STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 92-2958DRI

) MORTIMER AND GAY HALL, Owners: ) PIERCE CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDERS, )

General Contractor, and MONROE ) COUNTY, )

)

Respondents, )

)

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 November 4 and 5, 1992, in Key West, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Lucky T. Osho, Esquire

2740 Centerview Drive

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100

For Respondents, Theodore W. Herzog, Esquire Mortimer and Gay Hall: Theodore W. Herzog, P.A.

209 Duval Street

Key West, Florida 33040

For Respondent,

Pierce Construction

and Builders: No Appearance

For Respondent,

Monroe County: No Appearance STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

Whether Building Permit No. 9010001679 issued by Monroe County, Florida, to Mortimer and Gay Hall as owners and Pierce Construction and Builders as contractor for the construction of a pier or dock as a structural accessory to a single family dwelling is contrary to the provisions of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and the Monroe County Land Development Regulations.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Petitioner timely filed its appeal to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission challenging Monroe County's issuance of the subject

building permit pursuant to Section 380.07, Florida Statutes. The parties stipulated that the project lies in an Area of Critical State Concern.

This case was consolidated for hearing with DOAH Case 92-1751DRI, DOAH Case 92-3949DRI, DOAH Case No. 92-5582DRI, and DOAH Case No. 5583DRI. At the

conclusion of the formal hearing this case was severed because of the differences between the legal issues presented by this case and the other cases.

At the formal hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of Kenneth Metcalf and of Curtis Kruer. At the consolidated hearing of the above- referenced cases, Petitioner introduced a total of eighteen exhibits, seven of which pertain exclusively to this case, and four of which pertained to all of the consolidated cases. A duplicate of the four exhibits which pertained to all of the consolidated cases has been made and is a part of the record of this proceeding. Mr. Metcalf was accepted as an expert in land use planning and administration of the Florida Keys Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations. Mr. Kruer was accepted as an expert in marine biology.

Respondents presented the testimony of Robert L. Herman, Linda Pierce, and Mortimer Hall. Mr. Herman is Director of Growth Management for Monroe County. Ms. Pierce was accepted as an expert in the field of marine biology.

Respondents presented eleven exhibits. All exhibits offered by the parties were accepted into evidence.

Following the time for the filing of post-hearing submittals, Respondents filed an objection to a portion of Petitioner's proposed recommended order.

That objection is denied as being moot because the subject matter of the objection was not at issue in this proceeding.

A transcript of the proceedings has not been filed. At the request of the parties, the time for filing post-hearing submissions was set for more than ten days following the hearing. Consequently, the parties waived the requirement that a recommended order be rendered within thirty days after the hearing. 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

1. Petitioner is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility to administer the provisions of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, and the regulations promulgated thereunder. Petitioner has the authority to appeal to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission any development order issued in an area of critical state concern. The appeal in the instant proceeding was timely.

   
   

2. Monroe County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and is responsible for issuing development orders for development in unincorporated Monroe County. Monroe County issued the development order that is the subject of this appeal.

   
   

3. Respondents, Mortimer and Gay Hall, are the owners of real property known as Lots 60 and 61, Block 19, Breeze Swept Beach Estates on Ramrod Key in unincorporated Monroe County. The Halls have constructed a single family dwelling on that property, but the building permit for the construction of the dwelling is not at issue in this proceeding.

4. Most of Monroe County, including the subject property, is within the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern as designated under Sections 380.05 and 380.0552, Florida Statutes.

   
   

5. On January 21, 1992, Monroe County issued the subject building permit, Permit Number 9010001679, to Mortimer and Gay Hall as owners and Pierce Construction and Builders as contractor. The subject permit would be subject to certain conditions imposed by the Florida Department of Natural Resources (DNR). As permitted, the use of the structure would be limited to swimming and recreation. Boating, or the mooring of boats, would not be permitted.

   
   

6. By letter dated December 17, 1991, DNR authorized the project subject to certain conditions and limitations, and provided, in pertinent part, as follows:

   
   

   Mort and Gay Hall are hereby authorized to proceed with the construction of a swim platform as proposed This

   authorization is specifically conditioned upon the following:

   * * *

   1. The structure shall be used only for passive recreational activities such as swimming and fishing. Mooring of vessels at the facility either on a temporary or permanent basis is strictly prohibited.

