The Issue Whether the Respondent is in violation of Sections 479.07(1)(4)(6) and 479.11(1), Florida Statutes. Whether subject signs violate state and federal laws and should be removed.
Findings Of Fact The following described sign is located in an unzoned area and violates the set back requirements being closer than 660 feet from the nearest edge of the road right-of-way: Highway: I-10 Location: 6/10 of a mile west of State Road 81 south side of I-10 Copy: Fina Gas-Diesel-Exit 1/2 Mile then Left Notice of violation regarding subject sign was properly sent by the Department of Transportation and received by the Respondent. No application was made prior the the erection of the subject sign, and the sign has been refused a permit. Mr. Curtis A. Miller, Jr., the President and major stockholder of Curt Miller Oil Company, Inc. in good faith discussed the erection of the subject sign with the councilmen and Mayor of Ponce de Leon, Florida, and proceeded to erect his sign without first obtaining a permit from the Department of Transportation. The Respondent contends that the sign is needed, that he spent a large amount of money on the erection and that he thought the sign would be in a properly zoned area at the time the erection was completed. Respondent admits that the sign at the time of the hearing is in violation of the set back requirements of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner contends that it refused to permit the sign inasmuch as the set back was less than 660 feet from the nearest edge of the right-of-way of an interstate highway.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that the Department take no action against the subject sign. DONE and ORDERED this 4th day of June, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Frank H. King, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James P. Appleman, Esquire 206 Market Street Post Office Box 385 Marianna, Florida 32446 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 78-2368T HENDERSON SIGNS, Respondent. /
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Pact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer would recommend that the agency head enter a final order permitting the voluntary removal of the entire structure within 30 days of the date of the agency head's final order, and directing employees of the Department of Transportation to remove the structure after the 30-day period without compensation to the owner. DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of October, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James P. Appleman, Esquire 206 Market Street Post Office Box 385 Marianna, Florida 32446
Findings Of Fact Petitioner acquired a lease on property along S.R. 580 in Hillsborough County for the purpose of erecting a outdoor advertising sign thereon. Petitioner obtained approval from Respondent to place this sign at a location slightly more than 500 feet from an existing sign on the same side of the road facing in the same direction. Petitioner hired a small contractor to erect the sign without sending a representative to the site to ensure the sign was properly located. The contractor erected the sign on the wrong side of a driveway into the property leased so the sign, instead of being more than 500 feet from an existing sign, is some 472-474 feet from this sign on the same side of the highway and facing in the same direction. The cost of moving the sign to the correct location is estimated at $10,000. This petition in effect seeks a waiver of the 500-foot spacing requirement.
Findings Of Fact On or about August 11, 1987, Respondent owned a sign advertising the business which was located on the DOT right-of-way along U.S. 41 in Pasco County. When Respondent moved into its present location it placed some of its castings on display on the right-of-way alongside its business. The co-owner was told by the Deputy Sheriff that the castings had to be removed from the right-of-way but it was all right to leave the sign on the DOT right-of-way. Accordingly, until the sign was cited for the violation, Respondent thought its sign was legally erected.
Findings Of Fact On July 20, 1987, a DOT sign inspector observed a sign owned by Respondent alongside U.S. 19, 500 feet south of S.R. 590 which appeared to be on the DOT right-of-way of U.S. 19. Measurements of the distance of the sign from the pavement of U.S. 19 were taken. The right-of-way of U.S. 19 at this location extends 100 feet east and west of the centerline of U.S. 19 and 50 feet from the west side of the pavement. The sign was located 32 feet from the edge of the pavement on the west side of U.S. 19 some 18 feet inside the right-of-way line. The location of the DOT right-of-way is not readily determinable by a businessman desiring to erect a sign in front of his establishment. Generally, the power line poles are placed along the right-of-way line; however, this is not always an accurate method of locating the limit of the right-of-way. Here there were two lines of power line poles, and the sign was located between the pavement and the line of poles furthermost west of U.S. 19.
