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
Findings Of Fact Description of Proposed Fill Project DER proposes to deny three alternative proposals to fill all or part of Petitioners' real property located in Key West, Florida. The property is rectangular, approximately three acres in size, with 300 feet bordering Roosevelt Boulevard (High-Way A1A) to the south and approximately 300 feet bordering Key West International Airport to the north. The easterly property line is 489.4 feet and the westerly line is 434.63 feet. The Straits of Florida (Atlantic Ocean) are immediately on the other side of Roosevelt Boulevard to the south. The property has a strip of approximately 90 feet of upland and transitional wetland adjacent to Roosevelt Boulevard, with the rest of the property being covered by a salt pond of approximately 40 acres in size (Jnt. Ex. 1). Petitioners initially submitted a permit application in July, 1983, to fill the entire property for construction of multifamily housing units. On May 4, 1984, after discussion with a DER permitting official, Petitioners submitted a second application containing two alternative, less extensive development proposals. The first alternative involves the placement of fill over a 300' x 230' area (approximately 9722 cubic yards) extending 230 feet from the property along Roosevelt Boulevard out into the water. This alternative would entail construction of 24 family housing units, consisting of six basic structures, each four-stories high. The second alternative involves subdividing the property into six separate lots connected by a central fill road with cul-de- sac. Each lot, approximately .4 acres in size, would contain a single family house on pilings and an associated fill pad for parking. The fill pads would be connected to a approximately 300' x 30' entrance road constructed on fill material. Presumably, this second alternative would contain the same amount of total fill as required in the first. As it presently exists, the salt pond (a part of which applicant would fill) serves several significant and beneficial environmental functions. In regard to water quality, the pond stores, filters, and purifies large quantities of storm water which drain from the airport and South Roosevelt Boulevard. The filling of any portion of this pond would diminish this capacity. (Jnt. Ex. 1) Because of their relatively isolated nature, the organic detrital material that is produced from the leaf litter of fringing mangroves is broken down into a very fine and readily usable form by bacteria. As a result, when there is an occasional exchange between the salt pond and tidal waters, the exported organics are in a very desirable form for higher trophic levels in the food web such as small fish, crustaceans, filter feeders, and various larval forms of marine life. (Jnt. Ex. 1) The salt pond proper provides valuable habitat for fish and wildlife, most notable of which are avifauna. The pond has apparently become established as a healthy, self-sustaining ecosystem providing permanent and temporary food, shelter and refuge for many faunal species which play significant and necessary ecological roles both in the salt ponds and other tidal and brackish water systems. (Jnt. Ex. 1) Through the placement of fill and the displacement of present salt pond habitat, water quality and the biological resources in the immediate and surrounding areas would be expected to undergo degradation. (Jnt. Ex. 1) Through the encroachment of development in this area, which presently lacks residential development, biological integrity standards would be expected to fall below acceptable levels. The proposed fill areas would reduce wind- driven circulation in the pond so as to stress levels of oxygen, salinity, temperature and turbidity. Runoff from the proposed fill would introduce nutrients and elevate turbidity during storm events. Finally, elevated turbidity levels could be expected during the actual filling process and the various species of fish and wildlife now located over the project site would be temporarily disturbed by construction activities and permanently displaced in the long term through the loss of habitat. (Jnt. Ex. 1) There is a 40' zoning setback and another 50' easement owned by the City of Key West, which together form a 90' strip on the property adjacent to Roosevelt Boulevard. This 90-foot strip is largely upland and some transitional wetland. There is no zoning impediment to any of the development alternatives proposed by Petitioners. The property is currently zoned R2H (multifamily residential) by the City of Key West. II. DER's Action on the Application After DER received and reviewed Petitioners initial application on July 22, 1983, a completeness summary was sent on August 17, 1983, requesting additional information. DER received the additional information on March 23, 1984, after which it notified Petitioners that additional information was needed. Petitioners met with DER officials on April 20, 1984, and submitted additional information on May 4, 1984, including the two alternative proposals. DER issued the "Intent to Deny" all three of the proposed projects on July 19, 1984 (Jnt. Ex. 1). On May 16, 1984, a DER Environmental Specialist visited the site of the proposed projects and conducted a biological and water quality assessment. This assessment was later submitted, in report form, as the Permit Application Appraisal, dated June 7, 1984. This appraisal, uncontested by Petitioners, indicates that each of the three fill proposals would take place in waters of the state and result in water quality violations under Rules 17-3.051(1), 17- 3.061(2)(c), (j) and (r); 17-3.121(7), (13) and (28); Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code; and Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. Water quality problems associated with the project were identified as diminished storm water treatment, reduced beneficial deterital material, stress on oxygen levels, salinity, temperature, and turbidity, and an introduction of nutrients. (Jnt. Ex. 1) Although a DER dredge and fill permitting official testified that any filling of the salt pond would be detrimental to the birds and animals which feed there on a daily basis, and that, in his view, a "substantial amount" of filling would not be allowed by DER, there are development projects (other than the three presented by Petitioners) which, in his view, may qualify for a permit under DER rules. DER has, in the past, issued permits authorizing the construction of above-ground residences over wetland properties. Under DER's permitting standards, one or more single-family residences could be built on the property if the structures were built on stilts, did not violate water quality standards, had acceptable drainage, and did not result in adverse storm water discharges. In evaluating such an application, any mitigation an applicant could provide, such as enhancing flushing in the salt ponds by the installation of a culvert to open water, would be balanced against any adverse impacts expected from the filling activity. The three alternative filling proposals submitted by Petitioners (including drawings and designs) do not, however as yet, fall within or satisfy these general perimeters of permitting acceptability.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioners' application to fill (containing three alternative proposals) be denied for failure to prove compliance with applicable permitting standards contained in Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 17-3 and 17- 4, Florida Administrative Code. DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of July, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of July, 1985.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP or Department) should exempt Petitioner's alleged maintenance-dredging from wetland resource permitting under Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 312.050(1)(e).1
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has applied for a maintenance-dredging exemption from wetland resource permitting for two channels in Goose Bayou on the two ends of a U-shaped upland cut canal adjacent to Goose Bayou. Rule 62-312 provides in pertinent part: No permit shall be required under this chapter for dredging or filling . . . for the projects listed below. * * * (e) The performance of maintenance dredging of existing manmade canals, channels, and intake and discharge structures, where the spoil material is to be removed and deposited on a self-contained, upland spoil site which will prevent the escape of the spoil material and return water from the spoil site into surface waters of the state, provided no more dredging is performed than is necessary to restore the canal, channels, and intake and discharge structures to original design specifications, and provided that control devices are used at the dredge site to prevent turbidity and toxic or deleterious substances from discharging into adjacent waters during maintenance dredging. This exemption shall apply to all canals constructed before April 3, 1970, and to those canals constructed on or after April 3, 1970, pursuant to all necessary state permits. This exemption shall not apply to the removal of a natural or manmade barrier separating a canal or canal system from adjacent waters of the state. Where no previous permit has been issued by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund or the United States Army Corps of Engineers for construction or maintenance dredging of the existing manmade canal or intake or discharge structure, such maintenance dredging shall be limited to a depth of no more than 5 feet below mean low water. There was no evidence of any dredging or application for dredging in the vicinity of the proposed alleged "maintenance- dredging" prior to 1971. There was evidence and a stipulation that Heritage Homes of Fort Walton, Inc. (Heritage Homes), applied to the State of Florida in or around 1971 to dredge two navigation channels in Goose Bayou for a project known as Venetian Villas and to remove two plugs separating a land-locked U-shaped canal from Goose Bayou. The navigation channels were to be 50 feet wide by five feet deep. The southern channel was to be 640 feet long, while the northern channel was to be 450 feet long. This proposal did not receive any governmental authorization. There was evidence