STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
BURNT STORE ISLES, ASSOCIATION, ) INC., )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 90-3093
)
W. B. PERSICO AND STATE OF ) FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF )
ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, )
)
Respondents. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
A hearing was held in this case in Port Charlotte, Florida, on September 26, 1990, before Arnold H. Pollock, a Hearing Officer with the Division of Administrative Hearings.
APPEARANCES
For the Petitioner: Joseph F. Lynch
Burnt Store Isles Assoc., Inc.
P.O. Box 956
Punta Gorda, Florida 33951-0956
For the Respondent: Michael P. Haymans, Esquire Persico: P.O. Box 2159
Port Charlotte, Florida 33949
For the Respondent: Cecile I. Ross, Esquire DER: Department of Environmental
Regulation
2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether the Respondent, W. B. Persico, should be issued a permit to construct a commercial marina as described in the Department's Intent to Issue, in Class III waters of the state in Charlotte County, Florida.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
On March 19, 1990, the Department of Environmental Regulation, (Department), issued an Intent to Issue a permit to
B. Persico to construct a 65 slip marina in Charlotte County, Florida. By letter dated March 24, 1990, Petitioner, Burnt Store
Isles Association, Inc., (Burnt Store), objected to the Intent to Issue the permit and requested an administrative hearing on the matter, and on May 18, 1990, the file was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for appointment of a Hearing Officer. Initial Orders requiring the parties to confer and notify the Hearing Officer of proposed hearing dates and location were sent out, and the parties responded. Thereafter, by Notice of Hearing dated June 14, 1990, the undersigned set the case for hearing on September 14, 1990. By Order issued on July 27, 1990, the hearing date was changed to September 26, 1990 at which time it was held as scheduled.
At the hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of Richard M. Konover, a long time resident in the area of the proposed project and a real estate broker; Victor H. Forsyth, a retired marketer and a resident in the area for 5 years; Glen A. Gunderson, a resident of the area for 3 years; Donald R. Young, a boat owner/resident in the area; and Carl J. Powell, a nurseryman residing in the Punta Gorda area for 53 years, and the owner of a lot across the water from the proposed marina. Petitioner also introduced Petitioner's Exhibits A through E. Mr. Persico testified in his own behalf as a Respondent and, as applicant,
introduced Applicant's Exhibit 1 . The Department presented the testimony of Mr. Persico; James M. Stilwell, an expert in the
area of environmental permitting and procedure and fish and water conservation; and Mark D. Shultz, an Environmental Specialist II with the Department's Punta Gorda branch office and an expert in water quality and dredge and fill assessment. The Department introduced no exhibits.
Subsequent to the hearing, all parties submitted Proposed Findings of Fact which have been ruled upon in the
Appendix to this Recommended Order. No transcript was provided.
FINDINGS OF FACT
At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Burnt Store Isles Association, Inc., was an association of property owners whose property is located in the Burnt Store Isles subdivision located in Charlotte County, Florida. The applicant, W. B. Persico, is the owner of a piece of property located adjacent to the subdivision and applicant for a permit to construct a marina on his property. The Department of Environmental Regulation is the state agency responsible for the regulation and permitting of dredge and fill activities in the waters of the state.
Mr. Persico's property is located on a dead end
basin canal in Charlotte County, Florida. The canal is a Class III water but is not classified as an Outstanding Florida Water.
On July 31, 1989, Mr. Persico applied to the Department for a permit to construct a 75 slip, 5660 square foot commercial marina on his property within this artificial, dead end basin.
Because of objections by the Department to several aspects of the proposed project, on February 27, 1990, Mr. Persico submitted a modification proposal in which he eliminated the use of pressure treated lumber for pilings, substituting concrete pilings; incorporated boat lifts in each slip; reduced the number of slips from 75 to 65; committed himself to installing a sewage pump-out facility at the site; committed to creating an inter-tidal littoral shelf planted with mangroves; agreed to face the existing vertical bulkhead seawall in the basin with rip-rap; and incorporated a commitment to include, as a part of his rental contract, long term agreements prohibiting vessel maintenance and liveaboards on boats at the site, and insuring the perpetual use of boat lifts and pump out facilities provided. He now proposes to market the marina as a condominium ownership operation.
