Findings Of Fact This cause came on for consideration based upon the Petitioner's (Mrs. R. C. Horton) amended petition filed by her son, Charles H. Horton, which petition opposes the proposed permit/certification that the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, intends to issue to the Consolidated City of Jacksonville. Particularly, this concerns the Permit/ Certification No. 16-31-0756-2E, Duval County, Florida. The placard number is 01496. The Petitioner in this cause, Mrs. R. C. Horton, resides at 7357 Goodnow Road in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida, on property which is adjacent to the project site in issue. The Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, is an agency of the State of Florida which has, among other duties, the consideration of permits which involve maintenance dredging. The authority for this activity on the part of Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, is found in Chapter 253 and/or Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. The second Respondent in this cause is the Consolidated City of Jacksonville Mosquito Control Branch. The Consolidated City of Jacksonville is a municipality in Duval County, Florida. The proposal in dispute is that request to excavate approximately 9700 cubic yards of material at the site by realignment of 600 feet of canal; widening 250 feet and cleaning and shaping 100 feet of drainage way in the location of Section 56, Township 3 South, Range 27 East, on Eagle Branch, a channelized drainage way in Duval County, Florida. The stated purpose of this work is to prevent an encroachment of the branch onto private property in the area of the 600-foot realignment. An additional purpose is to promote better drainage. The Petitioner's challenge to the Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulations intent to grant the permit was premised primarily on the testimony of Charles Horton and certain photographic slides which he presented in the course of that Hearing. It is Mr. Horton's position that if the work as applied for were completed, there would be erosion to the property of Mrs. R. C. Horton and a problem with siltation at the mouth of the Eagle Branch where it flows into Pottsburg Creek. In the mind of Charles Horton, this theory is supported by the opinion that clearing out and widening will increase the velocity of the water flowing out of the Eagle Branch, thereby promoting advanced erosion, and by the past when the Eagle Branch channelized in the early fifties and there was a problem with siltation and erosion, to the extent that maintenance dredging was necessary in the 1960's. (Moreover, Charles Horton was concerned about the cost considerations involved in the project; however, he was advised by the undersigned that the purpose of the hearing sub judice was not to question the cost, but to consider the effect of the project on water quality and biological resources as contemplated by Chapters 253 and 403, Florida Statutes, and Rule 17, Florida Administrative Code.) The petitioner did not offer engineering studies or other forms of data which would support the opinion of Mr. Horton. In defense of the project, the Respondent, Consolidated City of Jacksonville Mosquito Control Branch, offered testimony from George R. Knecht, a civil engineer. Mr. Knecht has had experience in this type project over a period of the last 7-1/2 years. He stated in testimony that the aims of the project were to take the creek bed away from private property on the north side of the city maintenance yard by process of realignment, and to clean out the Eagle Branch, thereby decreasing the velocity of the water flowing through that branch in the area of the maintenance yard. (The maintenance yard may be seen on the Respondent, Consolidated City of Jacksonville's Exhibit No. 1 admitted into Evidence.) It was to these ends that the City of Jacksonville submitted its proposals for permit, which may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence. Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, received the application and made an application appraisal, which may be found as Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation's Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence. In the process of conducting the appraisal, a biological study was done and other steps were taken to discern the effect of the project on water quality in the area which includes a flood plain at the mouth of the Eagle Branch, which flows into Pottsburg Creek. Among the things that were required as conditions to the granting of the permit were the placing of turbidity curtains at the mouth of the branch during the course of the entire construction; monitoring the turbidity daily on the downstream side of the turbidity curtain during the dredging operation; containing the dredging through the swamp flood plain in the existing channel to avoid destruction of trees of the flood plain, and placing the spoil from the flood plain on the existing berm or removing it to uplands. (These conditions, and a statement of intent to grant the permit, may be found in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence.) The Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, also received comments from the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission and those comments may be found in the Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence. The intent to grant the permit incorporates the protections suggested by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. The testimony on the approach of the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation to the request for permit was offered by Jeremy Tyler and Dave Scott, employees of the Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation. Upon consideration of the testimony offered, it is concluded that water quality and biological resources will not be unreasonably affected, and that it would be in keeping with requirements of Chapters 253 and 403, Florida Statutes, and Rule 17, Florida Administrative Code, to allow the granting of Permit/Certification No. 16-31-0756-2E, Duval County, Florida.