and the parties stipulated that in 1973, based on the proposed project modifications, the State of Florida Department of Pollution Control (DPC), a predecessor of DEP, issued water quality certification, and the State of Florida Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (BOT) issued a permit for the project, as modified. It appears that the issuance of the water qualify certification and BOT permit was part of some kind of settlement reached between Heritage Homes and the State of Florida for dredge-and-fill violations. It appears that the settlement also involved the conveyance of ten acres of land to the State of Florida in lieu of payment for the spoil used in filling the marsh lands between Goose Bayou and the U-shaped canal. There was evidence and the parties stipulated that, at some point in time, the DPC certification and a BOT permit were transferred from Heritage Homes to West Florida Construction Company (West Florida). There was evidence and the parties stipulated that, as of July 13, 1973, neither Heritage Homes nor West Florida had applied to the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) for a permit. There was evidence and the parties stipulated that, over time and after receiving comments from various governmental agencies, West Florida's proposed project changed to involve a yacht basin/marina, a proposed southern channel, elimination of the proposal for a northern channel, and plugging the U-shaped canal to keep it separate from Goose Bayou. The location of the single, southern channel under this proposal was different from the proposed location of the southern channel under the Heritage Homes proposal, which was to start at the southernmost arm of the U-shaped canal. Instead, under West Florida's proposal, the single, southern channel was to be located directly north of the southernmost arm of the U-shaped canal. There was evidence and the parties stipulated that, by August 21, 1974, West Florida applied to the Corps for a permit to dredge the single, southern channel (50 feet wide, 565 feet long, and four feet deep), to keep the northern canal plugged, and to construct a yacht basin/marina. There was evidence and the parties stipulated that, the United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommended several changes to the project before they could recommend that the Corps issue a permit for the 1974 application; however, it does not appear that the recommended changes were ever made or that the Corps ever took any action on the 1974 application or issued any permit for the proposed project. At some point in time after 1974, the two plugs were removed, which connected the U-shaped canal to Goose Bayou. There is now a wide, shallow channel from the waterward ends of the U-shaped canal into Goose Bayou. The evidence did not prove that these channels, which Petitioner now seeks to maintenance- dredge, were ever dredged by man. Their width and shallow depth are more consistent with natural scouring from surface water runoff leaving the canal system at low and extreme low tides than with dredging. There was no evidence of soil borings, which could have verified whether the channels had been dredged by man. Even if originally dredged, there was no evidence that a dredged channel had been maintained over the years. Mr. Stoutamire testified that DEP does not consider maintenance- dredging to include the restoration or rebuilding of a channel that has not been maintained and no longer exists. This interpretation of the maintenance-dredging exemption is reasonable. Mr. Stoutamire also testified that DEP interprets the last sentence of Rule 62-312.050(1)(e), limiting maintenance- dredging to no more than five feet below mean low water where no previous permit has been issued, to refer to canals constructed before April 3, 1970, since maintenance-dredging of canals constructed after that date would not be exempt if not previously permitted. This interpretation is reasonable.2 Petitioner's application did not state that control devices would be used to prevent turbidity and toxic or deleterious substances from discharging into adjacent waters during dredging.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order denying Petitioner a maintenance-dredging exemption under Rule 62- 312.050(1)(e). DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of September, 2009, 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 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of September, 2009.
Findings Of Fact On May 3, 1977, DOT advertised for bids to construct 4.034 miles of interstate highway in Charlotte County, Florida, from a point north of Oilwell Road to a point north of Green Gulf Boulevard. This project, which is the subject matter of this proceeding, was designated as join No 0l075-340l. The closing for bids was 10:30 A.M. on March 30, 1977. On January 27, 1977, DOT advertised for bids to construct 5.027 miles of interstate highway in Charlotte County, Florida, from the county line to a point north of Oilwell Road. This project, which was adjacent to the "3401 job" was designated as job No. 01075-3407 . The closing date for the bids on this contract was changed from February 23, 1977, to March 23, 1977, by Addendum No. 3 dated March 9, 1977. Petitioner is a corporation which has been involved in the construction of various types of roads in the sate of Florida for many years, and, for the last 19 years has constructed roads in the area of the state generally north of Tampa. Petitioner was the successful bidder on both the aforementioned projects. Prior to submitting its bid, representatives for Petitioner visited the construction site, observed that the site consisted of flat country with lakes and standing water, and inquired of local residents about area weather conditions. Petitioner's representatives were advised that the area experienced frequent rainfall, but made no inquiry about historical rainfall statistics, either independently or through DOT. On May 26, 1977, Petitioner entered into a contract with DOT in the amount of $5,884,703.32 to construct the "3401 job" consisting of 4.034 miles of interstate highway in Charlotte County, Florida, from a point north of Oilwell Road to a point north of Green Gulf Boulevard, including construction of Green Gulf Boulevard to U.S. 41. In that contract, Petitioner agreed, in part ". . . to fully complete all necessary work . . . within not more than nine hundred calendar days. " On May 19, 1977, Petitioner entered into a contract with DOT in the amount of $5,734,417.40 to construct the "3407 job" consisting of 5.027 miles of interstate highway in Charlotte County, Florida, from the county line to a point north of Oilwell Road and agreed, in part, to complete necessary work on this project within not more than seven hundred calendar days. Prior to the advertising and letting of bids on the two above-described projects, a feasibility study was conducted during the 1960s as mandated by federal law, which study was followed by a 4F Environmental Impact Statement approved by the U.S. Secretary of Transportation locating the aforementioned portions of the proposed interstate highway in the Cecil M. Webb Wildlife Area in Charlotte County, Florida. One of the requirements of the 4F Statement is that necessary embankment material for the construction of the portions of the interstate highway herein disputed be excavated from a designated location in the wildlife area, thereby creating a lake to be stocked for public fishing. Soil samples were taken from the proposed lake borrow area by borings during the period from March 20, 1972 through April 10, 1972. These soil samples were analyzed by DOT personnel, which analysis resulted in a soil report which was entered into evidence in this proceeding. Samples of two strata of A- 2(4) soil, from the proposed borrow area were forwarded to DOT's Gainesville laboratory for X-ray diffraction. These tests resulted in a memorandum dated July 29, 1972, which indicated that the test results showed the materials to contain a small amount, approximately one part in ten of the clay fraction, of montmorillonite. Montmorillonite is a mineral whose chief characteristic is an affinity for attracting and tenaciously holding excess water, thereby becoming highly plastic and difficult to compact. The presence of montmorillonite is common in coastal areas of Florida, such as Charlotte County. The July 29, 1972, memorandum also contained the further provision that: Caution is advised in the use of these materials, as we do not have enough background data, historical data, etc. to determine the effect of different amounts of montmorillonite on material handling characteristics, under varying moisture conditions. As previously indicated, because of the requirements of the 4F Statement, construction plans and special provisions relating to these two projects required that all material for road embankment was to come from the construction of a lake area in the Cecil M. Webb Wildlife Area. Because of the aforementioned soil analysis, information was placed in the project plans indicating the presence of plastic materials in the Sample 3, 5, and 6, and the following notation was placed in the project plans concerning embankment and sub-grade material: The material from Strata No. I, 2, and 4 appears satisfactory for use in the embankment. The material from Strata No. 3, 5, and 6 appears satisfactory for use in the embankment above the water level existing during construction. However, extreme caution should be followed in the use of these materials as they are likely to retain excess moisture and may be difficult to dry. The material from Strata No. 7 and 8 appears satisfactory for use in the embankment. However extreme caution should be followed in the use of these materials as they are likely to retain excess moisture end may be difficult to dry. The material from Strata No. 9 is muck. (Emphasis added) In addition, the following notations were contained in the Special Provisions portion of the contract between Petitioner and DOT, in Paragraph 11 entitled "Embankment": Source: The Contractor shall obtain all required material for the proposed embankment from areas within the Cecil M. Webb Wildlife Area. This excavation shall be performed in accordance with the lake construc- tion plans. . . . (f) Soil Analysis: The Contractor's attention is directed to the strata