The Issue Whether petitioner has standing to challenge a consent order negotiated by respondents to resolve an enforcement proceeding? If so, whether the consent order comports with statutes and rules regulating dredging and filling in wetlands?
Findings Of Fact Without securing DER permits, TLC built two dirt roads, one perpendicular to the other, both in Gulf County, east and south of property petitioner John L. Sullivan, Jr. owns and lives on. Between them, the roads, each 20 to 25 feet wide, traversed wetlands (recognized as such by DER regulations and the DER environmental specialist when he visited the site in May of 1990) in three separate places. None of the affected wetlands drain in the direction of petitioner's property. TLC dredged and placed 36-inch culverts before filling at two of the sites, and placed fill at all three sites, constructing roadbed and shoulders. One of the sites, connected by a 200-foot ditch to other wetlands, DER's Larry Taylor eventually characterized as "isolated." He directed TLC to fill the ditch to destroy the connection, on the theory this would divest DER of jurisdiction. At hearing, John L. Sullivan, Jr. testified that the project had not affected him financially, and said he was affected only as a citizen of Florida. The wetlands crossed by the roads drain (or, in one instance, did drain before the ditch was filled) easterly to Stonemill Creek, which flows southeasterly toward the Dead Lakes.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, recommended that DER dismiss the letter or petition with which these formal administrative proceedings began. RECOMMENDED this 10th day of June, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of June, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-0282 Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 1 has been adopted in substance. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 2 and 3 pertain to immaterial matters. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 4 was not proven. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6 and 10 (i.e. the final proposed finding of fact) have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 3, a parcel 96 feet by 60 feet was involved at only one of the three sites. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 4, the conclusion that "the jurisdictional aspect ceased to exist" is not adopted. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 7, whether the violation was "resolved" is a conclusion of law. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 8, the allegations of the petition were not proven. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 9, not all uncontradicted evidence has been credited. COPIES FURNISHED: Carol Browner, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 John L. Sullivan, Jr. Post Office Box 1298 Wewahitchka, FL 32465 Richard L. Windsor, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Bill R. Hutto, Esquire Hutto, Nabors, Bodiford and Warren 101 East 23rd Street Panama City, FL 32405
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing relating to the issue of jurisdiction, the following relevant facts are found: On or about March 28, 1979, respondents T.V. Rodriquez and Trafalgar Developers of Florida, Inc. filed with the Department of Environmental Regulation an application for a permit to conduct dredge and fill activities on a 2.3 acre area located within a 495 acre planned unit development in Orlando. The 2.3 acre tract is located in a cypress swamp area in the northeast portion of the development site. The application sought authority to excavate 2,000 cubic yards of material for the installation of a five foot diameter drainage culvert, and to backfill the installed pipe with 3,000 cubic yards of fill material. All of the construction activity was to be confined to the 2.3 acre tract which, as noted above, was a cypress swamp area interior to the project boundaries. While there were no other property owners immediately adjacent to the cypress swamp upon which the dredging and filling was to occur, the applicants did provide for notification purposes the names of two property owners which were the closest, although not adjacent, to the proposed project site. Neither the petitioners nor the intervenors in this proceeding were among the two names provided. The Department of Environmental Regulation reviewed the application and, on April 5, 1980, requested further infor- mation. Upon receipt of this information, an employee of DER, Jim Morgan, conducted a field inspection of the dredge and fill site on May 10, 1979. It was Mr. Morgan's conclusion that the proposed project would result in the elimination of approxi- mately three percent of the wetlands associated with the eastern boundary of the 495 acre development, and would not significantly impact the remaining portion of the wetland community. Mr. Morgan recommended that the application be approved, with two specific conditions. One condition pertained to the containment of turbidity at the project site if the site is inundated during construction. The other condition pertained to a proposed swale for outfall of a planned ditch system for the drainage of the 495 acre planned unit development. On May 18, 1979, the Department of Environmental Regulation issued Permit No. 48-18682-4E to respondents to excavate 2,000 cubic yards of material for the installation of a five foot diameter drainage culvert and to backfill the installed pipe with 3,000 cubic yards of fill material suitable for use as-a golf course foundation. The permit contained the specific conditions recommended by Mr. Morgan. Specific Condition Number 1 reads as follows: "(1) The drainage plan for this proposed 495 acre planned unit development will require the lowering of the water table via way of a planned ditch system, thus making development feasible. This ditch system will ultimately [sici discharge to an existing county canal via way of a proposed swale, which is exempt from this department's per- mitting pursuant to Chapter 17-4.04(10)(k). A swale conveys water only during and immediately after the advent of a storm. This installation must conform to this explicit definition, otherwise, additional dredge and fill permits will be required, including the entire development's drainage facility. Upon completion of the development, this department shall be notified and periodic inspections will be performed by the department's staff to determine if the outfall conforms with the definition of a swale." By letters to DER dated August 20, 1979, the petitioners herein stated that they had just been informed on August 17, 1979, of the issuance of the subject permit to the respondents. Their original letters to the DER, as well as their amended and restated petition, claim that, as owners of property located adjacent to the property upon which the drainage project would be conducted pursuant to the subject permit, they were entitled to notice prior to the issuance of the permit and that their substantial interest will be affected by the drainage project authorized by said permit. The petitioners Frances Bandy and Charles R. Bandy own Lot 14 in Golden Acres which is a considerable distance from the 2.3 acre tract upon which respondents are permitted to conduct dredging and filling activities. The petitioners Anna and Lee Rowe and Fay M. Handy own Lots 20 and 21 in Golden Acres, as well as a five acre lake. These lots and lake are even further from the permitted dredge and fill site. None of the petitioners own property which is adjacent to the permitted 2.3 acre site. Betty J. Hardy, Wayne Hardy and Vista Landscaping Inc. moved to intervene in this proceeding by motion dated March 5, 1980. An amended motion to intervene was filed on March 17, 1980, adding Julian T. Hardy as a named party intervenor. The intervenors own and have a business interest in property located a considerable distance south of the permitted 2.3 acres. The intervenors conduct a wholesale nursery business on their property. Their complaint lies with the effect that the proposed drainage of the entire 495 acre development and the alleged drainage ditch located on property contiguous to their property will have on their property and business interests. As of the time of the hearing on March 18, 1980, construction pursuant to the permit issued on May 18, 1979, was approximately ninety-five percent (95 percent) complete.