4
STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
MONTE MCLENDON, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 91-4361
)
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL )
PROTECTION, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, Claude B. Arrington, held a formal hearing in the above-styled case on October 7, 1993, in West Palm Beach, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Fred H. Gelston, Esquire
Damsel and Gelston, P.A.
415 5th Street
West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-4507
For Respondent: Donna M. LaPlante, Esquire
Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
Whether Petitioner's application for a dredge and fill permit for certain construction in wetlands should be granted and, if so, the conditions that should be attached to the permit.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Petitioner is the owner of a lot that fronts Bessey Creek in Martin County, Florida. A portion of this lot is wetlands over which the Department of Environmental Protection has jurisdiction. The remainder of the lot, to be referred to as the upland portion, is not within the Department's jurisdiction. Petitioner has applied for a permit to construct a single family dwelling, a garage, and a connecting driveway on the wetland portion of his lot. The application also seeks a permit to retain a roadway that has been constructed on the property. 1/ Respondent denied the permit, and this proceeding followed.
At the formal hearing, Petitioner testified on his own behalf and presented the additional testimony of David Strasser and Jay Lincoln Sweet. Petitioner also called James McElheny as a rebuttal witness. Mr. Strasser was accepted as an expert witness in the field of environmental permitting by the Respondent.
Mr. Sweet testified as to certain measurements he took and to certain calculations based on those measurements. Mr. McElheny is a landscape architect who prepared Petitioner's plans for the house and the driveway and who assisted Petitioner in the permitting process. Petitioner presented 10 exhibits, each of which was accepted into evidence. Respondent presented the testimony of Mr.
McElheny, Jacqueline Kelly and John Meyer. Ms. Kelly is employed by the Respondent as an Environmental Specialist II and evaluated Petitioner's application for the subject permit. Ms. Kelly was accepted as an expert as to the impacts of dredging and filling on wetlands and as to the the determination of Respondent's jurisdictional boundaries. Mr. Meyer was employed by the South Florida Water Management District as an environmental analyst, but, prior to that employment, was employed by Respondent as the manager of the office located in Port St. Lucie, Martin County, Florida. Mr. Meyer was accepted as an expert as to the impacts of dredging and filling on wetlands.
Following the merger of the Department of Environmental Regulation and the Department of Natural Resources, Respondent's name was changed so that it is now known as the Department of Environmental Protection. The style of the case is hereby changed to reflect the Respondent's present name. All references to the Respondent will include both the Department of Environmental Regulation and the Department of Environmental Protection.
A transcript of the proceedings has been filed. At the request of the parties, the time for filing post-hearing submissions was set for more than ten days following the filing of the transcript. Consequently, the parties waived the requirement that a recommended order be rendered within thirty days after the transcript is filed. Rule 60Q-2.031, Florida Administrative Code. Rulings on the parties' proposed findings of fact may be found in the Appendix to this Recommended Order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Petitioner is the owner of Lot 28, Hidden Bay Subdivision, Martin County, Florida. On July 19, 1990, Petitioner filed an application with the Respondent for a dredge and fill permit to construct on the wetland portion of his lot a single family dwelling on stilts, a garage, and a connecting driveway to an existing roadway. The application also seeks a permit to retain a roadway that was constructed on the property before the Respondent asserted jurisdiction over the property. The existing roadway is 25 feet wide and 510 feet long and remained in existence at the time of the formal hearing. The connecting driveway on the wetlands portion of the property would require 40 cubic yards of fill.
The following, taken from the Notice of Permit Denial entered by Respondent, accurately describes the proposed project:
The proposed project will entail the temporary placement of 500 cubit yards of clean fill in order to set piles for a proposed stilt house. Additional fill (40 cubic yards) is proposed for a driveway to access a proposed garage. Riprap is proposed along the east slope of the driveway and along the northwest slope under the proposed
stilt house. In addition, 186 cubic yards of the existing unauthorized fill road is proposed to remain. Total acreage to be impacted by this project is .092 acres.
Petitioner's lot fronts Bessey Creek and is located in Section 1, Township 38 South, Range 40 East, in Palm City. Petitioner's lot is located approximately 2,200 feet south of the C-23 Canal on Bessey Creek. Bessey Creek is designated a Class III water. Bessey Creek combines with other tributaries and ultimately discharges into the North Fork of the St. Lucie River, which is designated an Outstanding Florida Water.
