The Issue The issues to be decided in this case are whether Respondents are liable for the violation charged in Petitioner's Notice of Violation, Orders for Corrective Action, and Administrative Penalty Assessment ("NOV"), whether Respondents should pay the penalties assessed in the NOV, and whether Respondents should be required to take the corrective actions demanded in the NOV.
Findings Of Fact 1. Petitioner is the state agency with the power and duty to protect Florida's air and water resources, including wetlands, pursuant to chapters 373 and 403. 2. Respondent Wanda Phillips owned the property located at 13285 Sweet Hill Road, Polk City, Polk County, Florida (“the site") during all times relevant to the charges brought by Petitioner. 3. The site includes wetlands, as defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-340.200(19). 4. Sometime in 2010, Petitioner received a complaint about wetlands being filled on the site. Joseph Drumm, a biologist and Environmental Specialist employed by Petitioner, conducted an inspection of the site on July 20, 2010. 5. Based on aerial photographs, vegetative species in undisturbed areas, observations of soil in and around the disturbed area, hydrologic indicators, and ground elevations in the area, Mr. Drumm determined that approximately .35 acres of wetlands had been filled on the site. 6. On the same date, Mr. Drumm spoke with Respondent Patrick Phillips, who confirmed that fill was placed on the site and that he directed the filling with Wanda Phillip's knowledge and consent. 7. The filling was done sometime in 2007 and was for the purpose of meeting Polk County requirements related to the installation of a septic tank and drain field for a new single- family residence. 8. Respondents did not apply for or obtain a permit from Petitioner before filling the wetlands.
Conclusions Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is ORDERED that: 1. Within 30 days of this Final Order, Respondents shall pay $2,000 to Petitioner for the assessed penalties. The payment shall be made by cashier's check or money order payable to the “State of Florida Department of Bnvironmental Protection” and shall include thereon the OGC Case Number 11-0823 and the notation "Ecosystem Management and Restoration trust Fund." The payment shall be sent to the Department of Environmental Protection, Attn: David Brown, 13051 North Telecom Parkway, Temple Terrace, Florida 33637-0926. 2. Within 30 days of this Final Order, Respondents shall pay $1,000 to Petitioner for its investigative costs. The payment shall be made by cashier's check or money order payable to the “State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection” and shall include thereon the OGC Case Number 11-0823 and the notation “Ecosystem Management and Restoration Trust Fund." The payment shall be sent to the Department of Environmental Protection, Attn: David Brown, 13051 North Telecom Parkway, Temple Terrace, Florida 33637-0926. 3. Respondents shall comply with the Orders for Corrective Actions set forth in paragraphs 24 through 35 of the NOV, which are adopted by reference herein and made a part of this Final Order. All deadlines stated in the Orders for Corrective Action shall be calculated from the date of this Final Order. DONE AND ORDERED this 6th day of August, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Lawl sh BRAM D. E. CANTER 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 6th day of August, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: Howard Evan Fox, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 . 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 howard. foxédep.state.fl.us Wanda Phillips Patrick Phillips Post Office Box 1313 Davenport, Florida 33836 Herschel T. Vinyard, Jr., Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Tom Beason, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review pursuant to section 120.68, Florida ‘Statutes. Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing the original notice of administrative appeal with the agency clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed, and a copy of the notice, accompanied by any filing fees prescribed by law, with the clerk of the District Court of Appeal in the appellate district where the agency maintains its headquarters or where a party resides or as otherwise provided by law.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner is eligible for licensure by the Board of Professional Engineers.
Findings Of Fact In October 1997, Jamal Jamilzadeh (Petitioner) took the Principles and Practice part of the Environmental Engineering Examination (Examination). The minimum score required to pass the Examination was The Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Professional Engineers (Respondent) notified Petitioner that he had not successfully completed the Examination, having received a score of 68. The Examination is a national examination and is graded by national examiners, i. e., the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES). A scoring plan is used for grading each question. Each person sitting for the Examination is referred to as a candidate. By letter dated April 8, 1998, Petitioner notified Respondent that he was challenging questions numbered 320 and 323 on the Examination. In his letter, Petitioner indicated the basis for the correctness of his answers to both questions. For question numbered 323, Petitioner included together with his letter a supporting statement, regarding the correctness of his answer, from a Certified Environmental Trainer (CET). At hearing, Petitioner withdrew his challenge to question numbered 320. Only question numbered 323 was now being challenged by Petitioner. For question numbered 323, the highest score achievable was 10. Petitioner received a score of 2. Petitioner's Examination was returned to the NCEES for review and rescoring. NCEES' rescorer used the same scoring plan that was used for the Examination. NCEES' rescorer had, for review and consideration, Petitioner's letter dated April 8, 1998, including the supporting statement of Petitioner's CET. NCEES' rescorer did not have access to and had no knowledge of Petitioner's original score for question numbered 323. NCEES' rescorer recommended that Petitioner receive no additional points for question numbered 323. Question numbered 323 contains three parts regarding an underground storage tank. The first part required a candidate to justify whether the underground storage tank was a confined space. NCEES' rescorer recommended that Petitioner receive full credit for this part. At hearing Petitioner's CET agreed that Petitioner should receive full credit for the first part. However, Respondent's expert disagreed and opined that Petitioner should not receive full credit because Petitioner provided only one of the three necessary requirements for a correct response. Petitioner correctly answered the first part.2 Petitioner should receive full credit for the first part. The second part required a candidate to list seven confined space program elements for initial entry and inspection of the underground storage tank. NCEES' rescorer found Petitioner's answer to be partially correct in that Petitioner failed to address three major procedural elements. At hearing, Petitioner's CET opined that Petitioner addressed five of the seven elements. However, Respondent's expert opined that, even though Petitioner addressed six elements, the elements addressed by Petitioner were different variations of two of the seven elements. Petitioner correctly addressed five of the seven elements.3 Petitioner should receive additional credit for part two. The third part required a candidate to specify the correct type of respiratory protection and to justify the answer. In reviewing this part, NCEES' rescorer also used the caveats or conditions specified in the supporting statement of Petitioner's CET, which was included with Petitioner's letter dated April 8, 1998. NCEES' rescorer found Petitioner's answer to be incorrect in that Petitioner failed to completely justify his answer. At hearing, Petitioner's CET opined that Petitioner's answer contained the concept, the intent, and the basis needed, which showed that Petitioner had the knowledge to answer the question presented, but that Petitioner's answer was not as detailed as it could or should have been. Respondent's expert opined that Petitioner failed to reference any monitoring with respect to the use of an air purifying respirator. Petitioner's CET agreed that monitoring was required but opined that monitoring was contained in Petitioner's answer. Petitioner failed to completely justify his answer in part three.4 Petitioner should receive no additional credit for part three. Petitioner's answers were not arbitrarily or capriciously graded. The grading process was not devoid of logic and reason, except for part two of question numbered 323.5 The scoring plan was properly used. The evidence presented was insufficient to warrant additional credit to Petitioner on question numbered 323. According to the scoring plan, Petitioner is entitled to 2 additional points, bringing his total score to 4 for question number 323. Petitioner's score on the Examination should be 70. Petitioner has obtained the minimum score required to pass the Examination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Professional Engineers enter a final order finding Jamal Jamilzadeh eligible for licensure. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 1999.
