Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing one copy of a notice of appeal with the Clerk of the Division of Admini-strative Hearings and a second copy, accompanied by filing fees prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal, First District, or with the District Court of Appeal in the Appellate District where the party resides. The notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed.
Findings Of Fact The site for the proposed combined cycle generating facility, hereinafter referred to as Unit S-5, is part of the existing 22-acre utility complex located near the western edge of the City of Lake Worth, Florida. This site, which has been used by the Lake Worth Utilities Authority for electrical power generation for over 25 years, is shared by the power plant, water treatment plant, public works department and various other municipal agencies. The site is bounded by public use areas, such as the Lake Worth Senior and Junior High School and athletic field on the north and east, the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad right-of-way and Interstate Highway 95 on the west and the Lake Worth Utilities Authority water treatment plant on the south. The most significant visual change to be caused by the addition of Unit S-5 to this site will be the addition of a 75 foot high exhaust stack and the mechanical draft cooling tower. Both of these structures will be, in large part, masked by the 1-95 elevated roadway, which dominates the skyline in the area of the site. Unit S-5, as proposed, will be of the combined cycle type, nominally rated at 29.5 megawatts. The unit will basically consist of a gas turbine- generator unit, unfired heat recovery steam generator, and steam turbine- generator unit and auxiliaries. The unit will utilize a cooling tower as is presently being done for the four existing steam units already on site. Operating at designed capacity, Unit S-5 will use an estimated 346,000 gallons of water per day through 1982. It is similarly estimated that, operating at designed capacity, 28,000 gallons of water per day would be discharged as cooling tower blow-down, boiler blow-down and demineralizer backwash. The applicant estimates that the average water use of Unit S-5 will be 201,000 gallons per day, which is approximately 3.8 percent of the 1978 projected average daily output of the Lake Worth Utilities Authority-water plant, from which the water will be taken. The Lake Worth Utilities Authority water Plant has a total design capacity of 25 million gallons per day. The design of Unit S-5 will allow operation on both gaseous and/or liquid fuels. Natural gas and number two diesel oil will be the fuels fired in this unit. The presently existing fuel facilities and supply arrangements are sufficient to provide the fuel needs of Unit S-5. Unit S-5, as designed, will be a highly efficient generator of electricity. It would allow the Lake Worth Utilities Authority to produce electricity at a lower cost by consuming less fuel per unit of electricity produced. According to the applicant's projections, the net savings in system operating costs would range from $70,000 to $500,000 per year depending upon fuel costs and fuel availability." The applicant presented unrebutted testimony showing that, because of the efficiency of the proposed unit, annual fuel savings could be as high as the equivalent of 860,000,000 cubic feet of natural gas or 5,370,000 gallons of oil. Further, operation of Unit S-5 would result in a substantial reduction in power plant water consumption. The applicant, Lake Worth Utilities Authority, has shown, by unrebutted testimony, that Unit S-5 will be highly efficient in operation and result in a substantial savings in operating costs should it come on line in 1978. ,As shown by the staff report of the Department of Environmental Regulation, Composite Exhibit 3, the construction of Unit S-5 will have minimal impact on the environment because of the previous impact of construction of the existing units already on site. Further, normal operation of the unit, as proposed, at worst, will cause a minimal increase in environmental impact over that caused by existing units. When displacement of older, less efficient units occur, Unit S-5 may reduce the overall environmental impact of the plant site. The unit is designed to operate in compliance with all applicable state and federal environmental standards and regulations. The Florida Public Service Commission is required by Section 403.57, Florida Statutes, to prepare a report and recommendation as to the present and future needs for electrical generating capacity in the area to be served by the proposed site. Such a report and recommendation was prepared and submitted as required by statute in this proceeding. The Public Service Commission found the area to be served by Unit S-5 to be an area containing approximately 11 square miles, which includes the City of Lake Worth and vicinity, as defined in the territorial agreement dated March 6, 1972, between Florida Power and Light Company and the Lake Worth Utilities Authority. Due primarily to the severe depression of the state economy and the price increases in the cost of fuel oil, the Florida Public Service Commission report finds that the annual growth rates in demand for electricity have been reduced. Using what it termed a "realistic" growth rate of 7.5 percent annually and a minimal growth rate of 5.75 Percent annually, the Florida Public Service Commission concluded that a need for the additional generating capacity to be provided by Unit S-5 would not exist until 1982 to 1984. Consequently, the Commission concluded that a need for the generating capacity for Unit S-5 will not exist in 1978, the year in which the applicant proposes to bring the unit on line. However, the Commission's report notes that they have considered summaries of an economic analysis submitted, by the Lake Worth Utilities Authority which showed that, due to the greater efficiency of the proposed unit, the savings in operating the system with this new unit would more than offset the cost to build it. Noting that the Commission staff reviewed these summaries and performed an analysis of their own for a range of generating efficiencies and fuel costs, the report concludes that the assumptions for this analysis were reasonable and that, based on these assumptions, there is an economic advantage when operating with the proposed Unit S-5, even though a need to meet demand may not exist at the time the unit is to come on line. A need for the generating capacity of Unit S-5 will not exist until 1982 to 1984. The Division of State Planning of the Department of Administration has reviewed the 1975 ten-year site plan of the Lake Worth Utilities Authority with regard to proposed Unit S-5. The report of the Division of State Planning notes that the Division concurs with the Public Service Commission in its assessment that need for the generating capacity will not exist in 1978. However, the report notes that it has no basis for disagreement with the applicant's calculations that bringing Unit S-5 on line would provide power cheaper than can the Present system. Therefore, the Division's report concludes that the ten- year site plan of the Lake Worth Utilities Authority, as amended by the final version of its site certification request, is suitable, and recommends that the proposed Plan be certified. There will be no new associated transmission facilities involved in the construction and operation of Unit S-5. Existing transmission facilities will be utilized. The staff report of the Department of Environmental Regulation concludes that if Unit S-5 can produce electricity at a significantly lower cost and thereby justify that the unit is necessary environmentally, Unit S-5 appears acceptable. It further concludes that if Unit S-5 is needed, and considering the slight environmental impacts of Unit S-5, the site is suitable at present and certification could be granted subject to proper conditions. Composite Exhibit 3 includes a statement of General Conditions of Certification and Special Conditions of Certification, which the Department of Environmental Regulation have proposed be made applicable to this facility if certified. The applicant, Lake Worth Utilities Authority, has stipulated and agreed that the General and Special Conditions of Certification, as proposed, should be imposed if certification is granted. As shown by Florida Pollution Control Board Order No. 75-2, dated February 10, 1975, Exhibit 7, the Florida Pollution Control Board, pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, found that the proposed site for Unit S-5 is consistent and in compliance with existing land use plans and zoning ordinances. At the conclusion of the presentation by the parties to this proceeding, opportunity was given to the general public to comment upon the application for site certification. No one appeared to make comment.
