The Issue Whether Rule 27G-1.06(2) and Rule 27G-1.08(4), Florida Administrative Code, or either of them, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority?
Findings Of Fact The parties have stipulated that Fairfield Communities, Inc. (Fairfield) has the requisite standing to challenge the rule provisions at issue and that Friends of Fort George, Inc., (Friends), Florida Wildlife Federation (FWF) and Florida Audubon Society (Audubon) have standing to participate as intervenors in support of these rule provisions. The Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (FLWAC) is the state agency that promulgated the challenged rules. The Fort George DRI case, No. 86-4127, began on August 1, 1986, when the Department of Community Affairs took an appeal of the development order entered by the City of Jacksonville on June 12, 1986 on grounds The MLUP does not accurately show or locate the DER jurisdictional line on the western side of the island from which buffer areas required by the ADO are to be measured . . . The MLUP does not properly or accurately depict or locate buffer areas surrounding the sloughs on the western side of Fort George Island. Exhibit B to the Prehearing Stipulation. Together with others, the Intervenors in the present case filed, in the Fort George DRI case, No. 86-4127, a motion to intervene as of right and request for consideration of additional issues on August 7, 1986. The intervenors in No. 86-4127 sought consideration of a wide range of issues in the Fort George DRI case, including questions concerning Blue Pond, the perimeter buffer zone, the interior habitat, weirs, berms, dikes and hydraulic connections, the adequacy of the water supply, the effect of the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission's disapproval, the placement of various boundaries, and whether "Fairfield has failed to provide adequate protection of the microclimate and ecology of the Rollins Bird and Plant Sanctuary as mandated by the ADO . . ." Exhibit C to the Prehearing Stipulation. In filing their motion to intervene as of right and request for consideration of additional issues in No. 86-4127, Friends, Audubon and FWF expressly relied on Rule 27G-1.06, Florida Administrative Code. The portion under challenge here provides: (2) Motions to intervene filed with the Commission within 30 days of the filing of a notice of appeal may request the Commission to consider issues raised in the record below but not raised by the parties to the appeal. Rule 27G-1.06, Florida Administrative Code. In the order of transmittal, entered in No. 86-4127 on October 15, 1986, FLWAC denied consideration of every issue raised by the intervenors, except for the issue concerning the Rollins Bird and Plant Sanctuary, and added a related issue, also concerning the Rollins Bird and Plant Sanctuary, citing Rule 27G- 1.08, Florida Administrative Code. The portion of that rule under challenge here provides: Within 60 days of receipt of a notice of appeal, the Commission shall meet to review the issues raised by the parties. If the Commission determines that an issue of statewide or regional importance was not raised by the parties but is necessary to its disposition of the appeal, the Commission shall specify said issue and shall specify whether the issue shall be the subject of review based on the record made below, additional evidence or a combination thereof. New issues shall not be raised by the parties or other persons after this Commission meeting. At this meeting, the Commission may also dispose of procedural motions, including motions to intervene, which have been filed within 30 days of the filing of the notice of appeal. Rule 27G-1.08, Florida Administrative Code. Fairfield, as the applicant for the development order in No. 86- 4127, questions FLWAC's authority to promulgate rules that allow FLWAC to consider issues not raised by the party who took the DRI appeal, whether sua sponte or on motion of an intervenor.
The Issue The issues are whether respondents’ motions to dismiss the amended petitions should be granted on the ground they were not timely filed, or whether the time limitation for filing a request for hearing was equitably tolled.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background Petitioners, Judge Ray and Gerra Gatlin (petitioners or Gatlins), own a parcel of real property in the central portion of Baker County, Florida, generally located to the north of U. S. Highway 90 between Glen St. Mary and Macclenny, Florida. Respondent, St. Johns River Water Management District (District), is the state agency charged with the responsibility of issuing Water Resource Management (WRM) and Management and Storage of Surface Water (MSSW) permits within its boundaries. Respondent, Department of Transportation (DOT), is a state agency charged with the responsibility of maintaining the state highway system. On April 27, 1993, DOT filed two applications with the District seeking MSSW and WRM permits for a road widening and bridge replacement project on State Road 10, also known as U. S. Highway 90, in Baker County. After notices of receipt of application and intent