The Issue The issues are whether David Boston should be issued an environmental resource permit and sovereign submerged lands authorization allowing him to construct 96 linear feet of rip rap revetment; construct a private dock of less than 1,000 square feet; and place 3,500 square feet of fill in non-jurisdictional areas; and whether he qualifies for a general permit to place a fill pad in isolated wetlands adjacent to the St. Johns River, a Class III waterbody.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In this permitting dispute between neighbors, Petitioner, Vincent R. D'Antoni, Jr., contends generally that Respondent, David Boston (Boston), will cause flooding to Petitioner's property by reason of placing too much fill on an isolated wetland, which lies in the center of Boston's property. The filling is in conjunction with Boston's efforts to construct a single-family residence and private dock on his property, purchased in June 1998, which lies adjacent to the St. Johns River, a Class III waterbody, in Duval County, Florida. In preliminary decisions made on November 5, 1998, and January 21, 1999, Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), "acknowledge[d] receipt" of Boston's intent to use a noticed general permit "to fill less than 4,000 square feet of an isolated wetland to facilitate construction of a single family home" on his lot (Case No. 99-2861), and gave notice of its intent to issue Boston an environmental resource permit and sovereign submerged lands authorization allowing him to construct a rip rap revetment and a dock and to place 3,500 square feet of fill in mainly non-jurisdictional areas (Case No. 99-1916). Although a number of objections were raised by Petitioner in his original filings, as clarified at the final hearing, Petitioner now contends that Boston placed excessive fill on his lot, including an isolated wetland, and that the fill has resulted in flooding, saturated soil, or standing water on Petitioner's property. He also contends that the location of Boston's proposed dock will affect the ability to use his own dock. Because no evidence was presented on the docking issue, and through admissions Petitioner acknowledged that there will be no adverse environmental impacts, no consideration will be given to those objections. Finally, Petitioner does not object to the placement of the rip rap revetment on the shoreline. Accordingly, the request for an environmental resource permit and consent to use sovereign submerged lands in Case No. 99-1916 should be approved. The property in issue lies just south of the Jacksonville University Country Club and a few blocks west of University Boulevard North on Wayland Street, which fronts the eastern side of the St. Johns River in a tract of land known as University Park. Except for the Boston lot, all other waterfront lots are now developed. When facing the river from Wayland Street, Petitioner's lot lies to the right of Boston's lot, while another lot owned by Robert Henderson (Henderson) lies to the left of Boston's lot. The lots are up to 500 feet deep; Boston's lot is around 96 feet wide, while Petitioner's lot has a similar width but narrows to only 20 feet or so near the river. At the river end of the D'Antoni, Boston, and Henderson lots is an area of contiguous wetlands. Until 1995, DEP regulated those wetland areas and this prevented D'Antoni and Henderson from placing any fill in those areas. Under DEP's current wetland delineation rule, however, such areas are non- jurisdictional, and any placement of fill at the river end is outside the purview of DEP's jurisdiction. Before Boston's lot was cleared and filled, it was about a foot lower in elevation than the D'Antoni lot; this was true even though Petitioner has never changed the natural grade of his property since it was purchased and developed. Therefore, water tended to flow naturally from an upland area north or east of the D'Antoni lot, through the D'Antoni lot to Boston's lot, and then through the lower part of the Henderson lot populated by "very mature cypress trees," and eventually into the St. Johns River. According to a 1977 aerial photograph, the Boston lot contained what appears to be a tidal connection from an uplands area through the wetlands on his property to the river. However, construction on property adjacent to the Henderson lot sometime after 1977 severed this connection, and a tidal connection (direct hydrologic connection) to the river no longer exists. Under Rule 62-341.475(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code, "a single family residence" is exempt from the Environmental Resource Program permitting and a general permit will be granted "as long as it is not part of a larger plan of common development," and "the total area of dredging or filling in isolated wetlands for the residence and associated residential improvement shall not exceed 4000 square feet." Since there is no longer a direct hydrologic connection between the wetlands on Boston's property and the St. Johns River, the wetlands are isolated within the meaning of this rule. Availing himself of the foregoing provision, on October 19, 1998, Boston gave notice to DEP "of [his] intent to use a noticed general permit to fill less than 4,000 square feet of an isolated wetland" on his property. He also provided certain drawings and other information (prepared by his surveyor) to show that he qualified for the permit. DEP does not "issue" a noticed general permit; rather, it only determines whether the applicant qualifies for a permit and then "acknowledges" this fact. Accordingly, on November 5, 1998, DEP "acknowledge[d] receipt" of Boston's notice. Although DEP encourages the user of such a permit to notify affected or adjoining property owners, there was no legal requirement that Boston do so, and he proceeded to clear the lot and then fill a part of the wetland area with two or three feet of dirt without giving notice to Petitioner or Henderson, his two neighbors. The filling raised the elevation of the Boston property at least two feet above the D'Antoni and Henderson lots and impeded the prior natural flow of water. At the same time, Boston constructed a three to four-foot timber wall (consisting of railroad ties) on the Henderson property line to retain the fill and a similar two-foot wall on Petitioner's line. These changes had the effect of impounding the water which had previously flowed naturally in a north-south direction through the wetlands from the D'Antoni lot to the Boston lot to the Henderson lot. It also generated runoff from the Boston lot to the D'Antoni lot, which had not previously occurred. When Petitioner observed the adjacent lot being cleared and filled, and the resulting erosion of fill onto his property, pooling of water, and damage to his chain link fence after a heavy rain in January 1999, he filed a complaint with DEP. An inspection was made by DEP, and Boston was told to stop work until corrective changes were made to ensure that such flooding would not occur. After a series of changes were made which satisfied DEP's concerns, the stop work order was lifted. Boston also signed a consent order and paid a $100.00 fine. However, pending the outcome of these cases, no further construction work has occurred. Petitioner has contended that Boston has placed more than 7,200 square feet of fill on his property in violation of the rule, which limits the amount of fill to less than 4,000 square feet. While this amount of filling has in fact occurred, approximately 3,500 square feet of fill was placed in non- jurisdictional areas between the shoreline and the isolated wetlands, and the rule only requires that Boston limit his fill to less than 4,000 square feet on the isolated wetland. Thus, contrary to a suggestion by Petitioner's engineer, the jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional filling are not totaled together to determine whether the threshold within the rule has been exceeded. Through photographs received in evidence and testimony by Petitioner and his wife, it was established that flooding or standing water has occurred on Petitioner's property during heavy rainfalls since the filling occurred, even as recently as January 2000. The evidence further shows that Petitioner's chain link fence has been damaged through the weight of the fill pressing against the fence. In addition, Petitioner has suffered the loss of "a couple of trees" because of "mucky" and "oversaturated" soil caused by excessive water. Also, a dog house on a raised platform in the back yard which was previously dry now "stays in water." These affected areas lie immediately adjacent to the filled area of the isolated wetland on Boston's property. Finally, there is an erosion problem beyond the isolated wetland consisting of sand and silt flowing from Boston's lot onto Petitioner's lot during heavy rainfalls. Despite these problems, Petitioner does not object to the development of the lot; he only asks that Boston do so in a manner which prevents these conditions from recurring in the future. Petitioner's engineering expert, Ronnie D. Perron (Perron), a professional engineer who visited the site in August 1999, ran a computer model (Interconnected Channel and Pond Routing, Version 2.11) showing runoff both before and after the fill was placed on Boston's lot. He concluded that "there was over one and a half feet of flooding in that wetlands due to filling Mr. Boston's lot" during a "mean annual storm event," which assumes five inches of rain during a 24-hour period. Even when he used more conservative estimates, Perron still arrived at water accumulations ranging from 0.6 feet to 1.5 feet. This excessive runoff is caused by the retaining wall and fill, which "blocks off" the water and causes it to "spread out in [Petitioner's] whole back yard." In response to Perron's model, a DEP professional engineer, David P. Apple (Apple), ran another computer model (PONDS, Version 2.25) received in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit No. 14. That model shows that during a three-year, one- hour storm event, the small depressed area on Boston's property (including the isolated wetland) had sufficient storage capacity to absorb up to six inches of runoff from off-site areas and not overflow back onto Petitioner's property. This size of storm event (which produces two and one-half inches of rain in an hour) is typically used by the Department in calculations for single- family residential property when the impervious area site is less than fifty percent. In this case, Apple didn't "feel that the impervious area out there was greater than [fifty] percent." Therefore, Apple concluded that the storm event used by Perron was too large, and that the smaller event used in his model was more appropriate. He also concluded that the Boston property could retain all water in a normal storm event without discharging any stormwater onto the D'Antoni lot. He did not, however, address the issue of the fill and retaining wall on the Boston lot impounding the water on his neighbor's lot. In developing the input perameters for his model, Apple assumed that water falling at the front (Wayward Street) side of the D'Antoni property drained to the front roadway; in fact, much of that water drains to the rear of the lot into the wetland area. A similar incorrect assumption was made regarding runoff on the Boston lot. If modifications were made to account for the proper drainage patterns, the Apple model would show larger amounts of water staging on the Boston property during rainfall events, which would increase the possibility of runoff onto the D'Antoni lot. Apple questioned the accuracy of the Perron model given the fact that Perron had used a larger storm event than he (Apple) believed was appropriate. However, even if Perron had used a three-year, one-hour storm event on his computer model, as advocated by Apple, he established that it would have resulted in flood staging on Petitioner's property between 0.97 and 1.64 feet during a smaller storm event. DEP proposed no solutions to the water problems on the D'Antoni lot, presumably because it concluded that the rule was satisfied; that by filling the Boston lot, it was no longer the "stormwater pond for the neighborhood runoff"; and that DEP had no other regulatory authority to solve this peculiar situation. The record shows clearly, however, that if no changes are made, water will continue to back up on Petitioner's property by virtue of the higher elevation on the Boston lot, and the possibility of runoff from Boston's lot exists during certain storm events. Neither condition existed before the fill was added. To correct the foregoing conditions, Perron proposes two corrective measures. First, Boston should install a yard drain (underground culvert) beginning in the wetlands area of his property and outfalling to the cypress trees on the adjacent Henderson lot. Besides providing an outfall for the excess water, this would also help recharge the mature cypress trees on the Henderson lot. Second, D'Antoni should install a series of "yard drains" using high-density polyethylene pipes to convey the standing water on his lot directly into the St. Johns River. The expert opined that neither activity would require a permit from DEP. These modifications are reasonable and appropriate and should be used by the factioning parties. Accordingly, the installation of a yard drain should be a condition for Boston to use his noticed general permit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order granting the application for a permit and consent in Case No. 99-1916 and confirming that David Boston qualifies for use of a noticed general permit in Case No. 99-2861 provided, however, that such use be conditioned on Boston constructing an underground culvert with a yard drain from the wetland area on his lot to the St. Johns River. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of March, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of March, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Vincent R. D'Antoni, Jr. 3824 Wayland Street Jacksonville, Florida 32277 David Boston 2262 Orchard Street Jacksonville, Florida 32209 Francine M. Ffolkes, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent should be disciplined, to include a three day suspension without pay, because of the misconduct alleged in the Notification of Suspension issued herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Respondent, William T. Mooney, worked as a laboratory technician for the City of Clearwater's Public Works/Water Pollution Control Division. On April 15, 1993, Doreen Spano, the City's utility lab supervisor, held a meeting of her division personnel at which she identified Iracema Drysdale as the lead worker and, in order to clarify any misconceptions among lab workers as to work deadlines, presented a policy letter for the lab, entitled "New Work Schedule". The schedule set guidelines and deadlines for the daily workload. The memorandum contains inconsistent statements, however. For example, while Ms. Spano indicated both in the memo and at hearing that the instructions therein are merely guidelines, she also used such imperatives as "must" and "will" in the memo. Specifically, the memorandum indicates the daily plant BOD must be in the incubator by 12:00 PM, and the daily plant bacteria must be in the incubator by 12:30 PM. Respondent has worked in this City laboratory for approximately 14 years. During this time he has developed a method of accomplishing his tasks which is described by Ms. Drysdale as less than efficient. She indicates he frequently misses his time deadlines and works at his own pace. Respondent, on the other hand, claims he has always completed his tasks according to the Standard Methods Manual, but, due to the time the samples are received in the lab, could not accomplish both the BOD and the bacteria procedures within the guidelines set in that manual and the Environmental Protection Agency standards manual. Either one or both would be late. This controversy, much of which was made by both sides, is, in reality, only peripherally related to the issue in controversy here which is whether Respondent was insubordinate or not on September 9, 1993. Both Ms. Drysdale and the Respondent signed the memorandum in question here indicating their receipt and understanding of the directions contained therein. Thereafter, on September 9, 1993, Ms. Drysdale entered the lab shortly before the lunch period to find the bacteria procedure not done and Respondent working on the BOD procedure. It appears that the bacteria sample was taken at 6:00 AM on this day and, under EPA guidelines, had to be preserved in the incubator within six hours or the results of the procedure would be invalid and not eligible for reporting to the EPA. When Ms. Drysdale asked Respondent why he was doing the BOD when the bacteria procedure had not been accomplished, he indicated that Ms. Spano's memorandum required the BOD to be done by 12:00 noon and the bacteria not until 12:30 PM. He considered this a directive and indicated he would complete his work consistent therewith. Again, there is a contradiction in the testimony as to the nature of the conversation between Ms. Drysdale and the Respondent. Ms. Drysdale asserts that about noon on the day in question, she suggested to Respondent that he start the bacteria procedure first and then do the BOD procedure. Respondent refused because he believed he had to follow the new work schedule prepared by Ms. Spano. Ms. Drysdale then told him to do the bacteria procedure first and she would assume the responsibility. Respondent still refused and, raising his voice to her, completed the BOD procedure. When he finished that, he did the bacteria procedure but by that time, the sample was too old and had to be discarded. Respondent's recounting of the incident is somewhat different. He claims he was approached by Ms. Drysdale who asked him why he did the bacteria procedure after the BOD procedure. When he pointed out the dictates of the memorandum, she claimed to know nothing about it even though her signature, along with that of Respondent and Mr. Olson, appears on the bottom thereof. Nonetheless, according to Respondent, Ms. Drysdale said she would check on it. After lunch, according to Respondent, Ms. Drysdale came back with the Standard Methods book. When he showed her the new work rules, he claims, she admitted she was aware that Ms. Spano had written them. When he asked her what Ms. Spano had said about the situation, she allegedly replied, "Why don't you do it the way I say and if Doreen (Ms. Spano) asks, I'll take the responsibility." Respondent was upset because, he contends, things like this always happen. Respondent, in subsequent testimony, denied ever getting a direct order from Ms. Drysdale or that she indicated she would assume responsibility. On balance, while there is little doubt in Ms. Drysdale's testimony as to what happened, Respondent tells two different stories regarding the conversation. At one point he claims she asked him why he didn't do it her way and that if he did, she'd assume responsibility. At another, he claims she merely asked why he was doing the procedures as he was and made no mention of assuming responsibility. It is clear that Ms. Drysdale wanted the bacteria procedure done first, and while she might not have couched her request in directory language, there can be little doubt she communicated her desires to Respondent, albeit in a perhaps more gentle manner. In any case, she was Respondent's supervisor and he knew it. She wanted the work done as she indicated and her request, made under the authority she had to get the work done as she desired, had the force and effect of a direct order which Respondent disobeyed at his peril. Ms. Spano indicated she discussed not only the appointment of Ms. Drysdale as lead worker at the April 15, 1993 meeting, but also the six hour requirement for specimens. Respondent denies this, but it is found he knew exactly what the requirements were. He claims he has been doing things the way the memorandum calls for ever since it was promulgated and this is not inconsistent with his current position on doing the BOD procedure first. When this incident took place, Mr. Reckenwald, the superintendent of the water and pollution control division, and the overall supervisor of the laboratory operation in question, received a recommendation for discipline, primarily because of Respondent's failure to follow orders. In addition, however, the incident created a problem for the City which has to report to the EPA and other federal agencies. Because of this report requirement, it is imperative the work be done properly. If it is not done properly, the work is worthless and may result in sanction action against the city by federal regulatory agencies. Not the least of concerns, also, is the public health consideration since effluent, the source of samples for both BOD and bacteria procedures, is discharged into the public waterways. On the basis of the above, a recommendations was made that Respondent receive a three day suspension. This is consistent with disciplinary guidelines contained in the City's Guidelines For Disciplinary Action. Respondent appealed the action to the City Manager who reviewed his submittal but nonetheless upheld the disciplinary action proposed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the City of Clearwater take final action in this matter to consist of suspension of the Respondent without pay for three days and imposition of 40 disciplinary action points. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of May, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 24th day of May, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: Miles A. Lance, Esquire Assistant City Attorney City of Clearwater P.O. Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 34618 William T. Mooney 1433 Laura Street Clearwater, Florida 34615 Michael J. Wright City Manager City of Clearwater P.O. Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 34618-4748
The Issue The issue is whether a Consent Order executed by Respondents on March 25, 2010, and by the Department of Environmental Protection (Department) and the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Board) on April 1, 2010, is a reasonable exercise of the Department's enforcement authority.