Recommendation Having reviewed the record of this proceeding, and based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that certification, pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, be granted the Lake Worth Utilities Authority, for the construction and operation of Unit S-5 in Lake Worth, Palm Beach County, Florida. It is further recommended that this certification be made subject to the General and Special Conditions of Certification as set forth in Composite Exhibit 3. Entered this 17th day of March, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHRIS H. BENTLEY, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Joe McGlothin, Esquire Florida Public Service Commission 700 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32340 Louis F. Hubener, Esquire Attorney, Division of State Planning 600 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Ross A. McVoy, Esquire Attorney, Department of Environmental Regulation 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Vance, Esquire Attorney, Lake Worth Utilities Authority 1201-A Belvedere Road West Palm Beach, Florida
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent's certification as a teacher in Florida should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Florida's Commissioner of Education, was the state official responsible for the certification of teachers in this state. Respondent held and currently holds Florida Teaching certificate No. 086279 in the areas of reading and social science. This certificate , unless otherwise revoked for cause, will be valid through June 30, 2000. During the school years from 1990 to 1992, Respondent was employed as a reading teacher at the Lake Alfred Career Development Center operated by the Polk County School Board, having been hired into that position by the Center's Principal, Mr. Williams, in 1990. During the 1991-1992 school year, Respondent taught T.B., a minor female. During the same school year, 1991-1992, O.B., T.B.'s sister and a minor female, also was a student at the Center, and though not a pupil of the Respondent, served as a tutor to Respondent's class. Starting in January, 1992, Respondent gave O.B. small amounts of money for personal expenditures such as drinks and lunch. He also gave her items of clothing and a check to pay for a subscription for a magazine she wanted. During the period up to April, 1992, he gave her money for making the honor roll and other sums, up to $20.00 at a time, for spending money. These payments would be made every other week or so. In addition to giving O.B. money and gifts, shortly before the spring break he also gave her his home phone number and told her that if she needed anything she should call him and they would go shopping together. On April 22, 1992 O.B. had occasion to work, alone, in Respondent's office. At the time, she was reading newspaper articles into a tape recorder for him to use to help his students in their reading lessons. While she was there, Respondent came to the office several times to check on her, and on this day, she was wearing one of the outfits Respondent had bought for her. On one of these visits, Respondent sat down across from O.B. and placed his hands on her upper thighs. As he did this, he asked her if he could do something personal with her. O.B. asked Respondent what that was, to which question Respondent told her not to ask questions but just say either yes or no. O.B, did not respond but remained silent. At this point, Respondent lifted O.B.'s skirt. He then told her to stand up while he remained seated. When she stood, Respondent reached over and pulled out on the top of O.B.'s panties. Petitioner asserts that by doing so he was able to see her vagina but this is unlikely. Because he did not pull her panties down and she was standing up, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for him to see her vagina from that angle. Regardless, he told O.B. she was beautiful, pulled her close to him, held her and kissed her between the breasts. In his affidavit, Respondent contends it was impossible for him to do this as well because of the differences in their height and the fact that he was seated at the time, but it is found that he did. At this point, Respondent stood up and told O.B. to open her mouth. When she complied, Respondent tried to kiss her, but she pulled away. With that, Respondent remarked that she "was not ready for that yet" and then left the office. O.B. then went quickly to the girls' bathroom and locked herself in. While there, she heard Respondent, or someone, walk by outside the bathroom several times. When she felt ready, O.B. left the bathroom and went to one of the classrooms down the hall where her friend, H.H. was in class. Still upset and crying from her encounter with the Respondent, O.B. got H.H. out of class and told her what had happened. While the girls were talking in the hallway, T.B. came by and noticing that O.B. was crying and upset, asked what was wrong. O.B. didn't want to say, but T.B. insisted, threatening to tell their mother if O.B. did not tell her story. After this, O.B., T.B. and H.H. went back to Respondent's office so that O.B. could get her coat and books. While they were in Respondent's office O.B. told T.B. what had happened. While this was going on, Respondent came into the office several times. On one visit he noticed the girls were looking at a magazine and he asked them if they saw anything they liked. When they pointed out several bathing suits, he circled those they had shown him and left, taking the magazine with him. While he was in the office with the two girls, Respondent asked T.B. if O.B. was OK. He later saw them again and asked them both if everything was OK. He also admonished them not to say anything to anyone about O.B.'s claim. Before they left school for home that day, Respondent again told T.B. to take care of O.B., stating that O.B. had something for her. The girls then left the area but returned shortly thereafter to find out what Respondent had meant by his last comment. At that point, Respondent indicated he had forgotten, and gave O.B. a $10.00 bill. Before leaving school that day, Respondent also told O.B. that he had behaved badly with her, claiming he had behaved like a "jackass". He said he had not meant to do it and that it would not happen again. He promised that if O.B. would not tell anyone about what he had done, he would give her money, clothes or whatever she wanted. O.B. went home with H.H. right after school, not getting to her own home until about 7:30 PM. When she got there she told her mother what had happened between Respondent and her that day. Mrs. B. immediately called the Polk County Sheriff's Department and advised them of the incident. The Sheriff's Department notified the Lake Alfred Police Department. At approximately 8:15 PM on April 22, 1992, Detective Bradley of the Lake Alfred Police Department came to O.B.'s home in response to the notification and spoke with O.B. Later that same evening, he advised Respondent of the charges against him. O.B. did not go to school on April 23, 1992 because she was too upset and almost didn't go on April 24, 1992. However, Detective Bradley asked