which are likely to retain excess moisture and may be difficult to dry. Prior to commencement of construction on the projects, a pre- construction conference was held between representatives of Petitioner and DOT in Punta Gorda, Florida, on June 0, 1977. At the pro-construction conference, discussions were held which indicated that all embankment material for the two projects would come from the planned lake area as shown on the plans and specifications, and it was again pointed out to Petitioner's representative that the embankment material might be difficult to dry. Petitioner's job superintendent was present at the preconstruction conference, had read the soil notes concerning the affinity of the embankment material for retaining moisture, but made no further inquiry of representatives of DOT concerning the soil test results contained in the project plans. It is undisputed that DOT did not furnish petitioner the results of its laboratory tests, nor did DOT advise Petitioner specifically of the presence of montmorillonite. Section 8-8.1, Florida Department of Transportation Standards Specifications for Roads and Bridge Construction, 1973, which was made a part of the contract between Petitioner and DOT, provides, in pertinent part, that: Time is an essential element of the con tract and, as delay in the prosecution of the work will inconvenience the public, obstruct traffic, and interfere with business, it is important that the work be pressed vigorously to completion. Moreover, the cost to the Department of the administration of the contract, including engineering, inspection, and supervision, will be increased as the construction period is lengthened . . . . Section 8-7.1, of the aforementioned document further provides that: The contractor shall perform fully, entirely and in accordance with the specifications, the work contracted for, within the contract time specified in the proposal , or as may be extended in accordance with the provisions herebelow.. Section 8-7.3.2 of the Standard Specifications Provides that: No allowance in contract time will be made for delay or suspension of the prosecution of the work when such delay is due to fault or negligence of the contractor. Finally, Section 8-8.3 provides, in part, as follows: (i) The Department may grant extensions of time during the prosecution of the work, as allowed under the Standard Specifications and special provisions for the work, regardless of the Contractor's delinquency status. If is incumbent upon the Contractor to request the Department for such extensions of time as he feels he is entitled to. (j) The Department may recognize as grounds for granting time extensions only those conditions which are beyond the control of the Contractor and which could have not been reasonably anticipated at the time bids were received. Rains or other inclement weather conditions will be considered only when such are unseasonable, and provided that job records indicate that such weather was sufficient to cause serious obstacle prosecution of the work. (Emphasis added) Section 8-8.3 of the Standard Specifications provides, in part, that: A contractor may be declared delinquent because of unsatisfactory progress on a contract with the Department, when the contract time allowed has not been entirely consumed, but the Contractor's progress at any check period does not meet at least one of the following two tests: The percentage of dollar value of completed work with respect to the total amount of the contract is within ten percentage points of the percentage of contract time elapsed. The percentage of dollar value of completed work is within ten percentage points of the dollar value which would have been performed according to the contractor's own progress schedule previously approved by the Engineer. . A contractor will be declared delinquent because of unsatisfactory progress on a contract with the Department, under the following circumstances: The contract time allowed has been consumed and the work has not been completed. The contract time allowed has not been entirely consumed, but the contractor's progress at any check period does not meet either of the two tests described under the paragraphs headed (a) above. As previously indicated, and as stipulated by both Petitioner and DOT, both the contract for the 3401 job and for the 3407 job were what is known in the industry as "calendar day contracts," as opposed to "work day contracts.' The first chargeable day under the contract under consideration in this proceeding was June 22, 1977. Petitioner's records show that the first day on which it had employees on the job site was July 11, 1977. During the course of construction on the 3401 job, Petitioner was granted time extensions which increased the number of allowable days under the contract form the original 900 to 974. In addition the original contract amount of $5,884,703.32 was increased to $6,191,921.43. As previously indicated, the first chargeable day under the contract for the 3401 job was June 11, 1977, and Petitioner's first day on the job site was July 11, 1977. During August, 1977, Petitioner began excavation on the main channel in the lake area, which area was to serve as the source for materials to be used of embankment on the 3401 and 3407 jobs. Placement of embankment material on the 3401 job began on November 28, 1977, Petitioner was approximately 3 percent ahead of schedule on the 3401 project. However, by September 2, 1979, Petitioner was 20.51 percent behind his progress schedule and 31 percent behind due to lapse of contract time, both of which parameters exceeded the 20 percent range allowed under the contract. Factoring in time extensions and additions to the original contract amount approved by the supplemental agreements dated November 25, 1979, Petitioner had completed approximately 55 percent of the work, although almost 89 percent of the contract time had elapsed, which placed Petitioner in default under the contract terms. A preliminary Notice of Delinquency due to unsatisfactory progress on the 3401 job was sent by certified mail dated November 8, 1979, to Petitioner from DOT's representative. In response to this preliminary Notice, by letter dated November 21, 1979, Petitioner requested a 345 calendar day extension to the 3401 contract, asserting as reasons therefor, unsuitable embankment material and unusual amounts of rainfall on the job site. A final Notice of Delinquency due to unsatisfactory progress on the 3401 job was sent by certified mail to Petitioner on November 30, 1979. Petitioner timely requested a formal administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, on these matters contained in the final Notice of Delinquency. Petitioner's request was sent by certified mail to the Secretary of DOT on December 6, 1979. Both Petitioner and DOT have stipulated that the calendar days allowed under the terms of the 3401 contract and previously authorized extensions, expired prior to completion of the work. It is abundantly clear from the record in this proceeding that one of the major contributing factors to Petitioner's exceeding the number of allowable contract days was difficulties encountered in the handling of embankment material due to the presence of the mineral montmorillonite. That mineral's high affinity for attracting and binding water made it extremely difficult to stabilize the subgrade of the roadway in order to meet DOT's compaction requirements. Petitioner's continuing efforts to sufficiently dry this material for use in the embankment did, in fact, cause some delays in completion of the work. This record does not establish, however, that this eventuality is something that could not have been reasonably anticipated by Petitioner, or that the presence of montmorillonite in the embankment material was the only cause of Petitioner's failure to timely complete work on the 3401 job. In fact, the above described contract provisions clearly warned Petitioner of the very problems that it eventually encountered with the use of this embankment material--that is that the material was ". . . likely to retain excess moisture and may be difficult to dry." In fact, Petitioner's own expert witnesses, who were qualified to testify as experts in the areas of soil dynamics, soil analysis and engineering, geology, minerology and soil stabilization as it relates to highway construction, each testified that the inclusion of the above quoted language on the soil notes were sufficient notice to trigger further inquiry into the potential presence of "troublesome soils." In addition, it further appears from the record in this proceeding that construction methods utilized by Petitioner on both the 3401 and 3407 jobs were not optimum for proper handling for the type of minerals found in the embankment material. For example, Petitioner placed these embankment materials on the subgrade in layers so thick that proper aeration was not facilitated in order to properly dry the material. In addition, petitioner attempted to compact the already wet material with heavy equipment, further exacerbating difficulties encountered with excess moisture content. Furthermore, problems were caused by petitioner's failure to construct the embankment in a manner which would have prevented "ponding" of rainfall on the subgrade surface. Naturally, by allowing "ponding" of rainfall on the embankment, the problems encountered with the embankment materials' high moisture retention were further aggravated. Although Petitioner has asserted in this proceeding that it is entitled to time extensions due to unusually heavy rainfall in the area during tie course of construction on the 3401 job, the record in this proceeding is insufficient to conclude that "unseasonable" amounts of rainfall in fact occurred, or that weather conditions were in any way ". . . sufficient to cause serious obstacle to prosecution of the work." Petitioner did submit daily precipitation data compiled for various stations in the State of Florida, including Naples and Punta Gorda, for the period from June, 1977 through August, 1979. Other than this data, the only other evidence of record in this proceeding concerning rainfall amounts are the uncorroborated hearsay assertions of Petitioner's accountant that ". . . [n]ormal rainfall in the he area is somewhere around 52 inches," and that rainfall for the first calendar year of the contract was 8.73 inches "over normal." There is, in fact, no competent evidence in this record from which a determination can be made as to the average annual rainfall in the area of the project, or the amount, if any, by which actual rainfall in the first year of the contract exceeded the annual average. Although the Petitioner submitted data on rainfall experienced at two stations located five and twenty miles distant from the job site for the period June, 1977, through August, 1979, this date is both insufficient to allow a determination that rainfall, in fact, so contributed to delay in the prosecution of the work as to merit an extension of contract time. Finally, it appears from the record in this Proceeding that substantial amounts of contract time were lost by petitioner due to delays in obtaining and placing lime rock on the job site, end by attempting to conduct work on the 3401 job and the 3407 job as one contract, despite the fact that these jobs were the subject of separate bids, separate contracts and differing time requirements. Counsel for both Petitioner and DOT have submitted proposed findings of fact for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that such findings of fact have not been adopted in this order, they have been rejected as being either irrelevant to the issues in this cause, or as not having been supported by the evidence.