The basin in which the Persico project is proposed
is 136 feet across at the entrance, (the narrowest point), and
326 feet across at the widest point. The length of the basin is more than 900 feet.
The docking structure to be created will have
fingers extending no more than 39 feet into the water from the existing vertical seawall. It will have a 4 foot wide walkway parallel to and 10 feet from the existing seawall from which the arms will extend 25 feet into the basin.
The basin which is the proposed location for the
marina is at the end of the easternmost canal in the Burnt Store
Isles subdivision. It is located just west of and parallel to US Route 41, and at the entrance point, joins a perimeter waterway
which meanders approximately 1 mile seaward toward a lock which joins that waterway to Alligator Creek which is an Outstanding Florida Water.
The waterway from the basin through the lock into Alligator Creek and thereafter to the Gulf provides the only navigable access for most vessels moored in the Burnt Store canals and which would be moored in the proposed marina between Charlotte Harbor and the Gulf of Mexico.
The lock which joints the Burnt Store canals to Alligator Creek consists of two hydraulically operated swinging gates which are operated by a boater entering or exiting the canal system. This lock was constructed as a part of a 1973 agreement between Punta Gorda Isles, Inc., a developer, and the state to prevent the construction and runoff polluted waters of the canal from freely mingling with the Outstanding Florida Water in Alligator Creek. The lock is now maintained in an open position from November 15 to May 15 because boaters complained of the inconvenience of having to operate the lock system. Available evidence indicates that a complete passage through the lock, one way when closed, takes 15 minutes. No more than 24 boats can complete a round trip in a 12 hour boating day. When the lock is open there is no appreciable delay.
The residential lots which abut the Burnt Store canals are still mostly vacant. The City of Punta Gorda has assumed the responsibility of conducting a 5 year water quality
monitoring program which was previously agreed to by Punt Gorda Isles, Inc. when the lock was built. The 1973 agreement was
amended in 1984 to permit the operation of the lock in a closed position for an entire year if water quality monitoring should indicate a degradation of water quality in either Alligator Creek of the Burnt Store Isles canals. This has not been necessary.
The Petitioners fear that pollution generated by
the addition of 65 additional boats moored at and operating from the proposed marina will cause the Department to implement that clause and order the lock to operate from a closed position year round. This does not mean that the lock would not be opened for boats, but that it would be closed when not being used. Petitioners contend that the increased usage would create an intolerable traffic jam at the lock which would, for the most part, make their use of the waterway to the Gulf intolerable.
Mr. Persico is a former road and bridge contractor. Though he has never owned a marina, at one time he rehabilitated one in the Chicago area. He has owned the property in question here for four years and now plans to develop a condominium ownership marina. When he decided to do so, he hired Mr. James M. Stilwell, an environmental consultant, to prepare and submit to the Department the application for the required dredge and fill permit. Initial discussions between Mr. Stilwell and the Department dealt with many environmental issues. Mr. Stilwell pointed out that the water in the canal might already be stale and avenues were explored to mitigate that problem. They did not discuss the type of docks to be installed or the
potential for destruction of mangrove stands along the seawall, but even though the original plan called for the docks to be
placed against the seawall, it was to be done in such a way as not to disturb the mangroves. The modified plan removing the docks to a point 10 feet off from the wall will obviate any damage to the mangroves.
Admittedly, the original submittal prepared by Mr. Stilwell contained factors which were considered unacceptable to the Department. These included construction of the finger piers with pressure treated wood. To eliminate possible pollution from leaching, the pressure treated wood was replaced with a floating dock using concrete pilings. Liveaboards, and the potential contamination from that activity, have been prohibited. The provision and required use of a sewage pump-out facility should prevent any escape of polluting sewage into the waters of the basin. The use of power hoists at each slip should prevent pollution from bottom paint leaching, and boat maintenance at the marina is to be prohibited. Fueling of the vessels will not be permitted at the site thereby obviating the potential of polluting fuel spills. The construction of a 10 foot wide littoral shelf, planted with mangroves, between the dock and the sea wall will provide increased water filtration and improve water quality. It would also help the development of the fish
and wildlife population and would reduce the flushing time. Air released into the water from the use of the boat lifts should add oxygen and contribute to improved water quality.