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the petitioners request for an administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1) be dismissed, with prejudice, for lack of jurisdiction. Respectfully submitted and entered this 22nd day of April, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Cleatous J. Simmons Lowndes, Drosdick and Doster Post Office Box 2809 Orlando, Florida 32802 Roger D. Schwenke Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanual, Smith and Cutler, P.A. Post Office Box 3239 Tampa, Florida 33601 Stanley J. Niego Office of General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Jacob Varn Secretary, Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Seago Group, Inc., the Applicant/Intervenor, owns a tract of land in Lee County Florida, which is completely surrounded by creeks and canals, including Indian Creek on the north. The Intervenor intends to develop the parcel and is seeking a permit from the Department to construct a bridge over Indian Creek to provide access. There is presently a cul-de-sac at the end of Indian Creek Drive on the north side of the creek. The bridge would extend Indian Creek Drive over the creek onto the applicant's property. The Intervenor held an option to purchase land for the right-of-way on the north side of the creek. The Petitioners own property adjacent to Indian Creek Drive. The Petitioner Helwig owns property upon which be resides, and which adjoins the proposed bridge site. The Petitioner Rowe owns property upon which he resides several lets up Indian Creek Drive from the proposed bridge site. The Intervenor originally made application to construct a road over Indian Creek at a different, but nearby location using a culvert rather than a bridge. The Department's staff appraised the application and recommended that it be denied because deposits of fill around the culverts would have eliminated productive submerged creek bottoms, interfered with the ability of the aquatic habitat to support fish and wildlife populations, and eliminated shoreline vegetation which serves to filter runoff which enters the creek, thus helping to preserve good water quality in the creek. The application was withdrawn by the Intervenor before final action was taken on the Department's staff recommendations. The Intervenor thereafter filed the instant application. The application was to construct: ... A 26 ft. wide by 50 ft. long vehicular bridge constructed with 21" prestressed slabs on pile bent abutments over Indian Creek in Lee County, Florida. The application further provided: All work will be conducted on upland with no need for any equipment or material required to be in the water. All equip- ment and material will be delivered by upland access. The application did not reflect that Intervenor had previously sought a permit for the culvert constructions, but the Department was clearly aware of the previous applications and its appraisal of the bridge application was treated as a supplement to the appraisal of the culvert application. In its Notice of Intent to Issue the Permit, the Department erroneously designated the bridge as a "two-span" bridge. The application is actually for a one-span bridge. In its notice the Department added the following specific conditions: Turbidity screens shall be used during construction. Drainage at bridges approaches shall be by swale and no ditches shall be constructed. Drainage shall meet county specifications. No dredging or filling in Indian Creek. No bridge construction shall take place until ownership or easement is obtained through Mr. David Ruch's property pursuant to letters on file with the Department. The Intervenor has acceded to the specific conditions and agreed to comply with them in the event the permit is ultimately issued. All of the pilings for the proposed bridge would be constructed at or above the mean high water line of Indian Creek. Some turbidity could be expected during construction, however, the use of turbidity screens would eliminate any significant impact upon the water quality, fish and other wildlife resources of Indian Creek during construction. The only potential source of pollution from the bridge after construction would be from runoff entering Indian Creek from the bridge. The amount of runoff that would result from a 50 ft. long by 26 ft. wide bridge is negligible. The limited impact that such runoff could have upon the creek can be eliminated by having drainage flow through a swale system. Since the Intervenor has agreed to utilize a swale system, it does not appear that the bridge would have any adverse impact upon the water quality of Indian Creek or any other water body. Neither does it appear that the bridge would adversely affect fish and wildlife resources. Since all bridge pilings would be constructed at or above the mean high water line, transitional zone vegetation can continue to flourish along the shoreline. The planned clearance between the creek elevation at mean high water and the bridge is seven feet. The bridge would thus impede traffic by any boats that protrude more than seven feet above the water line. This presents no significant navigational impact in Indian Creek. There are two avenues for navigating from the bridge site on Indian Creek to the Caloosahatchee River. One of these avenues is presently obstructed by a bridge with an elevation less than that proposed by the Intervenor. The other avenue is obstructed by a very shallow area that will not permit navigation by other than very small vessels. The Department in the past has denied applications to dredge that shallow area. The Intervenor and the Department have submitted Proposed Findings of Fact. To the extent that these proposed findings have not been included in the foregoing Findings of Fact, they are hereby adopted as fully as if set forth herein.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner owns property located at 1315 N. Betty Lanes Lots 8 and 9, Block E, Pine Ridge Subdivision in Clearwater, Florida. This property is zoned "CO" (general commercial) The consumption of alcoholic beverages on, premises is not permitted on premises zoned "CO," and therefore requires conditional use approval. Petitioner applied for conditional use approval on or about February 20, 1986 and on March 18, 1986 the Planning and Zoning Board disapproved Petitioner's application for conditional use. Paula Harvey, Planning Directors recommended approval because her review of the application indicated the location was suitable for a restaurant and lounges and the police department indicated no reason for disapproval. She did condition her recommendation on Petitioner demonstrating that all parking requirements of the Land Development Code would be met. A 6,000 square foot; two-story building is located on the subject property, but Petitioner only intends to use 2500 square feet for a restaurant and lounge. Petitioner currently operates a bar serving beer and wine directly across Overlea Lane on Beverly Lanes about forty feet away from the subject property. He testified he intends to close his present bar if he obtains this conditional use approval and opens his restaurant and lounge on the subject property. At his present locations Petitioner serves beer and wine; but not food. On the subject property, he would not sell alcoholic beverages without food, except to 7 persons waiting to be seated in the restaurant. Other than Paula Harvey's testimony that the subject property does not have sufficient parking spaces for the utilization of the entire 6,000 square foot building as a restaurant and lounges there is no competent, substantial evidence in the record as to the number of parking spaces on the property. It cannot be determined if there would be sufficient parking if Petitioner used only 2,500 square feet for the restaurant and lounges and the remainder of the building for some other commercial purpose. The neighborhood surrounding the subject property includes a church, residential, shopping and commercial areas. In addition to Petitioner's present barb there is also one other bar in the neighborhood. Public testimony evidences neighborhood concern about noise, litter, traffic and fighting associated with Petitioner's present bar and Petitioner offered no testimony as to how he intended to control noise, litters traffic and fighting which can reasonably be expected to occur if he opens a 2500 square foot restaurant and lounge with seating for more than 150 people compared to his current 1,600 square foot beer and wine bar.