Recommendation It is recommended that the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, issue Permit/Certification No. 16-31-0756-2E, Duval County, Florida, for the benefit of Consolidated City of Jacksonville Mosquito Control Branch. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of September, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Charles H. Horton, Esquire 757 Goodnow Road Jacksonville, Florida 32216 Carole Joy Barice, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert G. Brown, Esquire Assistant Counsel 1300 City Hall Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Findings Of Fact Petitioner proposes to erect a hyacinth fence at the entrance to Canal number 4 in Lake Istokpoga. The fence will consist of 4' x 4' posts six feet apart extending approximately 100 feet from each marsh bank of the canal toward Lake Istokpoga with an opening at the entrance of 12 to 14 feet to allow boat access. The fence will be attached to these 4' x 4' posts and extend about 2 feet below the surface of the water to prevent hyacinths from entering the canal and blocking navigation. Three other canals leading into Lake Istokpoga have been equipped with hyacinth fences and to date no problems have occurred. The fence does not extend to the bottom of the lake, is of a type approved by DER and will not materially effect the movement of water into and out of the canal. There is less water turnover in the canals than in the lake. This results in the canals having less oxygen than the lake and therefore are in a more stressed condition. As a result, from an ecological point of view, it is preferred to keep the hyacinths in the lake as opposed to the canals. Hyacinths which die and sink to the bottom take from the water oxygen that is needed to sustain aquatic life. From a navigational standpoint the 12 to 14 feet opening in the proposed fence is adequate for the boats that use the lake and canal. Erection of the fence will have no adverse effect on the ecology or biological resources of the area, and will result in keeping out many hyacinths that otherwise would enter the canal.
Conclusions An Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings has entered an Order Closing File in this proceeding. A copy of the Order is attached to this Final Order as Exhibit A. Filed April 15, 2011 2:00 PM Division of Administrative Hearings FINAL ORDER NO. DCA 11-GM-067
Other Judicial Opinions REVIEW OF THIS FINAL ORDER PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.030(b) (1) (C) AND 9.110. TO INITIATE AN APPEAL OF THIS ORDER, A NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT’S AGENCY CLERK, 2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100, WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DAY THIS ORDER IS FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM PRESCRIBED BY FLORIDA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.900(a). A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL AND MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE FILING FEE SPECIFIED IN SECTION 35.22(3), FLORIDA STATUTES. YOU WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW IF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL IS NOT TIMELY FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK AND THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL. MEDIATION UNDER SECTION 120.573, FLA. STAT., IS NOT AVAILABLE WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUES RESOLVED BY THIS ORDER. FINAL ORDER NO. DCA 11-GM-067 CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the original of the foregoing has been filed with the undersigned Agency Clerk of the Department of Community Affairs, and that true and correct copies have been furnished by the manner indicated to each of the persons listed below on this AV day of April, 2011. Paula Ford Agency Clerk By Inter-Agency Mail The Honorable Bram D. E. Canter Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 By Electronic Mail Thomas W. Reese, Esquire 2951 61st Avenue South St. Petersburg, FL 33712 TWReeseEsq@aol.com Steven T. Williams, Esquire Office of the County Attorney Harmon Turner Bldg, 8th Floor 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34112 StevenWilliams@colliergov.net Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson, P.A. 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples FL 34103 ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com FINAL ORDER NO. DCA 11~GM-067 Michael A. Durant, Esquire Conroy, Conroy & Durant, P.A. 2210 Vanderbuilt Beach Road, Suite 1201 Naples, FL 34109 mdurant@ccdlegal.com Lynette Norr, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Lynette .Norr@dca.state.fl.us
The Issue At issue in these consolidated proceedings is whether certain development orders (permits) issued by Monroe County to the respondents, as owners and Your Local Fence, Inc., as contractor, for the construction of fences in the Big Pine Key Area of Critical County Concern are consistent with the Monroe County comprehensive plan and land development regulations.