to grant the applications were published in a local newspaper on June 3 and July 22, 1993, respectively, and no requests for a hearing were received, the District issued the two permits on August 10, 1993. On December 20, 1996, or 1,216 days after the permits had been issued, petitioners filed their petitions for administrative hearing to contest the issuance of the permits. The petition challenging the MSSW permit has been assigned Case No. 97-0803 while the challenge to the issuance of a WRM permit has been assigned Case No. 97-0804. As amended on February 10, 1997, the petitions generally allege that the Gatlins were not given actual notice of the WRM application as required by a District rule, DOT supplied inaccurate or false information in the applications as to the ownership of the property on which a portion of the work was to be performed, and the District's notice was confusing and misleading. Because of this, they contend the time limitation for challenging the permits was equitably tolled. Motions to dismiss the amended petitions on the ground they are untimely have been filed by the District and DOT, and they are the subject of these proceedings. Events Prior to Issuance of the Permits As early as 1990 or 1991, the DOT began planning for certain improvements to State Road 10 from County Road 125 in Glen St. Mary, Florida, east to State Road 121 in Macclenny, Florida. The work involved the widening of the road from two to four lanes and replacing an existing bridge. Excluding the work within the two municipalities, the total length of the project was less than two miles. On April 23, 1991, the DOT sent all property owners along U. S. Highway 90 a letter advising that a public meeting would be held on May 16, 1991, to discuss the proposed improvements. Although DOT records indicate that petitioners were on the mailing list, petitioners deny that they ever received a letter. In addition to a personal letter to each owner, notice of the meeting was published in a local newspaper. Another meeting with owners of property adjacent to S. Highway 90 was held on August 13, 1992, concerning the proposed project. Although a letter was sent to all property owners on July 21, 1992, advising that such a meeting would be held, petitioners deny that they ever received one. A notice of the meeting was also published in a local newspaper. The MSSW permit On April 23, 1993, DOT filed with the District an application, with various attachments, seeking the issuance of a MSSW permit. If approved, the permit would authorize DOT to construct surface water works, including the treatment of stormwater runoff by wet detention ponds, on an approximately eleven acre site. The application described the project as follows: The proposed facility typical section will be a four-lane roadway with a center turn lane through Glen St. Mary and unincorporated Baker Co. [T]hrough Macclenny, the typical section will be a two-lane roadway with a center turn lane. It further described the location of the project as follows: The segment of SR 10 (US 90) presented in this application begins approximately 500 feet west of the intersection of SR 10 and CR 125 and runs east to the intersection of SR 10 and SR 121. The project is located in Section 36, Township 2 south, and Range 21 east and Sections 31 and 32, Township 2 south, and Range 22 east in Baker County. In answer to a question regarding who owned the works to be constructed, DOT identified itself as the owner. The application did not require, however, that an applicant certify that it was the present owner of the property on which the proposed works were to be constructed. In fact, DOT followed its standard practice of not filling in the areas on the application form that asked for "Project Acreage" and "Total Acreage Owned" because it did not know exactly how much property it would need to acquire through exercise of its power of eminent domain until the District had approved the design of the proposed surface water works. It was clear, however, that DOT had the ability and intention to acquire whatever property was needed through eminent domain proceedings. Attached to the application were certain sketches. They did not depict the storm detention pond which was to be built on the Gatlins' property. Under an applicable District rule and statute, the District was required to give actual notice of the application only to persons who had previously filed a written request for such notice. Because petitioners had not made such a request, they were not given actual notice. In the absence of a written request, the statute allows constructive notice of the agency’s intended action to be provided by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the county in which the work is to be performed. The specific requirements for this notice are found in Rule 40C-1.511(5), Florida Administrative Code. They include "a brief description of the proposed activity and its location," "location of the application," "statement of the District's intended action," "scheduled date of Board action," and "notification of administrative hearing opportunity." On July 22, 