that O.B., T.B. and H.H. come to his office to make statements concerning the incident, which they did. Thereafter, he notified the Polk County School Board of the allegations and charges against Respondent as well as the State Attorney's office from whom he sought and received permission to set up a monitored phone conversation between T.B. and the Respondent. On April 24, 1992, T.B. telephoned Respondent at school from the Lake Alfred Police Department and talked with him about the incident. In the telephone conversation, which was monitored and tape recorded by Detective Bradley, T.B. advised Respondent that H.H. was very upset over what O.B. had told her regarding the incident between him and O.B. and wondered if he would be willing to give her something to keep quiet about it. Respondent wanted to talk with H.H. about it and solicited from T.B. a telephone number at which he could call H.H. and talk with her. After taking statements from the three girls and after taping the telephone conversation T.B. had with Respondent, Bradley went to Lake Alfred Career Development Center where he talked with Mr. Williams, the principal, who called Respondent to the office. Upon being introduced to Respondent, Bradley immediately read and advised him of his rights against self incrimination. Respondent elected to remain silent at that time and seek counsel prior to being interviewed. Bradley asked no further questions and advised Respondent of the allegations and charges against him. At that time, in the presence of Detective Bradley, Respondent informed Principal Williams that he wanted to keep the matter private and would resign immediately. Respondent was suspended with pay effective April 24, 1995, and on May 5, 1992, submitted his formal letter of resignation and retirement from employment with the Polk County School System, to be effective June 11, 1992. Several days after Respondent submitted his letter, on May 13, 1992, he was informed that his suspension would be continued without pay pending the outcome of the criminal investigation. However, when Respondent's employment contract came up for renewal after the expiration of the 1991-1992 school year, it was not renewed. By letter dated June 12, 1992, the Superintendent of Schools for Polk County advised Respondent he would be permitted to resign and retire and would be paid for any accrued leave. On or about July 30, 1992, Respondent was arrested on a charge of Lewd and Lascivious Acts on a Child Under 16 Years of Age and of Tampering with a Victim or Witness relating to the allegations herein. Thereafter, on June 24, 1993, Respondent pled nolo contendere to the charge of Lewd and Lascivious Acts in Circuit Court. Adjudication of guilt was withheld and Respondent was placed on 4 years probation with conditions of probation attached. Included within these conditions was that Respondent not have unsupervised contact with any child under the age of 18. The charge of Tampering with a Victim or a Witness was dismissed. It is improper conduct for a teacher to give money or gifts to a student of that teacher within the Polk County School District. It is also inappropriate activity and misconduct for a teacher to touch a student in the manner in which Respondent touched O.B.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Edward McDonald's, teaching certificate in Florida be permanently revoked. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of December, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of December, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward McDonald 7203 North 40th Street Tampa, Florida 33604-4501 Ronald G. Stowers, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Department of Education Suite 1701, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Karen Barr Wilde Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 W. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Kathleen M. Richards Administrator Professional Practices Services 152 Florida Education Center 325 W. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Barbara J. Staros General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Lake Powell Improvement Corporation is a consortium of interested owners of land comprising the majority of the Lake Powell shoreline. Camp Helen Company, one of its members, owns lake property which was formerly operated as a recreational facility for associates of Avondale Mills. Camp Helen Company now holds the property for the possibility of future development. George Jeter is one of approximately 76 persons who sent a form letter to the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) in opposition to the designation of Lake Powell/Phillips Inlet as an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW). The rule-making proceeding to designate Lake Powell/Phillips Inlet an OFW was initiated with a petition filed on June 11, 1987, by the St. Andrews Bay Resource Management Association, a private citizens' organization formed in 1986 to help protect wildlife and resources in the St. Andrews Bay area. A public workshop was conducted by DER on September 6, 1990, in Panama City, Florida. Approximately 70 persons attended the workshop, including Bay County residents, Walton County residents, Lake Powell area property owners and representatives from various organizations. Craig Crockard, Vice President of Lake Powell Improvement Corporation, opposed the designation based on alleged degradation of property values and tax base, negative impact on growth and increase in road maintenance costs. Agency staff encouraged workshop participants and members of the public to submit information, including economic information, that would aid in the decision-making process. Only general and speculative information was received, with the exception of a response from the Department of Transportation that costs of future construction and expansion of the Phillips Inlet bridge, part of four-laning Highway 98, would be increased by $1.5 million as a result of the OFW regulations. DER sent a letter to Craig Crockard, received on April 2, 1991, requesting specifics as to the property owners' development plans and estimated economic impacts by April 5th. Crockard responded that the deadline was too short and that it was obvious that the decision had already been made. At no time, up to and including the hearing before the Environmental Regulation Commission (ERC), did Petitioners or other opponents provide information as to specific economic impacts of the proposed designation. The proposed rule would add the following area to rule 17- 302.700(9)(i), F.A.C. specifying special waters under the OFW designation: Special Waters * * * Lake Powell, Phillips Inlet, and all tributaries to Lake Powell as bounded by the following described line: Begin at the Northwest corner of Section 26, Township 2 South, Range 18 West; thence East to the Northwest corner of Section 29, Township 2 South, Range 17 West; thence South to the Northwest corner of the SW 1/4 of Section 29, Township 2 South, Range 17 West; thence East to the West line of Section 27, Township 2 South, Range 17 West, thence South to the mean high water line of the Gulf of Mexico; thence