Findings Of Fact The City of Boynton Beach, Florida, filed application number 24859 with the South Florida Water Management District (formerly the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District) for an annual allocation of 3.89 billion gallons (10.7 mgd) for a public water supply system for its service area of 18,351 acres for a period of ten years. The application was dated February 26, 1976. A supplemental engineering report was submitted on April 26, 1977, and a water withdrawal management plan on August 18, 1977. The delay in completing the documentation for the application was due to the applicant's completion of a test well program and hydrogeological evaluation of the aquifer capability of the 34 acre tract known as the "Jarvis Property," the proposed site of eight future wells. (Composite Exhibit 1) The existing raw water supply system for Boynton Beach consists of four separate well fields, comprising a total of 14 wells with a total rated capacity of 9700 gpm. Wells 1 through 5 were built during the period 1946-1958. Wells 6 through 11 were built from 1961-1973, and wells 12 through 14 were completed in 1976. The application seeks approval for eight additional wells, numbers 16 through 22 to be located on the "Jarvis Tract." It is proposed that wells numbers 15 and 16 be built immediately upon approval of the application and that the remaining six new wells be constructed at a rate of two per year through 1982, subject to demand. The city presently operates a water treatment plant with a treatment capacity of 8 mgd and is expanding that facility to a capacity of 16 mgd. It is anticipated that this expansion and the new well field will meet projected water demands in the service area through 1987. (Testimony of Swan, Composite Exhibit 1, Exhibit 2) The Applicant's present wells tap the shallow aquifer overlying the Hawthorne formation. These wells range in depths from 54 to 115 feet below ground surface. The planned wells will reach 180 to 230 foot depths. The shallow aquifer is largely recharged by local precipitation and a surface canal system. There are two major canals located near the Applicant's well fields in distances ranging from directly adjacent to approximately one mile. Canal E-4 is located on the western boundary of the proposed Jarvis well field which would provide direct recharge in the area. Withdrawal of water from wells number 1-5 had to be curtailed due to a landward movement of the freshwater/saltwater interface. The wells at present are used for emergency standby purposes only. After wells number 12-14 were put into operation, it was discovered that the withdrawals affected residential shallow irrigation wells nearby. Three of the residents have filed objections to the application for this reason. This problem will be resolved by the development of the Jarvis well field which will allow curtailment of pumpage from wells numbers 12-14. Well number 14 presently is not in operation due to an unknown polluted condition. The curtailment of use of wells 1-5 will aid in controlling any salt water intrusion. A U.S. Geological Survey saltwater monitoring well in the area indicates that there has not been any net landward movement of the saltwater/freshwater interface in the shallow aquifer since 1973. The Applicant's water withdrawal management plan which will substantially reduce the pumpage from wells 6-14 will also reduce the threat of saltwater intrusion by maintaining the aquifer water levels in the area at a higher elevation. (Exhibits 2-4, 6, Testimony of Gresh, Higgins, Kiebler) The City of Boynton Beach currently has a population of 51,000 and it is projected that by 1987 the population will reach 71,000 which is the maximum limit of its water treatment facilities. The city plans to build a new treatment plant and well field in the western portion of the area when the capacity of the current and proposed well fields are reached. It would be uneconomic to place the currently proposed well field in that area due to the requirement of building a raw water line for a distance of approximately four miles. (Composite Exhibit 1, Testimony of Cessna) The South Florida Water Management District staff recommends that the application be approved in its entirety for a period of ten years, subject to 18 special conditions which are acceptable to the Applicant. The district staff concluded that sufficient water is available in the Applicant's area to support the 1987 level of withdrawals and that the proposed consumption rate reflects a reasonable use of water. The staff further found that there would be a minimal impact on existing users in the area and that westward lateral intrusion of saltwater from the coastline will be reduced. (Exhibit 2-3, Testimony of Higgins)
Recommendation That the application be approved and that a water use permit be issued to the Applicant pursuant to application number 24859 for a ten year allocation of 3.8 billion gallons, subject to the special conditions recommended by the South Florida Water Management District staff. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of February, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Gene Moore, Esquire City Attorney City of Boynton Beach Post Office Box 310 Boynton Beach, Florida 33425 THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Steve Walker, Esquire 3301 Gun Club Road Post Office Box 3858 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402
Findings Of Fact Mr. George Szell was presented by the Southwest Florida Water Management District and sworn as a witness. Mr. Szell was qualified and accepted as an expert hydrogeologist employed by the District. Included within Mr. Szell's responsibilities to the District were evaluation of the subject application. An application for consumptive use permit has been filed in proper from by Trafalgar Developers of Florida, Inc., and it was admitted into evidence as Exhibit 1. The water source are two existing wells located on a 580.1 acre tract of land in Hillsborough County, Florida, legal description of which is included and admitted into evidence as part of Exhibit 1. A maximum daily withdrawal of each of the wells is 591,700 gallons and the average daily withdrawal of each of the two wells is 295,850 gallons. The total average daily withdrawal for both wells combined is 591,700 gallons, or 94.43 percent of the water crop of the applicant as defined in Section 16J-2.11(3), F.A.C. 85 percent of the water used would be used for general residential purposes and 15 percent of the water used would be used for watering the grounds of the development. Letters of objection were received from Joseph and Roseamn Clements, C. C. and Ida M. Weisner, Sr.,. Miguel and Juanita Perez, Howard R. Lewis, Mr. and Mrs. Lonnie F. Lovell, Stephen J. KucIar (sic), and Carmen Vasquez. Reasons for the objections as stated in these letters was the effect the pending application would have upon the wells of the persons objecting. Mr. Szell testified that none of the matter set forth in Subsection 16J-2.11(2), (3) and (4), F.A.C. exists so as to require the denial of the permit. Mr. Earl Bessent testified that 55 acres of holding ponds were to be constructed on the property during the development and that the effect of these holding ponds would be to increase the input of waters from the 580 acres to the surface aquifer.