The Issue This case involves a third-party challenge to South Florida Water Management District's (District's) proposed issuance of Amended Environmental Resource Permit number 43- 01438-P (ERP) for conceptual approval for a surface water management (SWM) system to serve 80.71 acres of residential development known as The Gables at Stuart and 1.42 acres of the entrance road easement. The issue to be decided by the ALJ is whether The Gables at Stuart (The Gables) provided reasonable assurances that the proposed development will not be harmful to the water resources of the District, and will comply with the water quantity, environmental and water quality criteria of the District's ERP regulations set forth in Part IV of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 40E-4, and in the Basis of Review for ERP Applications (BOR) (collectively referred to as the ERP criteria).1
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Proposed Project The Gables project site is located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the District in Martin County, Section 20, Township 37 South, Range 41 E, bordered to the north by Jensen Beach Boulevard and a 18.64-acre tract of commercial property that was previously included in the proposed project. To the west and partially to the south is the Pineapple Plantation residential development, and to the east is the Pinecrest Lakes residential development. The Petitioner resides in the Pineapple Plantation development which borders the Gables site. The Gables project site contains 29.54 acres of wetlands; 26.86 of these will be preserved onsite. Additionally, the project will include a conservation easement encompassing 32.7 acres which covers both wetlands and uplands. Development on the site will cover only 28.04 acres; the remaining acreage which is not under a conservation easement will nonetheless be preserved. Wetlands 1, 2, 3, and 4, which are the larger, higher quality wetlands on the site, will be entirely preserved, except for a 0.11 acre area in the southeast corner of wetland 1, where a berm will be constructed. All direct wetland impacts will result from construction of the multi-family housing and its access road on the northern portion of the site. These wetlands are in a more degraded condition than are the wetlands to the south, which are being preserved. The site includes the alignment of the proposed “Green River Parkway” for which Martin County has submitted a permit application. Although this area and the area to the east of it will be preserved by the Gables, no mitigation credit is given by the District. In fact, portions of wetlands 5 and 6 that are east of the proposed alignment have been considered by the District as secondarily impacted due to the fragmentation and size reduction expected to result from construction of the Parkway even though they are not impacted by the Gables project itself. The site is characterized by pine flatwoods and wet prairies typical of those found along the upper edges of the Savannas in Martin and St. Lucie Counties. The Gables project site is undeveloped but has been hydrologically altered in some areas by offsite conditions. In particular, a large ditch on the west side of the Pinecrest Lakes property adjacent to the eastern boundary of the subject property presently exerts adverse hydrologic affects, as does the entire Pinecrest Lakes development. There is an existing culvert outfall across Jensen Beach Boulevard in the northwest corner of the 18.64-acre commercial property to the north. Runoff from a portion of Jensen Beach Boulevard and undeveloped portions of the West Jensen project are conveyed into the commercial property by this culvert. This runoff then flows easterly and south within the commercial property and, ultimately, under an existing unpaved road used to access two Martin County Utility potable wells located in the eastern project area. The previously referenced north-to-south ditch located along the western edge of the adjacent Pinecrest Lakes project directs this flow southerly into the Pinecrest Lakes Phase I SWM system. A ridge traversing the northern portion of the Gables project site from west to east prevents appreciable volumes of this off-site discharge from reaching wetlands south of this ridge. In general, wetlands found over the southwestern one- half of the Gables project site are in very good condition, displaying healthy and appropriate vegetation and water levels. The northeast one-half was observed to have significantly less standing water when inspected, and vegetation appeared to be transitioning to less water-tolerant species such as slash pines. The southern portion of the Gables project site consists largely of wetlands. Wetlands designated as Wetlands 4 and 7B extend off-site westerly into the neighboring Pineapple Plantation development. The northernmost 18.64 acre commercial portion of the July 2003 Gables project site has been removed. The commercial portion will require a separate permit prior to any development on that parcel. The Gables has proposed an exfiltration trench to provide runoff from its multi-family section, which is on the northern portion of the site, with dry pre-treatment equal to one-half inch over the area prior to discharge into the master SWM system. An exfiltration trench consists of buried perforated piping surrounded by gravel which allows runoff to be filtered and treated before exiting the system. The southernmost area of the Gables development is to consist of single-family residential development located in an upland peninsula in the central western portion of the overall Gables project site. This area will be surrounded by a retaining wall. Runoff from the lots and the access road within the single-family area will be directed to the wet detention lakes of the master SWM system. The master SWM system water quality and storm attenuation facilities include 2.415 acres of wet detention pond to be located in the central eastern project site area, as well as dry detention areas, swales and the exfiltration trench located within the project. Discharge from the master SWM system is into the adjacent Pinecrest Lakes development within a previously established drainage easement. The revised conceptual design for the Gables project site continues to re-route the existing historical off-site discharge from West Jensen and Jensen Beach Boulevard southward to the on-site wetlands through a dedicated culvert conveyance that will commence at the northern boundary of the revised Gables project site area. Conveyance through the formerly included commercial tract will be through existing wetlands. The master SWM system conceptual design will continue to utilize a cascading wetland system, cascading from west to east in accordance with the natural hydrology of the site, with final connection into the master SWM wet detention pond. As the Gables application is for a conceptual permit only, final construction details are not required to be presented at this time, and modifications are to be expected when the applicant files an application for a construction permit. Conditions For Issuance In order to obtain an ERP, an applicant must satisfy the conditions for issuance set forth in Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302. The Conditions for Issuance primarily focus on: a) water quantity, b) wetland environmental values, and c) water quality. Water Quantity Under Rule 40D-4.301(1), an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal, or abandonment of a surface water management system: will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands; will not cause adverse flooding to on- site or off-site property will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. The Applicant has demonstrated through hydrological analysis, which takes into consideration the systems on the surrounding properties, the hydrologic inflow from the north, from the West Jensen project, that the proposed project will not cause flooding to on-site or off-site property. Petitioner alleged that the proposal to install a berm around wetland 7 on the Gables property would cause flooding into Pineapple Plantation. But the evidence was that Pineapple Plantation’s SWM system, as permitted, was intended to contain the runoff within the boundaries of Pineapple Plantation’s property, including the small portion of wetland 7 that straddles the property line between Pineapple Plantation and The Gables. To accomplish this, permission was obtained from Mr. Gibson to install a berm