At the present time, the ambient water quality in
the basin, as it pertains to dissolved oxygen, is probably below standards in the lower depths of the basin, and of the outside
channels as well, due to poor light penetration. The channel depth is anywhere from 20 to 25 feet. The oxygen level at the bottom is undoubtedly depleted.
Mangroves are currently located along 300 feet of the 1,300 foot seawall. Mr. Stilwell's proposal, and that approved by the Department, does not call for removal of the mangroves, but they would be built around or possibly trimmed.
Mr. Stilwell is of the opinion that provision for trimming of the mangroves is inherent in the granting of the permit though such permission was not specifically sought. There is no evidence to contradict this thesis.
Water quality issues were raised subsequent to the filing of the original application, and the facility as now planned is designed to minimize impacts on the environment as best as can be done. Water quality would be improved, or at worst not adversely affected, by the prohibitions against liveaboards and fueling, the provision of boat lifts and a pump station, and the prohibition against other structures beyond the dock and slips.
Flushing of the water is important considering the fact that the dissolved oxygen content in the water is already
low. However, Mr. Stilwell is satisfied, and it would so appear, that water quality would be improved by the implementation of the proposals as included in the conditions to the permit.
Mr. Stilwell, admittedly, did no dissolved oxygen tests because they were not considered as a part of the permit
application. If the Department requests them, they are done, but they were not requested in this case.
It is clear that the original application did not address all the environmental concerns that Petitioners feel are pertinent. Nonetheless, those items already discussed were treated, as were turbidity control during construction. As to others of concern to Petitioners, many are included in the state standards and need not be specifically addressed in the application. The Department considered the application in light of the state standards, and by the use of the conditions appended to the Intent to Issue, provided for the water quality and other environmental standards to be sufficiently addressed and met.
In his February 22, 1990 letter to the Department, Mr. Stilwell directly addressed the public interest concerns including the mangroves and the construction of the littoral shelf. The Department was satisfied that the public interest
criteria were met, and considered the plans to be environmentally sound. They appear to be so.
Petitioners have raised some question as to the
effect of the 39 foot long dock fingers interfering with navigation within the basin. Mr. Stilwell does not feel that the facility would create this problem, even at the narrowest point, and it is so found. The width of the canal there is 136 feet.
The portion of the slip designed to accommodate vessels is no more than 25 feet long, and presumably, vessels of a length much greater than that would not visit the basin. Even subtracting 39 feet from the 136 feet narrow point, 97 feet of turning space remains, and this is almost four times the length of the normal vessel anticipated in the basin.
Mr. Stilwell did not address the subject of the
lock as it relates to navigation, but primarily as it relates to the impact on water quality and the environment. Nonetheless, he is of the opinion, and there is no evidence to the contrary, that keeping the lock open on a year round basis would not trigger a change to the ongoing program under the agreement between the state and Punta Gorda Isles and result in the lock being closed year round.
Mr. Shultz, the environmental specialist with the Department, reviewed the application here initially for file completeness, and when all required information was in, made a site visit. He evaluated the application and the attachments for permitability. For Class III waters, the project must meet water quality standards outlined in the Department's rules. Only one of the water quality criteria, that of dissolved oxygen, was shown to be not met. Since the water was already below that standard, the test to be applied then is whether the project will create some improvement." In Mr. Shultz' opinion, planting the mangroves, as proposed by the applicant, does this, as does the use of the lifts. The existing mangroves will not be impacted by the project as it is proposed, and the use of rip-rap, as proposed, will provide additional surface area for organisms which will improve the water quality. When first reviewed, the Department had some concern about on-water storage of boats.
These concerns were treated by the use of hoists to hold the boats out of the water when not in use, and as a result,
pollutants will not be introduced by bottom paint leaching and, presumably, bilge pumping.