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: History of the Proceeding A lengthy history precedes the execution of the Consent Order and can be summarized as follows. Shannon Sue, LLC (Shannon Sue) is a Florida limited liability company and the current owner of property located at 18261 Southeast Federal Highway, Tequesta, Florida, just north of the Martin County-Palm Beach County line. The property consists of 0.482 acres, is on the western bank of the Indian River Lagoon, and is adjacent to the Jensen Beach - Jupiter Inlet Aquatic Preserve, an Outstanding Florida Water. A commercial marina has been located on the upland property since at least the mid or late-1980s. The Department has the power and duty to administer and enforce Chapters 373, 376, and 403, Florida Statutes (2009),2 and the rules promulgated thereunder, including Chapter 62-780. The marina lies within the District Office's regulatory jurisdiction. MABE is a Florida limited liability corporation with its principal place of business in Martin County. It owns a small parcel of property located at 18245 Southeast Federal Highway, Tequesta, which is adjacent to, and immediately north of, the marina. Edmund Brennen is an officer and director of MABE and has resided at that site for twenty years. Besides his residence, Mr. Brennan has two boat slips for rent and two floors of commercial office space on the property, which is zoned commercial/residential. Over the last twenty years, MABE has had tenants who have historically used the dock and the aquatic preserve for fishing, boating, and other recreational activities. Although currently vacant, MABE plans to continue to lease its property to residential or commercial tenants. Shannon Sue currently leases the marina property to Jupiter Hills Lighthouse Marina, Inc. (JHLM), a Florida corporation with its principal place of business in Martin County. JHLM has operated the marina since at least the 1990s. The property was owned by John and Barbara Canonico (husband and wife), as Trustees of the Barbara Canonico Revocable Trust, from 1988 until November 21, 2002, when title was transferred to Shannon Sue. John Canonico is an officer, director, and registered agent of JHLM and Barbara Canonico is a manager and registered agent of Shannon Sue. The record reflects that a dock and slips were located on the property for a number of years. On July 29, 1992, JHLM applied for a wetland resource permit to expand the existing dock to provide for additional mooring and to substantially reconfigure the existing dock. On December 13, 1994, the Department issued an Intent to Issue Permit No. 432170499 (Permit) to JHLM allowing the expansion of the existing dock from 6 to 18 slips. See Petitioner's Exhibit 1.3 The Permit was eventually issued on July 1, 1996. See Petitioner's Exhibit 2. The Permit included a number of general and specific conditions, including Specific Conditions 8 and 12, which required the installation of a stormwater exfiltration system to provide treatment for the first inch of runoff, and prohibited any boat maintenance or repair activities except those that were "minor" or necessitated by "emergency conditions." There is no record of any objection to the issuance of the permit being filed by any person. Although authorized to do so, for unknown reasons, JHLM did not make the changes authorized by the Permit. In March 1998, it submitted a new application for a Standard General Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) seeking to expand the number of wet slips from six to twelve and to reconfigure the existing dock. See Petitioner's Exhibit 3. One-half of the slips would be used by powerboats while the other six would be for sailboat mooring only. Under the new permit, the applicant would be allowed to remove the existing docks and construct a new access dock and terminal platform and add six new finger piers. On August 16, 1999, the Department approved the application and issued Standard General ERP No. 43-0114838-001. See Petitioner's Exhibit 4. Like Specific Condition 8 in the 1996 permit, Specific Condition 14 was included in the new permit for the purpose of improving water quality and required the applicant to "install a stormwater exfiltration system" to "provide treatment for [the first inch of runoff from] all paved surfaces on the property." The system was to be constructed and certified as complete by a registered professional engineer before the permit became effective; it was to be cleaned monthly or after major rainfall events and inspected annually by a professional engineer; and annual reports were to be filed each year by that engineer. Also, Specific Condition 24 prohibited any boat repair work other than minor or emergency repairs. Acting on behalf of the Board, which has the responsibility for overseeing state owned lands, the Department also entered into a five-year lease with the Canonico Trustees (Trustees) to use sovereign submerged lands. See Petitioner's Exhibit 5. Among others, Condition 1 of the lease specifically prohibited the mooring of commercial vessels at the facility. Id. Again, the Permit was not opposed by any third party. In 2001, Chris Baker, identified as a "purchaser of the site" but more than likely a prospective purchaser, authorized a firm known as Environmental Matters to conduct a "Phase I and Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment" of the property. The consultant's Environmental Assessment Report (Report), dated June 2001, indicated, among other things, that there were concentrations of metals and petroleum hydrocarbons on the site; that some of the concentrations exceeded Department standards; that the soils were "contaminated throughout the Site"; an abandoned water well and septic tank system were on the site; and that a 1,000-gallon aboveground unleaded gasoline storage tank had been installed in 2001 without the required secondary containment, but no leaks were observed. See Petitioner's Exhibit 38. The report noted that during the assessment, Mr. Canonico acknowledged that all types of boat maintenance took place on the site, including scraping boat hulls, and that the waste was discharged (or allowed to run off) into the basin. On March 14, 2003, former counsel for MABE sent a three-page letter to the District Office advising that since JHLM received a permit in 1994, the marina had been operated in a manner that constituted violations of the permit conditions and lease. The letter described in detail what the author perceived to be violations of the law. In addition, a copy of the 2001 Report was enclosed with the letter. The letter asked that the Department initiate an enforcement action against the marina and that the unlawful practices be halted. A Department memorandum dated March 28, 2003, indicates that the letter and Report were reviewed by a District employee, who considered the Report to be incomplete in certain respects, and that "without appropriate measurement tools and additional information, it is not possible to state that the site is contaminated based upon the sludge analysis." See Petitioner's Exhibit 37. The memorandum conceded, however, that further investigation was needed and that the report "provides an indication of a petroleum related discharge." Id. The memorandum recommended that JHLM be given a copy of the Report and the District Office memorandum, that JHLM submit a Discharge Reporting Form pursuant to Rule 62-761.900(1), that the marina's stormwater drain be cleaned, and that JHLM contact the District Office to discuss the voluntary implementation of Best Management Practices for on-site operations. Id. Because the Report "[had] no laboratory reports and no method detection limits," the District Office decided not to conduct any follow- up inspections of the marina property at that time. In response to the Department's memorandum and Report, on June 3, 2003, Mr. Canonico filed a Discharge Report Form indicating that there was "no known discharge" on the property. He also enclosed a copy of a letter he signed on December 7, 1994, presumably in conjunction with his application for Permit No. 432170499, in which he described the maintenance schedule for the facility's stormwater exfiltration system and agreed to conform to that schedule, as generally required by Specific Condition 7 of the original permit. Also, on August 5, 2003, the facility's contractor advised the District Office by letter that "[t]he work authorized in Permit #43-0114834-001 has [been] commenced and completed in full, with the exception of the demolition of the finger pier, which we seek to remain." See Petitioner's Exhibit 6. This was probably in reference to the facility's intent to file an application to modify its 1999 ERP. There is no indication that any further action was taken by the Department in response to the MABE complaint. In November 2003, JHLM filed an application with the District Office seeking to modify its 1999 ERP by allowing an existing 4-foot by 24-foot finger pier to remain in place (the 1999 ERP required that it be removed), and to install a retractable wheelchair ramp to allow vessel access for wheel- chair bound individuals. The application was unopposed. On January 22, 2004, the Department approved the application. See Petitioner's Exhibit 7. Except for the addition of three specific conditions (32, 33, and 34), all other terms and conditions remained the same. Id. The finger pier was intended to be used for passenger loading of rental vessels stored on the uplands. Even though ownership of the property had been transferred to Shannon Sue in 2002, on August 26, 2004, the Department, on behalf of the Board, renewed submerged land lease 43003006 with the Trustees for another ten years, or until August 16, 2014. See Petitioner's Exhibit 8. The renewed lease contains the same terms and conditions as the 1999 lease, including the condition that the facility be restricted to mooring recreational vessels. On July 3, 2008, MABE, through its former counsel, sent the Department a verified complaint against the marina under Section 403.412, Florida Statutes (2008). See Petitioner's Exhibit 25. The complaint sought to compel the Department to take action to address alleged violations of the ERP conditions and the submerged land lease. Under the statute, an agency has 30 days after receipt of a complaint in which "to take appropriate action" against the alleged violator, or the complaining party may then institute judicial proceedings. Following receipt of the complaint, on July 10, 2008, representatives of the District Office conducted an inspection of the marina property. The case manager was Donald H. Keirn, Jr., an Environmental Specialist III, who is responsible for, among other things, compliance enforcement in a large, heavily- populated multi-county area. Another inspection was conducted on July 22, 2008. During those visits, Mr. Keirn noted significant evidence of major boat repairs on the premises, freshly spilled oil, and hull scraping. In fact, Mr. Canonico admitted to Mr. Keirn that the facility had been performing major boat repairs since the original permit had been issued. Based on these inspections, on July 29, 2008, the District Office initiated an enforcement action by sending a Warning Letter to the Canonicos advising them that Specific Conditions 11, 14, 15, and 24 of the ERP had been violated, and that the lease of submerged lands must be transferred to the current owner. See Petitioner's Exhibit 9. Condition 11 required the placement of channel markers; Conditions 14 and 15 required an exfiltration system to be constructed, certified by a professional engineer as complete as indicated on the permit drawings, maintained for the life of the system, cleaned monthly, and inspected by a professional engineer annually with follow-up annual reports; and Condition 24 prohibited repairs to vessels other than minor or emergency repairs, so as to prevent the discharge of hazardous materials into the aquatic preserve. The record does not show what action, if any, Respondents took after receiving the Warning Letter. Frustrated by Respondents' inaction, and their repeated disregard of Permit and Lease conditions over the years, in the fall of 2008 MABE hired an outside consulting firm (E Sciences, Inc.) to collect and analyze samples of soil and water from both the MABE property as well as Shannon Sue's property. (Authorization to enter Shannon Sue's property was pursuant to a court order.) The report was completed on October 16, 2008, and concluded that since the 2001 assessment was performed, the concentrations of petroleum and metals had increased. It further concluded that the marina activities during those years had adversely impacted the soil and sediment at both the marina and MABE's adjacent property. See Petitioner's Exhibit 37. A copy of the report was provided to both the District Office and Shannon Sue. After receiving the report, on November 14, 2008, the District Office staff conducted another inspection to "identify any potential hazardous waste material discharge(s) or source(s) of contamination at the property." The staff found evidence of leaking containers, an engine "bone yard" along the fence line with the MABE property, unlabeled containers, and stains under the fuel tank. The inspection essentially confirmed the findings of E Science, Inc.; accordingly, the District Office concluded that a Site Assessment Report (SAR) under Chapter 62- 780 was necessary in order to determine the extent of contaminants on the property. A SAR assesses and describes the extent of contamination and makes recommendations as to how to address it. On February 24, 2009, the District Office sent a letter to the Canonicos, as registered agents for Shannon Sue and JHLM, advising them that "contaminants may have been released or discharged into the environment." The