on his property. However, the berm was never installed. The Gables now proposes to install the berm that was supposed to have been there since Pineapple Plantation was permitted. The proposed berm would be established at an elevation sufficient to control runoff produced by a 25-year rainfall event and maintain the previously-established hydrologic divide. For these reasons, installation of the proposed berm, which is necessary to make The Gables' proposed SWM system function properly, will not cause adverse flooding to the Pineapple Plantation. For various other reasons, Petitioner also alleged that The Gables project will lower wetland water levels in Pineapple Plantation, as well as on the Gables property, having adverse impacts on the quality of those wetlands. Petitioner did not present any expert opinion to support his allegations. Instead, he primarily pointed out what he termed "anomalies" in the permit file during cross-examination of expert witnesses for The Gables and the District. In most instances, the expert witnesses explained that Petitioner was mistaken. In every instance where Petitioner had detected an actual "anomaly," the experts explained that they were insignificant for purposes of the permitting criteria. The Gables provided reasonable assurances that it will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities through the determination of appropriate wetland control elevations which are based on wet season water levels. Petitioner raised a question regarding aquifer recharge, which is a consideration under Section 6.10(e) of the BOR, which requires the project to be designed to "preserve site ground water recharge characteristics." The project is designed so that water tables are preserved or even raised. It is also designed to preserve the significant wetland features of the site. There are large areas of contiguous areas of wetland and upland habitat which can function as groundwater recharge. The exfiltration trenches make runoff also available to the aquifer for storage. The lakes are not lined, so the water in the lake can leak out. Based on volumetric calculations, the site will have more water post-development than predevelopment. The types of regional investigations of aquifer recharge capabilities and impacts cited by Petitioner were relevant to consideration of groundwater withdrawal issues, not surface water management design. In conclusion, The Gables provided reasonable assurances that it would comply with the District rules pertaining to water quantity and flood control pursuant to Rule 40E-4.301(1)(a),(b), and (c) and the BOR. Value Of Functions Of Wetlands Rule 40E-4.301(1)(d) requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurances to demonstrate that its proposed project will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters. The wetlands generally located on the north side of the Gables project site are in a more degraded condition than the wetlands to the south. Wetlands generally located over the southerly extent of the site are adequately hydrated and possess high-quality vegetation associations consisting of St. John's wort, maidencane, yellow-eyed grass, and beak rush. This habitat lends itself to utilization by a variety of wading birds, raptors, snakes, and small mammals such as raccoons, bobcats, armadillos, opossums, and feral pigs. In contrast, Wetlands 5, 6, and 7 on the north side exhibit slight-to-significant hydrologic and vegetation changes due to the adjacent Jensen Beach Boulevard and Pinecrest Lakes development to the north and east, respectively. The Gables is proposing both wetland and upland preservation. A mosaic of uplands and wetlands together enhances the value of both and provides a good habitat for wildlife. Mixing upland preservation mixture with wetland preservation increases the value of the wetlands because uplands support wetland habitat, and the “ecotone” at the edge of the upland and wetlands provides the most valuable part of the habitat. The value of preserving this area outweighs potential preservation of the less valuable wetlands to the north, which will be impacted by the multi-family portion of the project. The Gables has provided reasonable assurances to demonstrate that the value of functions provided by wetlands and other surface waters will not be adversely affected. Water Quality Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e) requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurances that the proposed project will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that state water quality standards will not be violated. Section 5.2.1 of the BOR requires that retention, detention, or both retention and detention be provided in the overall system in one of the following three ways or equivalent combinations thereof: Wet detention volume shall be provided for the first inch of runoff from the developed project, or the total runoff of 2.5 inches times the percentage of imperviousness, whichever is greater. Dry detention volume shall be provided equal to 75 percent of the above amounts computed for wet detention. Retention volume shall be provided equal to 50 percent of the above amounts computed for wet detention. Retention volume included in flood protection calculations requires a guarantee of long term operation and maintenance of system bleed-down ability. The Gables has proposed an exfiltration trench system for the multi-family parcel and a lake system to handle runoff from the overflow and from the single-family portion of the project. With these facilities in place, runoff from the proposed development will be treated before any stormwater is discharged off site. Calculations were performed to ensure that the project is engineered to meet these criteria. Petitioner suggested that the project may require more exfiltration trench than in the current plans, due to compaction of the soil from construction activities, which may affect permeability. However, Petitioner presented no evidence to support this suggestion. The expert witness for the Gables explained that compaction usually affects the top two feet of the soil profile, whereas the exfiltration trenches are designed to be 4-5 feet below the ground surface and probably will function as expected. In any event, when a construction permit is sought, final testing will be performed and additional trench will be installed if necessary. The project will accommodate double the amount of exfiltration trenching in the conceptual plan. The Gables has provided reasonable assurances to demonstrate that the project will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that State water quality standards will not be violated. Reduction And Elimination Section 4.2.1 BOR requires that practicable design modifications be explored to reduce or eliminate adverse impacts to wetlands and maximize functions provided by wetlands on the project site. The applicant explored all practicable alternatives in order to reduce or eliminate wetlands impact. In 2000, the Applicant proposed approximately 7.5 acres of wetland impact. In 2001, the Applicant submitted a plan to the District that preserved part of Wetland 5 and impacted the remainder of Wetland 5 by dredging a lake. The current application proposes preserving more of Wetland 5 and three smaller lakes, rather than a single lake, which has the effect of further decreasing wetland impacts The site plan was also modified to address flowage from north of Jensen Beach Boulevard to the south, thereby reducing secondary impacts to all the wetlands that are now being preserved. In addition, a retaining wall has been added around much of the development to offset secondary impacts, and additional buffers have been put in place. Finally, as noted above, the preservation of a large tract of mixed upland and wetlands is more beneficial than preservation of a small amount of degraded wetlands. Conceivably, wetland impacts could be further reduced or eliminated by further decreasing the amount of development. But given the present layout of the proposed site plan, a further reduction would not be considered practicable. Therefore, The Gables has adequately applied the reduction and elimination criteria as required by the BOR and the District's regulations. Secondary Impacts Secondary impacts are indirect impacts that are reasonably expected to occur as a result of development. Rule 40E-4.301(1)(f) and Section 4.1.1(f) of the BOR require an applicant to provide reasonable assurances that the proposed activities