   2. The platform and walkway shall be elevated four feet above mhw [mean high water].

   3. Handrails at a height of four feet shall be installed along the walkway and around the platform. Handrails shall be two feet above the platform deck.

   4. Install at least three "NO MOORING" signs along the perimeter of the platform.

   5. Install a ladder on the waterward terminus of the platform for water access.

      
      

   6. The application submitted by the Halls to Monroe County that resulted in the subject permit incorporated the DNR conditions and described the project as follows:

      
      

      Applicant wishes to install a wooden swim platform (20 ft. length x 8 ft. width) and a wooden elevated access walkway (25 ft. length x 4 ft. width) to access this platform; for the purpose of using the channel cut for swimming activities at their existing single family residence.

      
      

   7. Monroe County's comprehensive plan, which has been approved by the Petitioner and by the Administration Commission, is implemented through its adopted land development regulations, codified in Chapter 9.5, Monroe County Code. Section 9.5-345(m)(2), Monroe County Code, referred to as the four foot rule, provides as follows:

      (2) All structures on any submerged lands and mangroves shall be designed, located and constructed such that:

      * * *

      1. No structure shall be located on submerged land which is vegetated with sea

         grasses except as is necessary to reach waters at least four (4) feet below mean low level for docking facilities;

      2. No docking facility shall be developed at any site unless a minimum channel of twenty

      (20) feet in width where a mean low water depth of at least minus four (4) feet exists;

      
      

   8. Section 2.104, Nearshore Waters, Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, Volume II, Future Land Use Element, provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

      
      

      The Florida Keys are dependent on nearshore water quality for their environmental and economic integrity. The heart of the Florida Keys economy, the means by which Monroe County exists as a civil and social institution, is based on its unique oceanic character. If nearshore water quality is not maintained, then quality of life and the economy of Monroe County will be directly and immediately impacted.

      1. OBJECTIVES

         1. To protect, maintain and, where appropriate, to improve the quality of nearshore waters in Monroe County.

         * * *

      2. POLICIES

         1. To prohibit land use that directly or indirectly degrade nearshore water quality.

         * * *

         1. To prohibit the development of water dependent facilities, including marinas, at locations that would involve significant degradation of the biological character of submerged lands.

         2. To limit the location of water-dependent facilities at locations that will not have a significant adverse impact on off-shore resources of particular importance. For the purposes of this policy, off-shore resources of particular importance shall mean hard coral bottoms, habitat of state or federal threatened and endangered species, shallow water areas with natural marine communities with depths at mean low tide of less than four (4) feet, and all designated aquatic preserves under Florida Statutes section

         258.39 et seq.

         
         

   9. By Final Judgment entered June 7, 1991, the Honorable Richard G. Payne, Judge of the Circuit Court of the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for

      Monroe County, Florida, ruled in Stanton v. Monroe County, Case No. 91-20-035- CA-18, that Monroe County's four foot rule does not apply to swimming piers, concluding, in pertinent part, as follows at page five of the Final Judgment:

      
      

      5. To the extent that the County's Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations fail to provide for swimming piers

      ... the court finds that it is unreasonable to treat such piers as if they were docks at which boats are to be moored. Pursuant to the judicial review authority of Chapter 163, Fla. Stat., the court declares ... [the four foot rule] inapplicable to piers at which boats are not to be moored. The County has adequate judicial remedies, including injunction, to prevent the use of such piers, including the subject pier, for the mooring of boats.

      
      

   10. Despite the Stanton ruling, supra, Monroe County has interpreted the four foot rule as being applicable to swimming piers such as the one the Halls wish to construct.

       
       

   11. Monroe County's long-standing interpretation of the four foot rule would not prohibit the permit because of the minimal effect such construction would have on the nearshore waters. Since 1986, Monroe County has adopted an interpretation of Section 9.5-345(m)(2), Monroe County Code, and of Section 2.104, Nearshore Waters, Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, Volume II, Future Land Use Element, that would permit the construction of the subject project. That interpretation permits the development of docks in subdivisions that were under development in 1986 if there is at least four feet of water at the terminal point of the dock at mean low tide. The structure that is the subject of this proceeding is in a subdivision that was under development prior to 1986 and would, if permitted, terminate in a channel more than 20 feet wide with water at least six feet deep at mean low tide. Monroe County's interpretation of the four foot rule is that the rule was intended to restrict the development of boating access facilities in new, undeveloped subdivisions and to regulate proposed expansion of existing marinas and the development of new marinas.