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Bradford County meets the criteria listed in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-330.051(4)(e) for a road repair exemption.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, the stipulations of the parties, and the evidentiary record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Parties Dr. Still resides at 14167 Southwest 101st Avenue, Starke, Florida. That property abuts work that was performed pursuant to the Exemption. The District is a water management district created by section 373.069(1), Florida Statutes. It has the responsibility to conserve, protect, manage, and control the water resources within its geographic boundaries. See § 373.069(2)(a), Fla. Stat. The District, in concert with the Department of Environmental Protection, is authorized to administer and enforce chapter 373, and rules promulgated thereunder in chapter 62-330, regarding activities in surface waters of the state. The District is the permitting authority in this proceeding and issued the Exemption to the County. The County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. The County is responsible for keeping county roads and structures within its boundary in good repair and for establishing the width and grade of such roads and structures. §§ 334.03(8) and 336.02(1)(a), Fla. Stat. 101st Avenue, a dirt road, was constructed decades ago and runs in a general north/south direction for several miles. It was in existence, publicly used, and under County maintenance long before January 1, 2002. Dr. Still acknowledged that when he purchased his property in 1996, the road was publicly used and was being maintained by the County. The centerline of 101st Avenue has existed in its current position as long as Mr. Welch, the Bradford County surveyor, has been familiar with the property, since at least 1996. The County owns and is allowed to use a 60-foot right-of-way (“ROW”) extending 30 feet to either side of the centerline. The driving surface of 101st Avenue has consistently been from 20 to 22 feet in width, with drainage structures extending further into the ROW. The evidence was convincing that 101st Avenue was regularly maintained or repaired by the County for more than seven years prior to the Exemption. The evidence was equally convincing that, during that period, the width of the road that actually has been maintained or repaired is substantially -- if not identically -- the same as the width of 101st Avenue after the road repairs under the Exemption were completed. 101st Avenue was, prior to the exempt road repair work, “very wet” during rainy periods, and cars and trucks would routinely get stuck in the mud. Mr. Welch testified credibly that 101st Avenue was “a mess” even before the events that led to the work covered by the Exemption. It is reasonable to conclude that the driving surface of 101st Avenue may have shifted by a matter of feet in either direction over the years prior to the exempt road repairs, which would have generally been the result of persons driving off of the driving surface to escape impassable areas, and of the imprecision inherent in grading a dirt road with a large motor grader. The evidence established that the County has maintained 101st Avenue at a location as close to the established centerline as possible, and has not intentionally moved or realigned 101st Avenue from its historic location. Mr. Welch was very familiar with 101st Avenue, having used it numerous times, including during the period leading up to the events that precipitated the road repair work at issue. He testified to two surveys he performed of the area, first in 1996, and again in the vicinity of the Still property in May 2017. He testified that 101st Avenue was under County ownership and maintenance prior to his first survey in 1996. Photographic evidence offered by Dr. Still showed 101st Avenue to be significantly degraded near his property for several years leading up to 2017. Turbidity of the waters passing alongside and under 101st Avenue was “a long ongoing issue with this road,” dating back to at least 2015. 101st Avenue “was in pretty poor shape” in January 2017. Cars would routinely go around wet areas on the driving surface and possibly onto Dr. Still’s property. That gave the appearance of a change in the eastern ROW. Over a period of years prior to the Exemption work, the ROW may have crept eastward as the road was graded, ditches were maintained, and residential traffic diverted around impassable areas. The shift could have been as much as 10 to 15 feet, but the evidence establishing such was neither precise nor compelling. However, even if the ROW shifted over time, the movement was not the result of intentional operation and maintenance by County staff, but was a gradual, unintentional movement over time. Such a gradual shift is common with dirt and limerock roads. Furthermore, the alignment of the travel surface was stable, and was always within the 60-foot ROW, although the stormwater structures may have gone beyond the ROW. In August 2017, a series of storm events caused 101st Avenue to be flooded. Dr. Still testified that the existing road and ditches and most of the areas adjacent to his property were “destroyed” by continued public use after the August 2017 rain event. He believed there was no way to ascertain the alignment of 101st Avenue. Around September 10, 2017, Hurricane Irma impacted the County, causing substantial flooding and damaging numerous dirt and limerock roads in the County, including 101st Avenue. 101st Avenue was partially damaged from flooded conditions, and rendered completely impassable at places along its path, which led motorists to drive off of the established roadway onto adjacent properties to get through. The diversion of traffic off of the road surface was due to the personal decisions of the public using the road, and was not the result of any direction, operation, or maintenance by County staff. 14 After Hurricane Irma, Governor Scott issued emergency orders that allowed local governments to undertake necessary repairs to roadways. The County issued similar emergency orders.1 In November 2017, Mr. Welch performed a survey to establish the alignment of the road. 101st Avenue was partially repaired consistent with the survey and pursuant to the emergency orders, with the work beginning in December 2017. As the work to repair 101st Avenue was proceeding, Dr. Still asserted that the ROW encroached onto his property. He and Mr. Welch walked the property line, noted that the ROW appeared to extend across a fence installed on the west side of 101st Avenue, and staked the disputed area. Though the County believed it was working within its ROW, it decided, more as a matter of convenience to avoid the time and expense of litigation, to purchase the disputed area. Thereafter, on January 5, 2018, the County purchased 1.78 acres of property from Dr. Still, which was incorporated into the County ROW.2 The purchase of the property, and establishment of the undisputed ROW, was completed well before the December 23, 2019, filing of the Petition. The travel surface of the road remained within the prescriptive and historical ROW. The “footprint” of 101st Avenue was the same before and after the road repair work. Dr. Still admitted that the road had not “physically moved.” However, he believes that the County’s use of the 1 Since the Exemption work was largely (and lawfully) performed under the emergency orders, the County’s Exemption application was filed after the repair work had begun on 101st Avenue, and is considered an after-the-fact application. The application for the Exemption was originally filed pursuant to rules 62-330.051(4)(b) and (e). The County thereafter withdrew its request for an exemption pursuant to rule 62-330.051(4)(b), and limited its Exemption to rule 62-330.051(4)(e), which establishes the standards at issue in this proceeding. The District’s December 10, 2019, proposed agency action granted the Exemption for resurfacing the entirety of the length of 101st Avenue. 2 The evidence was not sufficient to establish that the ROW actually encroached onto Dr. Still’s property. It is equally plausible that the fence encroached into the 101st Avenue ROW. Nonetheless, the issue was -- or should have been -- resolved when the County agreed to pay Dr. Still to extinguish any plausible claim to the property in dispute. 