will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources. The District conducted a secondary impact analysis and assessed secondary impacts to wetlands 5, 6, and 7. A small portion of wetland 1, which extends off-site, was also assessed as a secondary impact because approximately half an acre of it is cut off by a proposed berm. Pursuant to Subsection 4.2.7(a) of the BOR, a 25- foot buffer is required around a wetland to prevent secondary impacts. Except for the small portion of wetland 1 discussed above, wetlands 1, 2, 3, and 4 will not be secondarily impacted because each wetland has at least a 25-foot buffer and, in some cases, a retaining wall. Mitigation An applicant is required to mitigate for secondary impacts as well as for direct wetlands impacts.3 The Gables is providing a conservation easement in favor of the District to include 18.26 acres of high-quality uplands and 20.8 acres of high-quality wetlands, though mitigation credit is being allowed by the District for only 5.79 acres of the upland portion. The value and importance of a conservation easement is that it provides reasonable assurances that a resource will not be developed in the future. Inclusion of uplands in a conservation easement is particularly valuable because development of uplands ordinarily would be more likely, and because combining wetlands and uplands in a conservation easement has the effect of enhancing the value of the wetlands by encouraging their use by wildlife. Under Section 373.414, Florida Statutes, the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM), which is implemented through Rule Chapter 62-345, wetland impacts from the proposed project will result in 2.63 units of functional loss, while proposed mitigation will provide 2.87 units of functional gain. This UMAM analysis demonstrates that the proposed mitigation offsets wetland impacts. Petitioner questioned whether The Gables and the District properly applied Rule 62-345.600(3)(c) in determining the amount of required mitigation. Specifically, Petitioner contended that, since The Gables is not using a mitigation bank or a regional offsite mitigation area as mitigation, the acreage of mitigation required to offset wetland impacts was to be calculated by dividing functional loss (FL) by relative functional gain (RFG). However, Petitioner did not explain what the result would be if this calculation were made. Meanwhile, the expert witnesses for both the District and The Gables interpreted the language of the Rule to provide that one divides FL by RFG to determine acres of mitigation required only when one discrete area is being impacted and another discrete area is serving as mitigation, which is not the case here. According to the experts, the second sentence of subparagraph (3)(c) explains that, when there is more than one impact or mitigation assessment area, total functional loss and total RFG for each assessment area is determined by summation of the FL and RFG for each assessment area. While the language of the Rule is confusing, the expert testimony is credited and accepted as providing a logical and correct interpretation. The BOR specifically provides in Section 4.3.1.2 that mitigation is best accomplished on-site or in close proximity to the area being impacted. In this case, all of the mitigation proposed is onsite.4 Section 4.2.2 of the BOR provides that as part of the District's assessment of impacts of regulated activities upon fish and wildlife and their habitats, the District will provide notice of ERP applications to the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission (now the Fish and Wildlife Commission, or FWC) for its review and comment. The FWC did not comment on the Gables at Stuart application. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wrote a letter to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 2003, stating that it did not object to the applicant’s wetland impacts and proposed mitigation plan for the proposed project. The Gables provided reasonable assurances that mitigation will offset all impacts to wetlands. Petitioner's Extrapolation from Well Permitting Concerns Petitioner's testimony at final hearing revealed his challenge was motivated by his belief that, because the District has denied applications for permits to withdraw substantial amounts of groundwater in the region, in part due to potential impacts on surficial aquifer and wetlands, it does not make sense to allow any impacts to wetlands in SWM permitting. However, SWM permitting is governed by the criteria discussed above, not the criteria of consumptive use permitting. In addition, the potential impacts of massive consumptive use of groundwater cannot be compared to wetland impacts of the Gables proposal. Finally, as indicated, The Gables has established water table elevations for resulting wetland systems based on the existing condition of those wetlands. In some places, The Gables has proposed to raise water levels to benefit the wetlands and raise the water table above what it has been historically, primarily along the eastern boundary of the property in the Pinecrest Lakes subdivision. This has the effect of maintaining if not raising groundwater levels.
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 issuing to The Gables ERP number 43-01438-P, to expire in two years, subject to the conditions set forth in the Amended Staff Report. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of March, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 16th day of March, 2006.
Findings Of Fact Peter C. Swebelius, Sr., holds certified residential contractor's license no. CRC005629. On or about February 12, 1975, Mrs. Betty Banko and Andrew Banko, of Cardinal Boulevard and Major Street, Daytona Beach, Florida entered into a contract with Peter C. Swebelius for the construction of a home at a cost of $42,496.19 (See Petitioner's Exhibit 1). The contractor agreed to construct a Nobel Home package 7365-B (a prepackaged home) as the second floor of a conventionally constructed first floor, as per revised plans drawn by Luis C. Geil and submitted by Schutte-Mochan, Inc. The licensee agreed to complete construction within sixty (60) days, subject to an extension of time for strikes, accidents or delays beyond the licensee's control. Licensee agreed to construct the home according to the specifications and cost estimates submitted to First Federal Savings and Loan Association of New Smyrna, who arranged construction financing. Luis C. Cell, the manager of the architectural firm who drew the Banko's house plan testified that flashing, a moisture barrier, should have been used to prevent vapor and water leakage from the first and second floors. He further testified that while the plans called for a metal flashing, other flashing such as felt paper would have been acceptable John H. Swebelius, the carpenter employed by Peter C. Swebelius testified that he installed black felt paper as a flashing and vapor barrier for the second floor around the entire home. He testified that in view of the fact that the Banko home was constructed by component and conventional methods, the contractor had to improvise in many areas in order to construct an acceptable home based on the plans submitted. He further testified that while the plans called for a step or spread footers for the floor, the specifications submitted to the lending institution called for a monolithic slab which was, in fact, used in this case. He testified that when there is a conflict between the written specifications and the plans, the written specifications control. Robert G. Howard, an architect registered since 1968 testified that the drawing plans submitted by the Banko's were incomplete. For this reason, he testified that a great deal of discretion was given to the general contractor and that it was common practice in the building trades that specifications govern plan drawings in the event of a conflict He therefore voiced his opinion that the contractor committed no wrong by utilizing a monolithic foundation as opposed to a spread footer foundation based on the conflicts. While he admitted that a written change order would have been a better procedure, he also stated that this procedure is seldom used in a single family dwelling Respecting the shape of the chimney which was upright with no curvatures, he stated that was merely a design preference and based on the overall design plan, the upright shape did not, in any material way, alter the salability or design of the Banko home Roy E Ransom, the mason