       
       

   12. Monroe County considers the subject application by the Halls to meet all of its permitting criteria.

       
       

   13. The structure will be constructed in a dredged area of adequate size for swimming. Access to the structure by boat is unlikely because the swimming area is surrounded by a reef and hard bottom that is extremely shallow, even at high tide. At low tide much of this surrounding area is above water, and the deepest area of water is approximately six inches. At high tide, the water depth of the surrounding area ranges from approximately four inches to approximately eighteen inches. On the waterward side of the surrounding area, the water depths are less than four feet.

       
       

   14. Petitioner's concern is that boats will moor at the structure regardless of the restrictions on the permit and that these boats will cause degradation to the nearshore waters while crossing to deep water. Benthic communities exist in the waters between the Halls's property and deep water, such as rock-hard bottom, sea grasses, algae, and hard coral. Turtles, manatees, sharks, stingrays, eagle rays, snapper, pink shrimp, mullet, and other marine animals populate those waters. Sea grass beds play an important role in

       water quality maintenance in the Keys through filtration, nutrient uptake, stabilization of the bottom, and as a habitat for commercially important species. One cannot reach deep water by boat from the Halls's property without crossing areas in which the water depth is less than four feet at low tide.

       Petitioner speculates that prop dredging, and the resulting damage to seagrass beds and shallow water marine communities, would result if one were to attempt to navigate these shallow waters by a propeller powered boat. Petitioner's concern is premised on the unwarranted assumptions that the structure will be illegally used at some point in the future by boats. Petitioner has failed to establish that this concern justifies denial of the permit.

       
       

   15. Petitioner did not establish that damage would be done to the environment by swimming in the area of the proposed swimming platform.

       
       

   16. Respondents presented evidence that several similar projects were permitted at approximately the same time as the Halls's permit without Petitioner filing an appeal. This evidence was insufficient to establish that Petitioner should be estopped to appeal the subject permit, that Petitioner engaged in selective enforcement of its regulatory power, or that Petitioner otherwise brought the subject appeal for an inappropriate purpose.

       
       

       CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

       
       

   17. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over this matter. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

       
       

   18. The subject appeal was timely taken by Petitioner pursuant to Section 380.07(2), Florida Statutes, from a development order of Monroe County granting the Halls's request for a building permit to construct a swimming platform and walkway to the swimming platform. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, the propriety of Monroe County's action was reviewed de novo. Transgulf Pipeline Co. v. Board of County Commissioners of Gadsden County, 438 So.2d 876 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).

       
       

   19. The ultimate burden of persuasion rested on the Halls to establish their entitlement to the permit authorizing their proposed development. Young

       v. Department of Community Affairs, 567 So.2d 2 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), and Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.C. Co., Inc., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

       
       

   20. The Stanton ruling, supra, while not binding, is persuasive authority and provides rationale for the position that the four foot rule is not applicable to swimming piers. Nevertheless, it is not necessary to conclude whether the four foot rule should apply to swimming piers because neither party is asserting that position. Petitioner argues that the subject project fails to meet the permitting criteria contained in Monroe County's four foot rule. Respondents, including Monroe County, contend that the subject project is consistent with Monroe County's long-standing interpretation of the four foot rule and meets all permitting criteria.