Petitioner's lot consists of 1.82 acres. Respondent has asserted jurisdiction over approximately 1.3 acres of Petitioner's lot on the grounds that it is a fresh water wetland. Petitioner does not challenge Respondent's asserted jurisdiction in this proceeding.
The Respondent has jurisdiction over dredge and fill activities conducted on the portion of Petitioner's lot that is at issue in this proceeding. This project is not exempt from permitting procedures. A dredge and fill permit is required for the proposed construction.
Prior to applying for this permit, Petitioner contacted James McElheny, a landscape architect, who assisted Petitioner in drawing up the plans for the house, the driveway, and the garage that Petitioner desired to construct on the property. Without being aware that a permit from the Respondent would be required, Petitioner constructed a driveway on a portion of his property that was within the permitting jurisdiction of Respondent. This driveway extended to the landward end of a boardwalk that terminated as a dock in Bessey Creek.
After Petitioner became aware of the need for a permit, he removed the filled driveway to a point that Martin County and Respondent agreed was appropriate. A portion of the driveway remained on property within the permitting jurisdiction of the Respondent at the time of the formal hearing. The plan prepared by Mr.
McElheny also depicted this existing, unauthorized roadway. Petitioner's application seeks, in part, a permit to retain this driveway.
On June 10, 1991, Respondent issued its Notice of Permit Denial based on the Respondent's conclusion that the Petitioner had failed to provide the required assurances in Sections 403.918(1) and (2), Florida Statutes. The Notice of Permit Denial provided, in pertinent part, as follows:
The Department hereby denies the permit for the following reasons:
This project is expected to have both short and long term impacts to biological resources and water quality. The total acreage to be impacted by this project is .092 acres. In addition, the applicant has not provided reasonable assurance that the project is not contrary to the public interest pursuant to Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes.
Pursuant to 403.919, F.S. which gives the Department the authority to examine secondary impacts, the Department has concerns about additional wetland resource and water quality impacts that may result from this project.
Floodplain areas are essential to the river system and provide important functions for the environment. The floodplain serves as a buffer system in high tide and storm events. It also serves as a source of detrital input which supports the freshwater and estuarine food chains. In addition, these areas act to improve water quality by stabilizing sediment and filtering upland runoff. Long-term effects of the proposed project would include a decrease in the productivity of the system, as well as a decrease in the filtering and stabilizing capabilities of the system.
Water quality degradation is also expected to occur with upland runoff from pesticides, fertilizers, sewerage and petroleum products. Floodplain wetlands also provide a habitat for a wide variety of reptiles, amphibians, birds, crustaceans and mammals. This would eliminate this wetland habitat.
This project is expected to be in violation of the following Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative Code Rules:
403.918 Criteria for granting or denying permits
17-312.080 Standards for Issuance or Denial of Permit
17-312.300(3) Mitigation Intent
17-302.560 Criteria: Class III waters
The Department has determined that the following changes to the project make the project permittable.
Modify the project to reduce or eliminate adverse environmental impact by:
Removing the unauthorized fill road from water of the state.
Relocate the proposed house to utilize as much upland area on the property as possible.
Relocate the garage and access driveway to an upland area [and] eliminate or modify the garage and access road to reduce impacts.
Section 403.918, Florida Statutes, provides the following permitting criteria pertinent to this proceeding:
A permit may not be issued . . . unless the applicant provides the department with reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated. . . .
A permit may not be issued . . .
unless the applicant provides the department with reasonable assurance that the project is not contrary to the public interest. . . .
(a) In determining whether the project will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others
. . . 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 species, or their habitat;
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.
The Respondent is entitled to consider the cumulative impact of the proposed project pursuant to Section 403.919, Florida Statutes, which provides as follows:
The department, in deciding whether to grant or deny a permit for an activity which will affect waters, shall consider:
The impact of the project for which the permit is sought.
The impact of projects which are existing or under construction or for which permits or jurisdictional determinations have been sought.
The impact of projects which are under review, approved, or vested pursuant to s. 380.06, or other projects which may reasonably be expected to be located within the jurisdictional extent of waters, based upon land use restrictions and regulations.
The residence that Petitioner proposes to build on the wetland portion of the property will be constructed on pilings so that the underside of the house will be 12 feet above the ground. There will be a total of 12 pilings, with each piling being 10 inches square. The "footprint" of the house will be 1,654 square feet.
If the project is permitted, best management practice will require that a silt screen be erected around the construction site during construction to prevent silt runoff.
