STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
LOUIS FISCHER, individually, ) and LONDON CREEK ASSOCIATES, )
a partnership, )
)
Petitioners, )
vs. ) CASE NO. 90-5988
)
SOUTH FLORIDA WATER )
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, )
)
Respondent, )
and )
) FRIENDS OF THE HATCHINEHA, INC., )
)
Intervenor. )
)
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, a final hearing in the above-styled matter was held on June 25-26, 1991, in Orlando, Florida, before Joyous D. Parrish, a designated Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings. The parties were represented at the hearing as follows:
APPEARANCES
For Petitioners: Joseph W. Landers, Jr.
Landers & Parsons Post Office Box 271
Tallahassee, Florida 32302
For Respondent: John J. Fumero
Associate Attorney South Florida Water Management District 3303 Gun Club Road Post Office Box 24680
West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4680
For Intervenor: Carl W. Hartley, Jr.
HARTLEY & WALL
Suite 2810, Sun Bank Tower
200 S. Orange Avenue Post Office Box 2168 Orlando, Florida 32802
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
The central issue in this case is whether the Petitioners are entitled to an exemption pursuant to Section 373.406(2), Florida Statutes.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
This case began on March 20, 1990, after the South Florida Water Management District (District) issued a notice of violation together with an administrative complaint and order which alleged that the Petitioners had constructed a roadway on property without having first obtained a surface water management permit from the District. The Petitioners responded to the District by asserting that the subject roadway was exempt from permitting pursuant to Section 373.406(2), Florida Statutes.
The case was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for formal proceedings on September 21, 1990. The Friends of the Hatchineha, Inc. (FOTH) was permitted to intervene by order entered February 25, 1991.
At the hearing, the Petitioners presented the testimony of the following witnesses: Louis Fischer, managing partner for London Creek Associates; Glen V. Stokes, cattleman/rancher; Patrick Gary Anderson, ranch manager for London Creek Ranch; John Andrew Pekar, a professional engineer accepted as an expert in surface water management systems, hydraulics and hydrology; Jared Justesen, a regulatory professional employed by the South Florida Water Management District; and, by deposition marked as Petitioner's exhibit 9, Rudy Olin Smith, enforcement supervising professional employed by the South Florida Water Management District. Petitioner's exhibits numbered 1 through 4, and 6 through
11 were admitted into evidence.
The District presented the testimony of Paul R. Linder, cattle rancher; Gary Brian Killette, road contractor who built the subject road; Curtis Owen Arrington, Jr., a civil engineer; Marc Ady, an environmental analyst employed by the District; and James Show, a civil engineer. The District's exhibits numbered 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9 were also admitted into evidence. Matie Louise Anderson, wife of Patrick Anderson; and Richard Hamann, president of FOTH testified on behalf of FOTH; and its exhibits numbered 1 through 3 were admitted.
After the hearing, the transcript of the proceedings was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on July 15, 1991. All parties timely filed proposed recommended orders which have been considered in the preparation of this order. Specific rulings on the proposed findings of fact are included in the attached appendix. The motion to strike filed by FOTH on August 1, 1991, is hereby denied.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based upon the stipulations of the parties, the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made:
The District is a public corporation in the state of Florida existing by virtue of Chapter 25270, Laws of Florida 1949, and operating pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 40E, Florida Administrative Code, as a multipurpose water management district, with its principal office in West Palm Beach, Florida.
The Petitioner, London Creek Associates, is a Florida general partnership with the address 4545 Pleasant Hill Road, Suite 205, Kissimmee, Florida 34759.
The Petitioner, Louis Fischer, is a general partner of London Creek Associates who resides on the property which is the subject of this case. The subject property is commonly known as London Creek Ranch.
The subject property is located in Sections 1, 6, and 7, Township 28 South, Range 29 East, Polk County, Florida.
The subject property is located within the geographic boundaries of the District's jurisdictional territory.
The subject property is owned in fee simple by London Creek Associates. At all times material to the allegations of this case, London Creek Associates has been such owner.