meander Northwest along the mean high water line to the West line of Section 35, Township 2 South, Range 18 West; thence North to the point of beginning ( - - 91). * * * In making its determination to recommend OFW designation for Lake Powell to the ERC, the Department compared Lake Powell to other water bodies. Lake Powell was found to be exceptionally ecologically and recreationally significant in terms of size, water quality and recreational usage. The Department makes its determination as to whether the proposed water body is exceptional by making direct comparisons to features of other water bodies, and by relying on the professional judgements of others familiar with the particular class of water bodies. Lake Powell has been compared by professionals familiar with other water bodies in the area and in their opinion it has exceptional value as an ecosystem. The Department relied on professional judgement of this type as well as its own findings when making the determination that Lake Powell was exceptional. Lake Powell is located in Bay and Walton Counties in Northwest Florida adjacent to the Gulf of Mexico. Its total surface area of 737 acres makes it the largest by far of any of a series of similar lakes in the area. Seven small streams provide fresh water to the lake; periodically Phillips Inlet, connecting the lake to the Gulf of Mexico, opens or closes. When the inlet is open, the lake becomes estuarine in nature. Most of the shoreline of Lake Powell is still undeveloped and the lake is significant in that it has experienced only minimal adverse impact from human activity. There are no permitted point source discharges to Lake Powell. It is basin-shaped, with a shallow shell, steep sandy slopes, and a flat bottom ranging from approximately 10 to 20 feet deep. Silty, high organic sediments in the water are amenable to degradation and are uniquely sensitive to pollution. Restricted flushing and the opportunity for development growth in the area add to that sensitivity. Lake Powell is a Class III waterbody. Water quality in the lake is good, and meets Class III standards; some parameters are as good as Class II standards. The low dissolved oxygen level in the lake is a result of natural conditions, is not a result of pollution, and is therefore not a violation of the Class III standard for dissolved oxygen. Lake Powell is one of the lakes in the state that is part of the water quality sampling effort known as Lake Watch. A benefit of OFW designation to this effort will be that Lake Powell, absent degradation, can serve as a control lake to compare other Lake Watch lakes throughout the State. At least 170 species of birds, (trust resources of the US Fish and Wildlife Service), have been observed and are dependent on Lake Powell. Unusual species include the piping plover (federally and state designated threatened), snowy plover (state designated threatened), least tern (state designated threatened), and bald eagle (federally designated endangered and state designated threatened). These species have a direct dependence on Lake Powell for habitat, feeding, or nesting areas. They are dependent on non-trust species such as small fishes which could be impacted by chemicals introduced to the lake. Edwin James Kepner, a biologist for the National Marine Fisheries Service, has identified three new species of nematodes which so far have been uniquely found in Lake Powell. Although nematode species are among the most abundant on earth (97,000 individuals may be found in a single rotting apple), they are a highly significant part of an ecological system and must be understood and studied for any understanding of marine communities. The lake supports a diversity of animals. At least 87 species of macrobenthic invertebrates and 67 species of fin fish inhabit the lake, a diversity based on the system's intermittent connection to the Gulf and the lake's relatively pristine condition compared to other lakes. One would expect to find even more diversity, 3 to 4 times more species, if better and more accurate sampling methods were employed. Lake Powell presents a unique nursery area, since most large predator fishes do not have access to it. The lake presently supports a variety of recreational activities, including canoeing, sailing, windsurfing, water-skiing, fishing, crabbing and picnicking. This recreational use has increased during the last five years. Lake Powell is ranked 36th out of 361 lakes statewide in a 1982 study of recreational usage. In terms of potential to the public for recreational usage, Lake Powell has three public access points to the lake, and a possible fourth. Public access is gained by a Bay County public park and by way of Gulf View Drive, which is owned by Bay County and used to launch boats. There is a public dock in Walton County which is also used extensively. The fourth access is currently the subject of an inquiry by the Bay County Audubon Society. The unusual quality of recreational experience lies in the pristine nature of the lake and the fact that it is located not far from the Miracle Strip in Panama City Beach. The ERC Commissioners, who were taken on a tour of the lake, were able to contrast the two areas and found that Lake Powell had unusual recreational value. Lake Powell provides an exceptional educational opportunity, and with its many different types of habitat it is a compact, manageable educational laboratory. As compared to the St. Andrews Bay System it would be much easier to collect samples, obtain information on biotic communities and generally conduct research on the effectiveness of regulatory programs, due to the manageable size of the lake. The proposed amendment to Rule 17-302.700(9)(i), F.A.C., to designate Lake Powell as an OFW would potentially affect future Department permit applicants by requiring they provide the Department with reasonable assurances that the proposed project is clearly in the public interest and that the proposed project would not lower existing ambient water quality standards (Rule 17-4.242, F.A.C.); by requiring that direct stormwater discharges into the lake include an additional 50% treatment level (Rule 17-25.025(9), F.A.C.); and by reducing the exemption for private residential docks from 1000 square feet to 500 square feet (Rule 17-4.04(9)(c), F.A.C.). These requirements will result in increased costs to permit applicants, although the costs cannot be calculated at this time since there are no such projects firmly proposed to the Department. The primary beneficial effect of the proposed rule would be the protection of future water quality based on existing ambient water quality standards at time of OFW designation. Pursuant to Section 120.54(2), F.S., an Economic Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared by the Department. Section 120.54(2)(b), F.S., requires the statement to include: * * * An estimate of the cost to the agency of the implementation of the proposed action, including the estimated amount of paperwork; An estimate of the cost or the economic benefit to all persons directly affected by the proposed action; An estimate of the impact of the proposed action on competition and the open market for