the local board of county commissioners were not allowed as much time to make presentations as they desired. It does not, however, appear that local officials prevented anyone from making presentations about the proposed project.

    
    

18. The Department has asserted that the proposed development could adversely impact the John Pennekamp recreation area, which is located nearby. It does appear that the project would generate more boating activity in the region and that boating activity is potentially injurious to the dKLIcate reef ecosystems located underwater at Pennekamp. Increased boating activity at Pennekamp is being generated from numerous sources, including from the

    recreation area itself. Additional activity as a result of the proposed project would be negligible.

    
    

19. Monroe County has adopted its Ordinance No. 21-1975, which pertains to the regulation of major development projects in Monroe County. The ordinance has been codified into Article VII (Sections 6-221 through 6-245) of the Monroe County Code. The County has also adopted a comprehensive plan which includes provisions relating to preservation of beaches and shorKLInes, and trees and vegetation. The Florida Administration Commission has adopted rules relating to developments in the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern. See: Rules

    27F-8 through 27F-14, Florida Administrative Code.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

20. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this proceeding. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes; Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Rule 27G-1.01(c), Florida Administrative Code.

21. KLI contends that this appeal proceeding should be dismissed because it was not filed within 45 days after the relevant orders were issued by the local government. Section 380.07(2), Florida Statutes. It has been determined in orders entered in response to motions to dismiss filed by KLI that the time period for filing this appeal did not begin to run until the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County entered its final order dismissing the appeal that had been taken from the decision of the Monroe County Planning and Zoning Board. The evidence establishes that the Department of Community Affairs filed its notice of appeal and petition within 45 days after the rendition of the final action taken by the Board of County Commissioners. A copy of the order denying KLI's motion to dismiss in this regard is incorporated into this Recommended Order and will be attached to the Recommended Order as Appendix I.

    
    

22. KLI has contended that the Department's notice of appeal was untimely because it was not filed within 45 days of the local government's approval of the preliminary development plans. This contention is without merit. In the first place, the evidence establishes that the local government order approving the preliminary development plans was never transmitted to the Department of Community Affairs as required by Section 380.07(2), Florida Statutes. The order was thus never appropriately rendered so as to start the running of the appeal period. Furthermore, the Department of Community Affairs is only authorized to initiate appeals from "development orders." Section 380.07(2), Florida Statutes. A "development order" is defined at Section 380.031(2), Florida Statutes, as "any order granting, denying, or granting with conditions an application for a development permit." A "development permit" is defined at Section 380.031(3), Florida Statutes, as including "any building permit, zoning permit, plat approval, or rezoning certification, variance, or other action having the effect of permitting development as defined in this chapter." (Emphasis supplied.) The orders approving the preliminary development plans did not have the effect of permitting development. The developer is still required to obtain development approval in accordance with the County's major development requirements. Accordingly, the Department of Community Affairs was without authority to appeal the order approving the preliminary development plans.

    
    

23. KLI has contended that the Department of Community Affairs is estopped from maintaining this appeal because of a representation made to the president of KLI by an attorney who represented Monroe County. The Supreme Court of Florida recently discussed the application of estoppel principles in State Department of Revenue v. Anderson, 403 So.2d 307 (Fla 1981). The court stated: (at p. 400)

    
    

    As a general rule, equitable estoppel will be applied against the state only in rare instances and under exceptional circumstances. . . Another general rule is that the state cannot be estopped through mistaken statements

    of the law . . . In order to demonstrate estoppel, the following elements

    must be shown: 1) a representation

    as to a material fact that is contrary to a later-asserted position; 2) rKLIance on that representation; and 3) a

    change in position detrimental to the party claiming estoppel, caused by the representation and rKLIance thereon. [Citations omitted.]

    The representation must be made by the party against whom the doctrine of estoppel is applied to the party claiming estoppel. Calusa Golf, Inc. v. Dade County, 426 So.2d 1165 (3 DCA Fla. 1983); Department of Revenue v. Hobbs, 368 So.2d 367 (1 DCA Fla. 1979). In addition, the statement upon which the party seeking to invoke estoppel rKLIed must be one on which he had a right to rely. Greenhut Construction Co. v. Henry A. Knott, 247 So.2d 517 (1 DCA Fla. 1971). In this case, the only statement that KLI asserts it rKLIed upon was made by an attorney employed by Monroe County. It does not appear that KLI had any right to rely upon that representation as binding even Monroe County. At most, it would have been a mistaken statement of law which does not justify invoking an estoppel. Department of Revenue v. Hobbs, surpa. Clearly an attorney employed by Monroe County could not in any way have bound the Department of Community

    Affairs or the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission to some subsequent conduct. KLI has failed to establish that any representation that KLI had a right to rely upon was made. Application of estoppel principles to these facts would be contrary to law.

    
    

24. The Department of Community Affairs, as the state land planning agency, has standing to appeal the final development order issued by Monroe County. Section 380.07(2), Florida Statutes. The Intervenor and its members have a substantial interest in the proposed development and thus have standing to intervene in this proceeding.

    
    

25. Principles for guiding development in the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern are set out at Rule 27F-8.03, Florida Administrative Code. The rule provides:

    
    

    1. Objectives to be Achieved.

       1. Strengthen local government capabilities for managing land use and development to the end that local government is able to achieve the objectives herein stated with the continuation of the designation of area of critical state concern;

       2. Protection of tidal mangroves and associated shorKLIne and marine resources and wildlife;

       3. Minimize the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water in and around the Florida Keys;

       4. Protection of scenic resources of the Florida Keys and promotion of the management of unique, tropical vegetation;

       * * *

       1. Protection of the value, efficiency, cost-effectiveness and amortized

          life of existing and proposed major public investments, including . . .