Standard conditions included in all Department Intents to Issue, require the project to comply with applicable state water quality standards or to give assurances that such
general standards for surface waters and Class III waters will be met. In this case, Mr. Shultz is satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated that water quality standards will be maintained, and there was no evidence presented by the Petitioners to contradict this. Once water quality standards are shown to be protected, then the project is balanced against the public interest criteria outlined in the statute. Here, the requirement is for a showing that the project is not contra to the public interest. It does not, because of its nature, require a positive showing that the project is in the public interest.
In his opinion this project, as modified, will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the public,
(it will have no environmental effect on other property). It will not adversely affect the conservation of fish or wildlife in
their habitats, (the planting of mangroves will provide a net improvement to species habitat in the area). The project will not adversely affect navigation, flow of water, or erosion, (the width and length of the dock system appear to pose no threat to navigation in the basin and there would appear to be no obstruction or potential therefor as a result of this project;
the project is within a no-wake zone; and the size of vessels is limited by the slip size). The permit will not adversely affect
marine productivity, (there is currently very little productivity in the area now since waters below 0 depth of 6 feet are already low in oxygen, and the project would, at least minimally, improve this condition). The project is permanent and would not adversely affect historical or archeological resources in the area, (there are no objects or known resources in the area, but a standard condition in the permit requires immediate notification if known resources or objects are found). The project would not adversely affect the current condition and relative value of functions being performed in the area since the area is currently a real estate development which is far from completely built.
Based on his consideration of these criteria, Mr. Shultz concludes that the project is not contrary to the public interest and this appears to be a valid conclusion. There appears to be no evidence of sufficient weight, presented by the Petitioners, either through direct evidence or through cross examination of the applicant and Department witnesses that would tend to diminish the credibility of Mr. Shultz' analysis. If there are subsequent violations, the Department has enforcement action available.
There is, consistent with the multiple use zoning category applied to the area across the basin from the marina, the potential for up to an additional 100 docks to be constructed in the basin beyond those treated here. Nonetheless, the Department does not consider 165 boats to be a problem either in
the basin or at the lock. This is not necessarily a supportable conclusion, however. Those 100 additional docks do not currently
exist and their potential should not be considered in determining whether to approve the permit under consideration here.
In opposition to the applicant, Mr. Konover and
Mr. Forsyth both indicated that the addition of 65 more boats would seriously overtax the operation of the lock and make it difficult, if not hazardous, to operate boats in that area between the Burnt Store Isles subdivision and Alligator Creek. Both individuals agree, and it is so found, that in general, motor boats pollute to some degree the waters on which that are operated as a result of oil leaks from engine operation, leakage of bilge oil, escape of sewage, and leaching of copper paint and other solvents. In addition, manatee have been seen in the area, and the increase of boating operations could present some hazard to the manatee population. There is, however, no indication that a manatee population is permanently in residence there or is even there frequently. It is also accepted that boat wake has an
adverse effect on sea walls, and all of these factors should have been and, in fact were, considered in the analysis of the
permitability of the project.
The concerns of Mr. Konover and Mr. Forsyth were echoed by Mr. Gunderson who, over 30 years operating boats, has seen what he considers to be a definite lack of concern for the environment by many boaters who pump bilges directly into the water, throw debris overboard, and use detergents to wash their
boats at marinas. He is of the opinion that renters of slips are
generally less concerned about water quality than those who live on the water, and take a more cavalier approach to water quality
standards. These sentiments are also held by Mr. Young who, over the years, has owned marinas in Connecticut and has observed the approach of nonowning slip users to the water at their disposal. His concerns could be met by the strict enforcement of standards at the marina.
Mr. Powell, a nurseryman who owns the lot across
the basin from the site of the proposed marina, fishes from his lot and has observed the an increase of pollution in the canal. He routinely sees floating dead fish, palm leaves, cocoanuts, bottles, slicks and other debris, and though he owns a multifamily lot, would have a difficult time putting in many slips since his lot, at the entrance to the basin at the narrow point, would be across from the slips proposed by applicant and their proximity would, he feels, hinder his ability to build out into the basin as well.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter in this case. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
The Department's jurisdiction over wetlands permitting is contained in Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. The criteria for granting or denying permits is found in Section 403.918, Florida Statutes, which states:
A permit may not be issued under ss. 03.91-403.929 unless the applicant provides the department with reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated. The department, by rule, shall establish water quality criteria ... which give appropriate recognition to the water quality of ... wetlands in their natural state.