Recommendation It is recommended that Application No. 7500087, submitted by Trafalgar Developers of Florida, Inc., 111 Fountainbleau Boulevard, Miami, Florida, be granted for a maximum daily withdrawal of 1,183,400 gallons and an average daily withdrawal of 591,700 gallons, subject to the installation of flow meters on each of the wells and monthly readings thereof reported to the District quarterly. Entered this 4th day of August, 1975, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: J. T. Ahern, Esquire C. C. and Ida Weismer, Sr. Staff Attorney Route 7, Box 635-J Southwest Florida Water Tampa, Florida 33614 Management District Post Office Box 457 Miguel and Juanita Perez Brooksville, Florida 33501 Route 7, Box 635-K Tampa, Florida 33614 Trafalgar Developers of Florida, Inc. Mr. and Mrs. Lonnie Lovell 111 Fountainbleau Boulevard Route 5, Box 485-A Miami, Florida 33126 Tampa, Florida 33614 Howard R. Lewis Carmen Vasquez Route 5, box 485-AB Route 7, Box 635 Tampa, Florida 33614 Tampa, Florida 33615 Mr. Earl Bessent Bessent, Hammack & Ruckman, Inc. 3708 Swann Avenue Tampa, Florida 33609 Joseph and Roseann Clememts Route 7, Box 634-J Tampa, Florida 33614
Recommendation The Hearing Officer having considered the law and the facts would recommend denial of the application. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of February, 1976. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Jay T. Ahern, Esquire Counsel for SWFWMD Willian J. Wiegand =================================================================
The Issue The issue is whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B- 33.005(3)(a) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority for the reasons alleged by Petitioners.
Findings Of Fact Austin is the owner of real property located at 1580 Indian Pass Road, Port St. Joe, Florida. Heslin is the owner of real property located at 1530 Indian Pass Road, Port St. Joe, Florida. Lighthouse is the applicant for a coastal construction control line (CCCL) permit for structures and activities proposed to occur on property located adjacent to Austin’s property. Heslin’s property is located within 500 feet of the proposed project site. The property for which the CCCL permit is sought is located landward of the mean high water line (MHWL). On January 31, 2006, the Department gave notice of issuance of a CCCL permit to Lighthouse. The proposed permit authorizes activities 228 feet seaward of the CCCL, specifically, the construction of a subdivision roadway/cul-de- sac including asphalt and limerock foundation, excavation of soil, filling of soil, ornamental street lights, stormwater management swales, below grade utilities, and dune enhancement plantings. Lighthouse obtained a subdivision plat for the site from Gulf County, Florida, on June 28, 2005, which includes 12 platted lots seaward of the CCCL, each approximately one quarter acre in size. When issuing the CCCL permit, the Department did not consider the platted subdivision that will be serviced by the permitted roadway project. Austin filed a petition challenging the issuance of the CCCL permit to Lighthouse. The challenge is styled Gloria Austin v. Lighthouse Walk, LLC and Department of Environmental Protection, DOAH Case No. 06-1186 (hereafter “the Permit Challenge”), and is pending before Judge Alexander. Heslin sought and was granted leave to intervene in the Permit Challenge. Paragraphs 6, 10, and 18 of the Petition for Formal Administrative Proceeding (Petition) in the Permit Challenge state as follows: 6. The proposed subdivision that is intended to be built by Lighthouse, will result in incompatible high density residential development seaward of the costal control line and seaward of the Petitioners’ homes. The incompatible and inappropriate nature of this subdivision will greatly increase the danger of Petitioners’ homes being damages by storm driven debris in the event of a major storm event such as a hurricane occurring in this area. * * * The area in question on Cape San Blas is presently developed in very low density single family home sites. The proposed development would create high density development seaward of the coastal construction control line for which construction is totally unnecessary and could easily be greatly minimized. The parcel in question could accommodate a residential subdivision without encroaching seaward of the present coastal construction and control line. In light of the above, it is clear the project violates Rule 62B- 33.005(3), Florida Administrative Code. * * * 18. The proposed permit would create a high density subdivision which would create a multitude of small single family lots on this site. By granting the permit for this site development, the Department is condoning the intended construction of a multitude of single family residences which are totally inappropriate for the beach dune system in this area. The combined effect of the construction of single family residences on the proposed plat seaward of the coastal construction control line will maximize impacts to the beach dune system, not minimize the impact as required by the Department’s rules in Chapter 62B-33, Florida Administrative Code. Lighthouse moved to dismiss the Petition in the Permit Challenge, to strike certain allegations, and for an Order in limine in that case. The Department filed a memorandum of law in support of Lighthouse’s motion, stating, in part: Contrary to Petitioner’s argument in paragraph 2(b), the Department’s rule contains a standard for determination of “cumulative effects.” Rule 62B- 33.005(3)(a), F.A.C., provides that “[I]n assessing the cumulative effects of a proposed activity, the Department shall consider the short-term and long-term impacts and the direct and indirect impacts the activity would cause in combination with existing structures in the area and any other similar activities already permitted or for which a permit application is pending within the same fixed coastal cell.” The Department’s rules also contain a regulatory definition of “impacts” (not “cumulative impacts” as argued by the Petitioner). Therefore, consideration of future applications not yet pending with the Department is outside the scope of the Department’s permitting jurisdiction under the rule. Contrary to the arguments made by Petitioner in paragraph 2(c) and (d) construction of a “residential subdivision” is not a foregone conclusion. First, in Rule 62B-33.005(3)(a), F.A.C., it states that “[e]ach application shall be evaluated on its own merits in making a permit decision; therefore, a decision by the Department to grant a permit shall not constitute a commitment to permit additional similar construction within the same fixed coastal cell. Second, use by an applicant of the single family home general permit authorized by Section 161.053(19), F.S., and existing in Rule 62B-34.070, F.A.C., is not governed by the principle that a general permit is authorized without additional agency action. The concept of a general permit adopted by rule exists in many different permitting programs of the Department. The different permitting programs are created and governed by their organic statutes, and only those statutes (and rules promulgated under them) should be looked to for the legal principles that apply in the permitting program. (See paragraph 4. above). The case law cited by Petitioner in paragraph 2(c) of her response refers to general permits established under Chapter 403, F.S., specifically authorized by Section 408.814, F.S. Section 403.814(1) provides for use of a general permit 30 days after giving notice to the department “without any agency action by the department.” See § 403.814(1), Fla. Stat. (2005). No similar provision appears in Section 161.053(19), F.S. In addition, Section 403.814, F.S. provides for administrative review of the use of a general permit where the Department publishes or requires the applicant to publish