       
       

   21. Generally, an administrative construction of a statute by an agency responsible for its administration is entitled to great deference and should not be overturned unless clearly erroneous. Department of Environmental Regulation

       v. Goldring, 477 So.2d 532 (Fla. 1985); All Seasons Resorts, Inc. v. Division of Land Sales, Condominiums, and Mobile Homes, 455 So.2d 544 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); and Sans Souci v. Division of Land Sales and Condominiums, 421 So.2d 623 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). The same deference has been accorded to rules which have been in

       effect over an extended period and to the meaning assigned to them by officials charged with their administration. Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. Florida Public Service Commission, 427 So.2d 716 (Fla. 1983), and State Department of Commerce, Division of Labor v. Matthews Corp., 358 So.2d 256 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). Moreover, the agency's interpretation does not have to be the only one or the most desirable one; it is enough if it is permissible. Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. Florida Public Service Commission, supra, and Florida Power Corp. v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 431 So.2d 684 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). No less deference should be accorded Monroe County's interpretation of its land development regulations where, as here, such interpretation is reasonable, evidences due consideration for private rights of ownership, and is not contrary to its comprehensive plan. See e.g. Thomson v. Village of Tequesta Board of Adjustment, 546 So.2d 457 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989).

       
       

   22. It is concluded that the subject development is consistent with the Monroe County comprehensive plan and land development regulations. The Halls have established that they are entitled to the subject permit.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission enter a final order affirming Monroe County's decision to issue building permit number 9010001679, and dismissing the appeal filed by the Department of Community Affairs.

DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of January, 1993, 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 26th day of January, 1993.

APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-2958DRI

The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of Petitioner.

1. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 14 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order.

2. The proposed findings of fact in the first sentence of paragraph 11, 12, 13, and 16 are subordinate to the findings made.

3. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 15 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached because the use of the platform is limited. The testimony by Robert L. Herman as to the purpose and interpretation

of the four foot rule by Monroe County is found to be a more persuasive than Mr. Metcalf's testimony.

The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of Respondents.

1. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2, 3,4, and 8 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order.

2. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 5 and 6 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made.

3. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 8 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached.

   
   

   COPIES FURNISHED:

   
   

   Lucky T. Osho, Esquire David Jordan, Esquire

   Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive

   Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100

   
   

   Theodore W. Herzog, Esquire Theodore W. Herzog, P.A.

   209 Duval Street

   Key West, Florida 33040

   
   

   Linda Loomis Shelley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive

   Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100

   
   

   G. Steven Pfeiffer, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive

   Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100

   
   

   James T. Hendrick, Esquire Attorney for Monroe County Post Office Box 1117

   Key West, Florida 33040

   
   

   Carolyn Dekle, Director

   South Florida Regional Planning Council 3400 Hollywood Boulevard

   Suite 140

   Hollywood, Florida 33021

   
   

   Pierce Construction and Builders Route 4, Box 319

   Summerland Key, Florida 33042

   Bob Herman, Herb Rabin, Lorenzo Aghemo, Pat McNeese

   Monroe County Growth Management Division Public Service Building, Wing III

   5100 Junior College Road West Stock Island

   Key West, Florida 33040

   
   

   William R. Kynoch, Deputy Director Florida Land and Water Adj. Commission Executive Officer of the Governor

   311 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301

   
   

   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.

   
   

   ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER

   =================================================================

   
   

   STATE OF FLORIDA

   LAND AND WATER ADJUDICATORY COMMISSION

   
   

   
   

   DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS,

   
   

   Petitioner,

   CASE NO. APP-92-008

   vs. DOAH CASE NO. 92-2958DRI

   
   

   MORTIMER AND GAY HALL, Owners, PIERCE CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDERS,

   General Contractor, and MONROE COUNTY,

   /

   
   

   FINAL ORDER

   
   

   This cause came before the Governor and Cabinet sitting as the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission ("Commission") on April 27, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida pursuant to section 380.07, Florida Statutes, and pursuant to a Recommended Order dated January 26, 1993. Having reviewed all relevant materials and having heard arguments of the parties, the Commission voted to accept the Hearing Officer1s Findings of Fact; accept in part and reject in part

   the Conclusions of Law, as described below and accordingly DISMISS the petition and conditionally GRANT permission to develop.

   
   

   BACKGROUND

   
   

   Mortimer and Gay RaIl ("the Halls") own a home in Breeze Swept Beach Estates on Ramrod Key, in the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern. Monroe County ("the County") issued a building permit to the Halls and to Pierce Construction and Builders as contractor to construct a swimming pier. The permit was subject to conditions imposed by the Department of Natural Resources

   
   

   When DNR authorized the permit, it specified that:

   
   

   1. The structure shall be used only for passive recreational activities such as swimming and fishing. Mooring of vessels at the facility either on a temporary or permanent basis is strictly prohibited.

