STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HAROLD AND CHARLOTTEE TOMS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 93-5724

) STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ) ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION and ) SPRINGS ON KINGS BAY, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to written notice a formal hearing was held in this case before Larry J. Sartin, a duly designated Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings, on March 2, 1994, in Inverness, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner, Charlotte Toms, pro se Charlotte Toms: 11364 West Indian Woods Path

Crystal River, Florida 34428

For Petitioner,

Harold Toms: Did Not Appear

For Respondent, Keith C. Hetrick

Florida Department Assistant General Counsel

of Environmental Office of the General Counsel Protection: Florida Department of

Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400

For Respondent, Clark A. Stillwell, Esquire Springs on Kings Bay: BRANNEN, STILLWELL & PERRIN, P.A.

Post Office Box 250

Inverness, Florida 34451-0250 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether the Respondent, Springs on Kings Bay, is entitled to a dredge and fill permit from the Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Springs on Kings Bay filed an application for a dredge and fill permit allowing it to construct a twelve-slip dock facility. The Respondent, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (formerly the Department of

Environmental Regulation), issued an Intent to Issue the requested permit on or about July 22, 1993. The Petitioners, Harold and Charlotte Toms, filed a challenge to the issuance of the permit.

On September 22, 1993, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection filed a Request for Assignment of Hearing Officer and Notice of Preservation of Record with the Division of Administrative Hearings requesting assignment of a Hearing Officer. The matter was designated case number 93-5724 and was assigned to P. Michael Ruff. The case was subsequently reassigned to the undersigned.

At the time scheduled for the commencement of the final hearing, the Petitioners did not appear. The Petitioners were contacted be telephone to determine if they intended to participate in the final hearing. Charlotte Toms appeared an hour after the time scheduled for the commencement of the final hearing. Harold Toms did not appear. No continuance was requested by Ms. Toms.

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection presented the testimony of Rosa H. Poynor. Ms. Poynor was accepted as an expert witness.

Ms. Toms testified on her own behalf. Ms. Toms offered one exhibit. The exhibit was accepted, contingent upon the subsequent filing by Ms. Toms of a certificate from the agency which purportedly issued the exhibit. The certificate was to be filed on or before March 18, 1994.

On March 11, 1994, Ms. Toms filed a pleading titled "Verified Supplemental Proofs Requested by the Court and Arguments of Law." Attached to the pleading were "exhibits A through J-2." On March 21, 1994, Springs on Kings Bay filed a Motion to Strike all of the exhibits except J-1. The Motion to Strike is hereby granted, in part. All of the exhibits attached to the pleading except J-1 and

J-2 were inappropriately filed and are hereby struck. These exhibits were not offered during the final hearing despite the fact that Ms. Toms was informed that the decision in this case would be limited to the evidence presented during the final hearing. Nor were the exhibits requested by the undersigned as suggested by Ms. Toms. The exhibits were filed by Ms. Toms despite clear instructions to the contrary.

Petitioners' exhibit 1 is hereby accepted into evidence.

Springs on Kings Bay presented the testimony of Michael G. Czerwinski. Mr. Czerwinski was accepted as an expert witness. Springs on Kings Bay also offered

7 exhibits which were accepted into evidence.

No transcript of the final hearing was ordered or filed.

Each party has filed a proposed recommended order. A ruling on each proposed finding of fact contained in the proposed orders filed by the parties has been made either directly or indirectly in this Recommended Order, or the proposed finding of fact has been accepted or rejected in the Appendix which is attached hereto. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection adopted by reference the proposed findings of fact of Springs on Kings Bay.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Parties.

   
   

   1. Respondent, Springs on Kings Bay (hereinafter referred to as "Springs"), is a condominium association representing 12, single-family, condominium owners located on Hunter Spring Run. Hunter Spring Run is a tributary of Crystal River. The Springs and Hunter Spring Run are located in Citrus County, Florida.

      
      

   2. Respondent, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is an agency of the State of Florida with responsibility for, among other things, dredge and fill permits involving Florida waters.

      
      

   3. The Petitioners are the owners of real property located north of the Springs' property. The Petitioners' property is located at the waterward edge of North West Third Street, Crystal River, Citrus County, Florida. By water, the nearest point of the Petitioners' property to the proposed facility is approximately 2,600 feet. The evidence failed to prove that access to Crystal River from the Petitioners' property involves use of Hunter Spring Run, that the Petitioners are required to pass near the proposed facility or that the Petitioners ever pass near the proposed facility.