1993, the District published notice of its intended agency action in The Baker County Press, a weekly newspaper of general circulation published in Macclenny, Florida. The notice read, in pertinent part, as follows: The District gives notice of its intent to issue a permit to the following applicant on August 10, 1993: FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, P. O. Box 1089, Lake City, Fla., 32056, application #4-003-0010AG. The project is located in Baker County, Sections 31, 32 & 36, Township 02 South, Ranges 21 & 22 East. The application is for the CONSTRUCTION OF A SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ASSOCIATED WITH THE WIDENING OF SR 10 (U.S. 90) FROM CR 125 TO SR 121. The receiving waterbody is the St. Mary's River. The file containing the above-listed application is available for inspection Monday through Friday except for legal holidays, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm at the St. Johns River Water Management District headquarters or the appropriate field office. The District will take action on the permit application listed above unless a petition for an administrative hearing is filed pursuant to the provisions of section 120.57, F.S., and section 40C-1.511. A person whose substantial interests are affected by the District’s proposed permitting decision identified above may petition for an administrative hearing in accordance with section 120.57, F.S. Petitions must comply with the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rules 40C-1.111 and 40C- 1.521 and be filed with (and received by) the District Clerk, P.O. Box 1429, Palatka, Florida 32178-1429. Petitions must be filed within fourteen (14) days of publication of this notice or within fourteen(14) days of actual receipt of this intent, whichever occurs first. Failure to file a petition within this time period shall constitute a waiver of any right such person may have to request an administrative determination (hearing) under Section 120.57, F.S., concerning the subject permit application. Petitions which are not filed in accordance with the above provisions are subject to dismissal. Thus, the notice provided a brief description of the project and its location, the location of the application, the District's intended action, the scheduled date of Board action, and notification as to the right of a hearing. Although petitioners acknowledge that they never read the notice, they contend that, even if they had read it, the notice was nonetheless misleading and confusing in several respects. First, they point out that the legal notice identified the receiving waterbody as the St. Mary's River. The application, however, identified the receiving water as the South Prong St. Mary's River whereas the technical report of the District staff identified the receiving water as the Little St. Mary's River. The South Prong St. Mary's River and the Little St. Mary's River are the same river, and it eventually flows into the St. Mary's River approximately six miles north of petitioners' property. Therefore, the notice is technically correct since the larger St. Mary's River is the ultimate receiving water for the smaller tributary. Even if the notice was in error in this respect, however, for the reasons cited below, the error was immaterial and would not mislead or confuse readers. The notice provides further clarification on the project's location by stating that the project encompasses the "construction of a surface water management system associated with the widening of SR 10 (U.S. 90) from CR 125 to SR 121." This clearly alerts the reader that the project is on or near U. S. Highway 90 between Glen St. Mary and Macclenny, a short stretch of road less than two miles in length. Given this description, a reasonable person would not assume that the work would take place on the St. Mary's River, six miles to the north, as petitioners suggest. Petitioners also point out that the notice identified the location of the project as "Sections 31, 32 & 36, Township 02 South, Ranges 21 & 22 East," an area petitioners say encompasses some 1,900 acres of land. Because the MSSW project will actually involve only 11 acres of land, they contend the notice is misleading. Although the notice identifies three sections, and each section is one square mile, the notice alerts the reader that the project will be confined to the "widening of S. R. 10 (U. S. 90)" between Glen St. Mary and Macclenny, a relatively short stretch of roadway. Finally, the notice provided that a copy of the application was on file at the "appropriate field office" of the District should any member of the public desire more detailed information. Petitioners' property lies within Sections 31 and 36 and would therefore be affected by the application. Although they reside in Baker County, petitioners did not subscribe to The Baker County Press, and therefore they did not read the legal advertisement. Accordingly, a request for a hearing was not filed by petitioners by the August 10 deadline. When no requests for a hearing were filed within the fourteen day time limitation, the District took final agency action