The proposed site for the house is located in a natural clearing that would require minimal clearing. If the project is to be permitted in this wetland, the site selected by Petitioner is the best site with the least impact on the wetland. Petitioner would be required to remove up to two laurel oaks and seven red maple trees. These are relatively small trees, and both species are common. Petitioner would also be required to remove shrub of no particular unique value. Petitioner proposes to mitigate the removal of the trees by replanting on the property trees that were removed in a 2-1 ratio, so that 6 laurel oaks and 14 red maples would be replanted. Petitioner also proposes to revegetate the area beneath the residence, with the exception of the area required by the pilings. There are invasive, exotic plants on the property, such as Brazilian pepper, that would be removed by Petitioner and replaced by native plants.
Ms. Jacqueline Kelly, the environmental specialist who reviewed this project for Respondent, visited the property approximately four times for a total of eight hours. Ms. Kelly is of the opinion that no dredge and fill activity should be permitted on jurisdictional wetlands. Ms. Kelly testified that she observed several species of birds while she was on the property, including a wood stork, a great blue heron, a little blue heron, a tricolored heron, an osprey, bluejays, woodpeckers, and grackles. The wood stork is an endangered species and the little blue heron, the tricolored heron, and the osprey are species of special concern. These birds do not nest on the subject property, and they were not observed in the area of the wetland on which the proposed construction would occur. There was no testimony upon which it can be concluded that the proposed construction will stop these species from coming on to the property.
Because of the slope of the terrain, the upland portion of the Petitioner's property drains away from the wetland while the portion on which the proposed construction would occur drains toward the wetland. At the formal hearing, Petitioner suggested that any concerns as to drainage from the roof of the proposed residence could be discharged onto the upland portion of the lot by gutters. In his post-hearing submittal, Petitioner proposes that a condition of the permit be that "[a] roof drainage system be installed that allows the roof to drain to the upland portion of the project."
The permitting requirement contained in Section 403.918(6), Florida Statutes, pertaining to historical or archaeological resources was not at issue in this proceeding. Ms. Kelly concluded that Petitioner has not provided reasonable assurances required by Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes, as to each of the remaining permitting criteria. The rationale given by Ms. Kelly for her conclusions is not persuasive. The greater weight of the evidence is that all reasonable assurances required by Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes, that were at issue in this proceeding have been provided as it pertains to the construction of the residence.
The existing roadway was filled using shell rock which has stabilized. The mere existence of the roadway on the wetland property was not shown to violate any permitting criteria since this roadway does not violate water quality standards and is not contrary to the public interest. Petitioner did not, however, provide reasonable assurances that the utilization of this existing roadway as either a driveway or a parking area would not violate water
quality standards as required by and within the meaning of Section 403.918(1), Florida Statutes, or that such use would not be contrary to the public interest or that those parts of the project would not be contrary to the public interest as required by and within the meaning of Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes.
Petitioner did not provide reasonable assurances that the construction of the garage or the extension of the driveway on these wetlands would not violate water quality standards as required by and within the meaning of Section 403.918(1), Florida Statutes, or that those parts of the project would not be contrary to the public interest as required by and within the meaning of Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes.
John Meyer was of the opinion that the project should be denied because of the possible precedent that the permitting of this project may establish for other owners of wetland properties. There was no factual or legal basis established for this opinion. The permitting of this project has no value as a precedent for other projects. There was no evidence that there were other permit applications pending for other projects in wetlands, and Mr. Meyer could only recall one or two such applications ever having been filed. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that speculative cumulative impacts of this project does not prohibit the permit pursuant to the provisions of Section 409.919(3), Florida Statutes.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of this proceeding.
Petitioner has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to the relief he seeks. Rule 28-6.08(3), Florida Administrative Code. See also, Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.C., Co., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).
Petitioner has established by the greater weight of the evidence that the construction of the residence will not violate water quality standards within the meaning of Section 403.918(1), Florida Statutes, and that the construction of the residence would not be contrary to the public interest within the meaning of Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes, if four conditions are attached to the construction. The first condition would be that silt screens be erected during the actual construction to prevent silt runoff from the construction from reaching Bessey Creek. The second condition would be that a roof drainage system be installed that allows the roof to drain to the upland portion of the project. The third condition is that Petitioner should be required to mitigate for the removal of laurel oaks and red maple by replanting on the property two laurel oaks for each laurel oak removed and by replanting on the property two red maples for each red maple removed. The fourth condition is that Petitioner should be required to revegetate with native plants the area under the house except for the areas required for the stilts.