Findings Of Fact On or about January 11, a DOT sign inspector observed two signs owned by Respondent on what appeared to be the right-of-way of U.S. 19 in the vicinity of C.R. 576 in Pinellas County. The right-of-way of U.S. 19 at this location extends 100 feet east and west of the centerline of U.S. 19 and 50 feet east and west of the edge she paved surface of U.S. 19. U.S. 19 is a Federal Aid Primary Highway and part of the State Highway System Measurements were taken on the distance from the edge of the paved surface of U.S. 19 to the signs. The sign located 500 feet south of C.R. 576 was 35 feet from the edge of the pavement, and the sign 0.1 mile south of C.R. 576 was 38 feet from the edge of the pavement. On or about January 27, 1988, the DOT sign inspector observed a sign 0.75 mile south of C.R. 592 owned by Respondent on what appeared to be the right-of-way of U.S. 19 in Pinellas County. The right-of-way of U.S. 19 in this location is the same as in Finding No. 2 above. Measurements taken of this sign from the edge of the pavement showed the sign to be 38 feet from the edge of the paved surface of U.S. 19, placing the sign some 12 feet inside the right-of-way boundary. Respondent submitted photographs of other signs which appeared to be on the right-of-way of U.S. 19 in the vicinity of Respondent's signs which were not cited for being on the right-of-way. However, during the past year some 2,000 violations have been issued citing signs, principally along U.S. 19, with being located on the right-of-way.
Findings Of Fact The sign which is the subject of this proceeding is an outdoor advertising structure owned by the Respondent. It was erected on October 28, 1982, and is located on the south side of Douglas Road, 132 feet east of the edge of U.S. 1, in the City of Miami, Florida. The Respondent's sign is situated so as to be read by eastbound traffic on Douglas Road. Douglas Road is an uncontrolled road, in that it is not a Federal-Aid Primary Highway. The Respondent's sign also faces so as to be visible to traffic travelling south on U.S. 1, and it can be read by this traffic. The subject sign is 51 feet from another sign located on the east side of U.S. 1, facing so as to be read by traffic travelling south on U.S. 1, which is permitted by the Department of Transportation. The subject sign is also 403 feet from another permitted sign located further south on the east side of U.S. 1, and facing so as to be visible to traffic travelling south on U.S. 1. U.S. 1, is a Federal-Aid Primary Highway throughout Dade County, and it was open to the public when the Respondent's sign was erected. The Respondent's sign does not have an outdoor advertising permit.
Recommendation From the foregoing Findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter its order requiring the removal of the sign of Empire Outdoor Advertising, Inc., located on the south side of Douglas Road, 132 feet east of U.S. 1, in Miami, Florida. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 15 day of August, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of August, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32312-8064 L. Martin Reeder, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 2637 Palm Beach, Florida 33480 Paul A. Pappas, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the Respondent is in violation of s. 479.07(1), Florida Statutes, a law which requires that a permit be applied for, granted, and renewed each year as a regulation for outdoor advertising in the State of Florida.
Findings Of Fact The following described sign had no valid permit tag for the years 1974-1975, 1976-1977: A two-faced sign, one face north and one face south, located on SR 33 at the junction of SR 48 with copy "Clear Lake Campground". Notice of violation regarding the subject sign was properly sent by the Department of Transportation and received by the Respondent. A hearing was requested by the Respondent through Linda Vernon, Wildwood, Florida. A notice was duly sent and the time set for 10:00 A.M. The hearing officer postponed this hearing until 1:00 P.M. awaiting the arrival of a representative of the Respondent. There was no appearance.