notice of its intent to use a general permit. See § 403.814(3), Fla. Stat. (2005); Hamilton County Bd. of County Comm’rs v. State, Department of Environmental Regulation, 587 So.2d 1378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) and City of Jacksonville v. Department of Environmental Protection, 24 F.A.L.R. 938 (Fla. DEP 2001). By Order dated May 23, 2006, Judge Alexander struck paragraphs 6, 10, and 18 of the Petition in the Permit Challenge, holding, in part: Second, the Motion to Strike is granted in part, and paragraphs 6, 10, and 18 are stricken. The Motion to Strike paragraphs 9 and 19 is denied since paragraph 9 simply tracks the language in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B-33.005(3)(a), and neither paragraph makes specific reference to impacts from the proposed construction of a residential subdivision. Although paragraphs 5 and 13 refer to alleged impacts to “wildlife habitat,” “drainage,” and “wind and water borne missiles during a storm,” which might arguably include matters unrelated to this action, the granting of the Motion in Limine below precludes Petitioner from introducing evidence regarding impacts to habitat other than sea turtles, the stormwater exemption, and wind and water borne missiles caused by the proposed construction of a residential subdivision. Finally, the Motion in Limine is granted, and Petitioner (and Intervenor) shall be precluded from introducing evidence in support of allegations relating to cumulative impacts caused by the proposed construction of a residential subdivision, debris and wind and water borne missiles from the proposed construction of a residential subdivision, the exemption of swales from stormwater discharge permit requirements, and any habitat impacts unrelated to sea turtles. See § 161.053, Fla. Stat. (2005); Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B- 33.005, 62B-33.007, and 62-25.030(1)(c). Petitioners have alleged in this case that Rule 62B- 33.005(3)(a) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Lighthouse has disputed that allegation in its Motion for Summary Final Order, which is fully supported by the Department. Section 161.053(5)(a), Florida Statutes, was first adopted by the Legislature in 1983. The statute was amended without any substantive changes to its text in 1987. Section 161.053(5)(a)3., Florida Statutes (2005),2 currently states in pertinent part: Except in those areas where local zoning and building codes have been established pursuant to subsection (4), a permit to alter, excavate, or construct on property seaward of established coastal construction control lines may be granted by the department as follows: The department may authorize an excavation or erection of a structure at any coastal location as described in subsection (1) upon receipt of an application from a property and/or riparian owner and upon the consideration of facts and circumstances, including: * * * 3. Potential impacts of the location of such structures or activities, including potential cumulative effects of any proposed structures or activities upon such beach- dune system, which, in the opinion of the department, clearly justify such a permit. Rule 62B-33.005(3)(a) was amended in 1996 as follows: (3) After reviewing all information required pursuant to this Chapter, the Department shall: (a) Deny any application for an activity which either individually or cumulatively would result in a significant adverse impact including potential cumulative effects. In assessing the cumulative effects of a proposed activity, the Department shall consider the short-term and long-term impacts and the direct and indirect impacts the activity would cause in combination with existing structures in the area and any other activities proposed within the same fixed coastal cell. The impact assessment shall include the anticipated effects of the construction on the coastal system and marine turtles. Each application shall be evaluated on its own merits in making a permit decision, therefore, a decision by the Department to grant a permit shall not constitute a commitment to permit additional similar construction within the same fixed coastal cell. * * * (7) An individual structure or activity may not have an adverse impact on the beach or dune system at a specific site, however, a number of similar structures or activities along the coast may have a significant cumulative impact resulting in the general degradation of the beach or dune system along that segment of shoreline. The Department may not authorize any construction or activity whose cumulative impact will threaten the beach or dune system or its recovery potential following a major storm event. An exception to this policy may be made with regard to those activities undertaken pursuant to Subsections 16B-33.005(3)(d) and 16B- 33.006(2), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 62B-33.005(3)(a) was amended in 2000, as follows: After reviewing all information required pursuant to this Chapter, the Department shall: * * * Deny any application for an activity which either individually or cumulatively would result in a significant adverse impact including potential cumulative effects. In assessing the cumulative effects of a proposed activity, the Department shall consider the short-term and long-term impacts and the direct and indirect impacts the activity would cause in combination with existing structures in the area and any other similar activities already permitted or for which a permit application is pending within the same fixed coastal cell. The impact assessment shall include the anticipated effects of the construction on the coastal system and marine turtles. Each application shall be evaluated on its own merits in making a permit decision, therefore, a decision by the Department to grant a permit shall not constitute a commitment to permit additional similar construction within the same fixed coastal cell. Rule 62B-33.005(3)(a) currently appears as set forth in the preceding paragraph, but without the underlining. One of the provisions in Rule 62B-33.005(3)(a) that is being challenged in these cases states that the Department shall: [d]eny any application for an activity which either individually or cumulatively would result in a significant adverse impact including potential cumulative effects. In assessing the cumulative effects of a proposed activity, the Department shall consider the short-term and long-term impacts and the direct and indirect impacts the activity would cause in combination with existing structures in the area and any other similar activities already permitted or for which a permit application is pending within the same fixed coastal cell. The impact assessment shall include the anticipated effects of the construction on the coastal system and marine turtles. This provision was first added to Rule 62B-33.005 in 1996. It was amended on August 27, 2000. The other provision in Rule 62B-33.005(3)(a) that is being challenged in these cases is the requirement that: [e]ach application shall be evaluated on its own merits in making a permit decision, therefore, a decision by the Department to grant a permit shall not constitute a commitment to permit additional similar construction within the same fixed coastal cell. This provision was first added to Rule 62B-33.005 in 1996. Rule 62B-33.005 is intended by the Department to implement Section 161.053(5)(a)3., Florida Statutes. Rule 62B-33.005(3)(a) reflects the Department’s construction of the phrase “potential cumulative effects of any proposed structures or activities,” as that phrase appears in Section 161.053(5)(a)3., Florida Statutes. Petitioners disagree with the Department’s construction of the statute. Rule 62B-41.002 was first developed on August 23, 1992, as part of the newly enacted Rule Chapter 16B-41, which was later designated as Rule Chapter 62B-41. Rule 62B-41.002(28), first developed in 1992, is