contractor for the Banko residence, testified that Mrs. Banko visited the construction site frequently and voiced no complaint regarding the chimney. Evidence adduced during the course of the hearing revealed that during the construction of the Banko residence, heavy rainfall occurred and that in this regard, approximately 72 inches of rain fell during the time the Banko's home was under construction (See Respondent's Exhibit 6). Peter C Swebelius therefore offered his opinion that the water leakage problem resulted from standing rain which entered the Banko residence through a threshold, a problem which has now been corrected He testified that due to Mrs. Banko's directions to the lending institution to halt all construction draws, he was unable to complete the home and in essence that he was fired from the project. Arthur Eiland, an inspector for Volusia County testified that the Banko home was given a final inspection on April 22, 1977, and at that time, there were no deficiencies and in fact the house passed the inspection He further testified that this was the first final inspection request by Mrs. Banko and that no violations exist at this time. He testified further that when Mrs. Banko requests a certificate of occupancy, it will be issued by the building inspection department.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, I hereby RECOMMEND: That the Respondent be issued a written reprimand for his deviation of the building plans respecting the chimney design in his construction of the Banko residence. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of July, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Barry Sinoff, Esquire 1010 Blackstone Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Paul Hagglund, Esquire 1055 North Dixie Freeway Post Office Drawer J New Smyrna Beach, Florida 32069 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD, Petitioner, vs. DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS, DOCKET NO. 76-784 PETER C. SWEBELIUS, SR. CR C005629, Route 1, Airport Road, New Smyrna Beach Florida 32069, Respondent. /
The Issue Whether Baxter was delinquent in its prosecution of work under the contract, and if so, by how many days, and Whether Baxter's certificate of qualification should be suspended and Baxter disapproved as a subcontractor for 54 days. FINDINGS OF FACT_ Baxter was awarded a contract by the Department for state job number 49010-3542 on July 15, 1984, in the amount of $981,051.17. This project involved the repaving of State Road 30 (US 98) for a length of 5.23 miles in Apalachicola, Florida. The work consisted of light grading, resurfacing existing pave- meet, applying leveling asphalt, and applying a final surface course. In addition, existing box culverts under the road were to be extended on both sides of the road at some 11 locations, and existing drainage structures were to be worked on. Baxter's bid, which was incorporated into the executed contract, stated that it agreed to: . . . fully complete all necessary work under the (contract) within not more than 180 calendar days. It is understood and agreed that the date on which calendar-days will begin to be charged to the project shall be either (1) the 31st calendar day from the date of issuance of the initial notice to begin work, or (2) the date on which the contractor actually begins work, whichever date is the earlier. This statement was signed by Louie Seay, Baxter's Vice President. Pursuant to the contract, the price the contractor bids for contract items includes the cost of all expenses, including labor, to get the job done within the required amount of time. For example, one contract item provides, "The quantities determined as provided above shall be paid for at the contract unit price per linear foot for Precast Concrete Box Culvert of the size shown in the proposal. Such price and payment shall be full compensation for all work specified in this Section . . ." In accordance with Department procedure, the contractor was required to submit a proposed Work Progress Schedule Chart to the State Construction Engineer. The Work Progress Schedule Chart submitted by Baxter showed its plans to do various aspects of the work over the course of the 180-day contract time. The final approved plan indicated that Baxter planned to begin drainage structure work about the 30th day of the contract time, and pursue this activity until the 180th day. Baxter's plan further indicated that road surface operations were planned to be done concurrently with the work on the drainage structures. Drainage work can be performed concurrently with resurface work. Baxter began work on October 2, 1984, which was the first chargeable day under the terms of the contract. Baxter substantially completed and the Department conditionally accepted the job on August 3, 1985, contract day number 303. Don Roberts, a state construction engineer in the Department's Central Construction office, monitors the progress of ongoing contracts, prepares delinquency notices, and sees or prepares all responses to contractor extension requests. Under the operation of the rule known as "the 20 percent test," Rule 14-23.01(3)(b) 2, Florida Administrative Code, Baxter's work had become delinquent in mid-February 1985. At this time, the dollar value of Baxter's completed work (actual dollars earned by virtue of work completed) as a percentage of the total dollar amount of the contract, was 20 percentage points behind the percent of contract time elapsed, and at this time Baxter's completed work was more than 20 percent behind the contractor's work progress schedule.1 Under subsection (b)1 of Rule 14- 23.01(3), Florida Administrative Code, which applies when the contract time has expired, Baxter's progress was also delinquent. Under this "contract expiration test," Baxter was delinquent during the period between expiration of the contract time of 180 days without completion of work, until the work was conditionally accepted on August 3, 1985, which was contract day number 303. At the expiration of the contract time on April 3, 1985, Baxter had earned approximately 33 percent of the total contract price. Under the "20 percent test," Baxter was delinquent 166 days, and under the "contract expiration test," Baxter was delinquent 123 days. The Department notified Baxter by preliminary telegram and certified letter on March 11, 1985, that the work progress was considered delinquent, and of the opportunity to request an extension of contract time only for such delays as are allowed in Article 8-7.3.2 of the standard specifications. Baxter submitted a claim for an extension due to weather conditions. After consideration of the request by the resident engineer's office at Springhill Road, and by the Central Office, the extension request was denied by the Department. A final notice of delinquency (telegram and certified letter) was sent to Baxter on May 29, 1985. K. Sheppard Davis, Department engineer in the Specifications office, has reviewed proposed project plans for 19 years. He estimates what the contract time should be for proposed projects. By applying the Department's standard guidelines, the contract time should have been 100 days, and the original Department calculations had proposed a 100-day limit. Nevertheless, the Department advertised the contract for 180 days. Although 56 actual working days were required to do the job, additional time is built into a contract. The Department applies a conversion factor of 1.825 to the actual working days to arrive at a calendar day contract estimate. The additional time allowed by this conversion factor provides time in the contract for no work on Saturdays and Sundays, no work on one weekday each week for inclement weather, and 9 holidays a year. Prior to the 180-day chargeable contract time, Baxter was allowed 30 days by the Department for preliminary time to assemble, prepare and set-up for work. The time allotted for project completion, as advertised in the project description, is a material item of the contract. The 180 day contract time was ample to do the job, and there was sufficient additional time provided to allow for adverse weather. M. Herman McWaters, assistant engineer in the Department's Springhill Road (Tallahassee) office, which supervised construction of this project, described basic stages of work on this 5.23 mile road resurface job. The first and second of four surface applications to the road surface are celled levelinq (tandem operation - laying down stone and then asphalt over-build), then Type