Recommendation Remove subject signs ten (10) days after date of final order unless said signs are previously removed by the Respondent. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of June, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. O. E. Black, Administrator Outdoor Advertising Section Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Philip Bennett, Esquire Office of Legal Operations Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Mr. C. W. Lichtenberger Post Office Box 47 DeLand, Florida 32720
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Bradford County meets the criteria listed in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-330.051(4)(e) for a road repair exemption.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, the stipulations of the parties, and the evidentiary record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Parties Dr. Still resides at 14167 Southwest 101st Avenue, Starke, Florida. That property abuts work that was performed pursuant to the Exemption. The District is a water management district created by section 373.069(1), Florida Statutes. It has the responsibility to conserve, protect, manage, and control the water resources within its geographic boundaries. See § 373.069(2)(a), Fla. Stat. The District, in concert with the Department of Environmental Protection, is authorized to administer and enforce chapter 373, and rules promulgated thereunder in chapter 62-330, regarding activities in surface waters of the state. The District is the permitting authority in this proceeding and issued the Exemption to the County. The County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. The County is responsible for keeping county roads and structures within its boundary in good repair and for establishing the width and grade of such roads and structures. §§ 334.03(8) and 336.02(1)(a), Fla. Stat. 101st Avenue, a dirt road, was constructed decades ago and runs in a general north/south direction for several miles. It was in existence, publicly used, and under County maintenance long before January 1, 2002. Dr. Still acknowledged that when he purchased his property in 1996, the road was publicly used and was being maintained by the County. The centerline of 101st Avenue has existed in its current position as long as Mr. Welch, the Bradford County surveyor, has been familiar with the property, since at least 1996. The County owns and is allowed to use a 60-foot right-of-way (“ROW”) extending 30 feet to either side of the centerline. The driving surface of 101st Avenue has consistently been from 20 to 22 feet in width, with drainage structures extending further into the ROW. The evidence was convincing that 101st Avenue was regularly maintained or repaired by the County for more than seven years prior to the Exemption. The evidence was equally convincing that, during that period, the width of the road that actually has been maintained or repaired is substantially -- if not identically -- the same as the width of 101st Avenue after the road repairs under the Exemption were completed. 101st Avenue was, prior to the exempt road repair work, “very wet” during rainy periods, and cars and trucks would routinely get stuck in the mud. Mr. Welch testified credibly that 101st Avenue was “a mess” even before the events that led to the work covered by the Exemption. It is reasonable to conclude that the driving surface of 101st Avenue may have shifted by a matter of feet in either direction over the years prior to the exempt road repairs, which would have generally been the result of persons driving off of the driving surface to escape impassable areas, and of the imprecision inherent in grading a dirt road with a large motor grader. The evidence established that the County has maintained 101st Avenue at a location as close to the established centerline as possible, and has not intentionally moved or realigned 101st Avenue from its historic location. Mr. Welch was very familiar with 101st Avenue, having used it numerous times, including during the period leading up to the events that precipitated the road repair work at issue. He testified to two surveys he performed of the area, first in 1996, and again in the vicinity of the Still property in May 2017. He testified that 101st Avenue was under County ownership and maintenance prior to his first survey in 1996. Photographic evidence offered by Dr. Still showed 101st Avenue to be significantly degraded near his property for several years leading up to 2017. Turbidity of the waters passing alongside and under 101st Avenue was “a long ongoing issue with this road,” dating back to at least 2015. 101st Avenue “was in pretty poor shape” in January 2017. Cars would routinely go around wet areas on the driving surface and possibly onto Dr. Still’s property. That gave the appearance of a change in the eastern ROW. Over a period of years prior to the Exemption work, the ROW may have crept eastward as the road was graded, ditches were maintained, and residential traffic diverted around impassable areas. The shift could have been as much as 10 to 15 feet, but the evidence establishing such was neither precise nor compelling. However, even if the ROW shifted over time, the movement was not the result of intentional operation and maintenance by County staff, but was a gradual, unintentional movement over time. Such a gradual shift is common with dirt and limerock roads. Furthermore, the alignment of the travel surface was stable, and was always within the 60-foot ROW, although the stormwater structures may have gone beyond the ROW. In August 2017, a series of storm events caused 101st Avenue to be flooded. Dr. Still testified that the existing road and ditches and most of the areas adjacent to his property were “destroyed” by continued public use after the August 2017 rain event. He believed there was no way to ascertain the alignment of 101st Avenue. Around September 10, 2017, Hurricane Irma impacted the County, causing substantial flooding and damaging numerous dirt and limerock roads in the County, including 101st Avenue. 