In October, 1989, acting in his own behalf and on behalf of London Creek Associates, Louis Fischer contracted with a road excavator to build a road through the subject property. The location of the road was selected as the route which would require the least amount of clearing and the crossing of the least amount of water or swamps. That route was to connect an existing right- of-way and was to traverse the subject property ending at or near the residence occupied by Mr. Fischer. The road was approximately two miles long, tied into a preexisting road for a portion of its length, and crossed about 2000 feet of wetlands.
Prior to the construction of the road, neither Mr. Fischer nor London Creek Associates nor anyone associated with the construction project conducted any engineering studies regarding the road or the ditching associated with its construction.
Prior to the construction of the road, neither Mr. Fischer nor London Creek Associates nor anyone associated with the construction project conducted any hydrologic studies regarding the road or the ditching associated with its construction.
Prior to the construction of the road, neither Mr. Fischer nor London Creek Associates nor anyone associated with the construction project conducted any hydraulic studies regarding the road or the ditching associated with its construction.
In constructing the road, materials were excavated from along the sides of the route and placed along the roadbed in order to elevate the road above natural grade. As a result, a series of ditches were created along the sides of the road. Additionally, fill material was brought in from off-site and was used to raise the road above the natural grade.
Some of the fill material for the road construction was taken from wetland areas located on the subject property.
A portion of the road and ditches were constructed through wetlands on the subject property.
The construction of the road altered the topography of the subject property by creating a road at an elevated grade above the natural grade.
During the construction of the road, a borrow pit in a wetland area was dug. That pit has since been filled.
During the construction of the road, wetland areas were cleared in order to align the road.
The road was completed in March, 1990. Petitioners, Louis Fischer and/or London Creek Associates, are responsible for all acts associated with the construction of the road.
Prior to the construction of the road across Petitioner's property, neither Louis Fischer nor London Creek Associates applied for, or received, a surface water management permit from the District.
On March 20, 1990, the District issued a notice of violation to Louis Fischer regarding the subject road.
On August 6, 1990, the District issued an administrative complaint and order 90-29 regarding the subject road.
On August 23, 1990, pursuant to the notice of rights attached to order 90-29, London Creek Associates filed a petition pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, objecting to the administrative complaint and requested a formal hearing.
London Creek Associates' position has been that it is exempt from permitting by virtue of Section 373.406(2), Florida Statutes, which grants agricultural exemptions.
On February 25, 1991, the FOTH were granted leave to intervene in order to participate in these proceedings.
Certain "works" constructed by London Creek Associates on the subject property are hydrologically connected to wetlands.
The road which is at issue in this case is between 12 and 14 feet wide and is elevated above natural grade from 2 to 3 feet. Exact measurements of the road's elevation have not been performed. However, it is sufficient to say that the road will not likely become submerged by normal rainfall events.
Three 36 inch concrete culverts, two 12 inch corrugated pipe culverts, and one 18 inch corrugated pipe culvert have been installed to provide drainage under the road. These culverts allow water to overflow ditches from one side of the road to the other side of the road. Thus, the road only temporarily dams water flow.
Louis Fischer is the managing partner of London Creek Associates and as such controls the day-to-day operations of that partnership. Mr. Fischer manages London Creek Ranch and oversees its cattle and timber enterprises.
Prior to the construction of the road and, in anticipation of future timber cuts, London Creek Ranch has engaged in silviculture activities on the subject property. The road grade and construction will assure that timber vehicles will have access to the property and will be able to remove large loads without fear of impasse. It is expected that the partnership will continue to derive a portion of its income from timber as it has in the past.
Prior to the construction of the road and, in anticipation of future efforts, London Creek Ranch has been used for cattle grazing. Cattle grazing leases have generated income to the partnership and it is expected that they will continue to do so in the future. The road grade and construction will assure that cattle trailers will have access to the property during all seasons.
At all times material to the allegations of this case, London Creek Ranch has received an agricultural use classification from the Polk County Property Appraiser's Office. That classification entitles the subject property to be assessed ad valorem taxes as an agricultural concern.