on August 10, 1993, and issued MSSW permit number 4-003-0010G. The WRM permit On April 27, 1993, DOT filed with the District an application, with attachments, seeking the issuance of a WRM permit. If approved, the permit would authorize the excavation and filling (dredging and filling) associated with the bridge replacement over the Little St. Mary's River, also known as the South Prong St. Mary's River, midway between Glen St. Mary and Macclenny on U. S. Highway 90. The dredge and fill project encompasses approximately one-half acre of land. The WRM application contained the same description and location of the project as did the MSSW permit application. Question 14 on the application form required an applicant to certify as to ownership of the property. The applicant could either indicate that it was the record owner of the property on which the proposed project was to be undertaken, or it could indicate that it was not the record owner, but it intended to have the requisite ownership before undertaking the proposed work. DOT checked off the box which indicated that it was the record owner. At hearing, a DOT representative agreed that this was an incorrect response since around 8,953 square feet of the land on which the dredging and filling would take place was then owned by petitioners. In hindsight, the DOT witness says he probably should have checked off both boxes since DOT owned most of the property and would acquire the remaining part through eminent domain proceedings before the project began. Acquisition of the land was clearly within DOT's power and authority. There is no evidence that DOT provided the information with the intent of misleading the District, or that the ownership information affected the District's decision. In 1988, the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), now known as the Department of Environmental Protection, delegated its dredge and fill permitting authority to water management districts. In carrying out that delegation of authority, the districts were required to follow all applicable DER rules. One such rule, Rule 62-312.060(12), Florida Administrative Code, required that the District forward a copy of the application to and request comments from the adjacent waterfront property owners unless the number of owners was so extensive that personal notice was impractical. Petitioners own adjacent waterfront property, and it was not shown that the number of waterfront owners was so extensive that personal notice was impractical. To implement the above rule, question 5 on the application form required the applicant to identify all adjacent waterfront owners. DOT answered "See Attachment." At hearing, the individual who prepared the application "believed" that a list was attached to the application when it was filed with the District, but he could not locate a copy of the list in his file. The application was the first dredge and fill permit application for Baker County processed by the District. When the application was received by the District, a clerical employee reviewed the application to determine if it was complete. If an item was missing, the clerk was instructed to note the missing item on an "initial checkoff sheet." In this case, a "very, very cursory look" was made, and no box on the checkoff sheet was marked. This would indicate that the list was attached to the application. After this review was made, the application was sent to the technical staff for review. Whether the attachment was ever received by the District, and then lost or misplaced, is conjecture. In any event, a District witness acknowledged that there may have been a "mix-up" during the initial review. Because the District had no attached list, it gave no actual notice to adjacent owners, including petitioners, prior to publication of the notice. Therefore, the rule requiring actual notice on this type of application was not satisfied. Except for this instance, the District is unaware of any other occasion when a list of adjacent waterfront property owners, through inadvertence, was lost or not provided. On July 22, 1993, the District published notice of its intent to issue a permit in The Baker County Press. The notice read, in pertinent part, as follows: The District gives notice of the Intent to Issue a permit to the following applicant on August 10, 1993: FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, P. O. Box 1089, Lake City, Fla., 32056, application #4-003-0010AG. The project is located in Baker County, Sections 31, 32 & 36, Township 02 South, Ranges 21 & 22 East. The application is for EXCAVATION AND FILLING ASSOCIATED WITH THE WIDENING OF SR 10 (U.S. 90) FROM CR 125 TO SR 121. The receiving waterbody is the St. Mary's River. The file pertaining to the above-listed application is available for inspection Monday through Friday except for legal holidays, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm at the St. Johns River Water Management District headquarters or the appropriate field office. The District will take action on the permit application listed above unless a petition for an administrative proceeding (hearing) is filed