Findings Of Fact The parties Respondents, Charles and Kathleen Moorman (Moorman), Nicholas and Jean Hornbacher (Hornbacher), James and Kathryn Daniels (Daniels), and Raymond and Rosemarie McRae (McRae), are the owners of certain real property, described more full infra, that is located within the Big Pine Key Area of Critical County Concern and the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern, and upon which they have received development orders (permits) from Monroe County to erect fences. Respondent, Your Local Fence, Inc. (Your Local Fence), is a business owned by Mr. Moorman and is the contractor that applied for the permits on behalf of the Moormans, Hornbachers and Daniels. The McRaes applied for their own permit, and proposed to install the fence themselves. Respondent, Monroe County, is a local government within the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern designated by Section 380.0552, Florida Statutes, and is responsible for the implementation of, and the issuance of development orders that are consistent with, the Monroe County comprehensive plan and land development regulations, as approved and adopted in Chapters 9J-14 and 28-20, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner, Department of Community Affairs (Department), is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility of administering and enforcing the provisions of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, and all rules promulgated thereunder. Section 380.031(18) and 380.032(1), Florida Statutes. Here, the Department has filed a timely appeal to the issuance of the subject permits, and contends that construction of the fences authorized by such permits is inconsistent with the Monroe County comprehensive plan and land development regulations. The Moorman permit The Moormans are the owners of Lots 15, 16 and half of Lot 17, Block D, Pine Heights Subdivision, Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida. Such property is located within, and surrounded by, native pine lands; natural habitat for the Key Deer. On March 20, 1991, Monroe County issued to the Moormans, as owners, and Your Local Fence, as contractor, building permit No. 9110002231 to construct a fence on the foregoing property. As permitted, the fence would be constructed of wood to a height of 6 feet and, except for a front setback of 25 feet, would completely enclose the Moormans' property. So constructed, the fence would measure 125 feet along the front and rear of the property and 75 feet along the side property lines for a total of 400 linear feet. The Hornbacher permit The Hornbachers are the owners of Lot 23, Block 3, Eden Pine Colony Subdivision, Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida. Such property is located on a cul-de-sac, at the terminus of a dead end street, and is bordered on the north and west by a canal and on the east by a neighbor's fence. On May 20, 1991, Monroe County issued to the Hornbachers, as owners, and your Local Fence, as contractor, building permit No. 9110002807 to construct a fence along the south side of their property. As permitted, the fence would be chainlink construction, 4 feet high, and would extend from their neighbor's fence on the east, around that portion of their property that abuts the cul-de- sac, and then along their southern boundary to the canal. So constructed, the fence would run a total of 90 linear feet. The Daniels permit The Daniels are the owners of Lots 1 and 2, Block 72, Port Pine Heights Subdivision, Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida. Such property, when acquired by the Daniels, was bounded on three sides by a 4-foot high chainlink fence and along the rear by a canal. On July 17, 1991, Monroe County issued to the Daniels, as owners, and Your Local Fence, as contractor, building permit No. 9110003165 to construct a fence along the rear portion of their property that abuts the canal. As permitted, the fence would be of chainlink construction, 4 feet high, and run a total of 158 linear feet. The McRae permit The McRaes are the owners of Lot 6, Block 17, Port Pine Heights Subdivision, Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida. Such property is bordered on the north and south by vacant lots, and on the west by a canal. On June 12, 1991, Monroe County issued to the McRaes, as owners and contractors, building permit No. 9110002853 to construct a fence along the front, as well as the north and south sides of their property. As permitted, the fence would be of chainlink construction, 4 feet high, and, except for a set back of 29.5 feet, would enclose the front and side property lines of the property. So constructed, the fence would run a total of 157 linear feet. Consistency of the permits with the Monroe County comprehensive plan and land development regulations Big Pine Key is the primary habitat of the Key Deer, an endangered species, and Monroe County has designated most of Big Pine Key, including the properties at issue in these proceedings, as an area of critical county concern. Pertinent to this case, Section 9.5-479, Monroe County Land Development Regulations (MCLDR), provides: Purpose: he purpose of the Big Pine Key Area of Critical County Concern is to establish a focal point planning effort directed at reconciling the conflict between reasonable investment backed expectations and the habitat needs of the Florida Key Deer which is listed as endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act. Focal Point Planning Program: Monroe County shall initiate a focal point planning program for the Big Pine Key Area of Critical County Concern that considers the following: The reasonable investment backed expectations of the owners of land within the Big Pine Key Area of Critical Concern; The habitat needs of the Florida Key Deer; The conflicts between human habita-tion and the survival of the Florida Key Deer; The role and importance of fresh-water wetlands in the survival of the Florida Key Deer; Management approaches to reconciling the conflict between development and the survival of the Florida Key Deer; and Specific implementation programs for the Big Pine Key