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
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.
Other Judicial Opinions 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. DCA09-GM-333 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 corrgct copies have been furnished to the persons listed below in the manner described, on this 20 day of September, 2009. 4 Z gency Clerk Florida Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 U.S. Mail: The Honorable Bram D. E. Canter Brenna M. Durden, Esq. Administrative Law Judge Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A. Division of Administrative Hearings 245 Riverside Avenue, Suite 150 The DeSoto Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-3060 Kenneth B. Hutchins 22645 Fishcreek Highway Conrad C. Bishop, Jr., Esq. Perry, Florida 32384 The Bishop Law Firm, P.A. P.O. Box 167 Perry, Florida 32348 Hand Delivery: Matthew Davis, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The issue to be determined by this Order is whether the Petition for Formal Proceedings filed with the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) on February 4, 2009, was timely 1/ and, if so, whether Petitioners have standing to challenge the DEP?s issuance of the Minor Modification to FDEP Operation Permit 171331-002-UO for IW-1 under 171331-003-UC (the Permit Modification).
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Conservation Alliance is a Florida not-for-profit corporation in good-standing, with its corporate offices currently located at 5608 Eagle Drive, Fort Pierce, Florida. The Conservation Alliance has approximately 200 members. Elaine Romano is a resident of St. Lucie County, Florida. The DEP is an agency of the State of Florida having jurisdiction for permitting UIC facilities and the waste-streams being discharged to such facilities, pursuant to chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder. Pursuant to that authority, the DEP issued the Permit Modification that is the subject of this proceeding. FPUA provides utility service to the City of Fort Pierce, Florida. FPUA owns and operates a Class I industrial injection well (IW-1), discharges to which are the subject of the Permit Modification. Allied owns and operates a chlorine bleach manufacturing facility which produces a brine waste-stream that is proposed for disposal to IW-1. Issuance of the Permit Modification On December 19, 2008, the DEP issued a Notice of Permit, Permit Number 171331-002-UO (FPUA operation permit), which authorized the operation of IW-1 at the Gahn wastewater treatment plant. The Gahn wastewater treatment plant and IW-1 are owned and operated by the FPUA. The FPUA operation permit authorized the disposal of concentrate and water treatment by- product from FPUA?s reverse-osmosis water facility at a permitted rate of 2.8 million gallons per day. FPUA also owns and operates water production wells that serve the City of Fort Pierce potable water supply system. IW-1 was constructed within 500 feet of three of the FPUA production wells, which required FPUA to obtain a variance from setback requirements. On July 17, 2008, prior to the issuance of the FPUA operation permit, Allied submitted an application for a major modification of the FPUA operation permit. The application proposed the disposal to IW-1 of up to 21,600 gallons per day of a brine waste-stream that is a by-product of the production of chlorine bleach. The application cover letter provides that “[w]hile we have been notified that this project is only a Minor Permit Modification, we feel by submitting for a Major Permit Modification that the Department will have the ability to review the application and downgrade the application to a Minor Permit Modification, if needed.” On December 30, 2008, the DEP issued the Permit Modification as a minor modification of the FPUA operation permit. The Permit Modification allowed a maximum of 21,600 gallons of brine to be received at the FPUA facility and disposed of in IW-1. Notice of the Permit Modification On or about September 12, 2008, a paralegal for Ruden McClosky, Lucinda Sparkman, requested information from the DEP regarding the procedure for receiving notification of permit applications and DEP action thereon. Her request was subsequently refined to request notice regarding two permits, those being “injection Well Construction, application #171331- 003,” and the other being “Water-Industrial Wastewater, application #FLA017460-004.” DEP File No. 171331-003 is that pertaining to the Permit Modification. At the time of the request, Ruden McClosky represented Odyssey Manufacturing Company (Odyssey), an economic competitor of Allied.3/ On September 24, 2008, Ms. Sparkman asked to be “put on the distribution list for the URIC permit for Fort Pierce.” From September 24, 2008 through December 15, 2008, Ms. Sparkman made periodic requests for information, and received periodic updates from the DEP. On December 19, 2008, the DEP sent Ms. Sparkman an e- mail indicating that the FPUA operation permit had been issued, and later that same day sent Ms. Sparkman an electronic copy of the permit. On December 19, 2008, Ruden McClosky made a public records request to FPUA for, among other items, records pertaining to the disposal of brine to the Gahn Water Plant underground injection well, and any agreements between FPUA and Allied regarding the disposal of brine. The request was made on behalf of Florida Tire Recycling, Inc. (Florida Tire). On December 22, the DEP sent Ms. Sparkman a copy of the notice of intent for the FPUA operation permit. There is no record evidence of further communication or inquiry between Ruden McClosky and the DEP from December 22, 2008 to January 14, 2009. On January 9, 2009, notice of the Permit Modification was published in the Fort Pierce Tribune. The notice was prepared and publication arranged by counsel for Allied. The published notice provides the information required by rule 62-110.106(7)(d), and stated that any challenge to the Permit Modification was required to be received by DEP within 14 days of publication or, for persons that requested actual notice, within 14 days of receipt of such actual notice. On January 14, 2009, Ms. Sparkman called her contact person at the DEP to inquire about the Permit Modification. That call was not returned. On January 21, 2009, Ms. Sparkman again called the DEP to inquire about the Permit Modification. In response to Ms. Sparkman?s inquiry, the DEP sent Ms. Sparkman an electronic copy of the Permit Modification. Ms. Sparkman made further inquiry on January 21, 2009, as to whether the notice of the Permit Modification had been published in a newspaper. On January 22, 2009, the DEP replied that “[e]verything was noticed as required.” On January 22, 2009, the Fort Pierce Tribune prepared an affidavit of publication of the notice. The affidavit of publication was received by counsel for Allied on January 28, 2009, who sent the affidavit to the DEP by certified mail on January 29, 2009. Alleged Defects in the Notice of Permit Modification Petitioners have alleged a number of procedural defects that they contend render the published notice ineffective to establish a deadline of 14 days from the date of the notice to file a challenge to the Permit Modification. Late Proof of Publication Petitioners allege that Allied filed the proof of publication with the DEP more than seven days from the date of publication, and that delay made such publication ineffective to establish a