At all times material to this case, the subject property has been used for agricultural and silvicultural purposes. No other use, inconsistent with agricultural and silvicultural use, has been proposed for the subject parcel. Residences occupied by Mr. Fischer and the ranch foreman are consistent with its agricultural use.
The construction of the road which is at issue will assure that the agricultural and silvicultural activities of the Petitioners will not be foiled by inadequate access.
The road at issue is consistent with the practice of the uses to which it is being employed. While it may be superior to some "cattle trails," the road is not so improved as to suggest its use is inconsistent with its intended utilization.
Further, the construction of the road was not for the sole or predominant purpose of impounding or obstructing surface waters. Surface waters are only temporarily impounded or obstructed by the road. The culverts and ditching associated with the road operate to maintain the natural surface water flows through the area.
FOTH is a Florida corporation whose members hunt, fish, and recreate on the properties adjacent to the London Creek Ranch. The FOTH membership is concerned about the preservation of the London Creek areas and oppose development of those properties.
FOTH's incorporation and its opposition to the road constructed by the Petitioners coincided with one another.
The District has promulgated no rules or has adopted no written policies interpreting Section 373.406(2), Florida Statutes.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of these proceedings.
Section 373.406(2), Florida Statutes, provides: Nothing herein, or in any rule, regulation,
or order adopted pursuant hereto, shall be
construed to affect the right of any person engaged in the occupation of agriculture, silviculture, floriculture, or horticulture to alter the topography of any tract of land for purposes consistent with the practice of such occupation. However, such alteration may not be for the sole or predominate purpose of impounding or obstructing surface waters.
In this case, the Petitioners have established that London Creek Ranch is a legitimate, agricultural and silvicultural operation. The construction of the road is consistent with the activities of the ranch and was not done for the sole or predominate purpose of impounding or obstructing surface waters. Where waters are incidentally impounded, Petitioners have installed culverts to minimize those effects. The culverts and ditching associated with the road operate to maintain the natural surface water flows through the area.
Given the clear and unambiguous language of the statute in this case, Petitioners have established that they are entitled to an exemption for the road constructed and are, therefore, not required to obtain a permit.
Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED:
That the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order granting the Petitioners' exemption pursuant to Section 373.406(2), Florida Statutes.
DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of October, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
JOYOUS D. PARRISH
Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings
The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
(904)488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of
Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of October, 1991.
APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER
RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS:
The first sentence of paragraph 1 is accepted; the remainder is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the evidence.
Paragraphs 2 through 5 are accepted.
Paragraph 6 is rejected as it does not make sense.
Paragraphs 7 through 32 are accepted.
With the deletion of the words "guaranteed legal" which are irrelevant, Paragraph 33 is accepted.
Paragraph 34 is rejected as irrelevant. The Petitioners or any entity claiming an exemption pursuant to Section 373.406(2), Florida Statutes, are not required to show that the access claimed is the only access to the property or that another access is less desirable.
With the deletion of the word "sole" paragraph 35 is accepted.
Paragraphs 36 through 42 are accepted.
Paragraph 43 is rejected as irrelevant.
Paragraph 44 is accepted.
Paragraphs 45 and 46, including its subparts, are accepted.
Paragraph 47 is rejected as argumentative and irrelevant.
Paragraph 48 is rejected as argumentative or contrary to the weight of the evidence.
RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE DISTRICT:
Paragraphs 1 through 5 are accepted.
With the deletion of the word "fill" as it is used before the word "road," paragraphs 6 through 11 are accepted. The District has identified the road in this case as a "fill road" but it is for the purposes of all applicable statutes or rules or policies articulated herein a "road." It is not disputed that fill materials were placed on the roadbed to elevate the road surface above the natural grade. Semantics aside, the road is a road. "Fill" is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the law applicable to this case.
Paragraph 12 is rejected as irrelevant.
With the deletion of "fill" (see comment above), paragraph 13 is accepted.
Paragraph 14 is rejected as irrelevant or argumentative.
Paragraph 15 is rejected as irrelevant.
Paragraph 16 is rejected as irrelevant.