101st Avenue was partially damaged from flooded conditions, and rendered completely impassable at places along its path, which led motorists to drive off of the established roadway onto adjacent properties to get through. The diversion of traffic off of the road surface was due to the personal decisions of the public using the road, and was not the result of any direction, operation, or maintenance by County staff. 14 After Hurricane Irma, Governor Scott issued emergency orders that allowed local governments to undertake necessary repairs to roadways. The County issued similar emergency orders.1 In November 2017, Mr. Welch performed a survey to establish the alignment of the road. 101st Avenue was partially repaired consistent with the survey and pursuant to the emergency orders, with the work beginning in December 2017. As the work to repair 101st Avenue was proceeding, Dr. Still asserted that the ROW encroached onto his property. He and Mr. Welch walked the property line, noted that the ROW appeared to extend across a fence installed on the west side of 101st Avenue, and staked the disputed area. Though the County believed it was working within its ROW, it decided, more as a matter of convenience to avoid the time and expense of litigation, to purchase the disputed area. Thereafter, on January 5, 2018, the County purchased 1.78 acres of property from Dr. Still, which was incorporated into the County ROW.2 The purchase of the property, and establishment of the undisputed ROW, was completed well before the December 23, 2019, filing of the Petition. The travel surface of the road remained within the prescriptive and historical ROW. The “footprint” of 101st Avenue was the same before and after the road repair work. Dr. Still admitted that the road had not “physically moved.” However, he believes that the County’s use of the 1 Since the Exemption work was largely (and lawfully) performed under the emergency orders, the County’s Exemption application was filed after the repair work had begun on 101st Avenue, and is considered an after-the-fact application. The application for the Exemption was originally filed pursuant to rules 62-330.051(4)(b) and (e). The County thereafter withdrew its request for an exemption pursuant to rule 62-330.051(4)(b), and limited its Exemption to rule 62-330.051(4)(e), which establishes the standards at issue in this proceeding. The District’s December 10, 2019, proposed agency action granted the Exemption for resurfacing the entirety of the length of 101st Avenue. 2 The evidence was not sufficient to establish that the ROW actually encroached onto Dr. Still’s property. It is equally plausible that the fence encroached into the 101st Avenue ROW. Nonetheless, the issue was -- or should have been -- resolved when the County agreed to pay Dr. Still to extinguish any plausible claim to the property in dispute. 1.78 acres of purchased property for the ROW constitutes a realignment of 101st Avenue. From an engineering perspective, as long as a road surface is within an established ROW, and there has been no intentional change in its direction or trajectory, the road is not “realigned.” The evidence established that 101st Avenue remained within its established ROW, and there was no intentional change in its direction or trajectory from the repair work. The work performed under the exemption involved grading 101st Avenue along its entire length, and applying asphalt millings and a sealant to stabilize the travel surface. The asphalt millings placed on the 101st Avenue travel surface were applied on top of the “as-is” existing limerock. The millings provided structure and stability to the travel lanes, and eliminated erosion and the large muddy bogs that were a feature of the road during the rainy season and after storms. There was no persuasive evidence that the millings materially raised the height of the road travel surface. Mr. Rischar testified that 101st Avenue, after the road repair work, is now in good condition and intact. The asphalt millings are not “loose” but are bound together. The work stabilized the roadbed, provided structural integrity, and improved water quality as compared to a simple graded road. His testimony is accepted. Dr. Still produced several photographs depicting a small pile of dirt near a roadside ditch near the drainage culvert under 101st Avenue. The pile pre-dated the Exemption work. Ms. Diaz testified that the mounds had been “taken care of,” and they do not appear in any post-Exemption photographs. There was no evidence of any excavated material having been deposited at or near the Still property from the exempt road repair work. As part of the Exemption work, drainage structures were incorporated to receive and convey stormwater from the road surface. Rule 62- 330.051(4)(e)5. requires that work performed under a road repair exemption incorporate “[r]oadside swales or other effective means of stormwater treatment.” The evidence was not sufficient to demonstrate that the stormwater structures incorporated along 101st Avenue met the stringent criteria for “swales” as set forth in the Applicant’s Handbook, Volume II, §§ 5.5.1 and 5.5.2. However, the testimony was convincing that the drainage work incorporated into the road repairs was an “other effective means of stormwater treatment.” Dr. Still’s testimony as a “citizen scientist” was not sufficient to overcome the expert testimony offered by the County and the District. During the initial phases of the work, when the County was