      
      

2. The Springs' Application for Permit.

   
   

   1. On or about December 31, 1991, the Springs applied to the Department for a permit to construct a 1,423 square foot private docking facility with twelve slips, and a 564 square foot private docking facility with six slips. Both facilities were to be located on Springs' property located on Hunter Spring Run.

      
      

   2. Due to Department concerns, the proposed project was subsequently modified to delete the six-slip docking facility and reduce the twelve-slip facility to 975.6 square feet.

      
      

   3. The Springs also agreed, as a condition for obtaining the permit, to establish a conservation easement of approximately 504 feet of lineal shoreline in and adjacent to Hunter Spring Run.

      
      

   4. On or about July 22, 1993, the Department issued a notice of intent to issue the permit sought by the Springs. A copy of the proposed permit, permit number 09-207432-3, was attached to the notice of intent to issue.

      
      

   5. On or about August 5, 1993, the Petitioners filed a letter challenging the Department's decision to issue the permit.

      
      

3. The Proposed Facility.

   
   

   1. Hunter Spring Run is a Class III water body designated as an Outstanding Florida Water.

      
      

   2. The proposed facility will consist of a 5' X 30' access walkway, 4' X 119' main pier constructed parallel to the shoreline, two 4' X 18" access piers and two 3' X 39" finger piers mounted on 12-inch diameter pilings.

      
      

   3. The piers will be constructed on pilings driven into the river bottom.

   4. The proposed facility will serve residents of the Springs. One boat slip per resident is proposed.

      
      

   5. The site of the proposed facility is in water with a depth greater than 3 feet. Submerged aquatic vegetation consists primarily of hydrilla verticillation, which is not a native species. The area where the facility is to be constructed is substantially void of other aquatic vegetation.

      
      

   6. The shoreline in the area of the proposed facility is relatively steep with a limited transitional area of wetland type species. Water depth drops off relatively quickly to approximately 4 feet.

      
      

   7. Hunter Spring Run is approximately 160.69 feet wide at the proposed facility site. The proposed facility will extend over approximately 24.3 percent of the width of Hunter Spring Run at the site.

      
      

   8. The main navigation channel of Hunter Spring Run is primarily located adjacent to the opposite shore from the proposed facility.

      
      

   9. The property in the immediate area of the Springs' property is generally developed for single-family and multifamily residences.

      
      

4. Impact on Water Quality Standards.

   
   

   1. The weight of the evidence proved that the proposed facility will not lower the existing ambient water quality of waters of the State of Florida. The evidence presented by the Department and Springs concerning the impact on water quality standards was uncontroverted by the Petitioners.

      
      

   2. While there will be some turbidity associated with installation of pilings, it will be temporary, lasting only a few days, and steps will be taken to minimize the turbidity. A turbidity curtain will be utilized.

      
      

   3. Boat maintenance is prohibited at the facility by the conditions of the proposed permit.

      
      

5. Impact on Public Health, Safety and Welfare or the Property of Others.

   
   

   1. The weight of the evidence proved that there will not be any adverse impact on public health, safety or welfare, or the property of others.

      
      

   2. By agreeing to an easement of approximately 504 feet of lineal shoreline, the potential impact from docks in the area will be substantially reduced. Section 403.813, Florida Statutes, exempts the construction of single- family docks of 500 square feet or less under certain circumstances. Several such docks could have been constructed along the area subject to the easement. Potentially, a dock could be built every 65 feet of shoreline. By granting the easement, the potential number of docks and slips along Hunter Spring Run has been reduced. Therefore, the proposed project will be of benefit to public health, safety and welfare, and the property of others.

      
      

   3. While the Petitioners suggested that the proposed facility will have an adverse impact on the "property of others," they failed to prove what that impact will be. In particular, the Petitioners suggested that the facility will have an adverse impact on their property apparently because the Petitioners

      believe that the construction of the facility will reduce the number of slips they may be allowed to construct or maintain at their property. The evidence, however, failed to prove that this "economic" impact will materialize, or is likely to, or that, if it does, such impact should prohibit the Department from issuing the permit.

      
      

6. Affect on Conservation of Fish and Wildlife, Including Endangered or Threatened Species, or Their Habitat.

   
   

   1. The weight of the evidence proved that the impact on conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species will be minimal. The Petitioners offered no evidence to counter this finding.

      
      

   2. Crystal River is frequented by manatees. Manatees are an endangered species. The area where the proposed project will be located, however, has not been designated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as an essential habitat (an area where manatees breed and feed) for manatees.