letter required Shannon Sue and JHLM to initiate a site assessment within 60 days, and to file a SAR that complied with the requirements of Chapter 62-780 no later than July 13, 2009. See Petitioner's Exhibit 26. The District Office subsequently extended the due date for the SAR to October 1, 2009. By letter dated April 24, 2009, the Department also advised the Canonicos that an "ongoing investigation," preliminary to agency action, revealed the possible mooring of commercial vessels at the dock on two occasions, which was prohibited under the submerged land lease. (Based upon visual sightings confirmed by photographs, MABE had earlier advised the District Office that this occurred on a frequent basis, but subsequent inspections by the District Office resulted in only two observations of commercial vessels at the dock.) The letter further reminded the Canonicos that, pursuant to Specific Condition 24, boat repairs with the potential to discharge pollutants or hazardous substances into the adjacent waters were prohibited under the ERP. See Petitioner's Exhibit 21. As noted above, during the July 2008 inspections, Mr. Canonico admitted to Mr. Keirn that there were "multiple violations" of that condition, including multiple discharges of oil and grease associated with engine repairs. Assuming that the matter could be resolved by consent order, on November 18, 2009, Mr. Keirn submitted for review by his supervisor a "Civil Penalty Authorization Southeast Florida District," which outlined the nature of the violations observed and proposed penalties for those violations. See Petitioner's Exhibit 12. By now, additional violations had been observed through more inspections, including, as noted above, the mooring of commercial vessels at the marina; a failure by JHLM to construct an "exfiltration trench" as required by the original 1996 permit, file annual reports for that system, and regularly maintain the system; a failure to notify staff of the commencement of construction; and a failure to maintain used oil storage containers within secondary containment structures and to legibly label them. The Department has issued an Administrative Directive entitled Settlement Guidelines for Civil and Administrative Penalties (Settlement Guidelines), effective July 17, 2007, which contains guidelines that "are intended to provide a rational, fair and consistent method for determining the appropriate amount of civil and administrative penalties the Department should seek from responsible parties in settling enforcement actions." See Department Exhibit 3. They are intended only "for internal staff guidance," and the District Office is authorized "to deviate from these guidelines . . . when doing so will result in better compliance and better capability for carrying out the mission of the agency." Id. at Relying in part upon that document, Mr. Keirn recommended a $27,500.00 civil penalty for violations of permit conditions, $2,500.00 for the lease violation, and $500.00 for investigative costs, or a total civil penalty of $30,500.00. The Penalty Rationale is found on page 3 of that exhibit. This recommendation was approved by the District Office Director on December 11, 2009, and was incorporated into a proposed consent order. As pointed out by Mr. Keirn, the purpose of the proposed settlement was not to collect fines, but to restore and protect the environment. By email dated January 11, 2010, Mr. Keirn provided the Canonicos with a copy of the draft consent order. See Petitioner's Exhibit 13. He asked that they review it and be prepared to discuss the violations and penalties the following week. A series of emails between the parties ensued over the next month or so for the purpose of discussing the cited violations and related penalties. Mr. Keirn's email also advised them to "get [the SAR] in ASAP" by mail, hand-delivery, or email. The next day, January 12, 2010, the Canonicos submitted a SAR to the Department. On January 26 and February 1, 2010, the Canonicos sent emails to Mr. Keirn providing their explanation for each violation "in the hope of reducing the penalties outlined in the Consent Order." See Petitioner's Exhibits 14 and 15. One explanation for violating the prohibition against major repairs (Specific Condition 24) was a statement that the Canonicos believed that engine repairs, scraping of boat hulls, and the like were "minor" repair work. Mr. Keirn noted in an email to his supervisor that the Canonicos' proposed "amounts are seriously too low[,]" that "the statements are skewed to their position," and that "[the explanations] are not a logical reason for reduction." See Petitioner's Exhibit 15. By letter dated March 29, 2010, the Department advised the Canonicos that the SAR submitted on January 12, 2009, contained a number of deficiencies, that additional work must be undertaken, and that an Addendum to the SAR must be submitted within sixty days, or by the end of May 2010. See Petitioner's Exhibit 28. Around the same time that the Department requested an Addendum to the SAR, on March 25 and April 1, 2010, Respondents executed a Consent Order to resolve all outstanding violations. John and Barbara Canonico signed the Consent Order on behalf of the non-agency Respondents. In general terms, the Consent Order noted that Respondents collectively had failed to comply with the ERP conditions in the following respects: they failed to construct the stormwater system in accordance with the permit; they failed to maintain the stormwater system, have it inspected by an engineer on an annual basis, or have an engineer file annual reports; they repeatedly conducted non-minor repairs, maintenance, and painting of vessels resulting in unauthorized discharges of contaminants; they failed to install channel markers; they failed to notify the Department of the ownership transfer to Shannon Sue; they failed to submit written notice to the Department at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of construction of the project; they failed to limit the use of the marina to the mooring of recreational vessels; and they failed to properly contain or maintain the used oil disposal storage containers within a secondary storage structure. See Department Exhibit 2 at 3. In addition, the Consent Order noted that based upon the E Science, Inc. report, there were concentrations of total recoverable hydrocarbons in soils that would reasonably leach into groundwater; that a polluting condition had occurred; and that Respondents had failed to submit a SAR by the October 1, 2009 deadline. Id. at 4. Finally, the Consent Order noted that Shannon Sue had failed to obtain the required lease since acquiring ownership of the property in 2002. Id. Rather than imposing the $30,500.00 penalty originally recommended by Mr. Keirn, as a result of negotiations between the parties, the Department agreed to reduce the penalties in the Consent Order to $17,750.00 as settlement of the matter, including $500.00 in costs and expenses for investigating the matter. The penalties were to be paid in installments, with the first installment of $5,000.00 due immediately. This installment has been paid. The Consent Order required additional corrective action, the filing of a SAR, and the obtaining of a lease by Shannon Sue within certain timeframes. Because the Department's primary goals when resolving enforcement actions are remediation and avoiding protracted litigation rather than collecting fines, it is not unusual for a final consent order to have a lower civil penalty than that originally proposed. As explained by a Department witness, in this case its goals were (a) to avoid protracted litigation that would delay the implementation of corrective actions; (b) to require Respondents to quickly assess and begin the cleanup of contamination; (c) to restore and protect the environment as quickly as possible; and (d) to require Respondents to remove and contain all activities on the property that are prohibited by the Permit and Lease. All of these considerations were taken into account in arriving at the terms and conditions of the final Consent Order. Immediately after the Consent Order was executed, MABE timely filed its Petition challenging it on numerous grounds including a failure by the Department to address all violations in the Consent Order; a failure to recognize continuing violations; a failure to impose an adequate penalty; a failure to incorporate language into the Consent Order to ensure that all conditions will be met; and a failure to consider all relevant information at the time the Consent Order was executed. By letter dated June 29, 2010, the Department advised the Canonicos that no response to its March 29, 2010, letter had been received, and that the SAR Addendum had not yet been filed. The letter noted that even though the Consent Order had been challenged, which "placed the timeframes contained therein in a 'proposed' status," the SAR Addendum was overdue and that it must be submitted "immediately." See Petitioner's Exhibit 29. The Canonicos did not respond to this letter. At hearing, a Department employee interpreted the language in the June 29 letter to mean that until this proceeding has been concluded, the fine and corrective action are temporarily stayed. Apparently, the Canonicos have assumed the same thing and have not performed any remedial action or paid any further penalties while this action is pending. Rationale for the Consent Order The Consent Order addressed the violations described in Finding of Fact 26, supra, and required Respondents to pay a civil penalty of $2,000.00 for their failure to construct the stormwater system in accordance with the Permit. There was no negotiated reduction or increase in the $2,000.00 amount. This amount was based on a provision in the Environmental Litigation Reform Act (ELRA) codified in Section 403.121, Florida Statutes. That statute prescribes the penalties that must be imposed when the Department pursues administrative remedies for violations of Chapter 403. A Notice of Violation (NOV) must be issued to trigger the ELRA process. In this case, the ELRA process was not required since a NOV was never issued, but the Department elected to impose that penalty. The Consent Order requires Respondents to repair the stormwater system and submit to the Department an as-built certification form signed and sealed by a professional engineer that the system meets or exceeds the requirements of the permitted activity. In essence, Respondents are required to re-build the system and certify that it is built consistent with the Permit. No water quality data was introduced indicating any degradation of water quality at the marina from the exfiltration system not being built according to the Permit. To address Respondents' failure to maintain the stormwater system, inspect it, and submit reports to the Department, enforceable conditions were added to the Consent Order, including the filing of reports that the Permit did not previously contain, and a stipulated penalty of $100.00 per day for each day they fail to submit the required reports. The Consent Order requires Respondents to pay a civil penalty of $3,500.00 for their failure to maintain the stormwater system, inspect it, and submit reports to the Department. This amount was reduced in negotiations from an initial amount of $7,000.00. Exercising its discretion, the Department did not consider economic gain by Respondents in assessing the penalty. As noted earlier, the Department's primary goal in negotiating the Consent Order was to avoid a long and uncertain litigation process that would delay an enforceable order requiring Respondents to immediately implement a Chapter 62-780 waste assessment and cleanup. In order to address the finding that Respondents were conducting repairs and maintenance of vessels at the upland portion of the marina in violation of the Permit, the Department included language in the Consent Order that specifically defined a "major repair," which was not included in the existing Permit. This will make enforcement easier by clarifying any ambiguity regarding