1.78 acres of purchased property for the ROW constitutes a realignment of 101st Avenue. From an engineering perspective, as long as a road surface is within an established ROW, and there has been no intentional change in its direction or trajectory, the road is not “realigned.” The evidence established that 101st Avenue remained within its established ROW, and there was no intentional change in its direction or trajectory from the repair work. The work performed under the exemption involved grading 101st Avenue along its entire length, and applying asphalt millings and a sealant to stabilize the travel surface. The asphalt millings placed on the 101st Avenue travel surface were applied on top of the “as-is” existing limerock. The millings provided structure and stability to the travel lanes, and eliminated erosion and the large muddy bogs that were a feature of the road during the rainy season and after storms. There was no persuasive evidence that the millings materially raised the height of the road travel surface. Mr. Rischar testified that 101st Avenue, after the road repair work, is now in good condition and intact. The asphalt millings are not “loose” but are bound together. The work stabilized the roadbed, provided structural integrity, and improved water quality as compared to a simple graded road. His testimony is accepted. Dr. Still produced several photographs depicting a small pile of dirt near a roadside ditch near the drainage culvert under 101st Avenue. The pile pre-dated the Exemption work. Ms. Diaz testified that the mounds had been “taken care of,” and they do not appear in any post-Exemption photographs. There was no evidence of any excavated material having been deposited at or near the Still property from the exempt road repair work. As part of the Exemption work, drainage structures were incorporated to receive and convey stormwater from the road surface. Rule 62- 330.051(4)(e)5. requires that work performed under a road repair exemption incorporate “[r]oadside swales or other effective means of stormwater treatment.” The evidence was not sufficient to demonstrate that the stormwater structures incorporated along 101st Avenue met the stringent criteria for “swales” as set forth in the Applicant’s Handbook, Volume II, §§ 5.5.1 and 5.5.2. However, the testimony was convincing that the drainage work incorporated into the road repairs was an “other effective means of stormwater treatment.” Dr. Still’s testimony as a “citizen scientist” was not sufficient to overcome the expert testimony offered by the County and the District. During the initial phases of the work, when the County was acting under the post-Irma emergency orders, the County had not installed silt fences. Dr. Still complained to the County, and silt fences and turbidity curtains were installed. Dr. Still admitted that they “functioned fairly well.” The silt fences and turbidity curtains were installed prior to the December 23, 2019, filing of the Petition. The turbidity curtains and silt screens met best management practices (“BMPs”). BMPs are generally construction-related practices, and are not designed for the “operation” of a facility after conditions have stabilized. Compliance with BMPs is intended to demonstrate compliance with water quality standards. Ms. Carr directed the County to remove the turbidity control curtains prior to her last inspection since the area had stabilized. While photographic evidence depicted differences in the appearance of water in the roadside ditches from that flowing under the road from forested areas to the west, the photographs were not sufficient to establish violations of state water quality standards for turbidity. A turbidity violation is, by definition, a reading of 29 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTUs) over background as measured by a meter. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-302.530(69). Ms. Carr testified credibly that one cannot gauge water quality from a picture, and that the photographs she took on her December 20, 2018, site visit did not depict the conditions “in real life.” District employees who visited the area, including Ms. Carr, saw nothing that raised water quality concerns. The appearance of the water in photographs is not sufficient to demonstrate that the County failed to control turbidity, sedimentation, and erosion during and after construction to prevent violations of state water quality standards due to construction-related activities. Dr. Still was critical of the District inspectors for failing to take turbidity samples using calibrated meters. However, he did not take such samples himself, and was not able to offer proof of any violation of water quality standards due to the exempt road repairs. Rule 62-330.050(9)(b)5., read in conjunction with rule 62- 330.051(4)(e)8., provides that the “construction, alteration, and operation” of exempt road repair work shall not “[c]ause or contribute to a violation of state water quality standards,” and that “[t]urbidity, sedimentation, and erosion shall be controlled during and after construction to prevent violations of state water quality standards.” The rules establish that the standards and conditions apply to the exempt work being performed, and not to conditions in the area that may have existed prior to the exempt work. The issue of turbidity, though discussed at length during the hearing, was resolved conclusively when Dr. Still admitted that turbidity was not made worse by the road repairs. Furthermore, a preponderance of the evidence established that the structure and stability provided to the travel lanes improved the turbidity and sedimentation that pre-dated the road repair, and reduced erosion of the road, not only by the repair of the road itself, but by eliminating the need to drive off of the road surface to avoid and bypass impassable areas. The Exemption work included the replacement of a culvert under 101st Avenue. At some time between January 8, 2018, and January 19, 2018, an existing 30-inch culvert was removed and replaced with two 24-inch culverts. Dr. Still complained that the 24-inch culverts were resulting in flooding of his property. Therefore, on or about December 17, 2019, prior to the December 23, 2019, filing of the Petition, the 24-inch culverts were removed, and a 30-inch culvert was installed to match the size and capacity of the previously existing culvert, and return the area to its pre-existing condition. There was no evidence that the current 30-inch culvert has resulted in any flooding. Since the 30-inch culvert reestablished the pre-Exemption condition, a strong inference is drawn that the exempt work will not “cause adverse water quantity or flooding impacts to receiving water and adjacent lands.” Rather, the evidence establishes that water quantity impacts, if any, were in existence prior to the exempt road repairs.3 The work was not related to the alteration or maintenance of a “culverted roadway crossing,” despite the culvert work. Thus, the previous inclusion of rule 62-330.051(4)(b) as a basis for the County’s Exemption request was withdrawn. The District accepted that withdrawal, and its notice of Exemption did not include any reference to the culvert. As indicated in the Preliminary Statement and the amended disposition of the Motion in Limine, the road repair Exemption does not explicitly address culvert replacement. Therefore, any allegation that the replacement of the culvert was a violation of District permitting standards must be taken up with the District as an exercise of its enforcement discretion, and is not an issue in this proceeding. Dr. Still produced photographs that were described as depicting “sediment” that was deposited along a “canal” on his property between 101st Avenue and a cleared utility easement. To the extent the photographs depicted sediment as described, which was not visually apparent, they were not sufficient to prove when any such sediment was deposited, or whether the sediment was related to the road repairs performed under the Exemption. 3 Again, simplistically, work performed under the road repair exemption is not designed to make pre-existing water quality and water quantity issues better, it just cannot make those conditions worse. Mr. Rischar testified convincingly that there was no scientific data to support a determination that there are water quality issues, including turbidity, at the roadway. Dr. Still produced photographs of the post-Exemption condition of 101st Avenue with several comparatively tiny depressions that, if never maintained, would presumably develop into potholes. Despite the nascent depressions, the road appeared to be vastly improved from its condition prior to the repairs, as evidenced by Dr. Still’s pre-Irma photographs. Mr. Rischar testified credibly that any roadway, from the least developed dirt road to the most highly developed interstate highway can, and does, develop holes in the travel surface over time. For that reason, governmental bodies, including the County, maintain roads, including 101st Avenue. The photographs provide no support for a finding that the exempt road repairs have resulted in any violation of a standard in either rule 62-330.051(4)(e)8. or rule 62- 330.050(9)(b)5. The evidence established that 101st Avenue was regularly maintained and repaired by the County for more than seven years prior to the Exemption, and that the road repairs did not realign, expand the number of traffic lanes, or alter the width of the existing road. The evidence established that the work performed under the Exemption did not realign 101st Avenue. The repairs to 101st Avenue included work reasonably necessary to repair and stabilize the road using generally accepted roadway design standards. The evidence demonstrates that no excavated material related to the work under the Exemption was placed at or near Dr. Still’s property or, for that matter, anywhere along 101st Avenue. The evidence established that the repairs to 101st Avenue did not adversely impound or obstruct existing water flow, cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities, or otherwise cause adverse water quantity or flooding impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands. The evidence was not sufficient to establish that the road repair work caused or contributed to a violation of state water quality standards. Ultimate Findings of Fact The greater weight of the competent substantial evidence establishes that 101st Avenue was in existence long before January 1, 2002, has been publicly used since that time, and has been regularly maintained and repaired by the County for more than seven years prior to the Exemption. Evidence to the contrary was not persuasive. The greater weight of the competent substantial evidence establishes that during its relevant period of existence, the width of 101st Avenue that actually has been maintained or repaired is substantially -- if not identically - - the same as the width of 101st Avenue after the road repairs