the precursor to Rules 62B-41.002(19)(a) and (b), which were added on October 23, 2001. Rule 62B-41.002 is intended by the Department to implement Section 161.041, Florida Statutes. Rule 62B-41.002(19)(b) reflects the Department’s construction of the phrase “potential cumulative effects of any proposed structures or activities,” as that phrase appears in Section 161.041(2)(c), Florida Statutes. Petitioners disagree with the Department’s construction of the Statute. The current language of Section 161.041(2), Florida Statutes, was adopted by the Legislature in 1987, as follows: The department may authorize an excavation or erection of a structure at any coastal location upon receipt of an application from a property or riparian owner and upon consideration of facts and circumstances, including: Adequate engineering data concerning inlet and shoreline stability and storm tides related to shoreline topography; Design features of the proposed structures or activities; and Potential impacts of the location of such structures or activities, including potential cumulative effects of any proposed structures or activities upon such beach- dune system or coastal inlet, which, in the opinion of the department, clearly justify such a permit. Rule 62B-41.002(19) was amended to its current form in 2001, as follows: Renumbered as (19) * * * “Adverse Impacts” are those impacts to the active portion of the coastal system resulting from coastal construction. Such impacts are caused by coastal construction which has a reasonable potential of causing a measurable interference with the natural functioning of the coastal system. The active portion of the coastal system extends offshore to the seaward limit of sediment transport and includes ebb tidal shoals and offshore bars. "Cumulative Impacts" are impacts resulting from the short-term and long-term impacts and the direct and indirect impacts the activity would cause in combination with existing structures in the area and any other similar activities already permitted or for which a permit application is pending within the same fixed coastal cell. The impact assessment shall include the anticipated effects of the construction on the coastal system and marine turtles. Each application shall be evaluated on its own merits in making a permit decision, therefore, a decision by the Department to grant a permit shall not constitute a commitment to permit additional similar construction within the same fixed coastal cell individual coastal construction which, if permitted as a general practice on other coastal properties in the same general area, or if added to the adverse impacts from existing coastal construction are expected to result in an adverse impact. The scope of the "cumulative impact" review under the Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) program is described in the “Basis of Review” used by the South Florida Water Management District, St. Johns River Water Management District, and Southwest Florida Water Management. Under the “Basis of Review,” cumulative impacts are considered unacceptable when the proposed system, considered in conjunction with the past, present, and future activities, would result in a violation of state water quality standards or significant adverse impacts to functions of wetlands or other surface waters. The cumulative impact evaluation is conducted using an assumption that reasonably expected future applications with like impacts will be sought, thus necessitating equitable distribution of acceptable impacts among future applications. In reviewing impacts of a current ERP project application, the agency will review impacts from pending projects and extrapolate from those impacts to see what impacts future projects could contribute, using objective criteria, such as comprehensive plans, plats on file with local governments, or applicable land use restrictions and regulations. Tony McNeal, the administrator of the Department’s CCCL permitting program, acknowledged in his deposition testimony that the last sentence of Rule 62B-33.005(3)(a) “is a way of saying that the Department is not going to be bound by its prior actions in similar cases.” However, he also explained that the sentence does not allow the Department to act inconsistently because the Department “consistently applies the same rules” to each project that comes before it and “[t]he only thing that changes are the facts surrounding the project.”
Recommendation Based upon the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the permit requested be issued in accordance with the recommendations set forth in the staff report (attached thereto). Respectfully submitted this 31st day of October, 1975, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Arthur Hastings 708 Lincoln Avenue Leesburg, Florida John Wheeler, Esquire Post Office Box V West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Granada Properties, Ltd. 341 North Mills Orlando, Florida
Findings Of Fact Based on the Stipulation of counsel, the exhibits, and the pleadings filed herein, the following findings of fact are made: On December 11, 1998, Ms. Morro, who is the wife of Michael J. Morro, the developer of the property, filed her application with the District for an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP), which would authorize the construction of a surface water management system (including one wet-detention pond) to serve a 12-lot, single-family residential subdivision known as Tranquility on Lake Brantley in Seminole County, Florida. In more specific geographic terms, the project is located on the south side of Wekiva Springs Road, on Cutler Road, and on the north side of Lake Brantley near the City of Longwood. The application was assigned number 40-117-0567A-ERP. The exhibits filed herein suggest that Ms. Morro, and not Mr. Morro, owns the subject property. After determining that the Applicant provided reasonable assurance that the proposed activities met the conditions for issuance of a permit and the system was consistent with its review criteria, on July 14, 1999, the District approved the application and issued Permit Number 40- 117-51722-1 (1999 Permit). However, the Permit did not authorize the construction of a retaining wall on Lot 10 of the Applicant's property. There is no record of any third party challenging the issuance of the 1999 Permit. On February 19, 2002, the Applicant submitted "as built drawings" to the District, as required by Condition 10 of the 1999 Permit, to enable the District to verify that the work was completed in compliance with the approved plans and specifications. These as-built drawings did not reflect a retaining wall on Lot 10. Mr. Adley resides and owns property at 880 Lake Brantley Drive, Longwood, Florida, which is "next to" the Morro property. It is fair to say that a less-than-harmonious relationship exists between the two neighbors. Indeed, the exhibits reflect that Mr. Adley, the Applicant, and the Applicant's surveyor "have been involved in several causes of action between them over details of development on this property," and that over the years Mr. Adley has filed numerous complaints with the District regarding alleged violations by the Applicant while she performed work under the 1999 Permit. Mr. Adley is familiar with ERPs and the process for obtaining one, having had ownership interests in businesses that have obtained ERPs from the District, and having participated in the activity undertaken to obtain the permits and then implement the activities authorized by the permits. On May 16, 2003, Mr. Adley sent a letter to Kirby A. Green, III, Executive Director of the District, citing seven issues regarding Ms. Morro's proposed subdivision and asking that he be notified, in writing, "of any modifications to the permit, request for modifications of the permit, notice of violations, change to the approved plan, changes to the Covenants and Articles of