Area of Critical County Concern. The focal point planning program shall be carried out by the director of plan-ning, in cooperation with the officer in charge of the National Key Deer Refuge. The planning program shall include a public participation element, and shall provide for notice by publi-cation of all public workshops or hearings to the owners of land within the Big Pine Key Area of Critical County Concern The focal point planning program for the Big Pine Key Area of Critical County Concern shall be completed with-in twelve (12) months of the adoption of this chapter, and the director of planning shall submit a report together with recommended amendments to the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and this chapter within thirty (30) days after the completion of the focal point planning program for the Big Pine Key Area of Critical County Concern Interim Regulations: Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, no development shall be carried out on the Big Pine Key Area of Critical County Concern prior to the completion of the focal point planning program required by subsection C of this section and the adoption of amendments to the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and this chapter except in accordance with the following No development shall be carried out in the Big Pine Key Area of Critical County Concern except for single-family detached dwellings on lots in the Improved Subdivision District or on lots having an area of one (1) acre of more. And, Section 9.5-309, MCLDR, provides: It is the purpose of this section to regulate fences and freestanding walls in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare * * Big Pine Key Area of Critical County Concern: No fences shall be erected here until such time as this chapter is created to provide for the regulation of fences within this ACCC. The foregoing land development regulations were adopted by Monroe County to further and implement the standards, objectives and policies of the Monroe County comprehensive plan. Here, such regulations further the plan's "Generic Designations and Management Policies," contained within the plan's "Criteria for Designating Areas of Particular Concern," to maintain the functional integrity of habitat and, more particularly, the requirement that: Development within areas identified as Key Deer habitat shall insure that the continuity of habitat is maintained to allow deer to roam freely without impediment from fences or other development. Rule 28-20.020(8), Generic Designations, subparagraph 4, Florida Administrative Code. Over the course of the past five years, Monroe County has discussed design criteria for fences on Big Pine Key but has not yet adopted a regulation that would provide for fences within the Big Pine Key Area of Critical County Concern, as mandated by Section 9.5-309, MCLDR, nor has Monroe County amended Section 9.5-479, MCLDR, to permit, pertinent to this case, any development except single-family detached dwellings on lots in the Big Pine Key Area of Critical County Concern. Under such circumstances, it must be concluded that the subject permits issued by Monroe County for the construction of fences in the Big Pine Key Area of Critical County Concern are not consistent with the Monroe County comprehensive plan and land development regulations. Extra legal action and the applicants voiced rationale for fencing their properties Notwithstanding express knowledge by the Moormans, Hornbachers, Daniels and Your Local Fence, that the subject permits were not effective until expiration of the time within the Department was authorized to appeal their issuance, the Moorman, Hornbacher and Daniels fences were erected by Your Local Fence. However, the McRaes, likewise knowledgeable about the time delay in the effectiveness of their permits, abided by existent law, and deferred erecting their fence pending resolution of this dispute. At hearing, proof was offered by the applicants to explain why they desired to fence their property. Proof was also offered to explain why the Hornbachers and Daniels felt a sense of exigency to erect their fences, and why they prevailed on Your Local Fence to erect such fences in the face of express notice from Mr. Moorman (the principal of Your Local Fence) that the permits were not effective and subject to appeal by the Department. According to the Hornbachers, the purpose for their fence was to keep stray dogs and their "leavings" from the yard, to keep the Key Deer that populate the area from eating their vegetation, and to keep uninvited persons and vehicles from entering their property. The later reason was of particular import to the Hornbachers since they were about to leave for their annual vacation in Michigan, and strangers had entered onto their property during their prior absences. Therefore, to provide their residence with a degree of security, they insisted the fence be installed before they left, and before their permit was effective. According to the Daniels, the purpose for their fence was primarily to provide a secure environment for their children.2 In this regard, the proof demonstrates that the Daniels are both police officers with the City of Key West and work the same shift; that they have three children, ages, 7, 4, and 2, that reside at the home and are cared for by an elderly woman in their absence; and that the canal that abuts their backyard, as well as an existent boatramp, represents a potential hazard to the children's safety. Cognizant of such hazard, which was magnified by one child having already slipped down the boat ramp, the Daniels insisted that the fence be installed, and Your Local Fence acquiesced, before their permit was effective. The Moormans offered no compelling reason for having erected their fence prior to the effective date of their permit, but did espouse its purpose. According to Mr. Moorman, the purpose for their fence was to keep the neighbors' two children from playing under his house where he had installed a hot tub, and to keep the Key Deer that populate the area from entering his property and eating any vegetation he might choose to