deadline for filing the petition. Although the proof of publication was provided to the DEP on or shortly after January 29, 2009, the evidence demonstrates that Allied provided the proof of publication to the DEP immediately upon receipt from the Fort Pierce Tribune newspaper. The delay in filing was not within the control of Allied, or anyone else associated with the Permit Modification. As established by rule 62-110.106(9), proof of publication is required by the DEP to provide assurance to the DEP that required notice has, in fact, been published, with the sanction being the delay or denial of the permit. The rule does not suggest that a delay in providing proof of publication to the DEP serves to alter or extend the time for filing a petition. There is little case law construing the effect of a delay in providing proof of publication on the petition rights of a person challenging the proposed agency action. However, the undersigned agrees with, and adopts, the following analysis of the issue provided by Administrative Law Judge P. Michael Ruff: . . . the purpose of requiring an applicant to publish notice of agency action is to give substantially affected persons an opportunity to participate in an administrative proceeding. See Section 403.815, Florida Statutes, and Rule 17- 103.150(4), Florida Administrative Code. Consequently, the crucial element in the Department's publication requirement is that the notice be published to trigger the commencement of the time for affected persons to request a hearing. The requirement that proof of publication be provided to the Department does nothing to affect the rights of third parties, but merely is a technical requirement which allows the Department to determine whether a third party has timely exercised its rights to contest a published notice of intended agency action. If an applicant publishes notice of intended agency action, but fails to timely provide the Department with proof of that publication, the deficiency is one which is easily cured. No harm will occur because the permit will not be issued until proof of publication is received by the Department, in any event, because of Rule 17-103.510(4), Florida Administrative Code. Bio-Tech Tracking Systems, Inc. v. Dep?t of Envtl. Reg., Case No. 90-7760, ¶32 (Fla. DOAH Apr. 3, 1991; Fla. DER May 17, 1991). The filing of the notice beyond the seven-day period in rule 62-110.106(5) was, at most, harmless error, did not adversely affect any rights or remedies available to Petitioners, and does not affect the fairness of this proceeding. Notice Prepared by Counsel Petitioners allege that the notice was prepared by Allied?s counsel, rather than the DEP, and that the notice was therefore ineffective to establish a deadline for filing the petition. Publication of the notice of the Permit Modification was not required, since it was a minor modification. Thus, publication was at Allied?s option. Rule 62-110.106(10)(a) provides, in pertinent part, that: Any applicant or person benefiting from the Department?s action may elect to publish notice of the Department?s intended or proposed action . . . in the manner provided by subsection (7) or (8) above. Upon presentation of proof of publication to the Department before final agency action, any person who has elected to publish such notice shall be entitled to the same benefits under this rule as a person who is required to publish notice. The most logical construction of rule 62-110.106 is that the DEP is responsible for preparing required notices pursuant to rule 62-110.106(7)(c), but that non-required notices may be prepared and published at the applicant?s or beneficiary?s option without direct DEP involvement. In this case, the notice was prepared by an authorized agent of the corporate “person” that benefitted from the Permit Modification. The more salient point regarding the preparation of the notice is whether it contained all of the information required by rule. The evidence demonstrates that it did, and that the notice was sufficient to provide a meaningful and complete point of entry to the public of the Permit Modification and the rights attendant thereto. The fact that the notice was prepared by Allied?s counsel was, at most, harmless error, did not adversely affect any rights or remedies available to Petitioners, and does not affect the fairness of this proceeding. Lack of Actual Notice Petitioners allege error in the notice process because actual notice of the Permit Modification was not provided to Petitioners. The basis for the alleged deficiency was that Mr. Stinnette had, in 2003, asked to be placed on the DEP?s UIC mailing list, but did not receive the notice of the Permit Modification. Rule 62-110.106(2) provides that published notice establishes the point of entry for the public to challenge proposed agency action “except for persons entitled to written notice personally or by mail under Section 120.60(3), Florida Statutes, or any other statute.” Section 120.60(3) provides that a notice of proposed agency action shall be mailed “to each person who has made a written request for notice of agency action.” The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that Mr. Stinnette was acting solely as an agent of Indian Riverkeeper when he requested to be placed on the UIC mailing list. He was not requesting notices in his personal capacity, or as an agent of the Conservation Alliance or Ms. Romano. Thus, Indian Riverkeeper was entitled to notice of the Permit Modification. Indian Riverkeeper is not a party to this proceeding. The undersigned is not willing to attribute a request for actual notice to any person other than the person requesting such notice. The DEP?s failure to provide written notice of the Permit Modification to Indian Riverkeeper did not adversely affect any rights or remedies available to the Conservation Alliance or Ms. Romano, and does not affect the fairness of this proceeding. Lack of Information Pursuant to Rule 62-528.315(7) Finally, Petitioners argue that the published notice was ineffective because it did not include the name, address, and telephone number of a DEP contact person, citing rule 62- 528.315(7)(d). The provision cited by Petitioners involves DEP notices that are required when the DEP has prepared a draft permit, draft consent order, or has scheduled a public meeting as identified in rule 62-528.315(1). The notice requirement in rule 62-528.315(7) does not apply to a notice of proposed agency action, which is governed by rule 62-528.315(10), and which provides that: “[a]fter the conclusion of the public comment period described in Rule 62-528.321, F.A.C., and after the conclusion of a public meeting (if any) described in Rule 62- 528.325, F.A.C., the applicant shall publish public notice of the proposed agency action including the availability of an administrative hearing under Sections 120.569 and 120.57, F.S. This public notice shall follow the procedure described in subsection 62-110.106(7), F.A.C. (emphasis added). The published notice of the Permit Modification was consistent with the notice described in rule 62-110.106(7), and therefore complied with rule 62-528.315(10). For the reasons set forth herein, there were no defects in the published notice of proposed agency action that serve to minimize the effect of that published notice on the time for filing a petition challenging the Permit Modification, that adversely affect any rights or remedies available to the Conservation Alliance or Ms. Romano, or