          5. repair and replacement of the Overseas Highway bridges and maintenance and expansion of other transportation facilities.

       2. Minimize the adverse impacts of proposed public investments on the

          natural and environmental resources of the Florida Keys; and

       3. Protection of the public health, safety, welfare and economy of the Florida Keys, and the maintenance of the Keys as a unique Florida resource.

       
       

       The development of Phase 1A of KLI's proposed project and the development of the remaining portions of the project as proposed in preliminary development plans can be undertaken compatibly with these objectives if the project is modified in certain pertinent respects and if appropriate conditions are attached to the development. Changes in the proposed development that would render it compatible with the objectives are, as follows:

       
       

       1. No development should be approved west of State Road 905. The hardwood hammock that has been illegally cleared should be allowed and encouraged to reestablish itself.

       2. The approximately 8 acres of hardwood hammock area located on the east side of State Road 905 should be preserved. The preliminary development plans should be modified so that the hammock areas are preserved and so that roadways do not cross the hammock areas.

       3. Development of upland lakes as proposed in the preliminary development plans should either be KLIminated or detailed plans describing how water quality in the lakes would be maintained should be made a part of the development plans and approved by pertinent agencies.

       
       

       None of these changes that would be required to render the development compatible with the development objectives set out in Rule 27F-8.03 pertain to the development of Phase IA of the proposed project. It is therefore not necessary that development of Phase 1A be delayed to accommodate these changes. Rather, before any future phases of the project are approved for development, these changes should become a part of the final development plans.

       
       

26. As a condition to approval of Phase 1A of the development plans, the developer should be required to accomplish the following:

    
    

    1. The marina on the site should be back filled in accordance with permits issued by the Department of Environmental Regulation.

       
       

    2. The developer should be required to utilize native vegetation in its revegetation plans and to not introduce exotic vegetational species to the area.

       
       

    3. The developer should be required to pay for all of the infrastructure of the development, including roadways, parking areas, drainage structures, sewage and wastewater treatment structures, drinking water distribution systems, and all other necessary facilities.

    
    

27. The Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission has the authority to issue a decision granting or denying permission to develop and to attach conditions and restrictions to its decision. Section 380.07(4), Florida

    Statutes. If the conditions and restrictions set out in Paragraphs 6 and 7 of these Conclusions of Law are attached to the development, the development is compatible with the objectives of the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern and the Land and Water Management Act. Chapter 380, Florida Statutes.

    
    

28. The Department of Community Affairs has contended that the local government committed procedural irregularities in its consideration of this project. Some of the asserted irregularities pertained to proceedings conducted with respect to this development. Others pertained to the local government's broader responsibilities in considering developments within the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern, such as the adoption of comprehensive plans for solid waste disposal. Insofar as it has been established that there were procedural irregularities in the consideration of this development by the Planning and Zoning Board and the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, there has been no evidence presented from which it could be concluded that the irregularities were such as to affect the fairness of the proceedings or the correctness of the action taken. Remanding the matter to Monroe County for further proceedings to correct such procedural errors would therefore be inappropriate. Section 120.68(8), Florida Statutes. As to broader procedural errors regarding the failure of Monroe County to adopt comprehensive plans and the like, it would be inappropriate to visit those local government failures on the developer of a proposed project in the context of an appeal from a development order. Other remedies are available to the Department of Community Affairs to correct those sorts of deficiencies. It has not been shown, in the context of this case, that such deficiencies affect the substantive question of whether the development should be approved.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, hereby,

RECOMMENDED:

That development of Phase 1A of the project proposed by KLI be approved subject to the conditions and restrictions set out in Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Conclusions of Law above.

RECOMMENDED this 8th day of July, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida.

G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Assistant Director

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 8th day of July, 1983.

COPIES FURNISHED:

James Eckhart, Esquire

C. Laurence Keesey, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2571 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32301

The Honorable Bob Graham Governor

The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

The Honorable Bill Gunter Insurance Commissioner and

Treasurer The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

The Honorable Jim Smith Attorney General

The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

The Honorable Ralph Turlington Commissioner of Education

The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

The Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

The Honorable George Firestone Secretary of State

The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

The Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller

The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

The Honorable George Dolezal Mayor

Box 1029 Duck Key Marathon, Florida 33050

Lucien C. Proby, Jr., Esquire Nelson Read, Esquire

310 Fleming Street

Key West, Florida 33040

Fred Tittle, Esquire Tittle & Tittle, P.A. Post Office Box 535 Tavernier, Florida 33070

Michael Egan, Esquire Roberts, Egan & Routa, P.A.

217 South Adams Street Post Office Box 1386

Tallahassee, Florida 32302

Mr. John T. Herndon Secretary

Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission

Office of the Governor The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Linda Loomis Shelley, Esquire Office of General Counsel Office of the Governor

The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Mr. Charles Lee Vice President

Florida Audubon Society 1101 Audubon Way

Maitland, Florida 32751

Kent Zaiser, Esquire Joseph BKLItzky, Esquire

Assistant Attorneys General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Docket for Case No: 82-002718

Orders for Case No: 82-002718