      
      

   3. The possibility of any impact on manatees will be minimized. Construction will be allowed at a time of year intended to avoid impact on the manatees. Construction precautions will be taken to avoid any impact on manatees.

      
      

   4. If a manatee is sighted during construction, all construction must cease until the manatee leaves the area.

      
      

   5. Boats will be required to observe a "no wake/idle speed" at all times to reduce the potential of harming manatees.

      
      

   6. Logs of sightings of manatees are to be maintained and reported to the Department.

      
      

   7. Signs with information concerning manatees will be posted during construction and after construction.

      
      

   8. The design of the proposed facility will minimize potential impacts on manatees.

      
      

   9. There is a lack of vegetation to attract feeding by manatees or fish or other wildlife near the proposed project.

      
      

   10. The Springs has a former Department of Natural Resources consent of use for the project.

       
       

7. Affect on Navigation and the Flow of Water and Whether Harmful Erosion or Shoaling will be Caused.

   
   

   1. The evidence proved that there will not be any negative impact on navigation or the flow of water and that there will not be any harmful erosion or shoaling caused by the proposed project.

      
      

   2. These will be adequate water depth and width between the furthest point of the dock and the far shore for the passage of boats.

      
      

   3. Boats are prohibited by the permit conditions to be moored outside of designated moorings. This will reduce the possibility of prop dredging.

   4. The conservation easement will also reduce the potential for harm to navigation which could occur if single-family docks were constructed along the shore of the easement.

      
      

   5. The conservation easement also will insure that 504 linear feet of shoreline remains protected and natural.

      
      

8. Affect on Fishing or Recreational Values or Marine Productivity.

1. The proposed project will increase recreational use of the area. It will not adversely impact marine productivity or fishing.

   
   

   I. Temporary or Permanent Project.

   
   

2. The proposed project is for a permanent structure.

   
   

   1. Affect on Significant Historical and Archaeological Resources.

3. There will not be any impact on significant historical or archaeological resources.

   
   

   1. Affect on the Current Condition and Relative Value of Functions Being Performed by Areas Affected by the Project.

4. The proposed project will not adversely affect current conditions or the relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the project.

   
   

   1. Cumulative Impact.

      
      

5. Cumulative impact from the proposed project in the area should be minimal.

   
   

6. Because of the conservation easement, the cumulative impact of the proposed project will be in the public interest due to the decrease in the potential number of boat slips in the area.

   
   

7. There should not be any cumulative impacts to water quality or the public interest standards of Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes.

   
   

   1. Standing of the Petitioners.

   
   

8. The Petitioners failed to prove that their interest in the proposed project is any greater than any member of the public.

   
   

9. The Petitioners' property is located approximately 2,600 feet away from the proposed project. A small peninsula, on which the Springs' property is located, separates the proposed project from the Petitioners' property. The

   Petitioners did not offer evidence to prove that they use the area where the proposed project is located or that any use for the proposed project will directly impact their property.

   
   

10. Ms. Toms suggested that the proposed project will reduce the number of slips the Petitioners may construct or maintain at their property. The evidence, however, failed to prove that the proposed project will have any impact on such construction or maintenance (if allowed) on their property.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

    1. Jurisdiction.

       
       

11. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction of the parties to and the subject matter of this proceeding. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (1993).

    
    

    1. Burden of Proof.

       
       

12. The burden of proof, absent a statutory directive to the contrary, is on the party asserting the affirmative of the issue of the proceeding. Antel v. Department of Professional Regulation, 522 So.2d 1056 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Department of Transportation v. J.W.C. Co., Inc. 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); and Balino v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 348 So.2d

    249 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).

    
    

13. In this proceeding it is the applicant, the Springs, that has the ultimate burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that it is entitled to the requested permit. J.W.C. Co., supra; and Rule 17-103.130, Florida Administrative Code.

    
    

14. In order to meet its burden of proof, the Springs was required to present a prima facie showing of entitlement to the permit at issue, taking into account the objections raised by the Petitioners. The Petitioners then had the burden of proving the allegations of their amended petition. The evidence presented by the Petitioners was required to be of at least equivalent quality to the evidence presented by the Springs. See Hoffert v. St. Joe Paper Company,

    12 F.A.L.R. 4972 (Fla. Dept. of Env. Reg. 1990).

    
    

    1. Standing.

       
       

15. The evidence presented by the Petitioners in this case failed to support their standing to institute this proceeding.