employment, if applicable; A detailed statement of the data and method used in making each of the above estimates; and An analysis of the impact on small business as defined in the Florida Small and Minority Business Assistance Act of 1985. Additionally, Rule 17-302.700(4)(e) provides: An economic impact analysis consistent with Chapter 120, shall be prepared which provides a general analysis of the impact on growth and development including such factors as impacts on planned or potential industrial, agricultural, or other development or expansion. It is undisputed that the EIS properly addressed the costs of implementation to the Department. The EIS identified the kind of Department permit applicant that would potentially be affected by the rule amendment, and what kinds of developmental impacts could be expected by operation of other Department rules. The EIS did not identify any specific costs that would be attributable to the rule, as the Department was unaware of any specific development plans for the lake that would be subject to the Department rules. Existing development activities are grandfathered and would not be affected by the more stringent requirements. The Department stated in its EIS that the overall costs imposed on future development due to the proposed OFW designation would depend on both the nature of the development and its impact on the ambient water quality of the lake. Since the type and nature of future development in the area is uncertain, an estimate of the potential aggregate costs associated with the proposed OFW designation could not be made at the time the EIS was prepared. The EIS properly addressed the costs of the proposed rule to the parties, based upon the facts as known to the Department. The benefits to the public of the rule were stated to be largely environmental, as a result of protection of future ambient water quality standards in the lake. The EIS cited an economic benefit to land owners around the lake in the form of enhanced property values due to water quality protections of the OFW designation, water quality being an important variable in determining property values of waterfront property. That property values would be enhanced is based on the DER economist's study of another state's experience and experience with OFW designation in other Florida counties. The EIS properly addresses the benefits of the rule. The EIS states that there will be no significant effect on competition as a result of the proposed OFW designation; Petitioners have not presented any evidence to the contrary. The EIS adequately addresses the rule's effect on competition. The EIS states that the proposed OFW designation is not expected to create any significant adverse disproportionate impacts on small businesses, as required by Section 120.54(2)(b)5., F.S. As Petitioners have not introduced any evidence to the contrary, the EIS adequately addresses this issue. The EIS states that appropriate economic analysis techniques were employed preparing the EIS. Petitioners participated in the rulemaking process; they attended the Panama City workshop when economic information was solicited; they submitted written comments, none of which provided specific economic information; and they participated in the ERC hearing but offered no evidence to the Commission regarding economic impacts of the rule. The type of information they suggest that the Department should consider was not submitted by them, or anyone else, during the rulemaking process or this hearing. The evidence shows that the Department considered all comments submitted throughout the rulemaking process in making the recommendation of OFW designation to the ERC. The EIS properly explains the data and methodology used in its preparation, and this data and methodology was adequate to estimate the economic impacts of the rule. In January 1991, the Bay County Board of County Commissioners amended the County's comprehensive plan to provide special protection for Lake Powell. These provisions include more stringent requirements for stormwater retention and detention, an objective to maintain Lake Powell's water quality at its present level, restriction on use of household septic tanks, designation of a low-density residential zone, and prohibition of point source discharges which would lower existing water quality. (Joint Exhibit #1, Appendix D) Both parties have invoked the plan amendments for their own purpose. Petitioners argue that the plan amendments provide the same or greater protection than the proposed OFW designation and that the designation is not needed. This argument ignores the fact that at least 10% of the lake lies within Walton County, outside Bay County's jurisdiction. DER did not require Bay County to amend its plan and could not require it to maintain the new Lake Powell protections indefinitely. The OFW designation does not detract from or conflict with the local government's commendable initiative, but rather augments it. Respondent, DER, addresses the plan in its modified EIS where it discusses the contention by the Department of Transportation (DOT) that OFW designation will add $1.5 million in costs to widen a road at the Phillips Inlet bridge. DER's economist concedes that designation will result in additional costs and has discussed that in the EIS. Because he has not received back-up data from DOT he is unable to confirm that the cost will be as much as DOT asserts. He also attributes the increase to the new stormwater requirements of the Bay County comprehensive plan, and concludes the additional costs due to OFW designation might be zero. (Joint Exhibit #2, p. 7) Even if misplaced, the attribution of costs does not invalidate the EIS or the proposed designation. The EIS generally describes potential costs and provides a basis to weigh the environmental, social and economic costs against the environmental, social and economic benefits. In summary, the facts above support the ERC's finding that the waters selected for designation are of exceptional recreational or ecological significance and the benefits of designation outweigh its costs.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is licensed to construct water wells. He constructed such a well on the property of Mr. Robert Phorte, Highway 90 West, Marianna, Florida, on June 18, 1976. The water well casing of that well was placed in a bore hole with a diameter in excess of the outside diameter of the water well casing, thus leaving an open annular space. That annular space was not filled with grout from bottom to top as required by Rule 16G-3.21(2)(d) and 17- 21.10(2)(d), F.A.C. The subject well obtains its water from a rock layer or other consolidated geologic formation in Jackson County, Florida. At the time Respondent constructed the subject well Mr. T. E. Langford, an inspector for the Northwest Florida Water Management District, was on the job site and observed the construction of the well. Mr. Langford was aware that the annular space around the subject well was not filled with grout, but for a small cap at the top of the well. However, the unrebutted testimony shows that Mr. Langford told Respondent that the well "was perfect and needed no grout."