pursuant to the provisions of section 120.57, F.S., and section 40C-1.511, F.A.C. A person whose substantial interests are affected by the District’s proposed permitting decision identified above may petition for an administrative hearing in accordance with the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rules 40C-1.111 and 40C-1.521 and be filed with (received by) the District Clerk, P.O. Box 1429, Palatka, Florida 32178-1429. Petitions for administrative hearing on the above application must be filed within fourteen (14) days of publication of this notice or within fourteen (14) days of actual receipt of this intent, whichever first occurs. Failure to file a petition within this time period shall constitute a waiver of any right such person may have to request an administrative determination (hearing) under section 120.57, F.S., concerning the subject permit application. Petitions which are not filed in accordance with the above provisions are subject to dismissal. Thus, the notice provided a brief description of the project and its location, the location of the application, the District's intended action, the scheduled date of Board action, and notification of hearing opportunity. Even though they did not read the notice, petitioners contend that it was "confusing and misleading to any readers." First, they point out that the legal notice identifies the receiving water as the St. Mary's River. Both the application and technical report of the District staff, however, identified the receiving water as the South Prong St. Mary's River. The South Prong St. Mary's River flows north and south and crosses under U. S. Highway 90 at the bridge replacement site. It eventually flows into the St. Mary's River, which is approximately six miles further north and forms the boundary between Florida and Georgia in that area. Therefore, the notice was technically correct since the St. Mary's River is the ultimate receiving water from the smaller tributary. Even if the notice erred in this respect, the error was immaterial and would not mislead the reader. This is because the cited sections, township, ranges and road being improved are all at least five miles south of the St. Mary's River, and thus the notice could not lull readers into believing that the project would actually be closer to that river, some six miles to the north. Petitioners also point out that, even though the dredge and fill project encompasses only one-half acre, the notice identifies the project as being located in Sections 31, 32, and 36, Township 2 South, Ranges 21 and 22 East, a tract of some 1,900 acres. These sections, township and ranges are the same ones included in the legal description of the then existing right-of-way for U. S. Highway 90 owned by DOT and which was attached to the application. While it is true that each section is one square mile, the actual work site within the sections was narrowed considerably by advice that the work would be "associated with the widening of SR 10" between Glen St. Mary and Macclenny. Given this information, a prudent person owning land on U. S. Highway 90 between the two municipalities would be alerted that the project might well impact his property. Finally, the notice provided that a copy of the application was on file for review if any member of the public desired more specific information. As a corollary to the above argument, petitioners contend that the notice implies that dredge and fill work will only be performed on DOT's existing right-of-way since the sections, township and ranges track the legal description of DOT's right-of-way along U. S. Highway 90. Again, however, only a "brief description" of the project's location is required, and the above description in the notice satisfies this requirement. Although petitioners reside in Baker County, they did not subscribe to the local newspaper, and therefore they did not read the legal advertisement. Accordingly, they did not file a request for a hearing. When no requests for a hearing were received within fourteen days after publication of the notice, on August 10, 1993, the District issued WRM permit number 12-003-0001G. C. Events After Issuance of the Permits On September 22, 1994, DOT sent to petitioners, by certified mail, a Letter of Notification regarding DOT's intention to acquire the interest in eight parcels of the Gatlins' property for the road improvement project. The letter was received by Gerra Gatlin on September 23, 1994. While the letter did not specifically state that a detention pond and bridge replacement project would be built on the Gatlins' property, it explained that DOT was currently planning the construction of a "highway facility" on State Road 10 and that its records indicated that petitioners owned property within the area which was needed for right-of-way on this project. The letter went on to describe the project in general terms, and it referenced parcel 140 which was owned by the Gatlins. On a separate parcel information sheet attached to the letter, parcel 140 was divided into three parcels: 140A, 140B, and 140C. The sheet noted that parts B and C were designated as "water