under the Exemption were completed. The work performed under the Exemption did not realign or expand the number of traffic lanes of 101st Avenue. The repairs to 101st Avenue included work reasonably necessary to repair and stabilize the road using generally accepted roadway design standards. Evidence to the contrary was not persuasive. The greater weight of the competent substantial evidence establishes that no excavated material related to the work under the Exemption was placed at or near Dr. Still’s property or, for that matter, anywhere along 101st Avenue. Evidence to the contrary was not persuasive. The greater weight of the competent substantial evidence establishes that the repairs to 101st Avenue did not adversely impound or obstruct existing water flow, cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities, or otherwise cause adverse water quantity or flooding impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands. Evidence to the contrary was not persuasive. The greater weight of the competent substantial evidence establishes that the road repair work incorporated effective means of stormwater treatment, and did not cause or contribute to a violation of state water quality standards. Evidence to the contrary was not persuasive. The greater weight of the competent substantial evidence establishes that turbidity, sedimentation, and erosion were controlled during and after construction, and continue to be controlled, to prevent violations of state water quality standards. Erosion and sediment control BMPs were installed and maintained in accordance with applicable guidelines and specifications. Evidence to the contrary was not persuasive.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Suwannee River Water Management District enter a final order: Approving the December 10, 2019, Environmental Resource Permit (ERP): Exemption, ERP-007-233697-2, determining that activities related to the repair of Southwest 101st Avenue in Bradford County, Florida, met the criteria to be an exempt activity pursuant to rule 62-330.051(4)(e); and Taking such action pursuant to section 120.595(1) as it deems appropriate. The undersigned retains jurisdiction to determine the award of costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant to section 120.595(1)(d), if the final order makes such an award and the case is remanded by the Suwannee River Water Management District to DOAH for that purpose. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of November, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of November, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: George T. Reeves, Esquire Davis, Schnitker, Reeves and Browning, P.A. Post Office Drawer 652 Madison, Florida 32341 (eServed) Paul Edward Still 14167 Southwest 101st Avenue Starke, Florida 32091 (eServed) Frederick T. Reeves, Esquire Frederick T. Reeves, P.A. 5709 Tidalwave Drive New Port Richey, Florida 34562 (eServed) William Edward Sexton, County Attorney Bradford County, Florida 945 North Temple Avenue Post Office Drawer B Starke, Florida 32091 (eServed) Hugh L. Thomas, Executive Director Suwannee River Water Management District 9225 County Road 49 Live Oak, Florida 32060 (eServed)
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioners are entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to section 57.111, Florida Statutes (2017).1/ Petitioners are entitled to such an award if: Petitioners were the prevailing parties in a previous administrative proceeding initiated by the Department of Transportation (“the Department”); (b) the Department’s actions were not substantially justified; and (c) no special circumstances exist that would make an award of fees and costs unjust.
Findings Of Fact The following Findings of Fact are based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, matters subject to official recognition, and the entire record in this proceeding: The Parties The Department is the state agency responsible for coordinating the planning of a safe, viable, and balanced state transportation system that serves all regions of Florida. § 334.044(1), Fla. Stat. As part of its duties, the Department regulates “[v]ehicular access and connections to or from the State Highway System . . . in order to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.” § 335.182(1), Fla. Stat. Crum’s Service is owned by Ronald Crum and has been in operation for over 50 years. It is located in Panacea, Florida, adjacent to State Road 30/61 (“Highway 98”). Crum’s Service has less than 10 employees, and Mr. Crum’s net worth is less than two million dollars. Coastal Restaurant is owned by Rita Sadler and has been in her family since the 1950s. It is next to Crum’s Service and is also adjacent to Highway 98. Coastal Restaurant has approximately seven full-time employees, and Ms. Sadler’s net worth does not exceed two million dollars. Kelli Boxberger operates The Funky Fiddler located on Highway 98 in Panacea. The Funky Fiddler has been in operation since the 1950s. Driveway connections on state roads must be permitted or grandfathered. § 335.1825, Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 14-96.011(3)(a). Because Petitioners’ driveways were in place before 1988, they are grandfathered. § 335.187(1), Fla. Stat. Facts Specific to the Instant Case On April 7, 2014, the Wakulla County Board of Commissioners voted unanimously to support the design and construction of sidewalks and multiuse paved paths. In order to further that effort, Wakulla County requested that the Department fund sidewalk construction from Piney Street to Jer Be Lou Boulevard in Panacea. The proposed sidewalk was intended to address safety concerns associated with people walking along Highway 98. The Department funded the sidewalk project and incorporated it into a separate project to resurface a seven mile portion of Highway 98 running through Wakulla County. The sidewalk project required the Department to evaluate whether existing driveways along Highway 98 needed to be modified for pedestrian safety. If the Department determined that particular driveways needed to be modified, then it sent written notification to the property owners. On August 4, 2017, the Department issued letters to Mr. Crum, Ms. Sadler, and the Boxbergers referencing work on the portion of Highway 98 running from the Franklin County line to Boykin Road in Wakulla County. The letters stated the following: While developing the above-referenced project, [the Department] is required to evaluate existing driveway access connections and modify those which will create a traffic operations or safety problem. As part of this project, sidewalk will be constructed between Piney Street and Dickson Bay Road. The existing driveways adjacent to the proposed construction work for this project also required evaluation for safety of pedestrians. The Department has completed this evaluation and is notifying you of its proposed action with this Notice of Intent to Modify Driveway Connection(s). The letters then state that “[p]ursuant to Sections 334.044(14) and 335.182, Florida Statutes, the Department is initiating action to alter the existing connection of your property to [Highway 98] as identified on the enclosed “DRIVEWAY DETAIL.” In other words, the Department was providing notice that it intended to install a sidewalk in front of Crum’s Service and Coastal Restaurant. The proposed sidewalks would have modified the driveways onto the properties, but would not have closed them. The Department’s proposed modification to the Boxberger property involved a 39-foot wide driveway connection and a sidewalk on either side of the driveway. All of the Department’s proposed modifications pertained to land completely within the Department’s right-of- way. The Department’s August 4, 2017, letters closed by advising Mr. Crum, Ms. Sadler, and the Boxbergers that they had 21 days to request a formal administrative hearing if they disagreed with the Department’s proposed action. Mr. Crum was concerned that the proposed sidewalk would “totally annihilate” his business. Many of his customers use cars or trucks to tow boats. According to Mr. Crum, the Department’s proposal would have resulted in there being insufficient space in his parking lot for vehicles towing boats. Ms. Sadler was concerned that the proposed sidewalk would destroy the parking spaces in front of her restaurant. On August 17, 2017, staff members from the Florida House and Senate organized a constituent meeting at a local restaurant to hear concerns about the resurfacing project. Mr. Crum, Ms. Sadler, a handful of constituents, two legislative staff members, and Reid Carter Johnson, a government affairs liaison from the Department, attended the meeting. Business owners told Mr. Johnson that the proposed sidewalk would impair access between their property and Highway 98. Mr. Johnson told those present that the Department’s engineers would confer with anyone who had concerns about the proposed sidewalk.2/ On approximately August 18, 2017, Mr. Crum and Ms. Sadler hired Ronald A. Mowrey, Esquire, to represent them in this matter. On August 23, 2017, Crum’s Service and Coastal Restaurant filed petitions seeking to challenge the Department’s proposed action through formal administrative hearings. Engineers from the Department conducted a site visit with Mr. Crum, Ms. Sadler, and their attorney on August 29, 2017, at Crum’s Service and Coastal Restaurant. After listening to Mr. Crum and Ms. Sadler’s concerns, the engineers stated that they would review all of the information. Engineers from the Department also met with Ms. Boxberger on August 29, 2017, in order to conduct a site visit pertaining to the location of The Funky Fiddler. At that time, Ms. Boxberger had not retained counsel. Ms. Boxberger was concerned that the Department’s proposed modification would prevent her from displaying merchandise in front of her store on the Department’s right-of- way. She was also concerned that the Department’s proposal would deprive her business of three parking spaces. On September 18, 2017, Ms. Boxberger filed a petition to challenge the Department’s proposed action through a formal administrative hearing. Petitioners did not hear from the Department again until the Department issued each of them an “Amended Notice of Intent to Modify Driveway Connections(s)” (“the Amended Notice(s)”), on November 20, 2017. The Amended Notices stated that: [P]ursuant to Sections 334.044(14), 335.182 and 335.187, Florida Statutes, as well as Rules 14-96.011 and 14-96.015 Florida Administrative Code, the Department has reviewed the existing connection of your property to [Highway 98]. Subsequent to the initial Notice of Intent to Modify Driveway Connections, the Department met with you on- site on August 29, 2017 and engaged in other coordination efforts with your representative to consider information, documents, reports and alternative solutions. After taking into consideration the concerns expressed in these discussions, the Department has amended its plans as detailed in “EXHIBIT A”. The Amended Notices indicated that the Department decided against placing a sidewalk in front of Crum’s Service and Coastal Restaurant.3/ The Department’s Amended Notice to Ms. Boxberger clarified the substance of the Department’s proposed action but set forth no material changes. The Amended Notices to all three Petitioners stated that they could request a formal administrative hearing if they disagreed with the proposed action set forth in the Amended Notices. Mr. Crum and Ms. Sadler were satisfied and did not challenge the Department’s proposed action. As a result, the Department issued Final Orders dismissing the petitions filed by Mr. Crum and Ms. Sadler. As of August 31, 2017, the Department had not disposed of the petition filed by Ms. Boxberger.