    
    

16. The Petitioners failed to prove that they will suffer any injury as a result of the issuance of the permit for the proposed project. See Agrico Chemical Co. v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 406 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981).

    
    

    1. The Evidence Proved that the Project Should be Approved.

    
    

17. The permit sought in this proceeding is a permit to allow dredging and filling in an Outstanding Florida Water. Therefore, before the permit can be issued it must be shown that Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes (1991), and Rule 17-4.242, Florida Administrative Code, have been met. Rule 17-312.080(3), Florida Administrative Code.

18. Section 403.918, Florida Statutes, requires that applicants provide reasonable assurances that: (1) the existing ambient water quality of any Florida waterbody impacted will not be lowered; and (2) the project will be clearly in the public interest.

    
    

19. The Springs provided reasonable assurances that the existing ambient water quality of Hunter Springs Run will not be lowered. The Petitioners offered no evidence to rebut these assurances.

    
    

20. Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes, establishes the following criteria which must be considered and balanced in determining whether a project is clearly in the public interest:

    
    

    1. Whether the project will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others;

    2. Whether the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats;

    3. Whether the project will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling;

    4. Whether the project will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project;

    5. Whether the project will be of a temporary or permanent nature;

    6. Whether the project will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of s. 267.061; and

    7. The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity.

       
       

21. The Springs provided reasonable assurance that, based upon a balanced consideration of the relevant criteria of Section 403.918(2)(a), Florida Statutes, the proposed project is clearly in the public interest. The Petitioners offered no evidence to rebut the assurances of the Springs concerning the criteria of Section 403.918(2)(a), Florida Statutes.

    
    

22. Finally, Section 403.919(3), Florida Statutes (1991), requires a consideration of the cumulative impacts of the proposed project. Cumulative impacts of the proposed project will be minimized and, because of the conservation easement, will be in the public interest. The Petitioners offered no evidence to rebut the assurances of the Springs concerning cumulative impacts.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a Final

Order dismissing the petition in this case and issuing permit number 09-207432-3 to Springs on Kings Bay.

DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of April, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida.

LARRY J. SARTIN

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 6th day of April, 1994.

APPENDIX

Case Number 93-5724

Springs and the Petitioners have submitted proposed findings of fact. The Department has adopted the proposed findings of fact of the Springs by reference. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted.

The Petitioners' Proposed Findings of Fact

1 These proposed findings are not supported by the evidence accepted during the final hearing of this case. Most of these proposed findings are also not relevant to this proceeding. The issue of who owns the Petitioners' property cannot be resolved in this case.

2-3 Not a proposed finding of fact. These paragraphs consist of arguments of law. Those arguments are not relevant to this proceeding.

4 Not supported by the weight of the evidence and not relevant.

The Springs' Proposed Findings of Fact

1. Accepted in 1, 4-6 and 9.

2. Accepted in 1-2, 9 and hereby accepted.

3. Accepted in 6 and 10.

4. Accepted in 12-13, 22 and hereby accepted. 5 Accepted in 11, 18-19, 26-30 and 33.

1. There was no proposed finding of fact 6.

2. Hereby accepted.

3. Accepted in 1, 17 and hereby accepted.

4. Accepted in 14-16.

5. Accepted in 2, 23, 47-48 and hereby accepted.

6. Accepted in 11, 13, 18-19 and hereby accepted.

7. Accepted in 25 and hereby accepted.

8. Accepted in 25, 28 and hereby accepted.

9. Accepted in 31-32 and hereby accepted.

10. Accepted in 33-38 and hereby accepted.

11. Accepted in 34.

12. Accepted in 38.

13. Accepted in 33 and 46-48.

19 See 23 and 46-48.

20 Accepted in 23 and 43-48.

31 Cumulative.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Harold and Charlotte Toms 11364 West Indian Woods Path Crystal River, Florida 34428

Clark A. Stillwell, Esquire BRANNEN, STILLWELL & PERRIN, P.A.

Post Office Box 250

Inverness, Florida 34451-0250

Keith C. Hetrick Assistant General Counsel 2600 Blair Stone Road

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400

Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road

Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400

Kenneth Plante, Esquire General Counsel

Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road

Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this Recommended Order. All agencies allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should 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.