cultivate. According to the McRaes, who have not yet erected their fence, they desire a fence to prevent neighbors' dogs from leaving "droppings" in their yard, and to keep the Key Deer from eating their plants. While each of the applicants have articulated logical reasons to fence their yards, such reasons are not relevant where, as here, the permits were issued as of right. Rather, with regard to the Big Pine Key Area of Critical County Concern, the erection of fences is strictly prohibited until such time as the plan and regulations are amended to allow such use.3 Other considerations At hearing, Mr. Moorman offered proof that the Department had failed to appeal every fence permit issued by Monroe County in the Big Pine Key Area of Critical County Concern, and contended, as a consequence of such failure, that the Department should be precluded from contesting the issuance of the subject permits. Mr. Moorman's contention is not, however, persuasive. Here, the proof demonstrates that the Department's Key West Field Office, to which Monroe County renders its permits, was established in 1983, and that from January 1, 1984 to September 15, 1986, the Monroe County land development regulations did not regulate fences on Big Pine Key and the Big Pine Key Area of Critical County Concern (BPKACCC) did not exist. Effective September 15, 1986, the Monroe County land development regulations were adopted in their current form and, among other things, created the BPKACCC and prohibited fencing within such area. Accordingly, prior to September 15, 1986, there was no prohibition against erecting fences in the BPKACCC, and no reason for the Department to question the propriety of such develop-ments.4 Since the effective date of the current regulations, the Department has, as contended by Mr. Moorman, failed to appeal some permits for fencing in the BPKACCC. Such failure was, however, persuasively shown to have occurred as a consequence of severe understaffing, which inhibited the Department's ability to review all permits issued by Monroe County in a timely fashion (i.e., before the appeal period expired), and the breach of a memorandum of understanding entered into between the Department and Monroe County, and not as a consequence of any position adopted by the Department that fencing in the BPKACCC was permissible. Accordingly, the Department's appeal of the subject permits is not inconsistent with any position it has previously taken with regard to the propriety of fencing in such area.5 Moreover, neither the applicants nor Your Local Fence made any inquiry of the Department as to why some permits were appealed and others were not, or requested that the Department waive its appeal period, prior to erecting their fences. Under such circumstances, it cannot be reasonably concluded that the Department misled any applicant so as to bar it from contesting the propriety of the subject permits, and those who chose to erect their fences knowing their permits were not yet effective acted at their peril.6
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission enter a final order reversing Monroe County's decision to issue building permit Nos. 9110002231, 9110002807, 9110002853, and 9110003165, and deny the applications of the Moormans, Hornbachers, McRaes, and Daniels, as owners, as well as your Local Fence, as contractor, where pertinent, for such permits. It is further recommended that such final order specify that there are no changes in the subject proposals that would make them eligible to receive the permits as requested. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 30th day of April 1992. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of Division of Administrative Hearings this 30 day of April 1992.
Findings Of Fact SFWMD is a public corporation and local sponsor for the federally authorized Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project. As part of its duties as local sponsor, SFWMD operates eight pumping stations and six other structures all of which discharge into Lake Okeechobee. On August 26, 1977, SFWMD filed an application with DER for an operating permit for its inflow points into Lake Okeechobee. By mutual agreement, SFWMD and DER determined that there was insufficient data available to determine whether SFWMD qualified for an operating permit, therefore, DER proposed issuing a TOP. On November 22, 1978, DER issued its notice of intent to issue a TOP to SFWMD for its inflow points into Lake Okeechobee. Among the conditions contained in the TOP is that the permit will be effective for thirty (30) months. Petitioners complain that Lake Okeechobee is being environmentally damaged by the drainage into Lake Okeechobee of waters from surrounding agriculture and dairy farming areas. This, say the Petitioners, is causing the eutrophication or damaging enrichment of the Lake by the addition of chemical elements above their natural levels in that environment. DER and SFWMD contend that at least thirty (30) months is required to complete the testing and observation of the Lake and to make long-range plans for reduction of drainage into Lake Okeechobee and to develop necessary management alternatives to accomplish that goal. The proposed TOP provides a temporal framework. Within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the permit, SFWMD is required to present to DER a program for interim actions which will reduce nutrient loading during the time of the permit. Within 120 days of the issuance of the permit, SFWMD is required to submit for approval by DER a plan of study for determining the probable impacts of management alternatives for reducing the nutrient loading into Lake Okeechobee. Within twenty-four (24) months of the issuance of the permit, SFWMD is required to submit to DER an analysis of the impacts of each reasonable management alternative which will reduce the nutrient loading into Lake Okeechobee. During two successive rainy seasons SFWMD is required to do extensive chemical testing on site. After SFWMD submits its analysis of the impacts of management alternatives, DER has six months to review the data submitted and approve a schedule