that affect the fairness of this proceeding. Representation of Petitioners by Ruden McClosky Petitioners were not represented by Ruden McClosky at the time Ruden McClosky requested actual notice of any DEP agency action regarding FPUA. Petitioners were not represented by Ruden McClosky at the time Ruden McClosky requested actual notice of any DEP agency action regarding Allied. The parties stipulated that an attorney-client relationship was formed between the Petitioners and Ruden McClosky on or after January 1, 2009. No further specificity was stipulated. On February 3, 2009, Ruden McClosky sent an engagement letter to the Conservation Alliance regarding governmental and administrative challenges to the Permit Modification. The engagement was accepted by Mr. Stinnette on behalf of the Conservation Alliance on February 4, 2009. The Petition for Formal Proceedings, which named the Conservation Alliance as a party, was filed with the DEP on February 4, 2009. On February 10, 2009, Ruden McClosky sent an engagement letter to Ms. Romano regarding governmental and administrative challenges to the Permit Modification. There is no evidence that the engagement was accepted by Ms. Romano. Ms. Romano testified that she has never spoken or corresponded with anyone from Ruden McClosky, and had no knowledge that she was being represented by Ruden McClosky. Ms. Romano had no input in drafting any of the petitions filed on her behalf, and had no recollection of having ever read the petitions. The Amended Petition for Formal Proceedings, which named Ms. Romano as a party, was filed with the DEP on February 12, 2009. Both of the Ruden McClosky engagement letters reference an “Other Client” that had an interest in challenging the Permit Modification, which “Other Client” would be responsible for paying all fees and costs, and would be involved in the approval of all work performed by Ruden McClosky. The parties stipulated that the “Other Client” was Odyssey. The date of an engagement letter is not dispositive as to the date on which an attorney-client relationship is established. It is, however, evidence that can be assessed with other evidence to draw a conclusion as to the date that the relationship commenced. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that requests for notice made prior to January 21, 2009, regarding the FPUA operation permit and the Permit Modification that is the subject of this proceeding were made on behalf of Odyssey or Florida Tire, existing clients of Ruden McClosky. The preponderance of the evidence leads the undersigned to find that Ruden McCloskey commenced its representation of the Conservation Alliance with regard to the instant case no earlier than January 21, 2009, the date on which Ruden McClosky received notice that the Permit Modification had been issued. The preponderance of the evidence leads the undersigned to find that Ruden McCloskey commenced its representation of Ms. Romano with regard to the instant case after January 21, 2009, if at all. Filing of the Petitions The 14th day after publication of the notice of the Permit Modification fell on January 23, 2009. On February 4, 2009, the initial Petition for Formal Proceedings was filed challenging the DEP issuance of the Permit Modification. The Petition named the Conservation Alliance as a party. On February 12, 2009, an Amended Petition for Formal Proceedings was filed that, among other things, added Ms. Romano as a party. Allegations of Standing - Conservation Alliance The Conservation Alliance is a non-profit, Florida corporation incorporated in 1985. It has at least 100 members that reside in St. Lucie County. It was formed for the general purpose of protecting the “water, soil, air, native flora and fauna,” and thus the environment of St. Lucie County. In the Petition for Formal Proceedings, as it has been amended, the Conservation Alliance made specific allegations as to how the issuance of the Permit Modification may affect its substantial interests. Those allegations are related, first, to the effect of the Permit Modification on the FPUA public water supply that serves members of the Conservation Alliance and, second, to the effect of the Permit Modification on the ability of the members to recreate and enjoy the waters of St. Lucie County. FPUA Water Service In its Second Amended Petition for Formal Proceedings, the Conservation Alliance alleged that “[m]embers of the Alliance own real property or otherwise reside within the service area of FPUA, and are, in fact, serviced by FPUA.” As a result, the members “will be adversely affected by the injection of the Allied waste stream into IW-1, which is located within 500 feet of three potable water supply sources, from which . . . Romano and the Alliance?s members are provided with potable water,” resulting in “a potential for those contaminants and hazardous materials to get into Petitioners? source of potable water.” Mr. Brady, the Conservation Alliance?s president, does not receive water service from the FPUA. Mr. Brady did not know how many members of the Conservation Alliance received water service from the FPUA. Persons living in unincorporated areas of Fort Pierce do not receive potable water from the FPUA. A mailing address of “Fort Pierce” does not mean that the person lives in the incorporated City of Fort Pierce. Mr. Brady “assumed” many of the members lived in the City of Fort Pierce, but offered no admissible, non-hearsay evidence of any kind to support that assumption. Mr. Stinnette testified that he was “confident that we have members that receive water from [FPUA]” but was not able to quantify the number of said members. As with Mr. Brady, Mr. Stinnette offered no admissible, non-hearsay evidence of any kind to support his belief. Recreational and Environmental Interests In its Second Amended Petition for Formal Proceedings, the Conservation Alliance alleged that “. . . Romano and the Alliance?s members utilize and protect the waters of St. Lucie County. Petitioners? recreational and environmental interests will be adversely affected if the Allied waste stream leaves the injection well area and flows into the rivers, streams, and or ocean.” Mr. Brady understood that one member of the Conservation Alliance, George Jones, fished in the C-24 canal, although Mr. Brady had not personally fished there for 25 years. Mr. Brady otherwise provided no evidence of the extent to which members used or enjoyed the waters in or around St. Lucie County. Mr. Stinnette has recreated in various water bodies that are tributaries of the Indian River Lagoon system. He indicated that he had engaged in recreational activities in and on the waters of St. Lucie County with “dozens” of people over the past 16 years, some of whom were members of the Conservation Alliance. There was no evidence offered as to how many of those persons were members of the Conservation Alliance, as opposed to members of other organizations or of no organization at all, or whether they were current members during the period relevant to this proceeding. Mr. Stinnette testified that the previously mentioned Mr. Jones said that he kayaked in the waters of St. Lucie County but, as to the recreational activities of other members, testified that “I don't know, I don't keep up with their day-to-day activities to that extent.” Although Mr. Jones testified at the hearing, he provided no information as to the nature or extent of his recreational uses of the waters of St. Lucie County. The only evidence of