storage" areas. Parcel 140B is 10.727 acres in size and will hold the stormwater detention pond currently being constructed by DOT. A portion of the dredge and filling related to the bridge replacement project will occur on parcel 140C. Ray Gatlin acknowledged that he became aware of a "pond" when he initially reviewed the packet, but he was not sure in which part of parcel 140 the pond would be located since the "printing was off" on the drawings, and he could not find parcel 140C. Therefore, he immediately hired a Jacksonville attorney, Robert S. Yerkes, to represent him and his wife in the condemnation matter. On October 31, 1994, Yerkes sent a letter to DOT requesting a copy of "the current right way map and construction plans, as well as the present schedule for aquisition and construction." On November 17, 1994, DOT sent Yerkes the right-of-way maps but noted that "[c]onstruction plans are still not available." Whether Yerkes requested the construction plans after that date is not of record. On May 22, 1995, a DOT right-of-way specialist met with Yerkes and Ray Gatlin regarding the acquisition of the Gatlins’ property. On July 19, 1995, DOT initiated an action in eminent domain against petitioners, and several other landowners, by filing a petition in the Circuit Court of Baker County. Among other things, the petition sought to condemn parcels 140A, 140B, and 140C owned by petitioners. An Order of Taking was entered by the court on September 6, 1995, which conveyed fee simple title of parcel 140, and its parts, to DOT. When Yerkes "didn’t get the job done," the Gatlins hired new counsel, who made an appearance on July 31, 1996. Just prior to the appearance of new counsel, and because of "a problem with the assessment," the Gatlins hired an environmental consultant, Peter M. Wallace, to verify whether DOT had correctly told them that no jurisdictional wetlands existed within the parcel being condemned. At this time, the Gatlins were in a dispute with DOT over the value of their property. After determining that wetlands existed on the parcel, Wallace made inquiry in late July 1996 with a District employee, Christine Wentzel, to ascertain if any permits had been issued to DOT for a project on U. S. Highway 90 between Glen St. Mary and Macclenny. Wentzel was unaware of any permits being issued, but she referred Wallace to Helen Cortopassi, who would have reviewed the applications three years earlier. Cortopassi told Wallace that no permits relating to this project had been issued. Because Wallace believed that the storm detention pond would impact wetlands, and therefore required a review by DER or the United States Army Corps of Engineers, he made similar inquiries with those two agencies regarding the issuance of permits. He was assured that those two agencies had not issued permits. In late September 1996, Cortopassi telephoned Wallace and advised him that a further review of her files revealed that two permits had been issued for the project. Because Wallace had inquired about permits for a project on U. S. Highway 90, and Cortopassi had created a file for the project under State Road 10 (rather than U. S. Highway 90), she had failed to discover them when Wallace first made his inquiry two months earlier. On October 15, 1996, Wallace went to the DOT office and reviewed its files pertaining to the project. He found copies of the issued permits and a set of construction plans which revealed a pond. A public records request filed by the Gatlins' counsel with DOT in September 1996 was later granted, and copies of the applications were eventually obtained from DOT on December 9, 1996, or almost three months after the request was made. Within fourteen days thereafter, or on December 20, 1996, the Gatlins filed their initial requests for a hearing. DOT did not begin work on the project until March 1997, or some three months after the requests for hearing were filed. Photographs received into evidence show that, in April 1997, some excavation work was being done around the bridge site. Work has continued during the pendency of this proceeding. At least a small portion of the storm detention pond will be built in wetlands. The District made no review of the wetlands impact associated with the pond. Had this been done, a disclosure of the pond in the dredge and fill permit application would have been required. Petitioners contend that, if actual notice of the WRM had been given, as required by rule, and a wetlands impact performed, in this way they would have had actual notice of the MSSW application by simply reviewing the WRM application. The District contends, however, that the content and manner of notice would not have changed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the St. Johns River Water Management District enter a final order granting the motions to dismiss and dismissing the amended petitions for hearing in Case Nos. 97-0803 and 97-0804 with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of July, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675, SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 \ COPIES FURNISHED: Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of July, 1997. Henry Dean, Executive Director St. Johns River Water Management District Post Office Box 1489 Palatka, Florida 32178-1489 J. Victor Barrios, Esquire 1026 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1673 Susan K. S. Scarcelli, Esquire Post Office Box 3399 Tampa, Florida 33601-3399 Nancy B. Barnard, Esquire Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32178-1429 Francine M. Ffolkes, Esquire Mary S. Miller, Esquire Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