for implementing a plan to reduce nutrient loadings into Lake Okeechobee. Petitioners have submitted seven (7) Proposed Findings of Fact, five of which are hereby adopted in this Recommended Order: Lake Okeechobee is in a eutrophic state and getting worse as a result of man's activities. Both state agencies charged with respon- sibility for protecting Lake Okeechobee have long recognized that the Lake is in a eutrophic state and is in need of relief. Both the DER and the SFWMD have recognized that backpumping contributes significantly to eutrophication. Since 1975, DER and SFWMD have known that backpumping is one cultural activity that should be and could be stopped or substan- tially reduced. (This proposed Finding of Fact was numbered 6 in Petitioners' pleading.) The durational provision of the TOP is linked to the addi- tional time the DER and SFWMD claim it will take to study ways to stop backpumping. Petitioners' Proposed Findings of Fact numbers 5 and 7 are hereby rejected for the following reasons. First Petitioners request a finding that "the state agencies have done nothing to reduce the amount of bad water backpumped into Lake Okeechobee." In fact DER and SFWMD have proposed the TOP with its temporal frame work and requirements of interim actions for reduction of backpumping. Petitioners also propose as a finding of fact that "the TOP's durational provision as drafted is unreasonable and arbitrary in not assuring immediate reductions in backpumping and therefore, should be redrafted to require such action." Petitioners have not supported this contention with substantial, competent evidence. In fact, the TOP provides that a plan for the reduction of nutrient loading be presented within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the TOP. Furthermore, the proposed finding of fact is outside the scope of the issues framed by the pleadings. The issue is whether the thirty (30) month durational provision of the TOP should be reduced to twelve (12) months and not whether the TOP provides for immediate reductions in backpumping. The reason for the issuance of the TOP in lieu of an operating permit is to allow SFWMD time to gather data, to assess impacts and to develop management alternatives for the control of nutrient and pollutant loadings. Although some biological and chemical data already exist, much of the information requested of SFWMD under the TOP is currently unavailable. Specifically, the TOP requires that numerical nutrient limits be established for each discharge point and that specific management alternatives be developed. Currently available data on backpumping reduction does not specifically detail how much reduction is feasible nor what alternatives are soundest environmentally. Existing reports dealing with backpumping into Lake Okeechobee are not specific enough to support presently implementable management alternatives. Petitioners introduced no evidence to establish that the budgetary or manpower constraints with which SFWMD must deal would allow a reduction of the durational provision of the TOP from thirty (30) months to twelve (12) months. SFWMD's witnesses, however, established that if SFWMD were required to complete the study within one year, it would be economically impossible unless money and personnel earmarked for other important projects were tapped. Not only would the instant studies suffer a decline in quality but other equally pressing environmental studies would be jeopardized.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner filed Application No. 13-31-0286 on or about December 4, 1972, with the Florida Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, for a dredge and fill permit. This application was amended by the Petitioner on August 19, 1975, and again on October 8, 1975. The application as amended was admitted into evidence as Exhibit No. 14. The Mean High Water Line as depicted by the Petitioner on the application, Exhibit No. 14, is acceptable and correct and was stipulated and agreed to by the parties as being a correct depiction of the Mean High Water Line. Petitioner is the owner of approximately 350 acres of land adjacent to and in the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve, located in Sections 21 and 22, Township 52 South, Range 42 East, Dade County, Florida. Approximately 192.8 acres of this land is below the Mean High Water Line and is part of the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve. Petitioner, in the application, seeks to fill approximately 63.2 acres of submerged land below the Mean High Water Line for the purpose of constructing part of a planned 36-hole public golf facility. Less than 18 holes of the proposed golf facility are located on the filled area. The historical background detailing the acquisition by the Petitioner of the above 350 acres is set forth accurately in paragraphs 4, 5, 6; 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 15 of Exhibit No. 2, admitted herein, entitled Petitioner's Statement. Therefore, those matters of a factual nature set forth in the aforementioned paragraphs are adopted as though set forth in full herein. Those matters of a conclusive nature, legal or factual, set forth in the aforementioned paragraphs are neither accepted nor rejected except as may be specifically provided herein. The Petitioner is obligated to pay off its General Obligation Bond Issue by which it acquired the 350 acres from Interama. This debt service will cost the Petitioner approximately $950,000 annually through the year 2001, and is paid out of ad valorem tax revenue. This debt constitutes a serious burden upon the taxpayers and citizens of the City of North Miami. There is a need in the North Miami area for the type of recreational facility proposed. At present, the only public golf course in the area is a 9- hole facility which is one of the busiest in the country. The lands owned by Petitioner in the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve and subject of this hearing support a mangrove forest system, composed predominantly of red (Rhizophora mangle) and white (Languncularia racemosa) mangroves, with occasional black