acting under the post-Irma emergency orders, the County had not installed silt fences. Dr. Still complained to the County, and silt fences and turbidity curtains were installed. Dr. Still admitted that they “functioned fairly well.” The silt fences and turbidity curtains were installed prior to the December 23, 2019, filing of the Petition. The turbidity curtains and silt screens met best management practices (“BMPs”). BMPs are generally construction-related practices, and are not designed for the “operation” of a facility after conditions have stabilized. Compliance with BMPs is intended to demonstrate compliance with water quality standards. Ms. Carr directed the County to remove the turbidity control curtains prior to her last inspection since the area had stabilized. While photographic evidence depicted differences in the appearance of water in the roadside ditches from that flowing under the road from forested areas to the west, the photographs were not sufficient to establish violations of state water quality standards for turbidity. A turbidity violation is, by definition, a reading of 29 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTUs) over background as measured by a meter. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-302.530(69). Ms. Carr testified credibly that one cannot gauge water quality from a picture, and that the photographs she took on her December 20, 2018, site visit did not depict the conditions “in real life.” District employees who visited the area, including Ms. Carr, saw nothing that raised water quality concerns. The appearance of the water in photographs is not sufficient to demonstrate that the County failed to control turbidity, sedimentation, and erosion during and after construction to prevent violations of state water quality standards due to construction-related activities. Dr. Still was critical of the District inspectors for failing to take turbidity samples using calibrated meters. However, he did not take such samples himself, and was not able to offer proof of any violation of water quality standards due to the exempt road repairs. Rule 62-330.050(9)(b)5., read in conjunction with rule 62- 330.051(4)(e)8., provides that the “construction, alteration, and operation” of exempt road repair work shall not “[c]ause or contribute to a violation of state water quality standards,” and that “[t]urbidity, sedimentation, and erosion shall be controlled during and after construction to prevent violations of state water quality standards.” The rules establish that the standards and conditions apply to the exempt work being performed, and not to conditions in the area that may have existed prior to the exempt work. The issue of turbidity, though discussed at length during the hearing, was resolved conclusively when Dr. Still admitted that turbidity was not made worse by the road repairs. Furthermore, a preponderance of the evidence established that the structure and stability provided to the travel lanes improved the turbidity and sedimentation that pre-dated the road repair, and reduced erosion of the road, not only by the repair of the road itself, but by eliminating the need to drive off of the road surface to avoid and bypass impassable areas. The Exemption work included the replacement of a culvert under 101st Avenue. At some time between January 8, 2018, and January 19, 2018, an existing 30-inch culvert was removed and replaced with two 24-inch culverts. Dr. Still complained that the 24-inch culverts were resulting in flooding of his property. Therefore, on or about December 17, 2019, prior to the December 23, 2019, filing of the Petition, the 24-inch culverts were removed, and a 30-inch culvert was installed to match the size and capacity of the previously existing culvert, and return the area to its pre-existing condition. There was no evidence that the current 30-inch culvert has resulted in any flooding. Since the 30-inch culvert reestablished the pre-Exemption condition, a strong inference is drawn that the exempt work will not “cause adverse water quantity or flooding impacts to receiving water and adjacent lands.” Rather, the evidence establishes that water quantity impacts, if any, were in existence prior to the exempt road repairs.3 The work was not related to the alteration or maintenance of a “culverted roadway crossing,” despite the culvert work. Thus, the previous inclusion of rule 62-330.051(4)(b) as a basis for the County’s Exemption request was withdrawn. The District accepted that withdrawal, and its notice of Exemption did not include any reference to the culvert. As indicated in the Preliminary Statement and the amended disposition of the Motion in Limine, the road repair Exemption does not explicitly address culvert replacement. Therefore, any allegation that the replacement of the culvert was a violation of District permitting standards must be taken up with the District as an exercise of its enforcement discretion, and is not an issue in this proceeding. Dr. Still produced photographs that were described as depicting “sediment” that was deposited along a “canal” on his property between 101st Avenue and a cleared utility easement. To the extent the photographs depicted sediment as described, which was not visually apparent, they were not sufficient to prove when any such sediment was deposited, or whether the sediment was related to the road repairs performed under the Exemption. 