   2. The platform and walkway shall be elevated four feet above mhw [mean high water].

   3. Handrails at a height of four feet shall be installed along the walkway and around the platform.

      Handrails shall be two feet above the platform deck.

   4. Install at least three "NO MOORING" signs along the perimeter of the platform.

   5. Install a ladder on the waterward terminus of the platform for water access.

The Hall's application to the County incorporated DNR's conditions and specified that it was for the purpose of using the channel cut for swimming at their single family residence. After the permit issued, the Department of Community Affairs ("DCA") filed a timely appeal which was heard by the Division of Administrative Hearings ("DOAH").

The Hearing Officer found in favor of the Halls and the County and recommended to this Commission that it affirm the County's decision to issue the permit and dismiss the DCA's appeal. A transcript was not filed and DCA filed five exceptions.

RULING ON PETITIONER'S EXCEPTIONS

1. DCA argues that the Hearing Officer erred when he concluded that the swimming pier is allowed under Monroe County's Land Development Regulations ("LDRs"). DCA argues that since the LDRs do not specifically provide for "swimming piers" but do provide for "docks," this is a dock and so should be governed by the Code provisions concerning docks. The Commission GRANTS this exception in part, but finds that whether the structure is termed a pier or dock is not dispositive of the damage its construction and use may or may not cause the environment. We must instead look to the actual facts surrounding the physical construction.

   
   

   In the Recommended Order, it states:

   
   

   The structure will be constructed in a dredged area of adequate size for swimming. Access to the structure by boat is unlikely because the swimming area is surrounded

   by a reef and hard bottom that is extremely shallow, even at high tide. At low tide much of this surrounding area is above water, and the deepest area of water is approximately six inches. At high tide, the water depth of the surrounding area ranges from approximately four inches to approximately eighteen inches. On the waterward side of the surrounding area, the water depths are less than four feet. (Finding of Fact 14)

   
   

   An examination of the map exhibits also shows that the area around the dredged portion in front of the Hall's property is extremely shallow, so that it is unlikely that a boat could dock there because it could not traverse the area, assuming that someone would attempt to use the structure as a docking facility in clear violation of the signs posted on the structure. It is not justifiable to deny an otherwise legal use ,on the unproven basis that a person may someday violate the clear letter of the law. The state should not withhold development approval from innocent persons who wish to legally use their property. We agree with DCA that the proposed development is subject to the LDRs. Because of the physical characteristics of the area which make it unlikely that the structure could be used as a docking facility, and because of the use restrictions imposed by DNR, we find that the proposed swimming pier is not prohibited. Therefore, we GRANT DCA's exception in part and DENY it in part, as stated above.

   
   

2. DCA next argues that the Hearing Officer erred in finding a circuit court ruling in the case Stanton v. Monroe County persuasive because it was a case under chapter 380 where the parties did not exhaust administrative remedies and appeal to this Commission. DCA argues that to cite this case as persuasive authority would be to relinquish its jurisdiction in critical areas by implication to the circuit courts. The Commission finds no need to reach this matter and cite Stanton as persuasive here. So finding, we DENY DCA's exception.

   
   

3. DCA argues that the Hearing Officer erred when he concluded that the proposed facility complies with the environmental design criteria for mangroves and submerged lands.

   
   

   Section 9.5-345(m)(2) of the Monroe County Code provides that:

   
   

   (2) All structures on any submerged lands and mangroves shall be designed, located and constructed such that:

   1. No structure shall be located on submerged land which is vegetated with sea

      grasses except as is necessary to reach waters at least four (4) feet below mean low level for docking facilities;

   2. No docking facility shall be developed at any site unless a minimum channel of twenty

   (20) feet in width where a mean low water depth of at least minus four (4) feet exists;

   
   

   The DCA's interpretation of this section is that there must be a channel of at least four feet deep that extends to open water. This is similar, but not consistent with what this Commission ruled in DCA vs. David and Florence Clark, Edward Warren Werlin, and Monroe County, Case No. LW-93-015, April 7, 1993.