A permit may not be issued under [these sections] unless the applicant provides the department with reasonable assurance that the project is not contrary to the public interest. However, for a project which significantly degrades or is within an Outstanding Florida Water, ... the
applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the project will be clearly in the public interest.
In determining whether a project is not contrary to the public interest, or is clearly in the public interest, the department shall consider and balance the following criteria:
Whether the project will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others;
Whether the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats;
Whether the project will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling;
Whether the project will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project;
Whether the project will be of a temporary or permanent nature;
Whether the project will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of s. 267.061; and
The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity.
If the applicant is otherwise unable to meet the criteria set forth in this subsection, the department, in deciding to grant or deny a permit, shall consider measures proposed by or acceptable to the applicant to mitigate adverse effects which may be caused by the project. If the applicant is unable to meet water quality standards because existing ambient water quality does not meet standards, the department shall consider mitigation measures proposed by or acceptable to the applicant that cause net improvement of the water quality in the receiving body of water for those parameters which do not meet standards.
In the revised permit, the applicant has indicated his intention to take certain measures with regard to the conditions
of construction and operation which, if appropriately implemented, will have a decidedly salutary effect on the water
quality within the basin and the canals leading to the lock which joints the canal to Alligator Creek. At the present time, the ambient water quality, as it relates to dissolved oxygen, in the basin and in the canal, does not meet state standards.
Nonetheless, the applicant's proposals should result in a net
improvement in the water quality. The use of the lifts should inject oxygen into the water. The placing of rip-rap will provide additional surfaces for water filtering microorganisms, and the preservation of the mangrove stand on the littoral shelf should have a reasonably substantial beneficial effect on the water quality by improving filtration and flushing in the basin. Further, the substitution of concrete pilings for preserved wooden pilings; the use of boat hoists to get anti-fouling bottom paint out of the water when the boat is not in operation; the
imposition of requirement for use of a pumping station and the prohibition against liveaboards and fueling at the marina all
tend to indicate that if they are followed, the water quality will not be diminished and should be improved. Further, there should be a net improvement in the dissolved oxygen in the receiving body
Since the canals are not Outstanding Florida Waters, but are merely Class III waters of the state, the applicant must
only provide reasonable assurances that the project is not contrary to the public interest. The public interest criteria are balanced by the Department in determining whether such reasonable assurances have been provided.
Treating each of the seven criteria in order, it is clear that with the measures proposed as conditions to the intent to issue, the project will not adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others.
Manatees have been seen in the area but there is no indication that a manatee population is a permanent resident in the canals or that manatees frequent the canals on a regular basis. Nonetheless, the improvement of the dissolved oxygen and the efforts made to prevent pollution of the water by the leaching of anti-fouling paint or dissemination of fuel gives reasonable assurance that the project will not adversely effect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species or their habitats.
There is no evidence, direct or circumstantial, that the construction of the marina will adversely affect navigation
or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. At worst, the increase in numbers of boats utilizing the canal an
the lock might, if the option to close the canal on a permanent basis is exercised, result in a delay in egress and ingress to the canal system and the Gulf. However, implementation of the proposed antipollution considerations should result in no increased pollution as a result of the operation of this marina, and if current water conditions remain, the currently existing extended open period from November 15 to May 15 should be maintained.
There is no evidence that the project will adversely affect fishing or recreational value or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project. To the contrary, the net improvement in water quality as a result of the antipollution measures contained as conditions to the issuance of the permit, and the increased potential for marine food sources as a result
of the mangroves and the marine life on the rip-rap, should enhance fishing prospects in the area and the increase in water quality should tend to improve the recreational value of the area.
The project is proposed as a permanent project, and if properly operated, should not have a detrimental effect on the water quality in the area.