mangroves (Avicennia germinans). Prior to mosquito ditch excavation, which occurred approximately 35 years ago, the mangrove forest occupied only the southeastern portion of the acreage, while the remaining area probably supported sawgrass and marshgrass communities. The increase in salinity caused by mosquito ditches promoted the expansion of the mangrove community. Presently, the historical mangrove forest is the best developed portion of the system. The red mangrove trees reach heights in excess of 40 feet and the soil is composed of a deep layer of mangrove mulch. In contrast, the soil beneath the mangroves that invaded the marsh land after mosquito ditching, is primarily marl with a relatively thin organic layer of recent origin. Tidal waters flow onto the site through two 60-inch culverts under NE 135th Street, located on the southeastern perimeter of the property. Water flows north through three mosquito control ditches. The ditch along the eastern boundary terminates a short distance north of the historical forest. The north- south ditches are relatively deep and open, whereas the east-west ditches are filled with silt. Many of the latter are 1 foot to 1.5 feet deep at high tide. While tidal waters flow onto the site, these internal restrictions to flow limit circulation over much of the site. The historical mangrove forest on the subject property is well developed and highly productive. That part of the mangrove forest induced by the mosquito ditches is less well developed and not as productive. However, it is not unproductive. The mangrove forest area proposed for filling by the Petitioner, in terms of forest productivity, produces approximately 2 tons of material per acre annually. This compares to approximately 4 tons per acre annually by the well developed historical forest. The growth and development of both the historical and induced mangrove forests is inhibited somewhat by the restricted flow of tidal water into the forests, which, in turn, is caused by the NE 135th Street Causeway and the silting referred to in paragraph 7. Mangroves thrive on good flow and circulation. Therefore, if the flow and circulation of tidal waters is improved, the mangrove forest will improve. The filling of part of the mangrove forest, together with the dredging of the canals sought to be dug by the Petitioner, and the proposed additional opening in NE 135th Street, would enhance the flow and circulation in the historical forest and probably aid its further development. That same dredging and filling would completely destroy 63.2 acres of the existing, healthy, induced mangrove forest. There is no evidence that the induced mangrove forest proposed for filling is in a fatal state of deterioration. Rather, the question is one of how rapidly or slowly that mangrove forest will develop. Without improved flushing, its development will be slow. Apparently, if the flushing of the induced mangrove forest proposed for filling is improved, its development will be much more rapid. In either case, it apparently will eventually attain, given existing conditions, that stage of development presently enjoyed by the historical forest. The construction of one additional culvert in the NE 135th Street causeway will cost approximately $20,000. The Petitioner does not own the right-of-way to NE 135th Street which would be used in constructing an additional culvert. The owner of that right-of-way appears to be Dade County, which entity is not a party to this proceeding. The Petitioner has an agreement with a private entity known as Munisport, whereby Munisport is to develop and operate the proposed recreational complex, including the golf courses, with the attendant dredging and filling. According to the agreement, at the end of 30 years, the City would own the complex free of any other interest. With regard to the golf courses, the City, throughout their operation, would receive a guaranteed minimum of $86,000 annually, plus a percentage of the fees received by Munisport. As testified to by the City Manager, once the recreational complex is in full operation, the City hopes to receive from it $100,000 to $200,000 annually. The City Manager characterized this as having a small effect upon the financial burden borne by the taxpayers and citizens of the City of North Miami with regard to the bond debt. There was not sufficient evidence presented to establish that, for engineering, environmental, or economic reasons, the golf courses could not be reduced in size or redesigned to eliminate that part to be placed in the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve. Witnesses for the City stated that the City had gone as far as it could in redesigning the project, but no evidence, other than that pertaining to the bond debt, was presented to show why the City took that position. The impact of altering the water storage capacity and volumetric tidal prism within the wetland area, as proposed, can only be adequately assessed by conducting a hydrographic survey. (See Composite Exhibit No. 25.) Such a survey has not been conducted. The Petitioner's application does not involve a public navigation project. The evidence presented does not establish that it is a public necessity that 63.2 acres of mangrove forest in the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve be destroyed by dredging and filling so that part of a public golf course might be constructed. The evidence presented fails to show that the proposed dredging and filling is necessary for the preservation of the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve. The proposed dredging and filling may enhance the quality of approximately 130 acres of mangrove forest in the Preserve, but it will do so by the destruction of 63.2 acres of mangrove forest, also in the Preserve. Viewing the total impact of the proposed dredging and filling on the Preserve, there is no showing that such dredging and filling is necessary to enhance the quality or utility of the Preserve. There was no showing that the 63.2 acres of mangrove forest to be dredged and filled is hazardous to the public health or lacking in aesthetic quality or utility.