Recommendation Respondent did not dispute that he failed to construct the subject well in accordance with the grouting requirements set forth above. However, it is noted that an inspector and representative of the Northwest Florida Water Management District was present on the job site throughout the construction of the well and, though aware that the well had not been grouted as required, made no attempt to suspend the construction of the well and, in fact, told Respondent that the well did not need grout. Therefore, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Lester M. Basford, be instructed that hereinafter all wells constructed by him shall conform without exception to the rules for such construction including the grouting of wells. However, because of the presence on the job site at the time of construction and apparent acquiescence by the agent of the Northwest Florida Water Management District and in light of the lack of showing that failure to grout this particular well will directly lead to contamination of the aquifer or some other serious consequence, it is RECOMMENDED that no further action be taken against the Respondent on this violation. ENTERED this 31st day of March, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHRIS H. BENTLEY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 1977. COPIES FURNISHED: J. W. Holder, Esquire Barrett, Boyd and Holder Post Office Box 1501 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Lester Basford Route 4 Graceville, Florida 32440
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP or Department) should exempt Petitioner's alleged maintenance-dredging from wetland resource permitting under Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 312.050(1)(e).1
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has applied for a maintenance-dredging exemption from wetland resource permitting for two channels in Goose Bayou on the two ends of a U-shaped upland cut canal adjacent to Goose Bayou. Rule 62-312 provides in pertinent part: No permit shall be required under this chapter for dredging or filling . . . for the projects listed below. * * * (e) The performance of maintenance dredging of existing manmade canals, channels, and intake and discharge structures, where the spoil material is to be removed and deposited on a self-contained, upland spoil site which will prevent the escape of the spoil material and return water from the spoil site into surface waters of the state, provided no more dredging is performed than is necessary to restore the canal, channels, and intake and discharge structures to original design specifications, and provided that control devices are used at the dredge site to prevent turbidity and toxic or deleterious substances from discharging into adjacent waters during maintenance dredging. This exemption shall apply to all canals constructed before April 3, 1970, and to those canals constructed on or after April 3, 1970, pursuant to all necessary state permits. This exemption shall not apply to the removal of a natural or manmade barrier separating a canal or canal system from adjacent waters of the state. Where no previous permit has been issued by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund or the United States Army Corps of Engineers for construction or maintenance dredging of the existing manmade canal or intake or discharge structure, such maintenance dredging shall be limited to a depth of no more than 5 feet below mean low water. There was no evidence of any dredging or application for dredging in the vicinity of the proposed alleged "maintenance- dredging" prior to 1971. There was evidence and a stipulation that Heritage Homes of Fort Walton, Inc. (Heritage Homes), applied to the State of Florida in or around 1971 to dredge two navigation channels in Goose Bayou for a project known as Venetian Villas and to remove two plugs separating a land-locked U-shaped canal from Goose Bayou. The navigation channels were to be 50 feet wide by five feet deep. The southern channel was to be 640 feet long, while the northern channel was to be 450 feet long. This proposal did not receive any governmental authorization. There was evidence and the parties stipulated that in 1973, based on the proposed project modifications, the State of Florida Department of Pollution Control (DPC), a predecessor of DEP, issued water quality certification, and the State of Florida Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (BOT) issued a permit for the project, as modified. It appears that the issuance of the water qualify certification and BOT permit was part of some kind of settlement reached between Heritage Homes and the State of Florida for dredge-and-fill violations. It appears that the settlement also involved the conveyance of ten acres of land to the State of Florida in lieu of payment for the spoil used in filling the marsh lands between Goose Bayou and the U-shaped canal. There was evidence and the parties stipulated that, at some point in time, the DPC certification and a BOT permit were transferred from Heritage Homes to West Florida Construction Company (West Florida). There was evidence and the parties stipulated that, as of July 13, 1973, neither Heritage Homes nor West Florida had applied to the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) for a permit. There was evidence and the parties stipulated that, over time and after receiving comments from various governmental agencies, West Florida's proposed project changed to involve a yacht basin/marina, a proposed southern channel, elimination of the proposal for a northern channel, and plugging the U-shaped canal to keep it separate from Goose Bayou. The location of the single, southern channel under this proposal was different from the proposed location of the southern channel under the Heritage Homes proposal, which was to start at the southernmost arm of the U-shaped canal. Instead, under West Florida's proposal, the single, southern channel was to be located directly north of the southernmost arm of the U-shaped canal. There was evidence and the parties stipulated that, by August 21, 1974, West Florida applied to the Corps for a permit to dredge the single, southern channel (50 feet wide, 565 feet long, and four feet deep), to keep the northern canal plugged, and to construct a yacht basin/marina. There was evidence and the parties stipulated that, the United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommended several changes to the project before they could recommend that the Corps issue a permit for the 1974 application; however, it does not appear that the recommended changes were ever made or that the Corps ever took any action on the 1974 application or issued any permit for the proposed project. At some point in time after 1974, the two plugs were removed, which connected the U-shaped canal to Goose Bayou. There is now a wide, shallow channel from the waterward ends of the U-shaped canal into Goose Bayou. The evidence did not prove that these channels, which Petitioner now seeks to maintenance- dredge, were ever dredged by man. Their width and shallow depth are more consistent with natural scouring from surface water runoff leaving the canal system at low and extreme low tides than with dredging. There was no evidence of soil borings, which could have verified whether the channels had been dredged by man. Even if originally dredged, there was no evidence that a dredged channel had been maintained over the years. Mr. Stoutamire testified that DEP does not consider maintenance- dredging to include the restoration or rebuilding of a channel that has not been maintained and no longer exists. This interpretation of the maintenance-dredging exemption is reasonable. Mr. Stoutamire also testified that DEP interprets the last sentence of Rule 62-312.050(1)(e), limiting maintenance- dredging to no more than five feet below mean low water where no previous permit has been issued, to refer to canals constructed before April 3, 1970, since maintenance-dredging of canals constructed after that date would not be exempt if not previously permitted. This interpretation is reasonable.2 Petitioner's application did not state that control devices would be used to prevent turbidity and toxic or deleterious substances from discharging into adjacent waters during dredging.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order denying Petitioner a maintenance-dredging exemption under Rule 62- 312.050(1)(e). DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of September, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of September, 2009.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondents, Kelly Endres and Ifrain Lima (Endres/Lima), are entitled to an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) that would allow use of 0.535 acres of previously impacted wetlands for the construction of a single-family residence and associated structures, a 30' x 30' private dock with a 4' access walkway, and a 12' wide boat ramp (Project) at 160 Long Acres Lane, Oviedo, Florida (Property).