The Issue Whether Respondent Richardson’s application for a wetlands resource permit to construct a private road and bridge through wetlands should be denied for failing to provide mitigation to offset the impacts to existing wetlands. Whether Respondent Richardson had provided the Department with reasonable assurance that he or she owns or has sufficient authorization to use certain land in mitigation to offset the wetland impacts.
Findings Of Fact In January of 1990, John Richardson applied to the Department for a wetland resource (dredge and fill) permit under Section 403.918, Florida Statutes to construct a private road and bridge through wetlands. The proposed project would impact 0.032 acres of wetland. The proposed project is not located in an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW). The proposed project would adversely affect the following: the conservation of fish and wildlife; the fishing, recreational values, and marine productivity in the vicinity of the proposed project; and the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by the wetlands impacted by the project. The proposed project would be permanent in nature. The proposed project would not meet the criteria of Section 403.918(2)(a) Florida Statutes, without mitigation adequate to offset the impacts to wetlands. To provide adequate mitigation for the proposed project, Respondent John Richardson proposed to create and preserve 0.029 acres of new wetlands and preserve 4.35 acres of existing wetlands. The preservation would consist of granting to the Department a perpetual conservation easement over the mitigation wetlands. Respondent John Richardson represented to the Department that he was the record owner or had permission to use the land that he offered for mitigation. The Department reasonably relied on that representation. The mitigation proposed by Respondent John Richardson would be adequate to offset the impacts to wetlands resulting from the proposed project. On March 4, 1992, the Department issued to John Richardson a wetlands resource permit for the proposed project. The Department was not aware, before it issued this permit, that John Richardson might not own or have permission to use the mitigation land. The Department was substantially justified in issuing the permit to John Richardson on March 4, 1992. Specific conditions 28-31 of that permit required Respondent John Richardson to grant the Department a conservation easement over the mitigation land within thirty days after issuance of the permit. Respondent John Richardson failed to grant the Department the required conservation easement, and failed to publish notice of the Department’s action. On July 22, 1996, Petitioners filed a timely petition with the Department challenging the Department’s issuance of the March 4, 1992, permit to Respondent John Richardson. On September 11, 1996, Janet Richardson filed an application with the Department for transfer of the March 4, 1992, permit to her following the dissolution of marriage with John Richardson. By letter dated October 11, 1996, the Department requested Janet Richardson to provide additional documentation to show that she either owns the mitigation land or has permission to use that land. Janet Richardson was required to provide a legal survey drawing depicting the mitigation land, property records showing ownership of that land, and a notarized statement from the land owner authorizing her to use that land. The Department specifically advised Janet Richardson that it could not approve the proposed project if she failed to submit this requested documentation to the Department prior to the final hearing. Janet Richardson failed to provide the requested documentation by the date of the final hearing in this matter, or subsequently. As of November 6, 1996, no work had begun on the proposed project. At the hearing, the Department adequately explained its change in position from deciding to issue the permit (on March 4, 1992) and proposing denial of the permit (on November 6, 1996). The Department relies on an applicant’s representations regarding ownership of or right to use land unless a problem is brought to the Department’s attention. In this case, the Department was not aware that there was a problem with the applicant’s right to use the mitigation land until the petition was filed with the Department on July 22, 1996. Janet Richardson failed to provide proof that she either owns or is authorized to use the land to mitigate the impacts to wetlands from the proposed project. Without such proof, Janet Richardson failed to prove that she could mitigate those same impacts from the proposed project.