Paragraph 17 is rejected as irrelevant.
Paragraph 18 is accepted with the deletion of the word "fill" as indicated above.
Paragraph 19 is rejected as comment, recitation of testimony or irrelevant.
Paragraph 20 is rejected as irrelevant or argumentative.
Paragraph 21 is rejected as argument, recitation of testimony or contrary to the weight of the evidence.
Paragraph 22 is rejected as recitation of testimony or contrary to the weight of the evidence.
With regard to paragraph 23, it is accepted that neither Mr. Fischer nor London Creek Associates owns cattle and that their cattle efforts stem from allowing others to graze on the ranch lands; otherwise rejected as argumentative, irrelevant, or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence.
With regard to paragraph 24, it is accepted that Petitioners have received revenues from cattle and timber efforts otherwise the paragraph is rejected as irrelevant.
The first sentence of paragraph 25 is rejected as irrelevant. The second sentence of paragraph 25 is accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence.
Paragraph 26 is accepted.
Paragraph 27 is rejected as irrelevant.
Paragraph 28 is accepted with the deletion of the word "fill."
Paragraph 29 is accepted.
Paragraph 30 is accepted.
Paragraph 31 is accepted.
Paragraph 32 is rejected as irrelevant.
With the deletion of the word "fill," paragraphs 33 through 35 are accepted.
The first sentence of paragraph 36 is rejected as irreevant. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence.
Paragraph 37 is accepted.
Paragraph 38 is rejected as argumentative or irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the evidence.
Paragraph 39 is rejected as irrelevant or argumentative.
Paragraph 40 is rejected as recitation of testimony or irrelevant.
Paragraph 41 is rejected as recitation of testimony.
Paragraph 42 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. The road in dispute may be more passable than "cattle trails" or less improved roads but its use is not inconsistent with agricultural and silvicultural purposes.
Paragraph 43 is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of credible evidence.
Paragraph 44 is rejected as irrelevant.
Paragraph 45 is rejected as irrelevant. It is accepted that the road in dispute provides access to both Mr. Fischer's and his foreman's homes. That it also provides access for bona fide agricultural and silvicultural purposes is why it does not require a permit.
Paragraph 46 is accepted.
With the exception of the last sentence, paragraph 47 is accepted. The last sentence is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence.
Paragraph 48 is rejected as argumentative or irrelevant. It is not disputed that the road is above the natural grade.
Paragraph 49 is accepted with the deletion of the word "fill."
Paragraph 50 is rejected as argumentative or attempt to recite testimony. In the alternative the paragraph is rejected as irrelevant as to whether the road has been used for timber harvesting since future harvesting will require the road.
Paragraph 51 is rejected as irrelevant. The issue in this case is whether the road was constructed for the sole or predominant purpose of impounding or obstructing surface waters.
Paragraph 52 is accepted.
Paragraph 53 is rejected as irrelevant or a statement of fact contrary to the weight of the credible evidence presented. It has not been disputed, however, that the Petitioners sought to construct a road that would be passable during all seasons for the purposes expressed herein.
Paragraph 54 is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the evidence or a recitation of testimony not fact.
Paragraph 55 is accepted to the extent that it suggests surface waters flowed across this parcel in the areas where the road was constructed and that further the culverts assure that the flow remains the same as prior to the road. Otherwise rejected as irrelevant or recitation of testimony.
Paragraph 56 is accepted.
Paragraph 57 is rejected as argumentative, comment on testimony or irrelevant; see comment re: paragraph 55.
Paragraph 58 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence.
With regard to paragraph 59 it is accepted that Mr. Ady correctly described the location and size/number of culverts; otherwise, rejected as irrelevant.
Paragraph 60 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence.
Paragraph 61 is accepted.
Paragraph 62 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of the evidence or irrelevant given the promulgated rules, policies and applicable statutes in effect at the times material to this case.
Paragraph 63 is rejected as comment, recitation of testimony or contrary to the weight of the evidence.
Paragraph 64 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence or recitation of testimony.
Paragraph 65 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence and argumentative.
RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE INTERVENOR:
The findings of fact submitted by FOTH mirror those submitted by the District and have been addressed above. Those paragraphs not previously considered are identified below.
The first sentence of paragraph 45 is accepted; the remainder is rejected as irrelevant.
Paragraph 46 is accepted.
Paragraph 47 is accepted.
Paragraph 48 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence.
Paragraph 49 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence.
Paragraph 50 is accepted.
Paragraphs 51 and 52 are accepted.
Paragraph 53 is rejected as argumentative or irrelevant.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Tilford Creel Executive Director South Florida Water Management District Post Office Box 24680
West Palm Beach, Florida 33416
John J. Fumero Associate Attorney South Florida Water Management District 3303 Gun Club Road Post Office Box 24680
West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4680
Joseph W. Landers, Jr. Landers & Parsons
Post Office Box 271 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Carl W. Hartley, Jr.
HARTLEY & WALL
Suite 2810, Sun Bank Tower
200 S. Orange Avenue Post Office Box 2168 Orlando, Florida 32802
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 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 |
|---|---|
| Oct. 23, 1991 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 6/25-26/91. |
| Aug. 01, 1991 | (Respondent) South Florida Water Management District's Motion to Strike Petitioners' Brief in Support of Proposed Recommended Order filed. (From John J. Fumero) |
| Aug. 01, 1991 | London Creek's Combined Response to South Florida Water Management District's Motion Strike Petitioners' Brief in Support of Proposed Recommended Order and to Intervenor's Motion to Strike filed. (From Joseph W. Landers, Jr.) |
| Aug. 01, 1991 | Intervenor's Motion to Strike filed. (From Robert L. Hovious) |
| Jul. 29, 1991 | (Petitioners) Motion to Correct Scrivener's Errors filed. (From Joseph W. Landers, Jr.) |
| Jul. 25, 1991 | Brief in Support of Proposed Recommended Order; Memorandum in Supportof Motion to Dismiss Friends of the Hatchineha as Party to This Proceeding; Petitioners' Proposed Recommended Order filed. (From Joseph W. Landers) |
| Jul. 25, 1991 | (Unsigned) Proposed Recommended Order filed. (From Carl W. Hartley, Jr.) |
| Jul. 25, 1991 | Respondent South Florida Water Management District's Proposed Recommended Order filed. (From John Fumero) |
| Jul. 22, 1991 | Letter to Susan Cravener from John J. Fumero (re: Filing of Transcript) filed. |
| Jul. 22, 1991 | Letter to Susan Cravener from JOhn J. Fumero (re: Filing of Transcript) filed. |
| Jul. 15, 1991 | Transcript (Vols 1&2) filed. |
| Jul. 01, 1991 | Subp ad Testificandum (3) filed. |
| Jun. 25, 1991 | Deposition of Matie Louise Anderson; Deposition of Glen V. Stokes; Deposition of Louis E. Fischer; Deposition of Gary Brian Killette, on Behalf of Intervenor filed. |
| Jun. 25, 1991 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Held. |
| Jun. 17, 1991 | (Intervenor) Motion to Compel Production of Documents w/exhibit-A filed. (From Carl W. Hartley, Jr.) |
| Jun. 14, 1991 | (Petitioner) Response to Motion to Compel Production of Documents w/Exhibit-A filed. (From Joseph W. Landers, Jr.) |
| Jun. 14, 1991 | Joint Response to Order Setting Prehearing Statement filed. (From John J. Fumero et al) |
| Jun. 13, 1991 | Joint Response to Order Setting Prehearing Statement & cover ltr filed. (From John T. LaVia, III) |
| Jun. 11, 1991 | Order sent out. (Motion for Extension of Time to File the Prehearing Statement granted). |
| Jun. 11, 1991 | Petitioner's Motion in Limine filed. (From Joseph W. Landers, Jr.) |
| Jun. 10, 1991 | (Intervenor) Notice of Response to Interrogatories filed. (From Carl W. Hartley, Jr.) |