Mr. Jones? use of the waters of St. Lucie County is hearsay. Thus, the only finding that can be made as to the recreational use of the waters of St. Lucie County by current members of the Conservation Alliance is limited to the recreational use by a single member, Mr. Stinnette. Petitioner, Elaine Romano Ms. Romano is a member of the Conservation Alliance. The allegations regarding Ms. Romano?s substantial interests in this proceeding were the same as those of the Conservation Alliance as set forth above. FPUA Water Service Ms. Romano has her primary residence at 3436 Roselawn Boulevard, Fort Pierce, Florida. Her residence is not served by FPUA. Ms. Romano is the executor of the estate of her mother, Marion Scherer. The estate owns a residence at 1903 Royal Palm Drive, Fort Pierce, Florida that is currently vacant. That residence is served by FPUA. The estate is not a party to this proceeding. Recreational and Environmental Interests Ms. Romano attends certain meetings and functions of the Conservation Alliance, but offered no testimony of her use or enjoyment of any natural resources that could be affected by the Permit Modification. In that regard, her interest in this case was precipitated by a desire to support her mother?s interest in ecology.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection, enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Formal Proceeding as amended. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of May, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of May, 2013.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: On or about March 6, 1984, petitioner applied for a DER permit to construct a marina on state owned submerged land located in Punta Rassa, Lee County, Florida. The original design requested approval to build slips for 54 boats. This design was later modified to conform to suggested modifications made by DER staff. The modification reduced the size of the marina to 30 boat slips. By an Intent to Issue dated April 24, 1985, petitioner was advised that the DER intended to issue the permit with 17 special conditions. Special Condition Number 1 advised petitioner of the Florida law which states that construction on state sovereignty lands may not be commenced prior to receiving from the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund the required lease, license, easement, or other form of consent authorizing the proposed use. In none of the 17 special conditions, nor in any other portion of the Intent to Issue, was it stated when the permit time would begin to run, or when it would expire. The expiration date of the proposed permit simply was not mentioned. The Intent to Issue did contain a standard "point of entry" notice, advising that a petition for a hearing could be filed and stating that the hearing process was designed to formulate agency action. Having no objection to the DER's Intent to Issue and the conditions thereof, the petitioner determined not to request an administrative hearing with regard to said Intent. On May 17, 1985, the DER issued to petitioner Permit Number 360836415. This permit included 15 general conditions and the same 17 special conditions that were contained in the Intent to Issue. In addition, the permit stated that it would expire on June 1, 1987. The permit was accompanied by a letter. Neither the letter, nor the permit, bore the stamp of the agency clerk or contained language advising petitioner of its right to petition for an administrative hearing or other "point of entry" language. DER never notified petitioner by any document that contained "point of entry" language that the permit time would begin running immediately and would expire on June 1, 1987. In order to obtain a sovereignty land lease from the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, petitioner was required to modify its proposed marina design by reducing the number of boat slips to 14. The Trustees approved the lease on or about July 29, 1986, although the Certification of Board Action attesting the Board's approval of the lease, as well as the sovereignty submerged land lease itself, was not forwarded to the petitioner until March 12, 1987. Due to the modifications required by the Trustees, the petitioner requested DER to modify its permit to reflect the reduction of the project scope. The request represented a minor modification to the permit and was granted by DER by letter dated September 30, 1986. The letter of modification does not suggest that the original expiration date of the permit had been changed. As of June 1, 1987, construction work on the proposed marina had not yet begun. The petitioner's agent relied upon a promulgated rule of the DER and assumed that the permit time would not begin to run on this project until petitioner had obtained consent to use state owned submerged land. DER's Dredge and Fill Application is encompassed in a form which is adopted by reference in Rule 17-1.203(1), Florida Administrative Code. This rule was adopted in 1982 and is still in effect today. A portion of that form, Appendix E, paragraph 3(g), on page 30, states that Where the proposed activity involves the use of state-owned submerged lands, DER shall not issue a permit before approval or consent of use is obtained from DNR, although DER will continue to process the application to the extent possible. (Emphasis supplied.) Except for this rule, DER has no other published instructions to applicants as to when permit times begin to run. Since the effective date of the Warren S. Henderson Wetlands Protection Act (Sections 403.91 - .929, Florida Statutes) in October of 1984, DER has not followed its policy outlined in Form 17-1.203(1), as adopted by rule. This contrary practice is based on DER's interpretation of the Henderson Act's failure to include language which was previously included in Section 253.124, Florida Statutes, to the effect that DER permits do not become effective until all other local, state and federal permits are issued. DER's internal practice that calculates the running of the permit time prior to receiving approval to use state owned submerged land is not the subject of any public notice, memorandum or instructions generally available to the public or permit applicants. DER does not require permittees to provide proof of submerged land consent subsequent to the issuance of the DER permit. Also, DER has no internal mechanism for regularly apprising itself of permits which are soon to expire. DER does process and grant time extensions of permits. Requests for time extensions are made through a simple written request, and DER will generally grant such requests if the subject permit is still valid. If the DER permit has already expired at the time that the request for an extension is made, DER requires a new permit application. In this case, petitioner did not request an extension at any time before June 1, 1987. As noted above, it was the belief of petitioner's agent that the two-year permit term would not begin to run until the required Trustee's consent was secured. It was not until June 23 or 24, 1987, that he learned that DER considered the permit to have expired on June 1, 1987. In July of 1987, petitioner did re-apply for a new permit, but DER had environmental objections to the issuance of a new permit. The petition initiating these proceedings was subsequently filed.