Incorporation, any other changes to the proposed construction activities and any public notices that would effect [sic] [his] right to file for an administrative hearing." Mr. Adley also indicated that he had scheduled a meeting with William E. Carlie, Jr., District Compliance Manager, to be held on May 19, 2003, "to discuss these issues with him in person." On May 29, 2003, Mr. Adley sent a letter to Duane Ottenstroer, then Chairman of the District's Governing Board, regarding "the subdivision being constructed next to [his] home." In his letter, he voiced concerns about the recorded conservation easement on the Morro property being significantly different from the easement approved by the 1999 Permit. He also complained that the Applicant had submitted false information with an application submitted to the District in 1991. Finally, he enclosed a copy of the letter previously sent to Mr. Green. On June 6, 2003, Mr. Adley sent a second letter to Mr. Carlie advising that the Applicant was violating the conditions in the 1999 Permit in five respects. The letter confirmed that Mr. Adley would again meet with District staff concerning this matter on June 11, 2003. After conducting an investigation regarding Mr. Adley's allegations of violations by the Applicant, on September 12, 2003, K. Wilford Causseaux, an engineer in the Department of Water Resources, sent a letter to the Applicant's surveyor, Michael W. Solitro (who Mr. Adley says is the former Seminole County Surveyor who loaned the Applicant money in April 1998 to develop the land and then purchased a discounted lot from the Applicant in return for "development services"), affirming the staff's finding that the "construction on [Morro's] residential property on Brantley Drive has encroached on the 100-year flood plain in the rear yard of Lot 11." Also, the letter identified the remedial steps that must be undertaken to correct three "issues associated with [the] residential construction." Finally, the letter noted that Mr. Morro had agreed to remove fill on Lot 7 that violated the "limits of construction" and return the rear-lot grading to its pre-development condition. On September 29, 2003, Mr. Adley sent a third letter to Mr. Carlie confirming that the District had not allowed the Applicant to construct a retaining wall in lieu of a swale on Lot 11 and that if the Applicant wished to construct a wall, she must apply for a modification to the 1999 Permit. The letter also noted that Mr. Carlie agreed to notify Mr. Adley "in writing of any modification to the permit," including "minor" modifications. Finally, Mr. Adley requested the status of the incorrect conservation easement recorded on the property. Apparently in response to that letter, by email dated October 10, 2003, Mr. Carlie notified District counsel that Mr. Adley "has submitted a written request for actual notice of any proposed modification of this permit, will likely object, and potentially will challenge any agency action in this regard to a 120 hearing." On October 24, 2003, Mr. Carlie responded to Mr. Adley's letter of September 29, 2005, and advised him that the staff had determined that "portions of the fill placed for development of [Lot 11] are waterward of the limits of construction" and that this action "is a violation of the permit subject to enforcement action." The letter confirmed that the District understood Mr. Adley's "request to be noticed of any modifications of the reference permit" and promised that "actual notice (mailed notice to your residence) of any action this agency undertakes in this regard" would be given. Mr. Carlie further explained that some modifications to a permit could be issued by letter, while other modifications required an application, fee, and formal agency action. He indicated that the remedial steps outlined in his letter dated September 12, 2003, to Mr. Solitro "may qualify for a permit modification by letter under the provisions of section 40C-4.331 F.A.C." Finally, Mr. Carlie stated that the "District continues to understand your concern about this project and request to be noticed of any modifications of the reference permit. You will be provided actual notice (mailed notice to your residence) of any action this agency undertakes in this regard." Also on October 23, 2003, Mr. Carlie sent a second letter to Mr. Adley outlining in detail the results of the District's investigation of Mr. Adley's concerns expressed in various letters and at least two meetings with staff. On May 3, 2004, Frank J. Meeker, the District's Ombudsman, sent Mr. Adley a letter regarding a Verified Complaint dated April 1, 2004, that Mr. Adley had filed with the Executive Director. (The Verified Complaint was not included in the exhibits which accompanied the Stipulation, but a copy is attached to the Motion.) The letter responded to "six specific objections" Mr. Adley had raised concerning work on the Morro property. It also instructed the District staff to prepare, within thirty days, a letter of modification to the 1999 Permit which addressed the conservation easement, monuments, and 100- year flood elevation issues, together with a recommendation for approval or denial, and to submit the modified conservation easement to the Executive Director for approval or denial. Finally, the letter noted that Mr. Adley would receive "written notice of these actions" and an opportunity to object to these modifications. The record is unclear whether Mr. Meeker's instructions to staff resulted in a letter of modification to the 1999 Permit without further action by the Applicant, or whether it triggered an application by the Applicant to modify her 1999 Permit based upon the staff recommendations. More than likely, the latter occurred. On May 26, 2004, Mr. Meeker provided a follow-up letter to Mr. Adley in which he confirmed that Mr. Adley had been given a copy of the project plans dated June 17, 1999, used by Ms. Morro in securing the 1999 Permit. He further advised that until he received a staff survey "to determine the size of the dock [for purposes of determining if a permit was required] and the location of the red wall and retaining wall," no disposition of those issues could be made. Finally, he advised that no formal request for modification of the 1999 Permit had been filed, but if and when one was filed, he was "directing staff to supply you with a copy of such application." On July 6, 2004, Ms. Morro filed an application with the District seeking to modify her 1999 Permit. (The application noted that Mr. Morro would serve as Ms. Morro's authorized agent to secure the permit.) In the application, Ms. Morrow described the proposed activity as follows: "Alteration of permitted conservation easement[,] to remove easement from lot 11[,] and provide reserved rights for construction of 2 single family docks." This application was assigned number 10-117-51722-2. As noted above, the application did not include a provision for a retaining wall on Lot 10. However, sometime between the time the application was filed in July 2004 and January 21, 2005, the Applicant amended her application to add a request for a retaining wall. By email dated July 12, 2004, counsel for the District notified the reviewer of the application, Anthony Miller, that "I told Mr. Adley to call PDS [Permit Data Services]. Who should I contact there to see what notice was sent? Mr. Adley is going to challenge this so we need to make sure everything is done right." Mr. Miller emailed back the following response: "I have no idea. I assume it was noticed as usual through PDS to those listed to receive notices. Should we do anything more, like contacting Mr. Adley directly?" By letter dated July 15, 2004, Mr. Carlie forwarded a "complete copy" of Ms. Morro's application to Mr. Adley. The letter noted that Mr. Adley's receipt of the letter, attached materials, and notice of rights "shall serve [as] the notice you requested for the purposes