Petitioner has failed to provide reasonable assurances that the construction of a garage and the extension of the driveway meet permitting criteria. While the mere existence of the existing roadway was not shown to violate water quality standards or to be contrary to public interest, there was no reasonable assurances given by Petitioner that the utilization of this existing roadway as either a driveway or a parking area would meet permitting criteria. Consequently, it is concluded that Respondent should permit
Petitioner to retain the existing roadway, but prohibit the roadway from being utilized as either a driveway or as a parking area for motor vehicles.
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order which permits Petitioner to
construct the residence on stilts with the following conditions:
That silt screens be erected during the actual construction to prevent silt runoff from the construction from reaching Bessey Creek.
That a roof drainage system be installed that allows the roof to drain to the upland portion of the project.
That Petitioner be required to mitigate for the removal of laurel oaks and red maple by replanting on the property two laurel oaks for each laurel oak removed and by replanting on the property two red maples for each red maple removed.
That Petitioner be required to revegetate with native plants the area under the house except for the areas required for the stilts.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Respondent deny a permit to construct a garage or extend the existing roadway.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Respondent permit Petitioner to retain the existing roadway on the condition that the roadway not be utilized as either a driveway or as a parking area for motor vehicles.
DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of January 1994 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON
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 12th day of January 1994.
ENDNOTE
1/ Reference to the existing roadway as a "roadway" is for convenience only. No distinction is being drawn between a "roadway" and a "driveway".
APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-4361
The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner.
The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order.
The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 3 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 3 are rejected in part as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached.
The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 7 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made.
The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 8 and 9 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order as they pertain to the construction of the residence, but are rejected as they pertain to the construction of the garage and the extension of the driveway as being unsubstantiated by the evidence and contrary to the conclusions reached.
The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 10 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order as they pertain to the construction of the residence and to the existing roadway, but are rejected as they pertain to the construction of the garage and the extension of the driveway as being unsubstantiated by the evidence and contrary to the conclusions reached.
The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent.
The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 3, 4, and 26 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order.
The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 2 are rejected as being unsubstantiated by the evidence. Respondent established that Bessey Creek is a Class III waters, but there was no evidence that this wetland is considered a Class III waters. Whether the subject wetlands is considered a Class III wetlands is not dispositive of the issues presented by this case since the permitting criteria was established.
The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 5, 14, 16, 17, 18 and 19 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in these paragraphs are rejected in part as being contrary to the findings made or to the conclusions reached.
The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9, 24, and 28 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached.
The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 10 and 11 are rejected in part as being argument, but are otherwise subordinate to the findings made.
The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 12, 13, 15, 22, and 29 are rejected as being contrary to the findings made or to the conclusions reached.
The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 20, 21, 23, and 25 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made.
The proposed findings of fact in the first sentence of paragraph 27 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 27 are rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of the evidence.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Fred H. Gelston, Esquire Damsel and Gelston, P.A.
415 5th Street
West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-4507
Donna M. LaPlante, Esquire
Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
Kenneth Plante, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 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 ten days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will issue the final order in this case concerning agency 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 |