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order holding that Permit Number 360836415 does not expire until two years from March 12, 1987, and that appropriate recognition be given to the time which has elapsed due to the pendency of the instant proceeding. Respectfully Submitted and entered this 13th day of January, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of January, 1989. APPENDIX The Proposed findings of fact Submitted by the parties have been carefully considered and are accepted, incorporated and/or Summarized in this Recommended Order, with the following exceptions: Petitioner 7. Rejected as an improper factual finding. Respondent 19. Last three Sentences rejected as contrary to the evidence. 21. Partially rejected due to the existence of Rule 17-1.203(1), Florida Administrative Code. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth G. Oertel, Esquire Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez & Cole, P.A. Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Richard Grosso, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the owner and developer of the Plaza Venetia Marina, located in Biscayne Bay in Dade County, Florida, immediately north of the Venetian Causeway. The marina is constructed on submerged lands leased from the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund. On May 4, 1976, DER issued Permit No. 13-30-0364-6E to Respondent. That permit authorized the construction of two concrete marina docks, one "T" shaped and 255 feet long, and the other "J" shaped and 500 feet long. The project site is north of the Venetian Causeway on the western edge of Biscayne Bay, Section 31, Township 53 North, Range 42 East, Dade County, Florida. On August 18, 1977, DER issued Permit No. 13-30-3984 to Respondent. That permit authorized the construction of a 700 foot long "J" shaped pier with 24 finger piers and associated mooring pilings, and the construction of a 280 foot long "T" shaped pier. This permit authorized construction to be undertaken directly north of the docks authorized by Permit No. 13-30-0364-6E described above. On August 18, 1977, Respondent applied to DER's West Palm Beach office for a permit to construct the center pier of the Plaza Venetia Marina. On October 27, 1977, DER issued Permit No. 13-30-0740-6E to Respondent. This permit, which is the only one of the three permits at issue herein, authorized construction of a boat tie-up and fueling facility for a public marina. This facility represented a final phase of a master plan which includes the two other marinas with tie-up accommodations authorized by Permit Nos. 13-30-0364-6E and 13-30-3984. The drawings which accompanied the permit application carried the designation "FUEL" on the large platform at the end of the center pier of the marina. The cover letter from Respondent's authorized agent explained that " . . . the fueling area has been made sufficiently large so as to isolate the fuel pumps." No specific mention was made in the application or supporting materials of any building to be constructed on the central pier, and none of the permit drawings initially filed with DER depict any such building. DER employees who processed the permit, however, knew at some time during the processing of the permit application that some sort of structure would likely be constructed on the platform at the end of the center pier, although the plans did not disclose such a building, and the agency made no inquiries about, nor requested any additional information from Respondent concerning the type of structure contemplated. At the time of the issuance of Permit No. 13-30-0740-6E Respondent did not know the exact nature, size, or height of any structure that it might wish to build on the central platform. At the time, Respondent had only a conceptual idea of a structure that might accommodate the uses it contemplated for the platform. The words "fueling station" appear on the platform at the end of the center pier in one of the drawings attached to Permit No. 13-30-0740-6E. That drawing was not initially filed with the original permit application, but was provided during the permitting process by Respondent prior to issuance of the permit. Permit No. 13-30-0740-6E was issued to Respondent on October 27, 1977, pursuant to the authority granted DER under Chapters 253 and 403, Florida Statutes. Nowhere in the permit is there any reference to Section 258.165, Florida Statutes. The permit, by its expressed terms, authorized the following: To construct a boat tie-up and fueling facilities [sic] for a public marina. The facility will extend approximately 390 feet into Biscayne Bay from the bulkhead line. The dock will provide tie-up spaces for 20 boats and six fuel slips, and will contain floating oil collars in case of oil or gasoline spillage. This facility represents the final phase of a master plan which includes two other marinas with tie-up facilities . . . On January 11, 1979, some approximately fourteen months after issuance of the permit for the center pier, Respondent sent a letter to DER's West Palm Beach office which read as follows: Enclosed please find a copy of a letter as sent to the Army Corps, re: the service facility you and I discussed for the already approved fuel dock (State No. 13-30-0740-6E) for the Plaza Venetia Marina. I also enclose copy of the plans. Please review as quickly as possible since we intend to start construction on the marina within 30 to 45 days. (Emphasis added.) Enclosed with the January 11, 1979, letter to DER was a copy of a January 11, 1979, letter to the Army Corps of Engineers which read as follows: Recently I reviewed with [a Corps representative] the placement of a small service accommodation facility on the already approved fuel dock for the Plaza Venetia Marina . . . I left a set of plans with [the Corps] at the Corps office in Miami Beach. The facility is in close keeping with the permitted use of the marina. It will occupy less than half the already approved area of the fueling facility. It will be constructed on an already permitted facility. Included are a small bait and tackle shop; convenience store; captains' office; observation area and required bathrooms. The discharge from the bathrooms will flow directly into the main County sewer disposal system and will utilize a sewer pump-out facility located on the fuel dock. * * * After carefully reviewing my existing permit, the limited nature of the facility described, and its sole purpose of servicing the already permitted marina, please advise me if any modifications are required. I look forward to hearing from you as quickly as possible on this matter since construction of the marina is projected to begin within the next 30 to 45 days. A copy of the floor plan of the proposed building was attached to the January 11, 1979, letter received by DER. This floor plan indicates areas to be included in the building for bait and tackle facilities, a food store, storage areas, restroom facilities, and a marina office. Also shown on the floor plan is a storage area for electric carts to be used in servicing vessels utilizing the marina facility. The record in this cause establishes that Respondent never intended its January 11, 1979, letter to DER to be a request for a permit modification or an application for a new permit. Instead, the letter was intended only as a request for DER review of and comments on the proposed structure to be built at the end of the central pier. DER representatives in its West Palm Beach office forwarded the letter to the Tallahassee office of DER. DER never responded either orally or in writing to Respondent's