S asphalt c concrete is applied, followed by final application of another layer of Type S asphaltic concrete. After each surface application, the road is useable. The subject project required extension of existing box culverts and/or cross drain pipes. All asphalt layers except the final layer can be laid while drainage and other contract items are being performed concurrently. Baxter performed all asphalt surface work in 23 days. The final layer, which could not be applied until most of the project work was done, was applied by Baxter in five days. Prior to beginning work, Mr. Louis Seay of Baxter originally told the Department that he planned to complete the first three layers of road work in the first three weeks of the contract time. Baxter did little or no work from October of 1984 through February of 1985, as indicated by its lack of earnings and the daily diary. Baxter voluntarily initiated chargeable contract time by beginning asphalt work on October 2, 1984. It continued to apply the leveling course for four days total. After the fourth contract day, Baxter did no further asphalt or road work until contract day 206. No work was done from contract day 5 through day 20, during which the daily diary2/ indicates good weather conditions. Weather was not a valid excuse for delay of any work required by the contract. On contract days 21-26, 28-31, and day 34 subcontractor Glen Powell Company worked on side drain work. There was no work done through contract day 53 during which time weather conditions were good, except for contract day 45. On contract day 54, C & C Partnership Company, a subcontractor, began work on the box culvert extensions, but no further work was done on the project from contract day 55 until C & C returned on day 82. C & C worked on days 82-83, 87, 95-99, 101-103, 105-106, 115-116, 119- 120, and 122-1277 until it was dismissed by Baxter. However, the work performed by this subcontractor could have been started on the first day of the contract. Baxter testified that they did not monitor this subcontractor's performance in the early months, but became very concerned after January 15 (contract day 102) when the subcontractor had only generated $3,000 to $4,000 in earnings out of $180,000 that it had subcontracted for. Nevertheless, the contractor is sent copies of the daily diary and weekly summary which records the location at which any work was performed, the type of work performed, and gives the subcontractor or contractor doing the work. Baxter failed to adequately manage, supervise, and direct the prosecution of the subcontract work. Baxter took over C & C's work on February 15, 1985 (contract day 137) until another subcontractor could take over. Baxter could have worked on the box culverts themselves concurrently with any subcontractor (i.e., on opposite ends of the project). The amount of time a subcontractor actually takes to perform a job is not indicative of how many days is required to do that job. Other variables such as the number of persons utilized, experience, proficiency, etc., factor into how long a certain subcontractor takes to do a job. After notice of delinquency, Baxter submitted an extension request based on a claim of adverse weather. Utilizing the Springhill office's analysis of each day claimed as adverse weather conditions, the Department denied the extension request. The project engineer concurred that adverse weather was not a bona fide reason for delay. For some days of actual bad weather, the prime and subcontractors worked all day. The contract required that the temperature be 60 degrees before the second level of surface treatment (asphalt) could be applied. The Department did not grant any extension due to temperatures below 60 degrees because on the days when such temperatures occurred Baxter had not finished the leveling course, which had to be done first. By industry practice, a contractor should finish the first course before beginning the second course. The second level could have been done intermittently if the temperature was too cool one day but not the next. The National Weather Service climatological data submitted with the extension request, showed that on many days claimed as adverse weather there was only a trace of moisture, one hundredth of an inch, or three-hundredths of an inch of rain, which is not adverse working weather. The on-site weather observations recorded in the daily diary also support & finding that weather did not affect the work progress. Thus, the extension request was properly denied. The Department's standard procedures allow one day of contract time for laying 15,000 square yards of sod. Herman Green, the project engineer on this job, reviewed the daily on- site inspection reports, compiled the engineers' weekly summary, and visited the project once or twice a week. A contractor is expected to have equipment to handle drainage problems, and is expected to check out the physical area involved in drainage items before bidding on a contract. During the progress of the work Baxter did not inform him of any drainage problems which could not have been anticipated before the job was bid. No valid drainage delay excuses were presented by Baxter. Baxter is an experienced contractor, having performed about 100 million dollars worth of work for the Department. Its bid proposed that Baxter would perform all work in 180 calendar days. It could have performed the total resurfacing operation within the contract time. The contractor's work progress schedule and the contract time allowed are factors relied on by the Department in its planning, management of manpower and resources, and budgeting of monthly expenditures. When a contractor exceeds its contract time on a project, it results in management and personnel allocation problems and increased costs (overtime). When a contractor is not on the job during contract days, the Department still has to send inspectors daily to monitor the safety and weather conditions.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a Final Order declaring that the certificate of qualification of Baxter's Asphalt and Concrete, Inc., be suspended, and that Baxter be disapproved as a subcontractor for a period of 54 calendar days from the date of the Final Order. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 19th day of November, 1985 in Tallahassee, Leon County, F1orida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (9040 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of November, 1985.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioners and an adjoining land owner have been involved in a dispute respecting the boundary between their property. The adjoining land owner developed a residential community known as the Bayside Estates subdivision. A canal system was dredged creating waterfront lots in the subdivision, and the canal system was connected to a waterway which flows to the Gulf of Mexico. The portion of the canal system which connects it to the waterway leading to the Gulf of Mexico was constructed on property owned by the Petitioners. Litigation respecting the rights of the Petitioners and adjoining land owners has been conducted in the Circuit Court of the 20th Judicial Circuit, Lee County, Florida, and in the Florida Second District Court of Appeal. Petitioners are seeking to construct a cable across the joining portion of the canal system, which they contend lies totally within their property. The canal system is a navigable waterway. The stated purpose of the Petitioners' proposed project is to prevent persons who live above the Petitioners' property from using the waterway for boating access to the Gulf of Mexico. The project would serve as a clear obstruction to navigation within the canal system. The Bayside Estates subdivision is located on the canal system above the point where the Petitioners would construct their proposed cable. There are approximately 300 property owners in the subdivision and as many as 150 of them are boat owners. These persons presently utilize the portion of the canal system which the Petitioners propose to block for water access to the Gulf of Mexico. These persons purchased property in the subdivision with the understanding and the belief that they would have water access to the Gulf of Mexico. Other than the fact that it would serve as an obstruction to navigation, the Petitioners, proposed cable would have no environmental impact, except perhaps an aesthetic one. The cable would not obstruct the flow of water, and would not be a source of pollution.