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a Final Order denying Respondent Richardson’s request for a wetlands resource permit for the proposed project.ONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of December, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of December, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Stauffer Post Office Box 97 Aripeka, Florida 34679-097 Cy Plata Post Office Box 64 Aripeka, Florida 34679 Steven McCallum Post Office Box 484 Aripeka, Florida 34679 Leslie Neumann Post Office Box 738 Aripeka, Florida 34679 John Richardson 700 West Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34607 Janet Richardson 1603 Osowaw Boulevard Springhill, Florida 34607 Thomas I. Mayton, Jr., Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Perry Odom, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Virgina B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The issue addressed in this proceeding is whether Petitioner was the subject of an unlawful employment practice.
Findings Of Fact Baypoint Hotel Associates operates a hotel at Marriott's Bay Point Resort in Panama City, Florida. Petitioner, Jerry D. Hicks, was employed by Respondent, Baypoint Hotel Associates, for approximately five and one Petitioner worked as a bell captain at Respondent's Panama City Beach, Florida, hotel for approximately two and one termination of his employment with Respondent. The bell captain's job required some heavy lifting. There was no dispute regarding the fact that Respondent is an employer within the meaning of the Florida Human Rights Act, and that all jurisdictional requirements have been met. Petitioner requested, and was granted, a leave of absence from his job effective December 17, 1991, in order to have back surgery to repair a herniated disc. By electing to take a leave of absence, Petitioner understood that he was not guaranteed his bell captain's job upon his return. In fact, he was not guaranteed any job upon his return, but would be given preference should there be an opening in any employment position for which he was qualified. There was no evidence that Respondent's leave of absence policy was not consistently applied or applied in a discriminatory manner. As a result of his surgery, Petitioner was unable to work from December 17, 1991, until April 9, 1992, when he was released by his doctor to return to work. No medical evidence was presented that Petitioner's "back problem" constituted a handicap or was perceived as a handicap by his employer. During Petitioner's absence from work, his job duties were reassigned to two assistant bell captains. After being released by his doctor to return to work, Petitioner informed Respondent's Human Resources Department, on or about the week of April 13, 1992, that he was ready to return to work, but that he would temporarily not be able to perform all of the duties, namely heavy lifting, of his former job as bell captain because of his surgery. After Petitioner requested to return to his job as a bell captain, Respondent's Director of Human Resources informed Petitioner that his former job was no longer available because Respondent's management had reassigned the bell captain's duties to two assistant bell captains and that Respondent did not plan to refill the job of bell captain under a reorganization of that service area. In lieu of returning Petitioner to his former job as bell captain, Respondent's human resource director informed Petitioner that he could interview for several available jobs at Respondent's hotel, including the jobs of telephone operator/supervisor, front desk clerk or reservation sales agent. Petitioner testified that he was unwilling to consider any job that paid less money than he was paid in his former job as a bell captain. By the time Petitioner informed Respondent's human resource director on April 28, 1992, that he was ready to interview for the reservation job; however, the reservations job had already been filled. Petitioner had waited an inordinate amount of time in advising Respondent of his interest in the reservations job and therefore lost his opportunity to apply. There was no evidence of any discrimination on the part of Respondent.
Recommendation It is accordingly, RECOMMENDED: Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a Final Order dismissing Petitioner's complaint. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 29th day of October, 1993. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 29th day of October 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-1504 The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, insofar as material. COPIES FURNISHED: Jerry D. Hicks 1202 Parker Drive Panama City, Florida 32401 Michael D. Giles, Esquire 1410 AmSouth Harbert Plaza 1901 Sixth Avenue North Birmingham, Alabama 35203-2602 Dana Baird, General Counsel Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road, Building F (Suite 240) Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1570 Ms. Sharon Moultry Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee Florida 32303-4149