what activities are prohibited. It also required that any such activity must be conducted off-site, an additional requirement that was not included in the existing Permit. The Consent Order assessed a penalty of $5,000.00 for the finding that Respondents were conducting repairs and maintenance of vessels at the upland portion of the marina. This amount was obtained using the Settlement Guidelines. Under the Penalty Matrix in that document, which classifies violations at three levels of potential for harm (major, moderate, and minor), the violation was identified as major, resulting in an amount of $10,000.00. This amount was later reduced to $5,000.00 during negotiations. However, the Department achieved its goal of binding Respondents to an enforceable agreement that would require them to immediately implement a Chapter 62-780 assessment and cleanup. In order to address the violation that Respondents failed to install channel markers, the Consent Order contained a provision that required them to apply for the required permits and install the markers within 30 days of receipt of the permits. The Consent Order also contained a stipulated penalty paragraph where Respondents would pay $100.00 per day for each day of failing to comply with the marker requirements. The Department is not precluded by the stipulated penalties from pursuing any statutory remedies or other penalty options available to it. The Consent Order assessed a $750.00 penalty for Respondents' failure to install the channel markers, which was less than the original proposed fine of $2,000.00 based on ELRA guidelines. To avoid uncertain and costly litigation, however, and to get Respondents under an enforceable agreement to implement a Chapter 62-780 assessment and cleanup, the Department reduced the penalty. In order to address the finding that Respondents failed to notify the Department of its ownership transfer to Shannon Sue, the Consent Order required payment of $250.00. Although ELRA guidelines specified a $1,000.00 penalty, this amount was lowered during negotiations to avoid protracted litigation and to get Respondents under an enforceable agreement to implement Chapter 62-780. The Consent Order also requires submission of a $555.00 processing fee along with supporting documents for assignment of the lease to the proper party. In addition, a penalty of $500.00 was assessed for failure to obtain the required lease after ownership transfer, along with stipulated penalties of $100.00 per day for failure to do so. For Respondents' failure to notify the Department within 48 hours prior to commencing construction at the marina, there is no corrective action required. However, the Department assessed a $250.00 penalty, which was lowered during negotiations from the ELRA penalty of $1,000.00 for the reasons expressed above. For Respondents' unauthorized mooring of commercial vessels, the Consent Order requires a penalty of $2,500.00, which was based on a second violation under Rule 18-14.002(4). Although MABE submitted an affidavit, dated photographs, and testimony to establish multiple violations of the rule, the Department opted to rely only upon the two violations that its inspector observed. For Respondents' used oil violation, the Consent Order requires removal of all containers, material, or equipment at the marina that handle or contain petroleum or hazardous substances greater than one quart in quantity, unless they are maintained in their original container or an independent and secondary containment system which is designed to contain discharges to the environment and is secure from the weather. The assessed penalty of $2,000.00 was lowered from the ELRA penalty of $4,000.00 during negotiations for the reasons expressed above. To address the finding that a polluting condition had occurred at the marina and a SAR was not timely submitted, the Department negotiated an enforceable agreement that requires Respondents to commence and complete all tasks required under Chapter 62-780 within certain timelines. A penalty was not assessed because the Department desired to get Respondents under an enforceable agreement to immediately implement the assessment and cleanup corrective actions. In addition, by not imposing a fine, the violator has more resources to assess and remediate any contamination, which is often a very expensive undertaking. Under Rule 18-14.002, a person is subject to a fine of up to $10,000.00 for each offense constituting a knowing refusal to comply or a willful violation of the provisions of Chapter 253, Florida Statutes. The Department may impose fines not to exceed $2,500.00 for the first offense; otherwise, approval of the Board is required. Subsequent offenses carry a fine of $1,000.00 to $10,000.00. In this case, the Consent Order imposed a $2,500.00 fine for violation of the Lease and a $500.00 fine for violating Section 253.77, Florida Statutes. Neither fine was shown to be unreasonable under the circumstances. The penalty amounts, plus $500.00 for Department costs, were mistakenly summed as $17,750.00 in paragraph 25 of the Consent Order. The correct amount is $17,250.00. In summary, the Consent Order was issued to settle existing outstanding violations of law and requires Respondents to pay penalties, reimburse Department costs, and take corrective measures. It also establishes a framework for compliance. Taking into consideration all of the circumstances, the terms are a reasonable exercise of the Department's enforcement discretion. Having incurred substantial expenditures in legal fees and site assessment costs in attempting to bring its neighbor into compliance (which probably total much more than the civil penalties assessed against Respondents), and waiting years for the Department to take action, MABE is understandably dissatisfied with many of the terms and conditions of the Consent Order. One of MABE's concerns is that given Respondents' history of failing to comply with ERP and lease conditions for more than a decade, they will not comply with the assessment and remediation requirements of Chapter 62-780. However, the Consent Order is an enforceable agreement that compels immediate compliance with those rules. The Consent Order spells out in clear terms the ability of the Department to seek the judicial imposition of damages or civil penalties, or other appropriate relief, for any violations of the Consent Order. Because of Respondents' prior conduct, which amounted to a clear disregard of permit terms and conditions, it is presumed that the Department will respond quickly to reported violations, if any occur, and take appropriate action. MABE also questions the adequacy (and accuracy) of the penalties. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, this issue is a matter solely within the discretion of the agency. In the same vein, MABE contends that the District Office did not take into account all of the violations that have occurred over the years, made mistakes in calculating the penalties, and failed to consider the fact that Respondents have continued to violate certain Permit and Lease conditions since the enforcement action began. Although some violations were not addressed, some errors in calculating penalties were made, and in some instances multiple violations were counted as a single violation for purposes of calculating a penalty, the Consent Order requires that the violator undertake corrective actions that are designed to remediate all prior violations, strictly comply with new terms and conditions, and subject it to stern penalties should future violations occur.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order ratifying and approving Consent Order OGC No. 08-1823 as final agency action of the Department. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of November, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER 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 4th day of November, 2010.
The Issue The issues are: (a) whether the accident on December 12, 1995, involving a shrimp trawler, the Atlantic Sun, resulted in a discharge of pollutants into the Atlantic Ocean and caused natural resource damages; and, if so, (b) what amount does Petitioner William A. Harden owe the Department of Environmental Protection for investigation costs incurred in investigating the break up of the Atlantic Sun and for natural resource damages resulting from the accident.
Findings Of Fact On December 12, 1995, the commercial fishing vessel, the Atlantic Sun, went aground on the south jetties in the Atlantic Ocean at the entrance to the channel of St. Mary's River. The shrimp trawler broke apart on the jetties near Fernandina Beach, Florida. Debris from the wrecked ship washed onto the beaches near the jetties. The United States Coast Guard (USCG) arrived at the scene of the accident and removed Roger Cummings, Captain of the Atlantic Sun, and Daniel Boone, an owner of the vessel, from the scene of the wreck. The USCG informed the Florida Marine Patrol (FMP) about the accident on December 12, 1995. Michael Lehman, FMP officer, met the USCG officers investigating the accident when they brought Captain Cummings and Mr. Boone to shore. Captain Cummings stated that the ship had 1200 to 1300 gallons of diesel fuel in its tanks when it hit the jetties. The water was too rough for Officer Lehman to investigate the accident scene that night. Officer Lehman and another FMP officer went to the site of the wreck on the morning of December 13, 1997. On his way to the accident scene, Officer Lehman's boat ran through a sheen of diesel fuel from Eagan's Creek to the end of the jetties. Officer Lehman found the Atlantic Sun upside down at the end of the rock jetties. There was a strong smell of diesel fuel at the site of the wreck. Diesel fuel ran down both sides of the jetties. The fuel was bubbling up on both sides of the wrecked ship. On December 14, 1995, the flow of fuel from the capsized vessel was still not contained. Officer Lehman estimated that approximately 500 gallons of fuel had been discharged into the ocean. He based this estimate on his personal observation at the accident scene, personal experience as an investigator of pollutant discharges, and witness statements. USCG officers estimated that the Atlantic Sun discharged 1,000 gallons of diesel fuel. The diesel fuel sheen on the water surface eventually affected a large area. It covered the entrance to St. Mary's River Channel from bank to bank. The fuel flowed west and inland from the ship wreck. It covered much of Cumberland Sound. It affected coastal waters from the accident site to Ft. Clinch State Park Beach and south approximately two miles. Special management areas which were affected are: Ft. Clinch State Park, Cumberland National Seashore, and Ft. Clinch Aquatic Preserve. By December 16, 1995, Officer Lehman could no longer see fuel coming from the area of the wreckage. By that time, the spilled fuel had dissipated. The accident occurred within one statute mile seaward of the coastline of the state of Florida. The two FMP officers worked a total of 18 hours during the course of their investigation. The cost to Respondent for the two officers' time was $244.80. The FMP officers used a single engine boat in their investigation for five hours. The single engine boat cost Respondent $100.00. They used a twin engine boat for six hours to conduct the investigation. The twin engine boat cost Respondent $240.00. The FMP officers drove a total of 76 miles in patrol vehicles. At $0.20 per mile, the total cost for mileage was $15.20. The FMP officer spent $5.00 developing pictures which were taken during their investigation. Respondent incurred clerical expenses during the investigation in the amount of $33.60. Respondent's total cost for the investigation was $638.60. Respondent assessed Petitioner with damages to natural resources. The damages were based on the total amount of pollutants discharged into Florida's coastal waters as a result of the Atlantic Sun going aground on the jetties. The amount of pollutants was 500 gallons of diesel fuel. Impact to special management areas was also taken into consideration in determining the natural resource damages. Respondent utilized a statutory formula to assess Petitioner with natural resource damages in the amount of $8,008.47. Respondent sent Petitioner a final agency action letter advising him of the total assessment in the amount of $8,647.07.