communication of January 11, 1979, enclosing the building plan. On June 19, 1979, DER had opened its file No. 13-9916 in its standard form dredge and fill permitting section in Tallahassee in response to a letter received from Respondent requesting the addition of some dolphin pilings along the bulkhead at the Plaza Venetia Marina. The request from Respondent was treated as standard form application because the scope of the entire marina project exceeded short-form criteria. After receiving this request from Respondent, DER sent a completeness summary to Respondent within 30 days of receipt of the application requesting that Respondent provide approval from the Department of Natural Resources for the use of sovereignty submerged lands. Through various correspondence, this application was expanded to include several additional modifications to the overall marina, including reconfiguration of the fuel dock, addition of finger piers, reconfiguration of the "T" docks, and addition of a 12-foot boardwalk. Finally, the application was modified so that it constituted an application to consolidate the three existing permits. On January 29, 1980, Respondent submitted the last item of information required by the completeness summary except for DNR approval for use of sovereignty submerged lands. The aforementioned letter of January 11, 1979, from Respondent, which included the building floor plan, was apparently placed in DER file No. 13-9916 relating to Respondent's requested permit modification. Although the floor plan is contained in this file, the record in this cause clearly establishes that neither Respondent nor DER treated either the January 11, 1979, letter or the enclosed plan as a request for modification of Permit No. 13-30-0740-6E. DER file No. 13-9916 sat dormant for almost three years awaiting DNR consent for the use of state-owned lands. By letter dated July 10, 1981, DER requested Respondent to indicate whether it wished to pursue the permit modification application further since it had been 1,085 days since DER had notified Respondent of the necessity to furnish notification from DNR concerning further use of state sovereignty submerged lands. By letter dated July 15, 1981, Respondent withdrew its permit modification application. On April 20, 1979, the City of Miami issued a valid building permit for the marina fueling station. Respondent notified DER in July, 1979, that it was beginning construction of the marina. Construction of the central pier began on July 16, 1979, and ended on June 11, 1980. Construction of the fueling platform began on February 28, 1981, with erection of the fueling station walls beginning sometime after April 1, 1981. Subsequent to the commencement of construction DER representatives inspected the building site on several occasions. Respondent was not made aware in advance of when these inspections would occur since they were scheduled at the sole discretion of DER. DER first learned of the actual construction of the marina fueling station after receipt of a citizen complaint on December 1, 1981. Upon inspection of the site by DER personnel on December 2, 1981, it was discovered that the building on the fuel dock was partially complete with finish work and the placement of some interior and exterior walls remaining to be accomplished. DER served a warning notice on Respondent on December 7, 1981, advising Respondent of an alleged violation of its existing permit. A second warning letter was sent to Respondent on January 26, 1982, followed by the issuance of the Notice of Violation by DER. DER incurred costs and expenses of $405.40 in investigating the alleged violation. The structures authorized by Permit Nos. 13-30-0364-6E, 13-30-3984, and 13-30-0740-6E ("the structures") have been constructed by Respondent. The structures are located within the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve ("the Preserve") established by Section 258.165, Florida Statutes. Biscayne Bay at the site of the structures is a navigable water of the State of Florida. A building with a floor area of approximately 3,800 square feet and a roof area of 5,292 square feet has been constructed at a cost of approximately $500,000 on the platform at the end of the center pier of the marina. The net area of the platform contains about 9,640 square feet. It has been stipulated by the parties that construction of the building on the center pier will not result in significant adverse water quality or biological impacts which were not contemplated when the above-referenced permits were issued for the marina. The building as presently constructed has provisions for the following uses: a waiting area for water-borne transportation, a bait and tackle shop and marine supply store, an electric cart parking and recharging station, and an attendant's room with cash register and equipment for the fuel pumps. All of these uses are customarily associated with the operation of marina facilities. The building as constructed differs in several minor respects from the one shown on the plans submitted to DER in the January 11, 1979, letter from Respondent. What had been shown on those plans as outdoor seating has been enclosed, walls and proposed uses have been relocated within the building, and the entire building has been moved back on the fuel dock. It is concluded, however, that these changes are of such a minor nature as to not constitute a material departure from the plans furnished to DER in January of 1979. As-built plans for the building have never been provided by Respondent to DER. At the time of Respondent's application for the permit for the center pier, DER rules required that a permit applicant provide cross-sectional drawings of proposed structures to be built in conjunction with docking facilities such as those proposed by Respondent. Drawings attached to the permit application show two cross sections through the center pier, but neither of these cross sections depict a building to be constructed on the pier. Respondent did not submit cross-sectional drawings for the building at the time of its application, and none had been submitted to DER as of the date of final hearing in this cause. However, DER at no time requested such cross-sectional drawings, despite the fact that those agency representatives processing Respondent's permit application assumed from the outset that some structure would and could be built by Respondent on the platform attached to the central dock under the terms of the October 27, 1977, permit. The estimated cost for removal of the building at the end of the central pier is $150,000-$200,000.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, dismissing the Notice of Violation. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of June, 1983, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM E. WILLIAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of June, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul R. Ezatoff, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Clifford A. Shulman, Esquire and Thomas K. Equels, Esquire Brickell Concours 1401 Brickell Avenue, PH-1 Miami, Florida 33131 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lee Rohe, Esquire Assistant Department Attorney Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Elton Gissendanner, Director Department of Natural Resources Executive Suite 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32303 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, Petitioner, v. CASE NO. 82-1640 FLORIDA EAST COAST PROPERTIES, INC., Respondent. /