of timeframes under Chapter 120, F.S." (A copy of Notice of Rights was enclosed; it set out in detail the process by which Mr. Adley could request a formal hearing.) The enclosed construction drawings did not indicate the inclusion of a retaining wall. During the staff's review process of the application, two Requests for Additional Information (RAI) were sent by the District to Mr. Morro on August 3, 2004, and January 21, 2005. Significantly, item 4 on page 2 of the RAI dated January 21, 2005, noted that "[t]he plans indicate that a retaining wall is proposed. Please provide detailed calculations, and a revised wall detail as necessary, to demonstrate that this portion of the surface water management system will function as intended." (Emphasis added) Copies of both RAIs were sent to Mr. Adley. On February 28, 2005, the Applicant filed a letter and attachments in response to the January 21, 2005 RAI, which included, among other things, plans and details prepared by a professional engineer for a retaining wall to be located landward of the 100-year floodplain, the limit of construction. The Stipulation and exhibits do not indicate whether these documents were ever provided to Mr. Adley at that time.1 However, on March 9, 2005, they were provided to his counsel for review. See Finding of Fact 21, infra. By letter dated January 21, 2005, Mr. Adley's former counsel (Timothy A. Smith, Esquire) made a public records request for inspection of "the district files relating to permit numbers 40-117-51722, 40-117-0567, and any other district permits or applications for such permits relating to the property owned by Frances and Michael Morro on Brantley Drive along the northern shore of Lake Brantley." (The letter indicates that Mr. Smith would meet District counsel in Palatka on January 25, 2005, to review this part of the records request.) The letter also requested that Mr. Smith be allowed to review all files of eleven District employees which related to the various iterations of the Morro project in 1990-1991, 1997-1998, and 1999 to present. The records pertaining to the second part of the request were apparently located in another office and were to be inspected at a later time. According to the Stipulation, in response to the public records request, on March 9, 2005, Mr. Smith reviewed all requested files in the District's main office in Palatka and the District's field office in Altamonte Springs. (As noted above, part of the records were inspected on January 25, 2005, in Palatka.) It is fair to infer that on March 9, 2005, Mr. Smith would have had the opportunity to review the Applicant's plans and details for a retaining wall filed with the District on February 28, 2005. By this time, then, Mr. Adley should have been on notice that the Applicant had modified her application and now sought to build a retaining wall. On March 30, 2005, the District, through its Altamonte Springs field office, approved Ms. Morro's application and issued Permit No. 40-117-51722-2 (2005 Permit). The 2005 Permit authorized the modification of the 1999 Permit "to include the construction of a retaining wall along the rear of Lots 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 and the 'lot split' lot, and to amend the easement on Lots 9 and 10, to allow selective clearing and trimming of the conservation easement in accordance with a District approved landscape plan, and to exclude lands no longer under the applicant's control." On April 10, 2005, notice of the issuance of the 2005 Permit was published by Ms. Morro in the Sanford Herald, a newspaper of general circulation in Seminole County. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40C-1.1007(1). The Notice provided that "[p]etitions for administrative hearing on the above application must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of publication of this notice or within twenty-eight (28) days of the District depositing notice of this intent in the mail for those person to whom the District made actual notice. Failure to file a petition within this time period shall constitute a waiver of any right(s) such person(s) may have to request an administrative determination (hearing) under sections 120.569 and 120.57, F.S. concerning the subject permit." Therefore, if notice was received by publication, petitions objecting to the issuance of a permit were due no later than May 1, 2005, or if written notice was given, petitions were due no later than May 8, 2005. The District did not send Mr. Adley written notice of its intent to issue the 2005 Permit. There is no indication in the Stipulation, exhibits, or Motion as to why notice was not sent, particularly since Mr. Adley had made numerous requests for written notice of any District action on the property, and he had been promised such notices by various District personnel since at least October 2003. On April 25, 2005, Ms. Morro began construction of the retaining wall authorized by the 2005 Permit and construction continued over the next thirty calendar days. It is fair to assume that the wall was completed on or about May 25, 2005. Also on April 25, 2005, or the day construction began, at Mr. Adley's direction, Mr. Smith (his former counsel) telephoned Mr. Carlie to inform him that construction activity on Lot 10 was taking place. Therefore, it is clear that on that date, Mr. Adley had observed that construction on the Morro property had begun. In response to Mr. Smith's telephone call, Mr. Carlie then requested that two District employees, Mr. Casseaux and David Eunice, investigate what was occurring on the Morro property. On the same date that Mr. Smith telephoned Mr. Carlie, Casseaux and Eunice inspected the Morro property and observed that a retaining wall authorized by the 2005 Permit was under construction. It is fair to infer from the stipulated facts that Mr. Carlie reported these findings to Mr. Smith within a short period of time. On an undisclosed date, but presumably within a day or so, Mr. Smith reported to Mr. Adley that he had spoken with Mr. Carlie and was told the construction was in conformance with "the Permit" but that Mr. Carlie did not specifically refer to either the 1999 Permit or the 2005 Permit as authorizing the work. The Stipulation and exhibits do not indicate whether Mr. Carlie advised counsel that the 2005 Permit had been approved. However, given the history of this dispute, it would be highly unusual for counsel not to make inquiry about the disposition of the application, or for Mr. Carlie not to provide this information during the course of their telephone conversations, particularly since Mr. Carlie was well aware of Mr. Adley's long-standing interest in the Morro project. Mr. Adley could not tell from his view of the property whether the exact location of the construction was lakeward of the limits of construction, which was the 100-year floodplain, and therefore could only rely on the District staff. Mr. Adley asserts that he did not learn of the 2005 Permit modification until July 25, 2005, through a conversation with an unidentified neighbor. Whether Mr. Adley (or his counsel) then called the District to verify the accuracy of the neighbor's information is not of record. (The initial Petition for Administrative Hearing simply alleges that "petitioner received notice of the District's action on July 25, 2005, through a conversation with a neighbor.") On August 15, 2005, or twenty-one days later, through counsel, Mr. Adley filed his initial Petition for Administrative Hearing with the District challenging the issuance of the 2005 Permit. (The Amended Petition was later filed on October 12, 2005, as a result of the striking of certain allegations in the first filing.) The District's Motion was then filed on November 16, 2005. (Action on the Motion has been delayed because of substitution of Petitioner's counsel, and delays by the parties in taking discovery and preparing the Stipulation.)