Since there are no known archaeological or historical resources in the area, the project should neither adversely affect nor enhance in this category. Finally, if the
improvements to water quality are brought about and maintained, it would appear that the current condition of the water should be improved and the relative functions of the boating operations carried on in the basin and the water body could be improved. That being the case, the property values should not be adversely affected in any way.
Petitioner's have presented substantial opinion evidence to the effect that the addition of 65 boats as a result of the instant project, and the potential for 100 additional boaters beyond that 65 if the multifamily lots across the basin are equipped with docks, will have a substantial adverse impact on the ability of all boaters in the area to enter and exit the Burnt Store Isles canals through the lock. The evidence of record indicates that the lock is operated in a fully open position between November 15 and May 15. If the lock is in an open position, the only delay should be from the probability that two boats cannot safely go through the lock at the same time.
The lock, however, is not a long water body, and transit time is minimal. If the lock is allowed to remain open there should be no significant delay experienced by any boaters. It is anticipated that the net improvements to water quality within the marina and the canal exiting there from should have no causal effect on the lock being closed, and therefore, such navigational problems as may come about as a result of the lock being closed cannot be attributed to the establishment of the marina. Nonetheless, case law clearly establishes that such an inconvenience, if one exists, does not constitute that type of navigational hazard or adverse impact on navigation as is
contemplated by the provisions of Section 403.918(2)(a)3, Florida Statutes. Riverside Club Condominium Association, Inc., v. Adventure Construction and Canvas, Inc., and State of Florida,
Department of Environmental Regulation, 9 FALR 6207 (October 15, 1990); West et al. v. Ratkovic and State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, FALR 147 (June 19, 1990).
Further, the Department has authority to consider only adverse environmental effects, Miller v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 504 So.2d 1325 (Fla. IDCA 1987).
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore:
RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order issuing Permit No. 081679445, to W. B. Persico as modified and outlined in the Intent to Issue dated March 16, 1990.
RECOMMENDED this 9 day of November, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida.
ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9 day of November, 1990.
APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-3093
The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to S
120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case.
FOR THE PETITIONER:
1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein.
3. & 4. Accepted.
Accepted but applicable only when the locks are closed.
Accepted.
- 9. Accepted and incorporated herein.
Accepted.
& 12. Accepted and incorporated in substance herein.
13. & 14. Accepted and incorporated herein.
Accepted and incorporated herein.
Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence.
Accepted and incorporated herein.
& 19. Accepted and incorporated herein.
20. & 21. Unsupported by convincing evidence of record.
Accepted as valid when the lock is operated from a closed position. However, the evidence indicates that currently the lock is left open from November 15 to May 15 of each year and this does not cause delay.
Accepted if the lock is operated from a closed position.
Unsupported by convincing evidence of record.
FOR THE APPLICANT:
1. - 6. Accepted and incorporated herein.
7. - 15. Accepted and incorporated herein.
Accepted and incorporated herein.
& 18. Accepted and incorporated herein.
Accepted and incorporated herein.
Accepted.
Accepted.
- 32. Accepted and incorporated herein.
FOR THE DEPARTMENT:
Accepted. and incorporated herein.
- 4. Accepted and incorporated herein.
Accepted and incorporated herein.
Accepted and incorporated herein.
Accepted and incorporated herein.
& 9. Accepted and incorporated herein.
10. - 14. Accepted and incorporated herein.
15. - 18. Accepted and incorporated herein.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Joseph F. Lynch
Burnt Store Isles Association, Inc.
P.O. Box 956
Punta Gorda, Florida 33951-0956
Michael P. Haymans, Esquire
P.O. Box 2159
Port Charlotte, Florida 33949
Cecile I. Ross, Esquire
Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
Dale H. Twachtmann Secretary
Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel
Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this Recommended Order. All agencies allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should consult with the agency that will issue the final order in this case concerning their rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Nov. 09, 1990 | Recommended Order (hearing held , 2013). CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Dec. 11, 1990 | Agency Final Order | |
| Nov. 09, 1990 | Recommended Order | Applicant has shown his proposals will not adversely affect public welfare, conditions of fish and wildlife, and is in public interest. |