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners own property located in Section 6, Township 9, Range 16 East, Gilchrist County, Florida (the "Moore property"). Mrs. Linda Bridges owns property adjacent to and south of the Moore property (the "Bridges property"). Respondent, Bridges ("Bridges"), is in possession and control of the Bridges property. Mr. Glenn Miller owns property adjacent to and south of the Bridges property (the "Miller property"). ITT-Rayonier owns property west of the Moore, Bridges, and Miller properties (the "ITT property"). A dirt road runs north and south in front of and along the western border of the Moore, Bridges, and Miller properties (the "road"). The road separates the ITT property, to the west, from the Moore, Bridges, and Miller properties, to the east. Prior to 1989, surfacewater historically flowed in a northeasterly direction. It flowed northeasterly from the ITT property through a 24 inch road culvert onto the Bridges property. It then flowed north through a 36 inch culvert on the southerly portion of the Moore property, across the Moore property, and into Weeks Lake to the north of the Moore property. In 1989, with the consent of Bridges but without a permit from the District, Petitioners began a construction plan that included the installation of two 62 inch culverts to enhance the northeasterly flow of surfacewater from the ITT property to Weeks Lake. One 62 inch culvert was intended to replace the 24 inch culvert under the road forming the westerly boundary between the ITT property and the Moore and Bridges properties. The second 62 inch culvert was intended to replace the 36 inch culvert on the southerly boundary of the Moore property. The second 62 inch culvert was needed so the same volume of surfacewater flowing from the ITT property through the 62 inch road culvert could continue its northerly flow from the Bridges property to the Moore property and on to Weeks Lake. Petitioners replaced the 24 inch road culvert with a 62 inch culvert but left intact the 36 inch culvert on the southerly portion of their property. Thus, a greater volume of surfacewater can flow from the ITT property through the 62 inch culvert onto the Bridges property but a lesser volume of surfacewater can flow from the Bridges property through the 36 inch culvert onto the Moore property. Petitioners removed fill material from the ITT property to widen and increase the height of the road bed on the westerly boundary between the ITT and Moore properties. The heightened road bed impounds a greater volume of surfacewater on the ITT property before it flows over the road onto the Moore property. This can increase the rate of flow of surfacewater through the 62 inch road culvert onto the Bridges property under certain circumstances. Petitioners increased the depth and width of existing ditches, and added new ditches along a portion of the road bed onto the Bridges property. The increased ditch capacity further increases the volume of surfacewater that can flow onto the Bridges property. Petitioners constructed a berm running east and west on the southerly boundary of the Moore property. This increases the volume of surfacewater that can be impounded on the Bridges property without flowing onto the Moore property through areas other than the 36 inch culvert that Petitioners left intact on the southerly portion of their property. The 62 inch road culvert, increased ditch capacity, heightened road bed between the ITT and Moore properties, the berm on the southerly portion of the Moore property, and the 36 inch culvert increase the volume of surfacewater that is impounded on the Bridges property before continuing its historic northeasterly flow. Surfacewater impounded on the Bridges property floods the Bridges property and properties to the south of the Bridges property. Although flooding occurred on the Bridges property prior to the 1989 construction, flooding on the Bridges property and properties south of the Bridges property is greater since Petitioners completed construction. In addition, the ITT property drains more readily. On or about October 13, 1993, Bridges applied to the District for a General Surfacewater Management Permit to replace the 62 inch road culvert with a 24 inch culvert pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 40B-4.2010(1)(a). A General Surfacewater Management Permit is issued for activities that have little or no potential adverse impact to surfacewater resources for the District. The application satisfied all of the criteria for the permit at issue. ITT does not object to the proposed permit even though more surfacewater will be impounded on the ITT property. Issuance of the proposed permit will approximate the flow of surfacewater that existed prior to Petitioners' installation of a 62 inch road culvert without a permit in 1989.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Suwannee River Water Management District, enter a Final Order and therein GRANT Respondent, Paul Bridges', Application For Agriculture Or Forestry General Surfacewater Management Permit. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of March 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL S. MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of March 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-6656 Petitioners' Proposed Findings Of Fact. 1.-4. Rejected as immaterial 5. Rejected as recited testimony 6.-7. Rejected as not supported by credible and persuasive evidence 8. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial 9.-13. Rejected as not supported by credible and persuasive evidence 14.-15. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial 16.-19. Rejected as not supported by credible and persuasive evidence Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial Rejected as not supported by credible and persuasive evidence Rejected as recited testimony 23.-24. Rejected as not supported by credible and persuasive evidence Respondent, Paul Bridges, Proposed Findings Of Fact. Respondent, Bridges, did not submit proposed findings of fact. Respondent, Suwannee River Water Management District, Proposed Findings Of Fact. All of the District's proposed findings of fact are accepted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. and Jerrilyn Moore, pro se Route 2, Box 120-E Trenton, FL 32693 Paul Bridges, pro se Route 2, Box 120K-1 Trenton, FL 32693 Janice F. Bessinger, Esquire Brannon, Brown, Haley, Robinson & Cole Post Office Box 1029 Lake City, FL 32056-1029 Jerry Scarborough, Executive Director Suwannee River Water Management District Route 3, Box 64 Live Oak, FL 32060
Findings Of Fact By an application filed with the Department of Environmental Regulation on October 28, 1980, Pinellas County requested a dredge and fill permit to- construct a road and bridge crossing with an associated stormwater treatment system in connection with the improvement of County Road No. 1 across Curlew Creek and its wetland flood plain. The specific location of the project is in Section 12, Township 28 South, Range 15 East, in the City of Dunedin, Pinellas County, Florida. The project will involve the dredging of approximately 2,639 cubic yards of soil and include the placement of approximately 1,605 cubic yards of fill in the creek bottom. After an evaluation of the initial application the Department issued a letter of intent to deny the application on March 17, 1982, but the denial suggested several modifications to the project which were accepted by the County when it filed an amended application on September 30, 1932. It is on the basis of this amended application that the Department issued its notice of intent to grant on November 5, 1982. The County's initial application was complete before February I, 1982, the effective date of Chapter 17-25, Florida Administrative Code, the Department's new stormwater discharge rules. The Petitioners jointly own real property on which they reside immediately to the west and downstream of Curlew Creek. Their property is riparian to the creek. Curlew Creek is a natural water body which runs from near U.S. Highway 19 in a westerly direction to the Gulf of Mexico in Dunedin, Florida. It is an unnavigable Class III water of the state. At times it carries a heavy stormwater runoff load and passes private residences such as Petitioners' which border the creek in many areas. During design storm events there has been flooding when the creek exceeds its historic flood plain. That flooding has come up into Petitioners' back yard. At the project site where the creek now runs under the existing span for County Road No. 1, the creek is approximately 25 feet wide and 2 feet deep. The creek bottom is flat and consists of deep fine sand. The banks are well vegetated with a dense scrub layer and many large trees. This vegetation provides good soil stabilization and prevents erosion of the creek banks. Curlew Creek is presently traversed by County Road No. 1 over a two- lane bridge. Because of