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-7.523(2)(c) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.*
Findings Of Fact The Parties 1. The District is a public corporation existing by virtue of Chapter 25270, Laws of Florida (1949), and operating pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Title 40E-7, Florida Administrative Code, asa multipurpose water management district, with its principal office in West Palm Beach, Florida. 2. KRVSA is a Florida corporation whose members are substantially affected by the rule in question. 3. Phillip B. Griner is an individual who holds a Special Use License to use the Lower Reedy Creek Management Area/Rough Island Management Unit Protected Zone. He has been a member of KVSA since its inception in 1998 and was serving on its board of directors at the time of the final hearing.
Conclusions Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Petition for Administrative Hearing is denied. DONE AND ORDERED this 19th day of December, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Pan ate J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of December, 2003.
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing the original notice of appeal with Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings and a copy, accompanied by filing fees prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal, First District, or with the District Court of Appeal in the Appellate District where the party resides. The notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed. 31
Findings Of Fact The subject applications request permits from the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District (FCD) for the agricultural irrigation and drainage of 1,780 acres of citrus lands. Received into evidence without objection were the public notices of hearing appearing in The News Tribune, Fort Pierce, Florida, and The Stuart News, Stuart, Florida; the three permit applications submitted on behalf of Kay-One Grove, Ltd., and the Revised Staff Report of the FCD. The amount of water requested by the applications is 2,670 acre-feet per year with a maximum monthly withdrawal of 600 acre-feet. The Revised Staff Report, prepared by Doug Winter, a Civil Engineer with the Hydrology Division of the FCD, recommended an annual allocation of 1,619.8 acre-feet with a maximum monthly withdrawal of 574.8 acre-feet. This Report is attached hereto. Mr. Kenneth Harris, a consulting engineer for Kay-One Grove, Ltd., gave a summation of the applications and corrected page 1 of the Revised Staff Report, under the first paragraph of "A", to change "Township 37 South" to "Township 38 South". The summation was substantially the same as that set forth on pages 1 and 2 of the Revised Staff Report. The existing facilities were also represented to be as set forth in the FCD Report. Mr. Doug Winter testified that he evaluated the subject applications and prepared the Revised Staff Report, and testified as to its contents. As to the drainage aspects of the applications, Mr. Winter testified that there would be no adverse effect on the receiving water body since the drainage capacity of the applicant's land is within the FCD's limitations. As to the agricultural uses of the water, Mr. Winter used three criteria to determine the appropriate allocation. These three criteria were the adjusted basin yield, the supplemental crop requirement for citrus and the quantity requested by the applicant. The allocation is normally the lesser of these three quantities. It was determined that the adjusted basin yield was the limiting criteria and the amount of water available for annual allocation is 10.92 inches per acre per year for the C-23 basin, which equates over the applicant's 1,780 acres to be 1,619.8 acre-feet. The FCD uses this 10.92 figure for all allocations within the C-23 basin. The maximum monthly pumpage figure based on the amount of water which would be needed in the driest month to offset a 2 in 10 year drought, modified by an 80 percent application efficiency, was determined to be 3.875 inches par acre per month, or 574.8 acre-feet or 187.3 million gallons for the entire tract of 1,780 acres. This is in contrast to the 4.0 inches per acre maximum monthly withdrawal requested by the applicant, which would equate to 600 acre-feet. As to the use of ground water from three wells located on the property, Mr. Winter determined that the allocation would be the same as for the C-23 withdrawals since the recharge of these wells would be the same as the recharge of the surface water source. Mr. Winter then reiterated the conclusions and recommendations set forth in the Revised Staff Report. It was recommended that a water use permit be issued pursuant to Application Numbers 23238 and 22046 for an annual allocation of surface water and/or ground water in the amount of 1,619.8 acre-feet, which represents 10.92 inches per acre per year, with the condition that the maximum monthly withdrawal of surface water and ground water for the combination of the two not exceed 187.3 million gallons (which represents 3.875 inches per acre or 574 acre-feet) during times of adequate water level or moderate drought conditions. Should severe drought conditions occur, the FCD will issue an order requiring a reduction of water withdrawal rates based on a water shortage plan developed by the FCD. It was recommended that a surface water management permit be issued pursuant to Application No. 22039 for the operation of a system consisting of ditches, dikes, pumps and culverts as described in the application with the conditions set forth on page 11 of the Revised Staff Report. Finally, it was recommended that a right-of-way permit be issued authorizing a 48 inch culvert connection through the FCD's south right-of-way of C-23 adjacent to Project Culvert 15 and the use of Project Culvert 13. Mr. Harris then sought a clarification of the maximum monthly pumpage amount and was assured that the applicant could apply for emergency authorization of further withdrawals under the FCD's rules and regulations, provided extreme drought conditions were not existent. It was explained that the monthly quantity allowed here, the 3.875 inches, was based on reports of the average rainfall for the Fort Pierce area and the crop requirements. The Hearing Officer then asked Mr. Harris to explain his objections, if any, to the Revised Staff Report. Mr. Harris explained that the difference between the amount of water requested and that received in the Report is small, less than 10 percent. His only other objection was to the maximum allowable runoff figure. He would like this to be increased from the recommended 2.2 inches to 4 inches. It was explained that the allowable figure is based upon the maximum capacity of the canal. Mr. Harris stated that the applicant would probably make further application for additional run-off in the future.