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Respondent enter a Final Order assessing Petitioner $638.60 in investigative costs and $8,008.47 in natural resource damages. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of February, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of February, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Kisha R. Pruitt, Esquire Kathelyn M. Jacques, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Daniel Boone Boone and Harden Atlantic Sun Post Office Box 438 Darien, Georgia 31305 William A. Harden Boone and Harden Atlantic Sun Route 3, Box 3158 Townsend, Georgia 31337 Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 F. Perry Odom, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue Whether Respondent Eastern Florida State College (EFSC) engaged in discriminatory employment practices and retaliation, in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA), as alleged in the Petition for Relief; and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Garrett is a 53-year-old African American woman. EFSC is a public college in Brevard County, Florida. For the time period relevant to this matter, EFSC is, and has been, her employer. On July 9, 2018, Darla Ferguson informed Ms. Garrett that EFSC eliminated her position as e-Learning Coordinator. EFSC did not fill Ms. Garrett’s position in the e-Learning department; rather, the prior job duties were assigned to other members in the e-Learning department. After eliminating the position of e-Learning Coordinator, EFSC offered Ms. Garrett the position of Coordinator of the Office of Undergraduate Research (OUR). The OUR department supports and promotes research opportunities among undergraduate research students through EFSC’s four campuses. Ms. Garrett accepted EFSC’s offer, and Ms. Garrett became EFSC’s first employee to hold the position as Coordinator of OUR. In lieu of offering Ms. Garrett the position of Coordinator of OUR, EFSC could have laid off Ms. Garrett following the elimination of her position as e-Learning Coordinator. However, rather than laying her off, EFSC found a new position for Ms. Garrett. Following her transfer to the position as Coordinator of OUR, Ms. Garrett’s salary and benefits remained unchanged from her prior position as e-Learning Coordinator. On July 10, 2018, Ms. Garrett met with Dr. Sandra Handfield, Scott Herber, and Dr. Ashley Spring to discuss Ms. Garrett’s new position as Coordinator of OUR. At that meeting, Dr. Handfield—who was Ms. Garrett’s new supervisor—informed Ms. Garrett that Dr. Spring and Mr. Herber were the founders of OUR. Prior to Ms. Garrett’s arrival as Coordinator of OUR, Dr. Spring and Mr. Herber, who were full-time faculty members, oversaw the OUR program. Dr. Handfield also informed Ms. Garrett that should she have any questions regarding her position as Coordinator of OUR, she should consult with Dr. Spring and Mr. Herber. As of the date of the final hearing, Ms. Garrett remained employed by EFSC as the Coordinator of OUR, and continues to receive the same salary and benefits that she received when she was the e-Learning Coordinator. Allegations of Adverse Employment Action EFSC originally intended for the Coordinator of OUR to be a Director, and possess a doctorate degree. However, EFSC later changed this position to Coordinator, which did not require a doctorate degree, and which had a lower salary. Ms. Garrett never applied for the Director of OUR position, and she does not have a doctorate degree. Ms. Garrett testified concerning her belief for the reason that EFSC transferred her to the Coordinator of OUR position, stating: I believe they did that because the intent was to put me in a position that was beyond my reach so that when I had issues and problems, they could use that and tie it with this position in order to say that I could not do the job. On April 12, 2019, Ms. Garrett received a six-month performance evaluation covering her first six months in her position as Coordinator of OUR. Dr. Handfield provided the performance evaluation approximately four months after the performance period ended. The performance evaluation indicated that Ms. Garrett was deficient in the areas of teamwork, valuing differences, and communication. Following the performance evaluation, Ms. Garrett did not lose any pay or benefits, and nothing adverse happened to Ms. Garrett as a result of the performance evaluation. Ms. Garrett testified that she believed Dr. Handfield gave her that evaluation “as a form of retaliation[,]” but not on the basis of her race, age, or gender. She further testified as follows: Q. Okay. But just to be clear, not gender, age, or race. You think it’s retaliation, what she did, correct? A. Correct. Q. Okay. And what was she retaliating against you for in your view or what facts do you have that it was for retaliation? A. I believe it was retaliation based on the input from the faculty members, based on the interactions we had during the actual performance review period, which would have been July 9th, 2018, until January 9th, 2019. Q. So based on the interaction you had with Dr. Handfield, Dr. Spring and Mr. Herber for the six months before that; is that what you’re saying? A. Yes In January 2019, Ms. Garrett requested that she use Canvas shell computer software to enable her to build an orientation outline. EFSC denied this request, because it would not generate money. Allegations of Comparator Ms. Garrett identified Justin Looney, a 38-year-old white male, as a comparator in support of her discrimination claim.1 Ms. Garrett’s testimony was that Mr. Looney was an EFSC employee working as an Academic Services Coordinator at EFSC’s Patrick Air Force Base campus; upon the closing of that campus, EFSC eliminated Mr. Looney’s position and, similarly to Ms. Garrett, transferred him to a newly-created position in which he received the same salary and benefits. 1 At the final hearing, Ms. Garrett also mentioned Marian Sheltman as a possible comparator, stating that she was a white female. However, Ms. Garrett failed to introduce any additional facts or evidence concerning Ms. Sheltman’s status or to explain how the undersigned could consider Ms. Sheltman as a valid comparator. The undersigned finds that Ms. Garrett failed to establish Ms. Sheltman as a comparator in this matter. Ms. Garrett contends that EFSC treated Mr. Looney differently, during his transfer, in that EFSC provided Mr. Looney more notice time between the elimination of his prior position and the transfer to his new position. Ms. Garrett also contends that EFSC treated Mr. Looney differently than her because Mr. Looney was Dr. Handfield’s son-in-law. Allegations of Hostile Work Environment Ms. Garrett testified that at the July 10, 2018, meeting, Dr. Spring commented about the uncleanliness of the OUR office, and recommended that Ms. Garrett obtain a broom and dustpan to keep the office clean. Ms. Garrett also testified that she declined to assist Dr. Spring in hanging posters on the wall of the OUR office. Ms. Garrett also testified that Dr. Spring noticed that the OUR signage was covered up on the outside of the building, and asked Ms. Garrett to correct this. Ms. Garrett testified that in subsequent meetings with Dr. Handfield, she “shared [her] concerns regarding the work environment[,]” and stated that she did not feel comfortable with the things Dr. Spring and Mr. Herber asked of her because these things “were in violation of college policy.” Ms. Garrett testified that Dr. Spring micromanaged her role as the Coordinator of OUR; for example, Dr. Spring continued to process online student research forms, and coordinated the Fall 2018 OUR board meeting. Ms. Garrett also testified that Dr. Spring opened the OUR online student forms too early, which prevented Ms. Garrett from matching faculty mentors with student applicants.2 Ms. Garrett also testified that Dr. Spring made decisions concerning the OUR without consulting with her. Ms. Garrett testified that Dr. Spring would send her e-mails asking if Ms. Garrett had completed the work requested of her. 2 Ms. Garrett also testified that Mr. Herber was not involved in micromanaging her role as the Coordinator of OUR. Ms. Garrett testified that Dr. Spring told Ms. Garrett what she should be doing, and would become vocal with her dissatisfaction of Ms. Garrett’s job performance. Ms. Garrett testified that she did not know why Dr. Spring engaged in any of these actions. After a November 2018 meeting with Dr. Spring, Ms. Garrett testified that her work atmosphere became “more tense … in terms of Dr. Spring and Mr. Herber starting to make comments about allegations about my work.” She further testified that after this meeting, Dr. Handfield “started issuing directives[,]” such as requiring Ms. Garrett to first ask Dr. Spring and Mr. Herber for input prior going to other EFSC campuses to host information tables. Ms. Garrett claimed that she was subjected to a hostile work environment in which “in every meeting that I planned and hosted, Dr. Spring and Mr. Herber would say disparaging comments during the meeting.” For example, “[t]hey would talk across me and I did not reply.” Although Dr. Handfield was Ms. Garrett’s supervisor, Ms. Garrett testified that Dr. Handfield openly discussed supervision of the OUR with Dr. Spring and Mr. Herber. Findings of Ultimate Fact Ms. Garrett presented no persuasive action that EFSC’s decisions concerning, or actions affecting, her, directly or indirectly, were motivated in any way by race-based, sex-based, or age-based discriminatory animus. There is no competent, persuasive evidence in the record, direct or circumstantial, upon which the undersigned could make a finding of unlawful race, sex, or age discrimination. Ms. Garrett presented no persuasive evidence that EFSC’s actions subjected her to harassment based on race, sex, or age. There is no competent, persuasive evidence in the record, direct or circumstantial, upon which the undersigned could make a finding of unlawful race, sex, or age harassment. Ms. Garrett presented no persuasive evidence that EFSC discriminated against her because she opposed an unlawful employment practice, or because she made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under the FCRA. There is no competent, persuasive evidence in the record, direct or circumstantial, upon which the undersigned could make a finding of unlawful retaliation. Ms. Garrett presented no persuasive evidence that EFSC’s actions were sufficiently severe or persuasive to alter the terms and conditions of her employment to create a hostile work environment. There is no competent, persuasive evidence in the record upon which the undersigned could make a finding of hostile work environment.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the undersigned hereby RECOMMENDS that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order dismissing Mary F. Garrett’s Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of November, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT J. TELFER III 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 12th day of November, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed) Mary F. Garrett Apartment 2508 2741 Caribbean Isle Boulevard Melbourne, Florida 32935 (eServed) Mark E. Levitt, Esquire Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. Suite 100 1477 West Fairbanks Avenue Winter Park, Florida 32789 (eServed) Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed)
The Issue Whether applicable law authorizes the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct a hearing on the merits of issuing a permit, where the referring agency issued the permit almost three months before the objectors' petition for hearing was filed?