================================================================= ORDER DENYING AMENDED MOTION TO TAX COSTS AND REASONABLE FEES

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

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HAROLD AND CHARLOTTE TOMS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 93-5724

) STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ) ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION and ) SPRINGS ON KINGS BAY, )

)

Respondent. )

)

ORDER DENYING AMENDED MOTION TO TAX COSTS AND REASONABLE FEES

Springs on Kings Bay filed an application with Respondent, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (formerly the Department of Environmental Regulation), for a dredge and fill permit allowing it to construct a twelve-slip dock facility. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), issued an Intent to Issue the requested permit on or about July 22, 1993. The Petitioners, Harold and Charlotte Toms, filed a challenge to the Department's proposed decision to issue the permit.

On September 22, 1993, the Department filed a Request for Assignment of Hearing Officer and Notice of Preservation of Record with the Division of Administrative Hearings requesting assignment of a Hearing Officer. The matter was designated case number 93-5724 and was assigned to P. Michael Ruff. The case was subsequently reassigned to the undersigned. A formal administrative hearing was scheduled for March 2, 1994.

At the time scheduled for the commencement of the final hearing the Petitioners failed to appear. The Petitioners were contacted be telephone to determine if they intended to participate in the final hearing. Charlotte Toms indicated that she intended to attend and appeared an hour after the time scheduled for the commencement of the final hearing. Harold Toms did not appear. Ms. Toms indicated that she had not received the Notice of Hearing.

No continuance of the hearing was requested by Ms. Toms. Therefore, the hearing proceeded and was completed on March 2, 1994.

On April 6, 1994, a Recommended Order was entered recommending that the Department enter a Final Order dismissing the petition in this case and issuing permit number 09-207432-3 to Springs on Kings Bay.

On May 12, 1994, Springs on Kings Bay filed a Motion to Tax Costs and Reasonable Attorney's Fees. An Affidavit for Attorney's Fees was also filed.

On May 19, 1994, a copy of the Final Order entered in this case was filed. The Recommended Order entered in this case was accepted in its entirety by the Department by the Final Order.

On June 3, 1994, Petitioners filed Petitioners Objection to Tax Costs and Attorney's Fees. On June 14, 1994, Springs on Kings Bay filed Springs on Kings Bay's Amended Petition to Tax Costs and Reasonable Fees and Response to Petitioners' Objection to Taxing Fees.

In the original motion Springs on Kings Bay has requested an award of fees pursuant to Section 120.59(6), Florida Statutes, in the amount of $9,925.00 plus costs of $122.74. In support of the motion, Springs of Kings Bay has cited several incidents in this case in paragraph 4 of the motion and has pointed to other litigation the Petitioners have been involved in with parties other than Springs of Kings Bay.

In the amended motion, Springs of Kings Bay has requested that the award of fees be increased by $1,742.00 for expert witness bills.

Section 120.59(6)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes, provide:

(b) In any proceeding pursuant to s. 120.57(1), a prevailing party shall be entitled to

recover costs from the nonprevailing adverse party, and shall also be entitled to recover a reasonable attorney fee, as provided herein. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to a prevailing or nonprevailing party that is an agency.

(b) The final order in a proceeding pursuant to s 120.57(1) shall award costs and a reasonable attorney fee to the prevailing party only where the nonprevailing adverse party has been determined by the hearing officer to have participated in the proceeding for an improper purpose.

The Petitioners' are a "nonprevailing adverse party." Section 120.59(6)(e)3., Florida Statutes. Springs of Kings Bay is a "prevailing party." At issue is whether the Petitioners "participated in the proceeding for an improper purpose."

While there is no doubt that Petitioners, who are pro se, litigants, are not legally trained and, consequently, displayed an extreme lack of understanding of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, their actions in this case, and the alleged actions with entities and persons other than Springs on Kings Bay, do not support a conclusion that they "participated in the proceeding for an improper purpose."

The incidents described in paragraph 4.(a) and (b), are common occurrences in cases before the Division of Administrative Hearings. The rest of the incidents also failed to support a conclusion that the Petitioners acted for an improper purpose.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the Motion and Amended Motion to Tax Costs and Reasonable Attorney's Fees filed by Springs on Kings Bay are DENIED.

DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of August, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida.

LARRY J. SARTIN

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 5th day of August, 1994.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Harold and Charlotte Toms 11364 West Indian Woods Path Crystal River, Florida 34428

and

Route 4-A, R.R. #2 Box 431-G

Enfield, New Hampshire 03748

Clark A. Stillwell, Esquire BRANNEN, STILLWELL & PERRIN, P.A.

Post Office Box 250

Inverness, Florida 34451-0250

Keith C. Hetrick Assistant General Counsel 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, Esquire General Counsel

Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400

Docket for Case No: 93-005724

Orders for Case No: 93-005724