Recommendation Based upon the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the permits requested and the right-of-way permit be issued in accordance with the recommendations set forth on pages 9 through 11 of the attached Revised Staff Report. Respectfully submitted this 7th day of October, 1975, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. E.D. Holcomb, Jr. General Manager Kay-One Grove, Ltd. Post Office Box 1120 Fort Pierce, Florida 33450 Stephen A. Walker, Esquire Attorney for the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District Post Office Box V West Palm Beach, Florida
Findings Of Fact Respondent GL Homes filed a permit application with Respondent District for Conceptual Approval of a surface water management system. On August 28, 1996, Respondent District mailed a copy of its staff report and notice of rights to Respondent GL Homes. The staff report was the staff's summary and recommendation and Respondent District's notice of proposed agency action. The staff report indicated, among other things, that it was a "draft" and that the last date for action by the Governing Board of Respondent District was September 12, 1996. On or about August 29, 1996, Respondent District mailed a copy of the same staff report and notice of rights to interested third parties, including Petitioners. The notice of rights provided, among other things: PETITION FOR FORMAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS Any person whose substantial interests are or may be affected by the action which is proposed in the enclosed Notice of Proposed Agency Action/Staff Review Summary, may petition for an administrative hearing ... Petitions for administrative hearing on the above application must be filed within four- teen (14) days of actual receipt of this Notice of Proposed Agency Action. Failure to file a petition within this time period shall constitute a waiver of any rights such person may have to request an administrative determination (hearing) under section 120.57, Florida Statutes, concerning the subject permit application. Petitions which are not filed in accordance with the above provisions are subject to dismissal. There is no dispute that this provision is clear and unambiguous. Petitioners did not receive the mailed staff report and notice of rights. Before the filing of Respondent GL Homes' permit application, Petitioners had been involved with other permit applications which had come before Respondent District and had filed petitions for administrative hearings on other applications. Petitioners were well familiar with Respondent District's process, involving permit applications, its staff reports and the notice of rights. Sometime during the first week of September 1996, while at the Respondent District's office, Petitioner Durando obtained a copy of the staff report and notice of rights. Petitioner Durando appeared at the September 12, 1966, Governing Board meeting even though the permit application had not appeared on any agenda for the Governing Board that she had received. The permit application was to be heard as part of a list of "Add On Items", which did not provide prior notice of these items to the public. At the meeting of September 12, 1996, Petitioner Durando obtained again a copy of the staff report. However, the staff report contained a cover memo, dated September 9, 1996, to the Governing Board from the Director of Respondent District's Regulation Department, with four maps included. The cover memo was written in layman's terms and was a summary of the staff report. The cover memo contained no modification of the staff report. Moreover, the staff report attached to the cover memo contained no modifications. Cover memoranda are routinely prepared for the members of the Governing Board for items on which public comment is expected. Public comment was expected on Respondent GL Homes' permit application. A problem with notice to the public, regarding the Governing Board considering Respondent GL Homes' permit application at the September 12, 1996, was brought to the attention of the Governing Board. On the recommendation of Respondent District's staff, the Governing Board decided not to address the permit application at that meeting but to re-notice the public hearing on the permit application for October 10, 1996. Petitioner Durando was concerned as to whether Respondent District had to re-publish the staff report and notice of rights. She made an inquiry to a member of Respondent District's staff regarding this issue, who was unsure if a re-publication had to occur and informed Petitioner Durando of his uncertainty. Later in the evening of the same day of Petitioner Durando's inquiry, that same member of Respondent District's staff left a message on Petitioner Durando's answering machine that no re-publication of the staff report and notice of rights was required since there was no modification or change of the staff report. Also, prior to departing the September 12, 1996, Governing Board meeting, Petitioner Durando inquired of Respondent District's counsel as to when was the due date for filing a petition for an administrative hearing on Respondent GL Homes' permit application. Respondent District's counsel informed her that she must file her petition within 14 days of receiving a copy of the staff report and notice of rights. Petitioner Durando had attended other Governing Board meetings in the past which contained permit applications as agendaed items and as add on items. No evidence was presented to show that the prior permit applications considered by the Governing Board at its meetings did not contain a cover memo from Respondent District's staff, which summarized in layman's terms the staff report. Petitioner Durando believed that she had 14 days from September 12, 1996, in which to file a petition with Respondent District for an administrative hearing on Respondent GL Homes' permit application. She filed a petition on behalf of the Petitioners on September 26, 1996. Neither prior to nor subsequent to the September 12, 1996, Governing Board meeting was a modification made to the staff report or a second staff report prepared. Petitioners' actual receipt of the proposed agency action was sometime during the first week of September 1996. If Petitioners' actual receipt was on September 2, 1996, their petition for an administrative hearing must have been filed on or before September 16, 1996. If Petitioners' actual receipt was on September 6, 1996, their petition must have been filed on or before September 20, 1996. At all times material hereto, Petitioner Durando was not an attorney. Subsequent to filing the petition for an administrative hearing, Petitioners obtained the services of an attorney.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order dismissing the petition for an administrative hearing as untimely. DONE AND ENTERED in this 13th day of November 1996 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of November, 1996.