The Issue This proceeding concerns an Intent to Issue a dredge and fill permit given by the Department of Environmental Regulation ("DER") to Respondent, Edmund Burke ("Burke"), for construction of a retaining wall and wooden pile-supported bridge crossing a portion of the South Fork of the St. Lucie River in Martin County, Florida. The ultimate issues for determination are whether Petitioner has standing to challenge the proposed DER action, and if so, whether the proposed agency action complies with the requirements of Sections 403.91 through 403.938, Florida Statutes, and applicable rules.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Edmund Burke, on January 15, 1988, filed with the Department of Environmental Regulation ("DER") application number 431441608 for a permit to construct a permanent, pile supported, wooden bridge approximately 80 feet long and 10 feet wide connecting the mainland with an island in the South Fork of the St. Lucie River in Martin County, Florida. The bridge was to span a 50 foot canal or creek ("channel") in the River. One of two retaining walls was to be located on the mainland peninsula. The other retaining wall was to be located on the island (the "initial project"). Between January 15, 1988, and April 28, 1989, the initial project was modified by Respondent, Burke, to satisfy DER concerns over potential impacts, including secondary impacts, relevant to the application. The width of the bridge was reduced from 10 feet to 6 feet. The retaining wall initially planned at the point where the bridge intersects the island was eliminated. The retaining wall on the mainland side of the bridge was relocated above mean high water. Sixty feet of the proposed bridge runs from mean high water to mean high water. An additional 10 feet on each end of the bridge is located above mean high water. The project remained a permanent, pile supported, wooden bridge (the "modified project"). The Intent to Issue, dated April 28, 1989, indicated that the modifications required by DER had been made, that the modifications satisfied DER concerns relevant to the initial project, and that DER intended to issue a permit for construction of the modified project. The elimination of the retaining wall obviated any necessity for backfill on the island. The reduction in the width of the bridge virtually eliminated the secondary impacts on the surrounding habitat, resulted in less shading of the water, and precluded vehicular traffic over the bridge. The final modification that was "necessary in order for [DER] to approve this application" was the reduction in the width of the bridge from 10 feet to 6 feet. Petitioner's Exhibit 17. DER's requirement for this final modification was communicated to Mr. Cangianelli in a telephone conversation on April 6, 1989 (Petitioner's Exhibit 18), and memorialized in a letter to Respondent, Burke, on April 14, 1989 (Petitioner's Exhibit 17). The final modification was made, and the Intent to Issue was written on April 28, 1989. Petitioner's Case. Property commonly known as Harbor Estates is adjacent to the site of the modified project. A constructed harbor and contiguous park are located within the boundaries of Harbor Estates. Both are used by residents of Harbor Estates and both are proximate to the site of the modified project. The harbor entrance and site of the modified project are located on opposite sides of a peninsula approximately 40 feet wide and approximately 125 feet long. Boats operated by residents of Harbor Estates that can navigate under the modified project need only travel the length of the peninsula, a distance of approximately 125 feet through the channel, in order to reach the harbor entrance. Boats operated by residents of Harbor Estates that cannot navigate under the proposed bridge must travel around the island, a distance of approximately 1800 feet in the main body of the St. Lucie River, in order to reach the harbor entrance. However, Petitioner presented no evidence that prior to the construction of the bridge the channel was navigable by boats not capable of passing under the bridge after the bridge was completed. Petitioner, Harbor Estates Associates, Inc., submitted no evidence to show facts necessary to sustain the pleadings in the Petition concerning the inadequacy of modifications required by DER. Of Petitioner's 26 exhibits, Exhibits 1-19, 24 and 25 were relevant to the initial project but were not material to claims in the Petition concerning the inadequacy of the modifications required by DER. Petitioner's Exhibit 20 was cumulative of DER's Exhibit 6B. Petitioner's Exhibits 22 and 26, respectively, concern a 1980 bridge permit and a Proposed Comprehensive Growth Management Plan for Martin County, Florida. Petitioner offered no expert testimony in support of the pleadings in the Petition including assertions that: the modified project will have a direct adverse impact upon water quality and the welfare or property of others; the channel is navigable by deep-draft motor vessels; the modified project will result in shoaling that will have to be corrected at the expense of Harbor Estates; the modified project will result in prohibited destruction of mangroves; or that the modified project will cause any of the other specific adverse effects described in the Petition. The testimony of fact witnesses called by Petitioner was not material to Petitioner's claims that modifications required by DER were inadequate. The testimony of Bob Nicholas was relevant to allegations of prior violations but was not dispositive of any issue concerning the adequacy of modifications required by DER. The testimony of William Burr was admitted as rebuttal testimony relevant to precedents in the general area of the modified project but failed to address the adequacy of modifications required by DER. Petitioner consistently demonstrated a lack of knowledge of the applicable law, the proper scope of the formal hearing, and the distinction between argument and evidence. Petitioner repeatedly attempted to establish violations of laws not relevant to the proceeding including local laws and other environmental laws. Petitioner attempted to establish issues by arguing with witnesses during direct and cross examination, and by repeatedly making unsworn ore tenus representations of fact. There was a complete absence of a justiciable issue of either law or fact in this proceeding because Petitioner failed to show facts necessary to sustain the pleadings. Petitioner presented no evidence refuting Respondent, Burke's, showing that the modifications required by DER were adequate to assure water quality and the public health, safety, or welfare, or the property of others. Evidence presented by Petitioner was not material to the issue of whether the modifications required by DER were adequate for the purposes of the law applicable to this proceeding. Therefore, Petitioner participated in this proceeding for a frivolous purpose, primarily to cause unnecessary delay, or to needlessly increase the cost of licensing or approval of the proposed activity. Respondents' Case. The island to be accessed by the modified project is approximately 2.5 acres in area and contains mostly wetland. The island is approximately 900 feet long. The portion of the island that is beyond DER permit jurisdiction is less than 200 feet long and less than 50 feet wide. The site of the modified project is located in Class III