Findings Of Fact On or about March 7, 1986, Petitioner submitted an application for a variance from the open space and rear set-back line requirements applicable to property located at 2612 U.S. 19 North, Clearwater, Florida. The subject property is zoned CC (commercial center). Petitioner's application requests a variance to provide 12.33% open space instead of 25%, and to construct a building 30 feet from the rear property line rather than 50 feet as required by the Land Development Code for property zoned CC. On or about April 24, 1986, the Development Code Adjustment Board denied Petitioner's application for a variance, and Petitioner timely appealed on May 6, 1986. The only evidence in support of its application offered by Petitioner was the testimony of Robby Tompkins. He testified that Petitioner's application is "unique" because Petitioner was 90% complete with its architectural plans for the renovation and modernization of the subject property when the current ordinance took effect, and Petitioner therefore urges that the current ordinance should not apply. Additionally, Petitioner argues that there will be no injury to the public as a result of the variance, and in fact the project will add 6800 square feet to its shopping center. Tompkins admitted that an increase in financial return was the primary reason Petitioner has sought the variance. Finally, he stated that if Petitioner complies with the 25% open space requirement, there will not be enough parking to meet Code provisions, and if sufficient parking is provided, there will not 25% open space.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations involved in this administrative hearing, the Respondent, Dennis Heasley, was a licensed land surveyor having been issued license number LS 3466 by the State of Florida. In January 1981 Respondent was an employee of James Bushouse and Associates, a land surveying firm. On January 31, 1981, MidSouth Engineering (MidSouth), a licensed land surveying company, entered into a contract with Figg and Muller Engineers, Inc., and the State of Florida, Department of Transportation, to provide engineering and land surveying services for the new Sunshine Skyway Bridge project. On June 10, 1981, MidSouth entered into a contract with Bushouse for Respondent, Heasley, and other Bushouse employees to perform some of the land survey services called for in the contract MidSouth had with the Department of Transportation. Thereafter, MidSouth entered into an agreement with Respondent Heasley and one Jorge R. Saniz providing that, for a fee of $200,000.00 Heasley and Sainz would provide land surveying and consulting services to MidSouth for its work under its state contract. On or about June 26, 1981, Heasley and Sainz began their work under the agreement with MidSouth, and the work called for by the agreement was satisfactorily completed by July 31, 1981. Thereafter, Heasley billed MidSouth for the unpaid remainder of the contract price and was paid. The contract between MidSouth and the State of Florida provided for payment by the State based on crew day rates wherein the State would pay so much money per crew day expended. The work in issue here was to take no more than 85 crew days with an upper limit on payment to be approximately $300,000.00. Respondent actually completed the work in 34 days. His speedy completion of the job resulted in MidSouth receiving less under its contract than anticipated. Shortly after completion, he became an employee of MidSouth. In the course of his continuing employment, he worked on some other aspects of the bridge project that were awarded to MidSouth. Respondent's lump-sum contract with MidSouth called for payment to him of $200,000.00. Out of that sum he was supposed to pay all his and Sainz' job expenses which included the salary, housing, and feeding of the employees he hired to perform the actual surveying work. His understanding with MidSouth called for him to utilize approximately 12 to 16 crew members. During the time the work was being performed, Respondent and Mr. Sainz rented a house near the work-site in which crew members were provided a place to live. Food paid for by Respondent Sainz was provided as were laundry facilities. The sums paid for these items as well as the transportation of the workers and the worker's salaries were to come from the $200,000.00 fee paid by MidSouth. Payments were made on the basis of periodic draws. Either Heasley or Sainz would contact MidSouth and state that some money was required for expenses and a sum was furnished. As this sum was expended Respondent would ask for more. He indicates that the relationship was like a game in that he asked for as much as he thought he could get and MidSouth would pay as little as it thought it could get away with. In any event, no actual per diem monies were paid by Respondent to the employees who were working on the survey crew. Respondent admits that during the 34 days this arrangement was in effect, he kept very few records and receipts. He relied on MidSouth to keep all the expense records and whatever receipts he received for money spent, he sent in to MidSouth which made up the payroll for Heasley and Sainz' crew members from the times he called in. Several months after the subcontract between Heasley, Sainz, and MidSouth was completed, Heasley was called by Tom Heinly, Executive Vice- President of MidSouth and his immediate supervisor, with a request that he, Heasley, prepare, sign and submit a list of per diem expenses for the crew which worked on the contract referenced above. In the course of the conversation, Heinly asked that it be prepared a certain way. In response, Respondent told Heinly that he could not do that because he had not paid the money as per diem payments but had provided payment in kind in the form of food, lodging, and laundry. Heinly advised Respondent to think about it and later called back again asking that Heasley prepare and sign a statement indicating per diem money paid. Heinly argued that MidSouth was entitled to the money and asked that Heasley do this as a favor. Again, Heasley refused. The third time Heinly called Heasley, he indicated that the list would be strictly a memorandum between Heasley and MidSouth to account for some of the money advanced by MidSouth and that the list had nothing to do with the State. Heinly assured Heasley that the improper, inaccurate list would not go to the State since this was one of Heasley's concerns. Heinly indicated that he had talked with representatives of the State and had been assured that it was legitimate to file an invoice such as this. Heasley was led to believe that the State would not reimburse MidSouth for advances made for in-kind payments but would reimburse for actual per diem expenses. Ultimately, since Heasley was convinced by Heinly that MidSouth was entitled to be reimbursed for these monies and since, to the best of his recollection, he, Heasley, had paid out in in-kind expense a sum similar to that claimed on the per diem list, it would be all right to so certify. Therefore, he agreed to sign the list after the third request. The list which Heasley signed was prepared by MidSouth personnel, not Heasley, and was brought to Heasley by Mr. Duffer, MidSouth's chief accountant. Respondent does not recall going over the list at the time he signed it and verified neither the names nor the amounts set out thereon. When he checked it over much later, he found that some of the names on the list should not have been there. Respondent admits signing the document and admits that the document as signed was false. When investigators from the State Attorney's Office initially talked with Mr. Heasley about this incident he was less than forthright. Though they had advised him they were investigating the relationship between MidSouth and the Department of Transportation, the tenor of their questions indicated to him that they were investigating him and his answers were evasive and, in fact, erroneous. However, when he subsequently found out the nature of the investigation, he attempted to get word to the investigators that he would like to continue the discussion. He was unable to do so, however, and was not interviewed by these officials again. He was, however, subsequently interviewed by Mr. Cartwright who, in mid to late 1981, was conducting an investigation into the MidSouth, Heasley and Sainz relationship with the Skyway Bridge project. An engineer with the State had expressed some concern regarding invoices submitted by MidSouth and the preliminary inquiry showed some cause for concern. As a result, a full investigation was begun which revealed that MidSouth had little if any documentation to cover invoices submitted to the State. It also showed that the company's accounting procedures and internal control were almost nonexistent. As a part of the investigation Cartwright interviewed Heasley who admitted that he had signed the documents referred to above regarding per diem payments. Heasley also admitted that in some cases the payees did not receive the money claimed but in his opinion, the bottom line balanced out and MidSouth was entitled to the total sum.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Dennis Heasley's license as a land surveyor in the State of Florida, be placed on probation for a period of two years, under such terms and conditions as shall be established by the Board of Land Surveyors, and that he be reprimanded and pay an administrative fine of $1,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of January 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of January 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph W. Lawrence, II, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 E. C. Deeno Kitchen, Esquire Melissa Fletcher Allaman Post Office Drawer 1170 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Allen R. Smith, Jr. Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