The Issue Whether Grandview Landscaping Services, Inc., is liable to Petitioner for the purchase of landscaping trees; and, if so, in what amount.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Southeastern Trees, LLC (Petitioner or Southeastern Trees), is a Florida Limited Liability Corporation located in Gainesville, Florida, engaged in the business of commercial tree farming. Keith Lerner is the President of Southeastern, and David Lerner is the Vice President. Respondent, Grandview Landscaping Services, Inc. (Respondent or Grandview), is a Florida corporation headquartered in Ocala, Florida, engaged in commercial landscaping. Grandview is licensed by the Department as a dealer in nursery products, flowers, and sod. In August 2015, John Sapp, Grandview’s owner, visited Petitioner’s tree farm and selected 27 live oak trees to purchase. On December 11, 2014, Mr. Sapp returned to Southeastern Trees and took possession of the 27 live oak trees. Mr. Sapp used his own equipment to haul the trees. Petitioner sent an invoice to Respondent on December 11, 2014, in the amount of $5,724.00 for the 27 live oak trees. The invoice term was “net 30,” allowing 30 days for Respondent to pay in full. After 30 days had elapsed without payment, David Lerner contacted Mr. Sapp to request payment. Mr. Lerner also requested the location of the trees in order to place a lien thereon. According to Mr. Lerner, Mr. Sapp refused to divulge the location of the trees. After 60 days had elapsed without payment, Keith Lerner contacted Mr. Sapp via telephone. According to Keith Lerner, he spoke with Mr. Sapp on March 1, 2015, who informed him the trees were beautiful and Mr. Sapp would “get him a check.” Keith Lerner attempted to reach Mr. Sapp via telephone again on March 10, 2015, and left messages with Grandview’s office and on Mr. Sapp’s personal mobile phone. Mr. Lerner did not receive a return call. On March 25, 2015, Petitioner sent Respondent, via certified mail, a letter requesting payment of $5,724.00 for the 27 live oak trees and “any interest available to us beyond the 30 days of credit that were extended to you.” The letter was delivered to both Grandview’s business address and Mr. Sapp’s home address. The certified mail receipts were returned to Southeastern Trees, signed and dated March 26, 2015. Petitioner filed a complaint with the Department on March 31, 2015, against Southeastern Trees. Petitioner paid a filing fee of $50.00 As of the date of the hearing, Southeastern Trees had not responded to Petitioner’s request for payment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order approving the claim of Southeastern Trees, LLC, against Grandview Landscaping Services, Inc., in the amount of $5,774.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of October, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S Suzanne Van Wyk 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 8th day of October, 2015.
Findings Of Fact James V. Hodnett, Jr., was registered as a real estate broker in 1974 and has been continually so registered since that time (Exhibit 7). Sea Pines Realty, Inc.'s Articles of Incorporation were filed December 13, 1977, and it was authorized to operate as a Florida corporation on December 15, 1977. Respondent, Sea Pines Realty, Inc., applied for registration as a corporate real estate broker on January 14, 1978, with James V. Hodnett, Jr., as president and active firm member. Request for initial certification for corporation was forwarded to the Florida Real Estate Commission on January 20, 1978, and license was issued to Sea Pines Realty, Inc., as a corporate broker effective February 9, 1978 (Exhibit 6). Of those nine witnesses who purchased homes or lots in Sea Pines, only one of these witnesses, William Barnes, purchased a lot (or home) in Sea Pines later than 1977. Mr. Barnes purchased his home in 1979 from the previous owner and neither of Respondents was involved in or had any influence on that transaction. Mr. Miller testified on direct examination that he had searched the public records and learned that Hodnett had owned the land abutting Sea Pines to the north which was sold to Belcher mines, that Belcher mines set off explosives to blast rock in those mines, and that his house was damaged by those explosives. Upon cross-examination, Mr. Miller admitted that he could not say for certain that the property had been sold to Belcher by James Hodnett, Jr., or James Hodnett, Sr., and that it could have been sold by the latter. In addition to Miller, who purchased his property in 1976; Wurst, who purchased in 1971; Morgal, who purchased in 1977; Farrelly, who purchased in 1971; Leggiere, who purchased in 1976; Senderling, who purchased in 1976; Anderson, who purchased in 1969; and Campbell, who purchased in 1971, all testified that they purchased their properties through, and had contact with, Jean Humphries, who was the salesperson for the developer of this property. Representations regarding the plans to build a golf course, to install underground utility lines, and other representations constituting the gravamen of these charges were all made by Ms. Humphries and none of these representations was made by Hodnett.