   There, the Commission denied a permit for the Clarks to construct a dock for boats with a condition that the permit may issue if there are channels marked to

   open water, and such channels are approved by DNR. The Commission did not require four foot channels in Clark, where it was clear that the structure was to be used for boats, nor would it construe applicable regulations to require a four foot channel here. Therefore, the exception is DENIED.

   
   

4. The DCA argues that the Hearing Officer erred in giving Monroe County deference in interpreting the LDRs at issue. The Commission agrees, adopts the rationale in Clark for this ruling and GRANTS DCA's exception with the same limitations as expressed in Clark. That is, that DCA's interpretations should receive deference in areas of critical state concern, over the County's, but should not be adhered to if such interpretations offend the plain meaning of the regulations or are clearly erroneous.

WHEREFORE, because this structure will be used for recreational swimming only, boating and the mooring of boats is strictly prohibited, and the location of the proposed structure is in an area so shallow that it is unlikely that the structure could be used to dock or moor boats, the Commission GRANTS permission for the Halls to develop under Monroe County building permit no. 9010001679.

Pursuant to Section 380.08(3), Florida Statutes, the conditions imposed by DNR in its December 17, 1991 letter authorization to the Halls are incorporated herein as conditions.

Any party to this Order has the right to seek judicial review of the Order pursuant to section 120.68, Florida Statutes, by the filing of a Notice of Appeal pursuant to Rule 9.110, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, with the Clerk of the Commission, Office of Planning and Budgeting, Executive Office of the Governor, Room 311 Carlton Building, 501 South Gadsden Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001; and by filing a copy of the Notice of Appeal, accompanied by the applicable filing fees, with the appropriate District Court of Appeal.

Notice of Appeal must be filed within 30 days of the day this Order is filed with the Clerk of the Commission.

DONE AND ORDERED, this 29th day of April 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida.

Teresa B. Tinker for David K. Coburn, Secretary Florida Land and Water

Adjudicatory Commission

FILED with the Clerk of the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission 29th day of April 1993.

Kelly A. Tucker

Clerk, Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by United States Mail to the parties listed below this 29th day of April 1993.

Teresa B. Tinker for DAVID K. COBURN, Secretary Florida Land and Water

Adjudicatory Commission

Honorable Lawton Chiles Honorable Tom Gallagher Governor Treasurer

The Capitol, PL05 The Capitol, PL11

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001

Honorable Robert Butterworth Honorable Betty Castor Attorney General Commissioner of Education

The Capitol, PL01 The Capitol, PL08

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001

Honorable Bob Crawford Honorable Jim Smith Commissioner of Agriculture Secretary of State The Capitol, PL10 The Capitol, PL02

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001

Honorable Gerald Lewis Mortimer and Gay Hall

Comptroller 1146-1 Columbus Circle

The Capitol, PL09 Andrews Air Force Base, MD Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 20335

Robin Hassler, Esquire Pierce Construction, Inc. Counsel to Governor and Cabinet H. P. Pierce

The Capitol, 209 Post Office Box 106 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Summerland Key, Florida 33042

Lucky T. Osho, Esquire Honorable Jack London Department of Community Affairs Mayor, Monroe County 2740 Centerview Drive Monroe County Courthouse Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 500 Whitehead Street

Key West, Florida 33040

James T. Hendrick

Monroe County Attorney Commissioner Earl Cheal

310 Fleming Street 490 63rd Street, Ocean

Key West, Florida 33040 Suite 110

Marathon, Florida 33050

Commissioner Shirley Freeman

310 Fleming Street Carolyn Dekle, Director Monroe County Courthours South Florida Regional Key West, Florida 33040 Planning Council

3400 Hollywood Boulevard Commissioner Wilhelmina Harvey Suite 140

Alamo Office Building Hollywood, Florida 33021 Route 2, Box 674

Summerland Key, Florida 33042 Commissioner Mary Kay Reich

Plantation Key Govt. Center

Bob Herman, Herb Rabin 88820 Overseas Highway Lorenzo Aghemo, George Garrett Tavernier, Florida 33070 Monroe County Growth

Management Division Pierce Construction 5100 Junior College Road West & Builders

Stock Island Route 4, Box 319

Key West Florida 33040 Summerland Key, Florida 33042

Docket for Case No: 92-002958DRI

Orders for Case No: 92-002958DRI