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That DER enter a final order dismissing with prejudice the amended petition for formal proceeding under Section 120.7, Florida Statutes, filed by Freeport and STI. DONE and ENTERED this 25th day of September, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: William L. Earl Esquire One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3636 Two South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 Joe W. Fixel, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John T. Allen, Jr., Esquire 4508 Central Avenue St. Petersburg, Florida 33711 Edward P. de la Parte, Jr., Esquire 403 N. Morgan Street, Suite 102 Tampa, Florida 33602 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION FREEPORT SULPHUR COMPANY, Division of FREEPORT MINERALS COMPANY, and SULPHUR TERMINALS, INC., Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 78-527 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, and AGRICO CHEMICAL COMPANY, Respondent. /
The Issue The issues to be determined in this case are whether Petitioner Highway 60 and 301 Center, Inc., has standing to challenge the proposed Environmental Resource Permit issued to Respondent Big Bend Center, LLC, by Respondent Southwest Florida Water Management District ("District"), and, if so, whether Big Bend Center is entitled to issuance of the proposed permit.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner owns real property located at 105 U.S. Highway 301 South, in Tampa, which Petitioner leases to commercial businesses. Respondent Big Bend Center owns real property located at 110 U.S. Highway 301 South, which is across Highway 301 from Petitioner's property. Big Bend Center is named in the District's agency action and is the permittee. The site affected by the proposed permit modification is about 2.5 acres in size. It is part of a larger development owned by Big Bend Center, encompassing about 30 acres. The 30-acre site was the subject of a permit issued by the District in 1988. The 1988 permit approved a master drainage plan applicable to all 30 acres. The permit modifications discussed herein are modifications to this initial permit. Respondent Enterprise Holdings leases the 2.5-acre site at 110 U.S. Highway 301 South, which Enterprise uses for the operation of a car and truck rental business. When Petitioner filed its petition with the District, it named Enterprise Holdings, Inc., as a Respondent, even though Enterprise Holdings was not named in the permit. Neither Petitioner nor the District ever questioned the right of Enterprise Holdings to participate as a party. Respondent Southwest Florida Water Management District is the administrative agency charged with the responsibility to administer and enforce chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 40D. The Permit The petition for hearing challenged the District's approval of a proposed permit designated 44003983.007. The permit authorized the construction of a building over existing pavement and the addition of a dumpster pad. After the petition for hearing was filed, Big Bend Center requested and the District approved a modification, designated .008, which included the .007 changes and, in addition, authorized the construction of a section of sidewalk and landscape islands in the parking lot. Enterprise then requested and the District approved another modification, .009, which authorized all the changes addressed in .008 and, in addition, authorized changes to the paved parking lot. Standing Petitioner contends that proposed permit, modification .009, would injure Petitioner because the authorized changes would result in flooding of Highway 301 that could reach Petitioner's property or, even if it did not reach that far, would interfere with traffic on Highway 301 in a manner that would disrupt Petitioner's business. The sole factual allegation upon which Petitioner bases its claim of flooding is that the previously-installed pipes that convey runoff to a retention pond may be too small; smaller than was required by Big Bend Center's 1988 permit. Petitioner's expert, Clifford Laubstein, stated that a boundary survey in the permit file shows two 18-inch diameter pipes connected to a 24-inch diameter pipe. Big Bend Center's 1988 permit required these pipes to be 24 inches and 30 inches, respectively. Laubstein admitted that the "as built" construction drawings that were submitted to the District by Big Bend Center after the construction of the master drainage system certifies that the pipes are the required, larger size. Laubstein did not have firsthand knowledge of the size of the pipes. He did not know which document was correct, the survey or the as built drawings. His position was simply that if the survey information was correct, Big Bend Center's stormwater system would fail to function properly and flooding could occur. Laubstein did not know whether the system had failed to function properly in the past or had ever caused flooding. Laubstein did not determine what storm event or volume of runoff would result in flooding of Highway 301, or the extent of flooding that would occur under various storm events. Because as built constructions drawings are prepared by an engineer and submitted to the District for the very purpose of certifying that a system has been constructed in accordance with the requirements of the permit, information in the as built drawings about components of the system would generally be more reliable than such information in a survey that was prepared for another purpose. Furthermore, Enterprise's expert witness, Steve Boggs, measured the pipes and determined they were 24 and 30 inches, as required by the permit. By refuting Petitioner's claim that the pipes "may" be undersized, Respondents refuted Petitioner's claim that Highway 301 or Petitioner's property "may" be flooded if the proposed permit modification is issued by the District. The stormwater system for the proposed project is properly sized to handle the stormwater runoff. Petitioner failed to meet its burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it could be injured by the proposed permit modification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the District dismiss the petition and issue Environmental Resource Permit 44003983.009. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of March, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER 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 4th day of March, 2013.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners, High Point of Orlando/Calton Homes (High Point) and Breedlove, Dennis and Associates, Inc. (BDA) were among named Respondents in a petition for formal hearing filed by Central Florida Wetlands Society, Inc. (CFWS) in DOAH Case number 91-8339. High Point was a Respondent in DOAH Case number 92-0364, also initiated by a CFWS petition. BDA was retained as consultant for High Point for a project in Orange County involving wetlands and requiring the evaluation of impact and the mitigation of that impact on the wetlands. A permit for the project was granted by the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD). In late 1991 High Point requested a permit modification when it was determined that mitigation could not be accomplished within the deadlines in the permit conditions. There had been delays in planting caused in part by delays in construction of the project's stormwater management system and it was apparent that the required plantings could not grow fast enough to comply with the mitigation conditions. The technical staff report recommending approval describes the modification as extensions of the deadlines for successful establishment of forested and herbaceous mitigation. CFWS is a Florida nonprofit corporation according to its articles of incorporation filed with the Secretary of State on August 3, 1990. Article III provides these purposes for the corporation: To educate on the roll [sic] of wetlands with emphasis on the values of preservation of wetlands and the prevention of destruction of same. To implement the national policy of no loss of wetlands. To coordinate with other environmental groups to focus attention on wetland preservation. All other things that are lawful under the charter of this corporation and under the laws of the State of Florida. (Exhibit filed at DOAH 8/21/92) On October 7, 1991, CFWS filed a petition for administrative hearing with the SJRWMD in opposition to the district's proposed grant of permit modification to High Point. The petition was verified and signed by Michael W. Mingea as President of CFWS. The petition did not identify CFWS as a corporation, but rather "a not-for-profit private organization under the laws of the State of Florida". The petition named as Respondents, High Point, SJRWMD, DBA and another alleged consultant for High Point, Dyer, Riddle, Mills and Precourt, Inc., (DRMP). The petition was forwarded by SJRWMD to the DOAH for hearing on December 30, 1991, and was assigned DOAH Case number 91-8339. On January 8, 1992, CFWS filed a petition for formal administrative hearing with the SJRWMD disputing a proposed consent order between High Point and SJRWMD assessing $2,463.60 penalty and costs for violation of the mitigation conditions and requiring a mitigation survey. Like the petition described in paragraph 4, above, this petition was signed and sworn by Michael Mingea and did not identify CFWS as a corporation. The Respondent named in the petition was SJRWMD. This petition was forwarded to the DOAH by the district and was received at DOAH on January 21, 1992. It was assigned DOAH Case number 92-0364. A motion in opposition to the petition was filed on January 28, 1992 by counsel for SJRWMD requesting dismissal based on Petitioner's lack of standing, as the consent order does not authorize any activity subject to the district's permitting authority. Further, the motion argued, any issues regarding the proposed permit modification would be addressed in pending case number 91-8339. In an order dated January 28, 1992, the two cases, 91-8339 and 92-0364 were consolidated and set for hearing in Orlando, Florida on June 16 and 17, 1992. On March 5, 1992 a telephone conference hearing was conducted on various pending motions and an order was entered on March 6, 1992 granting motions to dismiss the two consultant parties, BDA and DRMP. The order denied BDA's and DRMP's motions for fees and costs pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(b)5., F.S., based on a finding that the error in including the consultants as Respondents did not rise to the level of bad faith required for an award under 120.57(1)(b)5, F.S. The order granted SJRWMD's motion in opposition to the petition in number 92-0364 and closed the file in that case with remand of the petition to the agency. And finally, the order granted High Point's motion for a more definite statement in Case number 91-8339. The order required CFWS to file its amended petition within thirty days stating how the proposed permit modifications would adversely affect the waters of the state or otherwise violate statutes and rules governing management and storage of surface waters (MSSW) permits. On April 14, 1992 Karen West, Esquire, filed her notice of appearance on behalf of CFWS and a motion for extension of time of fourteen days to file a more definite statement. On April 21, 1992 Ms. West filed the Petitioner's notice of voluntary dismissal of the petition in number 91-8339, and an order closing file was entered. On April 28, 1992, High Point and BDA filed with the SJRWMD their motion for remand which resulted in the district's order of remand discussed in the preliminary statement, above. The sole issue for remand was these Respondents' entitlement to attorneys fees and costs. High Point and BDA also filed separate motions for sanctions dated May 21, 1992 requesting fees and costs of $6,766.88 for High Point and $1,096.49 for BDA. A telephone conference was conducted on June 11, 1992 on Karen West, Esquire's, motion to withdraw as counsel for CFWS. Michael Mingea, President of CFWS participated and stated that the society had no opposition to the motion. The Hearing Officer and parties then discussed procedural matters related to resolution of the fees case, DOAH Case number 92-3010F. Mr. Mingea asked for, and was given, two weeks to obtain substitute counsel prior to Petitioners commencing discovery. The parties agreed to conduct the final hearing by telephone on August 10, 1992. An order and notice of hearing was entered confirming these matters on June 17, 1992. Notwithstanding the parties' agreement, the August 10th hearing was continued because Petitioners were unable to effectuate discovery or serve subpoenas on Michael Mingea or Todd Swearingen, another CFWS board member. Despite frequent filings of well-drafted requests for extensions, responses to Petitioners' pleadings and similar documents, Michael Mingea never appeared at any of the several hearings scheduled in this case after his initial appearance on June 11th. Despite several explicit orders Mr. Mingea never appeared for deposition by Petitioners, either in person or by telephone. Yet, according to the testimony of other board members, Todd Swearingen and Marty Sharpe, only Michael Mingea initiated the petitions involving High Point and he, alone, was cognizant of the specific basis for those petitions. Marty Sharpe who appeared consistently on behalf of CFWS in this proceeding became a board member in February 1992, several months after the petitions were filed. Petitioners were wholly frustrated in their effort to obtain the discovery to which they were entitled with regard to the bases for the CFWS petition in Case number 92-8339 and its abrupt dismissal. In various written documents and attempts to provide evidence through affidavit CFWS argues that its motives were not bad faith; however, throughout this proceeding CFWS has effectively prevented Petitioners from testing those bare assertions through discovery or cross examination. Mr. Mingea apparently travels extensively with his regular employment and the organization's mail goes to a post office box where it is picked up by volunteers. Contact with the organization was most effectively made through Marty Sharpe who attempted, in turn, to reach Mr. Mingea and convey messages. In the absence of competent evidence to the contrary, the record in this and in the underlying cases, number 91-8339 and 92-0364 support a reasonable inference that the petition in number 91-8339 was filed for a frivolous purpose. The order granting CFWS leave to amend its petition acknowledged that the original petition was legally insufficient. The petition was not amended within the allotted period; but rather was voluntarily dismissed shortly after legal counsel appeared on behalf of the organization. This dismissal reduces, but does not eliminate exposure to liability for filing the initial petition. The fees and costs requested by the Petitioners here are reasonable. Those fees are supported by billing logs attached to the motions for sanctions and reflect an hourly rate of $100.00 for BDA and $160.00 for High Point. Douglas Rillstone testified to the reasonableness of a total of $9,592.00 for High Point, and $2,495.00 for BDA. Those totals are not supported by billing logs and it is not possible to determine the basis for those amounts beyond the original amounts requested.