waters. Respondent, Burke, provided adequate assurances that portions of the modified project not extending over open water will be constructed upon property owned by him. The single retaining wall to be constructed at the southeastern terminus of the modified project will be constructed landward of DER jurisdiction. The modified project permits neither the installation of water or electrical conduits to the island nor any excavation, filling, or construction on the island. Respondent, Burke, must provide notification to DER before any such activity is begun. The bridge will accommodate no vehicular traffic larger or heavier than a golf cart. Golf cart access is necessary in order to accommodate a physical disability of Respondent, Burke. The modified project employs adequate methods to control turbidity, limit mangrove alteration on the island, and limit potential collisions with manatees. Vegetation, including mangroves, will not be removed. Incidental, selective trimming of vegetation will be allowed to create access to the island. The single retaining wall to be constructed on the mainland will be located landward of mangroves. Turbidity curtains will be used during construction to minimize short term water quality impacts. The modified project requires turbidity screens to be installed if there is any indication of sedimentation. No mechanical equipment will be located on the island during construction. No boats will be moored at the site of the modified project. The modified project will cause no significant downstream shoaling or silting. The site of the modified project is located approximately 15 feet from an existing fishing platform. No significant shoaling has been associated with that platform. The impacts associated with the modified project are similar to the impacts associated with single family docks in the area. No significant shoaling has been associated with such docks. The modified project is not a navigational hazard. The elevation is sufficient to accommodate small boats, canoes, and row boats. Reflective devices are required to alert night boat traffic of its presence. There is adequate clearance under the bridge to prevent obstruction. DER reviewed all applicable rules and criteria in considering the modified project. The modified project will have no adverse effect upon public health, safety or welfare, or the property of others. The modified project will not adversely impact the conservation of fish, wildlife, or their habitats. The modified project will not adversely affect navigation, the flow of water, or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. The modified project will not adversely impact fishing value or marine productivity in the area. The modified project will have no adverse impact upon recreational values in the vicinity. The modified project was reviewed in a manner that is customary for similar projects reviewed by DER. It is common practice for DER employees, as they did in this case, to rely upon opinions of other DER professionals in formulating an intent to issue. Other projects within DER jurisdiction in the general geographic area of the modified project and within the same region were considered in DER's review process. Other docks and marinas have been constructed and are proposed for construction within the South Fork of the St. Lucie River. Bridges including pedestrian bridges have been and are proposed to be constructed in Martin County. DER did not require a hydrographic study because the modified project was considered a minor project. DER review took into account the intended future use of the island property and DER's past experience with Respondent, Burke. As part of its review, DER reviewed a conceptual bridge to a single family residence on the island which would not require any fill or construction of retaining walls. In addition, DER considered previous violations on the island under Florida Administrative Code Rules 17-4.070, 17-4.160, and 17-4.530 in connection with an earlier permit that expired before the initial project was begun. Respondent, Burke, provided reasonable assurances that he is the owner of the site of the proposed project. Respondent, Burke, signed DER's property ownership affidavit and submitted a survey. DER's Intent to Issue does not authorize any construction in any area within the jurisdiction of DER other than the modified project. The Intent to Issue constitutes compliance with state water quality standards. DER has not received any requests for a jurisdictional determination in the general geographic area of the modified project. No enforcement action has been initiated by DER or at the request of a third party against Respondent, Burke, for alleged violations of DER rules.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order on the merits issuing the requested permit and awarding reasonable attorney's fees and costs in accordance with this Recommended Order. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 4th day of April, 1990. DANIEL MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of April, 1990. APPENDIX Petitioner has submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Although most of Petitioner's proposed findings were cast in the form of "fact", they were in substance argument and rejected accordingly. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 Included in part in Finding 1 Findings as to ownership are rejected as beyond the jurisdiction of the undersigned. Finding as to the late filed exhibit is rejected as irrelevant. 2-4, 10-12, Rejected as either irrelevant 16, or not supported by the record. 5 and 6, 37, 40 Rejected as unsupported by 42 the record. 7, 8, 15 Rejected as irrelevant 17, 21-29 and immaterial 9, 13, 14, 18-20 Rejected as immaterial 30-33, 35 and 36 37(a), 38, 39, 41, 48 20(A) Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial except the last sentence is included in Finding 13 34 Included in Finding 12 Rejected as not supported by the record, hypothetical and immaterial. Rejected as not established by clear and convincing evidence. Respondent, Burke, has submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Respondent. Burke's, Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 15 and 16 Included in Finding 1 17, 26, 27 Included in Finding 2 18, 48 Included in Findings 15 and 16 19, 30, 31, 42 Included in Finding 13 20, 21, 44 Included in Findings 4 and 14 22, 23, 25, 32 Included in Finding 17 24 Included in Finding 16 25, 36-38 Included in Finding 17 Included in Finding 18 Included in Finding 3 Included in Finding 10 Included in Finding 19 35, 39, 43 Included in Finding 20 40, 41 Included in Finding 11 45-47 and 49 Included in Finding 16 51 and 52 Included in Findings 6-8 54 Included in Finding 5 and 8 50 and 53 Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial Respondent, DER, has submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 and 2 Included in Findings 1 and 2 3 Included in Finding 10 4 and 5 Included in Finding 16 6, 9 Included in Finding 2 7 and 8 Included in Findings 9 and 11 10 Included in Finding 13 11 Included in Finding 15 Included in Finding 17 and 14 Included in Finding 16 COPIES FURNISHED: Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Patricia E. Comer Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Patricia V. Bartell Qualified Representative 615 S.W. St. Lucie Street Stuart, FL 34997 J. A. Jurgens Jones, Foster, Johnson & Stubbs, P.A. 505 South Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, FL 33402