3 Again, simplistically, work performed under the road repair exemption is not designed to make pre-existing water quality and water quantity issues better, it just cannot make those conditions worse. Mr. Rischar testified convincingly that there was no scientific data to support a determination that there are water quality issues, including turbidity, at the roadway. Dr. Still produced photographs of the post-Exemption condition of 101st Avenue with several comparatively tiny depressions that, if never maintained, would presumably develop into potholes. Despite the nascent depressions, the road appeared to be vastly improved from its condition prior to the repairs, as evidenced by Dr. Still’s pre-Irma photographs. Mr. Rischar testified credibly that any roadway, from the least developed dirt road to the most highly developed interstate highway can, and does, develop holes in the travel surface over time. For that reason, governmental bodies, including the County, maintain roads, including 101st Avenue. The photographs provide no support for a finding that the exempt road repairs have resulted in any violation of a standard in either rule 62-330.051(4)(e)8. or rule 62- 330.050(9)(b)5. The evidence established that 101st Avenue was regularly maintained and repaired by the County for more than seven years prior to the Exemption, and that the road repairs did not realign, expand the number of traffic lanes, or alter the width of the existing road. The evidence established that the work performed under the Exemption did not realign 101st Avenue. The repairs to 101st Avenue included work reasonably necessary to repair and stabilize the road using generally accepted roadway design standards. The evidence demonstrates that no excavated material related to the work under the Exemption was placed at or near Dr. Still’s property or, for that matter, anywhere along 101st Avenue. The evidence established that the repairs to 101st Avenue did not adversely impound or obstruct existing water flow, cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities, or otherwise cause adverse water quantity or flooding impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands. The evidence was not sufficient to establish that the road repair work caused or contributed to a violation of state water quality standards. Ultimate Findings of Fact The greater weight of the competent substantial evidence establishes that 101st Avenue was in existence long before January 1, 2002, has been publicly used since that time, and has been regularly maintained and repaired by the County for more than seven years prior to the Exemption. Evidence to the contrary was not persuasive. The greater weight of the competent substantial evidence establishes that during its relevant period of existence, the width of 101st Avenue that actually has been maintained or repaired is substantially -- if not identically - - the same as the width of 101st Avenue after the road repairs under the Exemption were completed. The work performed under the Exemption did not realign or expand the number of traffic lanes of 101st Avenue. The repairs to 101st Avenue included work reasonably necessary to repair and stabilize the road using generally accepted roadway design standards. Evidence to the contrary was not persuasive. The greater weight of the competent substantial evidence establishes that no excavated material related to the work under the Exemption was placed at or near Dr. Still’s property or, for that matter, anywhere along 101st Avenue. Evidence to the contrary was not persuasive. The greater weight of the competent substantial evidence establishes that the repairs to 101st Avenue did not adversely impound or obstruct existing water flow, cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities, or otherwise cause adverse water quantity or flooding impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands. Evidence to the contrary was not persuasive. The greater weight of the competent substantial evidence establishes that the road repair work incorporated effective means of stormwater treatment, and did not cause or contribute to a violation of state water quality standards. Evidence to the contrary was not persuasive. The greater weight of the competent substantial evidence establishes that turbidity, sedimentation, and erosion were controlled during and after construction, and continue to be controlled, to prevent violations of state water quality standards. Erosion and sediment control BMPs were installed and maintained in accordance with applicable guidelines and specifications. Evidence to the contrary was not persuasive.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Suwannee River Water Management District enter a final order: Approving the December 10, 2019, Environmental Resource Permit (ERP): Exemption, ERP-007-233697-2, determining that activities related to the repair of Southwest 101st Avenue in Bradford County, Florida, met the criteria to be an exempt activity pursuant to rule 62-330.051(4)(e); and Taking such action pursuant to section 120.595(1) as it deems appropriate. The undersigned retains jurisdiction to determine the award of costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant to section 120.595(1)(d), if the final order makes such an award and the case is remanded by the Suwannee River Water Management District to DOAH for that purpose. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of November, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of November, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: George T. Reeves, Esquire Davis, Schnitker, Reeves and Browning, P.A. Post Office Drawer 652 Madison, Florida 32341 (eServed) Paul Edward Still 14167 Southwest 101st Avenue Starke, Florida 32091 (eServed) Frederick T. Reeves, Esquire Frederick T. Reeves, P.A. 5709 Tidalwave Drive New Port Richey, Florida 34562 (eServed) William Edward Sexton, County Attorney Bradford County, Florida 945 North Temple Avenue Post Office Drawer B Starke, Florida 32091 (eServed) Hugh L. Thomas, Executive Director Suwannee River Water Management District 9225 County Road 49 Live Oak, Florida 32060 (eServed)