| Jun. 06, 1991 | (Respondent) Motion for Extension of Time to File Prehearing Statement filed. (From Joseph W. Landers) |
| May 31, 1991 | (Intervenor) Notice of Taking Deposition filed. |
| May 24, 1991 | (SFWMD) Notice of Answering Interogatories filed. (From J. J. Fumero) |
| May 17, 1991 | (Intervenor) Notice of Taking Deposition filed. |
| May 14, 1991 | Notice of Service of Interrogatories filed. (From Robert L. Hovious) |
| May 13, 1991 | Subpoena Duces Tecum w/Affidavit of Service of Procee filed. (from Robert L. Hovious) |
| May 06, 1991 | (Respondent) Request for Admissions; Notice of Service of Interrogatories; Request to Produce Documents filed. (From John J. Fumero) |
| Apr. 26, 1991 | Notice of Taking Deposition filed. (From Carl Hartley, Jr.) |
| Apr. 23, 1991 | Notice of Service of Interrogatories; Petitioners' First Interrogatories to Intervenor, South Florida Water Management District; Petitioner's Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum (5) filed. (from Joseph Landers) |
| Apr. 22, 1991 | Order (Ruling on Motions) sent out. |
| Apr. 18, 1991 | Certificate of Service filed. (from Robert L. Hovious) |
| Apr. 16, 1991 | Intervenor's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Petitioners' Motion for Order Compelling Discovery filed. |
| Apr. 02, 1991 | Petitioners Motion for Order Compelling Discovery and Assessing Intervenor Fees and Costs filed. |
| Mar. 18, 1991 | Notice of Servie of Interrog.; Friends of the Hatchineha's Request for Production of Documents from Petitioner, Louis Fischer filed. |
| Mar. 14, 1991 | Subpoena Duces Tecum & Affidavit filed. (From Robert L. Hovious) |
| Mar. 11, 1991 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 6/25-26/91; at 9:30am; in Orlando) |
| Mar. 11, 1991 | Subp DT filed. |
| Mar. 07, 1991 | (Friends of The Hatchineha) Notice of Taking Deposition (2); Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum filed. |
| Mar. 05, 1991 | Order (motion to continue GRANTED). (hearing rescheduled for 6/25-26/91; at 9:30am; in Kissimee) |
| Mar. 01, 1991 | Motion for Continuance filed. |
| Feb. 25, 1991 | Order Denying Continuance (motion to intevene GRANTED; motion to Continue DENIED) sent out. |
| Feb. 14, 1991 | (Petitioner) Petition For Leave to Intervene filed. (From Robert L. Hovious) |
| Feb. 14, 1991 | (FOTH) Motion for Continuance w/exhibits A&B filed. (From Robert L. Hovious) |
| Jan. 18, 1991 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for March 19-20, 1991: 9:00am: Kissimmee) |
| Jan. 17, 1991 | Order (Motion to Continue GRANTED) sent out. (hearing rescheduled for March 19-20, 1991: 9:00 am: Kissimmee) |
| Dec. 20, 1990 | (Respondent) Motion for Continuance filed. (From John J. Fumero) |
| Nov. 15, 1990 | Order for Prehearing Statement sent out. |
| Nov. 13, 1990 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for Jan. 23-24, 1991: 9:00 am: Kissimmee) |
| Oct. 11, 1990 | (Petitioner) Response to Initial Order filed. (from JOhn J. Fumero) |
| Sep. 27, 1990 | Initial Order issued. |
| Sep. 21, 1990 | Agency referral letter; Administrative Complaint and Order; Notice ofRights (Exhibits A-B); Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings; Statement of Compliance With Rule 40E-1.521 Florida Administrative Code filed. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Oct. 23, 1991 | Recommended Order | Petitioners established that they are entitled to an exemption for constructed road, and not required to obtain a permit. |
SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT vs JAMES P. MCCARTHY, 90-005988 (1990)
RANGER CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIES, INC. vs. SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, 90-005988 (1990)
AMERICAN ORANGE CORPORATION vs. SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL, 90-005988 (1990)
WILLIAM B. SWAIM vs FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, 90-005988 (1990)