Findings Of Fact The following Findings of Fact are based on the stipulations of the parties and the evidence adduced at the final hearing. The Parties The Department is the administrative agency of the state statutorily charged with, among other things, protecting Florida's air and water resources. The Department administers and enforces certain provisions of chapter 373, part IV, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated, thereunder, in the Florida Administrative Code. Under that authority, the Department determines whether to issue or deny applications for ERPs. Respondents Endres/Lima own the Property and are the applicants for the ERP at issue in this consolidated proceeding. Petitioner Meier is a neighboring property owner to the south of the Property. Petitioner Meier's property includes a single-family residence with accessory structures and is located on Long Lake. Petitioner Meier is concerned that the NOI provides inadequate environmental protections and that there will be flooding on adjacent properties from the Project. Petitioner Hacker is the neighboring property owner adjacent to the south of the Property. Petitioner Hacker's property includes a single-family residence with accessory structures and is located on Long Lake. He is concerned with the completeness of the application for the Project, the calculation of wetland impacts, that reasonable assurances were provided, and that the Department's NOI ignores willful negligence and allows disparate treatment of Respondents Endres/Lima. Petitioner Kochmann is a property owner with a single-family residence and accessory structures located on Long Lake. She is concerned that the NOI is based on a misleading application and provides no evidence that the Respondents Endres/Lima made reasonable efforts to eliminate and reduce impacts detrimental to the environment. History of the Project and Application On April 12, 2018, Respondents Endres/Lima applied for an ERP for proposed wetland impacts associated with a planned single-family home on the Property. This was the first ERP application for the Property. The Department sent a Request for Additional Information (RAI) on April 24, 2018, and a second RAI on November 2, 2018. Respondents Endres/Lima provided a Mitigation Service Area Rule Analysis for "As If In-Basin" for the Lake X Mitigation Bank for the St. Johns River Water Management District Basins to the Department via email on May 10, 2018. Respondents Endres/Lima submitted revised plans to the Department on September 19, and October 30, 2018. On January 7, 2019, the Department denied the ERP application. The Department and Respondents Endres/Lima, on July 18, 2019, entered into a Consent Order (CO). The Department found, and Respondents Endres/Lima admitted, that approximately 0.80 acres of jurisdictional wetlands were dredged and filled without a valid ERP from the Department; and was done with improperly installed erosion and sedimentation controls. On August 22, 2019, Respondents Endres/Lima submitted a second ERP application. The Department sent an RAI on September 20, 2019, to which Respondents Endres/Lima responded on December 19, 2019. In addition, Respondents Endres/Lima reserved 0.60 of forested Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM) wetland credits from the Lake X Mitigation Bank and provided the Department with an updated site plan and Lake X Mitigation Bank credit reservation letter. The Department issued an NOI on February 7, 2020, which was timely published in the Sanford Herald on February 9, 2020. Respondents Endres/Lima provided timely proof of publication to the Department on February 13, 2020. Consent Order and Compliance A warning letter was issued to Respondents Endres/Lima on January 30, 2019, for the dredging and filling of approximately 0.80 acres of forested wetlands and improper installation of erosion and sedimentation control. The CO, executed on July 18, 2019, required Respondents Endres/Lima to cease any dredging, filling, or construction activities on the Property, submit an application for an Individual ERP within 30 days, and pay $5,599.00 in penalties and the Department's costs and expenses. After the issuance of an ERP, Respondents Endres/Lima were also required to implement the restoration actions outlined in the CO. Respondents’ Endres/Lima’s application, dated August 19, 2020, was submitted to the Department on August 22, 2020. Respondents Endres/Lima paid the CO's penalties and costs, and had multiple meetings with the Department to complete the requirements of the CO. Respondents Endres/Lima’s expert, Mr. Exner, testified that he began working on a restoration plan for the Property, which will be provided to the Department once an ERP is issued. Permitting Criteria The Department reviewed the complete application and determined that it satisfied the conditions for issuance under Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-330.301, and the applicable sections of the ERP Applicant's Handbook Volume I (AH Vol. I). The Department also considered the seven criteria in rule 62-330.302 and section 373.414(1)(a), and determined that implementing the Project would not be contrary to the public interest. Water Quantity, Flooding, Surface Water Storage and Conveyance Respondents’ Endres/Lima's civil engineering expert, Mr. Herbert, testified that according to the drainage design, the Property would have swales on either side of the proposed residence to slope water away from the residence. There would also be a conveyance swale on the north property boundary to convey water from the street area and front yard toward the restoration and wetland areas with ultimate discharge to Long Lake. He stated that the elevation of the road at the front of the Property would be at 47.4 feet, and the elevation at the terminus of the swale would be at 45 feet. This would allow a 2.4-foot vertical fall for the swales to convey water to the lake. The design would preserve pre-development surface water flow over the Property to Long Lake, which is the lowest elevation in the area, and will ensure that storm water does not flood adjacent properties. Mr. Herbert also testified that the Project design would maintain pre-development water storage capacity. The imported fill that is currently on the Property in the flood plain would be removed and reshaped so that the lake elevation would be maintained and water can flow correctly. Elimination or Reduction of Impacts and Mitigation Respondents Endres/Lima provided the Department with design modifications to reduce impacts associated with the Project. These included a 15-foot restoration buffer along the lake front's northern shoreline, an elevated access walkway five feet above the wetland restoration area to the proposed dock, limiting the width of the access walk to four feet, and limiting the boat ramp width to a single-lane. In June 2015, an informal wetlands determination was conducted for the Property. The informal determination concluded that the entirety of the Property were wetlands. However, this was an informal determination and was not