increased traffic flow the County proposes adding another bridge span to carry two more lanes of traffic. When the additional two lanes are complete the center line of the entire bridge complex will be moved to the west of its present location and therefore be closer to Petitioners' residence. Petitioners primary concern in opposing the project is their belief that when completed the project will increase the potential of Curlew Creek to flood their land. Curlew Creek, which generally runs in an east-west direction, takes a sharp bend to the south on the downstream side of the existing bridge. It later resumes its course to the west toward St. Joseph's Bay and the Gulf of Mexico. The creek's rapid change of direction underneath the bridge caused some confusion when the Department of Environmental Regulation issued its notice of intent dated November 5, 1982, to grant the requested dredge and fill permit. Condition number one for issuing the permit stated "The existing vegetation in an area more than 50 feet up and downstream from the bridge railing will not be disturbed except in the area of detention pond number 3 on the northeast side of the bridge." The author of the notice had intended that the condition mean vegetation would not be disturbed any further than 50 feet to the east or 50 feet to the west of the planned bridge railing, and not 50 feet upstream or downstream. The project plan is to remove a small sand spit which projects into the creek from the east bank immediately to the south of the bridge. Additional minor dredging is planned to smooth the water flow through the bridge area. Fill will be deposited to also provide a smoother water flow and consequently cut down on the eddies which presently arise under the bridge. The result of improved stream flow will be a reduction in the erosion of the creek banks and a lessening of turbidity in the creek water. Because the construction proposed will result in removal of certain vegetation along the creek bank which now provides soil stabilization, the County plans to use wet sand cement riprap or gabions for slope protection to stabilize the soil. Either method provides adequate erosion protection to ensure that the standards for Class III surface waters of the state will not be violated if the conditions of the proposed permit are followed. The expanded stormwater runoff facilities which are part of the project, as modified and subject to the condition in the Department's letter of intent to grant, will not have a significant impact on the water quality of Curlew Creek. These facilities provide adequate retention and settling capacity to ensure that the stormwater which eventually discharges into the creek will not cause pollution.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order approving the application of Pinellas County for a dredge and fill permit in order to construct the above described project in accordance with the conditions set out in the Department's letter of intent to grant dated November 5, 1982. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 24th day of October, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL P. DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of October, 1983.
Findings Of Fact On September 13, 1977, SFWMD advised Coquina by letter that "[a]t its September 8, 1977 meeting the Governing Board of this District gave Conceptual Approval of [Coquina's] surface water management plan . . . subject to the four special conditions found on page 15 of the District's staff report. . . [and an] additional special condition Joint exhibit No. 5. The first special condition found on page 15 of the District's staff report requires that complete construction plans be submitted, including "supporting calculations for all design elements not already submitted and any other plans necessary to assure adherence to the concept plan." Joint exhibit No. 2, page 15. The plan approved by SFWMD is designed to lower the water table in a 22 square mile area northwest of Lake Okeechobee in Okeechobee County. In its natural state, the land lies under water for part of the year. The corporate owner of the land has plans to subdivide it and sell residential lots, beginning with the four contiguous sections as to which the present application for a construction permit has been made. These four sections (phase I) lie north and south of each other in the western portion of the larger tract. The proposed construction would consist of digging ditches or swales paralleling existing and planned roads; building intersecting collector swales running north and south; installing ditch checks where swales intersect; dredging a retention pond into which the collector swales could empty at the south end of the phase I tract; digging an outfill ditch to channel water leaving the retention area for Ash Slough; and erecting a weir, between the retention area and the slough. Culverts through the weir would be equipped "with standard flash board risers in which the water level is regulated by stop logs which can be added or removed," Coquina's exhibit No. 1, p. 10, and the culverts would ordinarily serve as the route by which water from the retention area would reach Ash Slough. Under extremely wet conditions, however, water from the retention area could overflow the weir. The intervening petitioners own land on Ash Slough downstream from the retention area and adjacent to the southern boundary of the phase I tract. No formal studies of the likely effects of the proposed construction downstream were undertaken by Coquina or by SFWMD in evaluating Coquina's application. The surface water management plan given conceptual approval by SFWMD provides: The quantity of runoff flowing to the south through existing sloughs will be controlled to protect the downstream areas against flooding whereas at the present there is no control. The amount flowing to the existing sloughs to the south during the 25 yr. design storm will be limited to the amount flowing to those sloughs before any development takes place. Lesser storms will be more completely retained on the property. Controlled discharge will be provided from retention areas to the existing sloughs for the purpose of nourishing these streams. Coquina's exhibit No. 1, p. 1. (Emphasis supplied) Since no records of the amount of discharge to Ash Slough "before any development" are in existence, certain assumptions and estimates were made. One such assumption on which the application for construction permit proceeds is that the phase I tract all drains to the south, in its present state. In fact, some of the water now leaving the phase I tract travels in a westerly direction and never enters Ash Slough, at least under some weather conditions. If the proposed construction is accomplished, the phase I tract would all drain to the south through Ash Slough. As things now stand, a significant amount of water leaves the phase I tract by evapotranspiration. If the water table were lowered two and a half feet, which is what Coquina proposes, less water would leave the phase I tract by evapotranspiration, leaving more water to flow over the ground. In estimating the quantity of the anticipated discharge to Ash Slough, if the proposed construction takes place, it is necessary to take into account drainage onto the phase I tract from adjoining lands. Coquina has failed to furnish plans and supporting calculations sufficient to insure that the proposed construction will not increase the amount of flow to Ash Slough during the 25 year design storm. Increased flow to Ash Slough would aggravate downstream landowners' drainage problems, unless the slough could handle the additional flow, a question which the application does not address. The foregoing findings of fact should be read in conjunction with the statement required by Stuckey's of Eastman, Georgia v. Department of Transportation, 34O So.2d 119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), which is attached as an appendix to the recommended order.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That SFWMD deny Coquina's application for construction permit. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of November, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 APPENDIX Paragraph one of intervening Bass petitioners' proposed findings of fact has been adopted, in substance, insofar as relevant, except that the evidence did not demonstrate that downstream landowners would in fact be harmed. Paragraphs two, three, four, five, six and seven of intervening Bass petitioners' proposed findings of fact have been adopted, in substance, insofar as relevant. Paragraph one of respondent Coquina's proposed findings of fact has been adopted, in substance, insofar as relevant, except for the date of the application. Paragraphs two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine and thirteen of respondent Coquina's proposed findings of fact have been adopted in substance, insofar as relevant. Paragraph ten of respondent Coquina's proposed findings of fact stated a conclusion of law, in part. While "testimony was presented that the construction of Phase I would have no substantial adverse affect [sic] on surrounding properties," the evidence as a whole did not establish this fact. Paragraphs eleven and twelve of respondent Coquina's proposed findings of fact have not been adopted because they were not established by the evidence, except for subparagraph eleven (f), which was proven. COPIES FURNISHED: John Henry Wheeler, Esquire South Florida Water Management District Post Office Box V West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Robert Birenbaum, President Viking Communities Corporation (Coquina Water Management District) 123 Northeast 70 Street Miami, Florida 33138 Kyle S. Van Landingham, Esquire County Attorney Okeechobee County Courthouse Okeechobee, Florida 33472 Andrew B. Jackson, Esquire J.C. Bass & Bass Ranch, Inc. Post Office Box 488 Lake Placid, Florida 33852 Emerson Allsworth, Esquire 1177 Southeast Third Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Mr. Bob Wittenberg Division of Florida Land Sales and Condominiums The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Dr. Patrick M. McCaffrey Kissimmee Coordinating Council 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. George Stansbury Central Florida Regional Planning Council Post Office Box 2089 Bartow, Florida 33830