|---|---|
| Feb. 18, 1994 | Final Order filed. |
| Jan. 12, 1994 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held October 7, 1993. |
| Nov. 15, 1993 | Respondent Department of Environmental Protection`s Proposed Recommended Order filed. |
| Nov. 15, 1993 | (Petitioner) Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendations (unsigned) filed. |
| Oct. 28, 1993 | Letter to CBA from Fred H. Gelston (re: Transcript) filed. |
| Oct. 25, 1993 | Transcript filed. |
| Oct. 07, 1993 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Held. |
| Oct. 04, 1993 | Petitioner, Monte McLendon`s, Unilateral Prehearing Statement filed. |
| Mar. 17, 1993 | Order and Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 10-7-93; 9:00am; West Palm Beach) |
| Mar. 15, 1993 | (Respondent) Notice of Name Change filed. |
| Mar. 15, 1993 | Department of Environmental Regulation`s Status Report and Motion to Set Matter for Hearing filed. |
| Dec. 16, 1992 | Order of Abeyance sent out. (Parties to file status report by 1-15-93) |
| Dec. 10, 1992 | Letter to WRD from L. Handelsman (re: potential hearing dates) filed. |
| Nov. 10, 1992 | Order Granting Continuance sent out. (hearing date to be rescheduled at a later date; parties are to submit several mutually agreeable dates for the rescheduling of this hearing) |
| Nov. 09, 1992 | Petitioner`s Motion for Continuance filed. |
| Nov. 06, 1992 | (Respondent) Proposed Prehearing Statement filed. |
| Sep. 18, 1992 | (Respondent) Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum filed. |
| Aug. 24, 1992 | (pleading w/no name) Notice of Taking Deposition filed. (From Fred H. Gelston) |
| Aug. 18, 1992 | Order Granting Continuance and Rescheduling Hearing sent out. (hearing rescheduled for 11/13/92; 10:00am; WPB) |
| Aug. 18, 1992 | Order of Prehearing Instructions sent out. |
| Aug. 17, 1992 | (pleading w/no title) Notice of Taking Deposition filed. (From Charles H. Damsel, Jr.) |
| Aug. 17, 1992 | (Respondent) Notice of Taking Deposition filed. |
| Aug. 13, 1992 | Joint Motion and Stipulation for Continuance filed. |
| Jul. 24, 1992 | Department of Environmental Regulation`s First Request for Production of Documents to Petitioner, Monte McLendon filed. |
| Jun. 01, 1992 | Order Granting Continuance and Rescheduling Hearing sent out. (hearing rescheduled for 8-21-92; 10:00am; West Palm Beach) |
| May 29, 1992 | Letter to WRD from Fred H. Gelston (re: available dates for hearing) filed. |
| May 29, 1992 | Letter to WRD from Patricia E. Commer (re: available dates for hearing) filed. |
| Mar. 30, 1992 | Order Granting Continuance sent out. (parties shall file in writing several mutually acceptable dates for the rescheduling of the final hearing in this case no later than 4-17-92) |
| Mar. 30, 1992 | Joint Stipulation for Continuance of Hearings filed. |
| Mar. 24, 1992 | Joint Stipulation for Continuance of Hearings filed. |
| Mar. 13, 1992 | (Petitioner) 2nd Notice of Taking Deposition (4) filed. |
| Feb. 21, 1992 | (Respondent) Notice and Certificate of Service of Answers to Interrogatories filed. |
| Feb. 12, 1992 | (Respondent) Notice of Service of Response to Petitioner Request for Admissions; Notice of Service of Response to Petitioner Request for Production filed. |
| Feb. 10, 1992 | (4) Notice of Taking Deposition filed. (from F. Gelston) |
| Jan. 15, 1992 | Petitioner`s First Interrogatories to Respondent; Notice of Providing Answers to Interrogatories; Petitioner`s Notice of Serving Interrogatories to Respondent filed. |
| Jan. 13, 1992 | Plaintiff`s First Request to Produce to Defendant; Petitioner`s First Request for Admissions to DER filed. |
| Jan. 08, 1992 | Order Adopting Joint Response to Order Regarding Discovery Schedule sent out. |
| Jan. 08, 1992 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 3/26/92; 10:30am; WPB) |
| Dec. 23, 1991 | Joint Response to Order Regarding Discovery Schedule filed. |
| Dec. 19, 1991 | Plaintiff's Supplemental Response to Defendant's Request for Admissions filed. |
| Dec. 05, 1991 | Order sent out. (RE: Hearing cancelled) |
| Dec. 02, 1991 | Department of Environmental Regulation`s Motion to Compel Answers to Discovery filed. |
| Dec. 02, 1991 | (Respondent) Notice of Appearance of Counsel for Department of Environmental Regulation filed. |
| Nov. 25, 1991 | (Petitioner) Response to Request for Admissions filed. |
| Oct. 21, 1991 | Department of Environmental Regulation`s First Interrogatories to Petitioner, McLendon; Department of Regulation`s First Request for Admissions filed. |
| Aug. 06, 1991 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for Dec. 11-12, 1991; 10:00am; WPB). |
| Jul. 26, 1991 | Joint Response to the Initial Order of the Administrative Hearing filed. |
| Jul. 22, 1991 | Respondent`s Motion to Strike and to Limit Issues filed. (From Patricia E. Comer) |
| Jul. 17, 1991 | Initial Order issued. |
| Jul. 12, 1991 | Request for Assignment of Hearing Officer and Notice of Preservation of Record; Notice of Permit Denial; Petition for Administrative Proceeding Pursuant to Section 120.57 Florida Statutes filed. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Feb. 17, 1994 | Agency Final Order | |
| Jan. 12, 1994 | Recommended Order | Application to build house on stilts in wetlands should be permitted with conditions. Garage and extension of roadway should not be permitted. |