binding. In October 2016, before the first permit application was submitted, Mr. Exner did a wetlands delineation flagging prior to the Property being cleared or disturbed. Mr. Exner testified that, in his opinion, the Property was not all wetlands because large pines near the road had no high water marks, adventitious growth around the bases, or evidence of pine borer beetles along with other indicators of upland habitat. This wetland delineation was part of the permit submittal, was shown on the plans, was accepted by the Department, and was used for the preparation of the UMAM scoring. Mr. Exner's wetland delineation line was used by the Department to help determine and map the wetland impacts identified in the CO. The direct impact area was assessed at 0.54 acres with a secondary impact area of 0.02 acres for a total impact of 0.56 acres, and a functional loss score of 0.364. Respondents Endres/Lima reserved 0.6 forested UMAM mitigation credits, almost double the amount of functional loss under the UMAM assessment, agreed to purchase 0.46 credits. The excess mitigation bank credits implement part of a plan that provides regional ecological value and greater long-term ecological value than the area of wetland adversely affected. Secondary and Cumulative Impacts The Project's UMAM analysis assessed 0.02 acres, or 870 square feet, of secondary impacts. These impacts would be fully offset by the mitigation proposed for the Project. Petitioners' expert, Mr. Mahnken, noted three areas where he thought the application was incomplete. The first was that the site plan did not call out the location of the secondary impacts. However, Part III: Plans of Section B of the application, does not require that the site plan show the location of the secondary impacts. The application requirements for "plans" requires only the boundaries and size of the wetlands on the Property and provide the acreages of the upland areas, wetland impact areas, and the remaining untouched area. Second, Mr. Mahnken questioned the calculation performed to determine the secondary impact acreage. However, Mr. Mahnken read the information incorrectly and stated that the secondary impact area was 0.002 acres, or 87 square feet, when the UMAM score sheet clearly showed that the secondary impact area is 0.02 acres, or 870 square feet. In addition, the Department's witness, Ms. Warr, testified that even if the Department were to use Mr. Mahnken's analysis, the result would have been the same, i.e., the requirement to purchase 0.46 mitigation credits. Thus, Petitioners failed to support their claim that the Project would have adverse secondary impacts. Third, Mr. Mahnken asserted that cumulative impacts were not adequately addressed. He testified that the assessment for the Property using spill over benefits, in his opinion, was not enough to fully offset the impacts of the Project. Mr. Mahnken acknowledged, however, that his opinion was open to debate, and that he had not conducted any rigorous hydrologic evaluation in reaching his opinion. Respondents Endres/Lima had submitted a report prepared by Breedlove, Dennis & Associates (BDA Report) with their application in order to demonstrate compliance with section 10.2.8, ERP AH Vol. I, regarding cumulative impacts. The BDA Report utilized peer-reviewed hydrologic data that was reviewed and approved by the South Florida Water Management District, and was accepted by the Department pursuant to section 373.4136(6)(c). This was consistent with the Property's location within the mitigation service area for the Lake X Mitigation Bank. The Project is located within the Econlockhatchee River drainage basin, which is a nested basin within the larger St. Johns River [Canaveral Marshes to Wekiva] drainage basin. The Lake X Mitigation Bank is located outside of the Econlockhatchee River drainage basin, but the Project is located within the Lake X Mitigation Bank service area. The BDA report determined that: In summary, the Lake X Mitigation Bank is a regionally significant mitigation bank site that has direct hydrological and ecological connections to the SJRWMD basins, to include the cumulative impacts basin in which the subject property is located (i.e., SJRWMD Basin 19). The size, biodiversity, and proximity of the mitigation bank site to the SJRWMD basins, and the regionally significant hydrological connection between the mitigation bank site and the contiguous SJRWMD mitigation basins, supports the use of this mitigation bank site “as if in basin” mitigation for the Lima/Endres Wetland Fill Project. Additionally, the evaluation of factors, to include connectivity of waters, hydrology, habitat range of affected species, and water quality, demonstrates the spillover benefits that the Lake X Mitigation Bank has on the St. Johns River (Canaveral Marshes to Wekiva) mitigation basin, which includes the Econlockhatchee River Nested basin, and demonstrated that the proposed mitigation will fully offset the impacts proposed as part of the Lima/Endres Wetland Fill Project “as if in-basin” mitigation. The Lake X Mitigation Bank will protect and maintain the headwaters of two regionally significant drainage basins [i.e., the Northern Everglades Kissimmee River Watershed and the Upper St. Johns River Watershed (to include the nested Econlockhatchee River basin)], and will provide resource protection to both river systems (SFWMD Technical Staff Report, November 29, 2016). Furthermore, the permanent protection and management of the Lake X Mitigation Bank will provide spillover benefits to the SJRWMD basins located within the permitted MSA. Mr. Mahnken stated that his review of the Project did not include a hydrologic study and only looked at basic flow patterns for Long Lake. By contrast, the BDA Report included an extensive hydrologic study, looked at all required factors in section 10.2.8(b), ERP AH, Vol. I, and determined that the Project would be fully offset with the proposed mitigation. Thus, Respondents Endres/Lima provided reasonable assurance that the Project will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts. Water Quality Rule 62-330.302(1)(e) requires that Respondents Endres/Lima provide reasonable assurance that the Project will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that the state water quality standards will be violated. The conditions of the ERP would require the use of best management practices including a floating turbidity curtain/barrier, soil stabilization with grass seed or sod, and a silt fence. Respondent Endres/Lima's experts, Mr. Herbert and Mr. Exner, testified that there is an existing turbidity barrier in the lake around the property and a silt fence around the east half of the Property. While these items are not required by the Department until construction of the Project, part of the silt fence and the turbidity barrier are already installed on the Property and will be required to be repaired and properly maintained in accordance with the conditions of the ERP and Site Plan SP-2. Mr. Herbert testified that the Property will be graded in a manner that will result in a gentle sloping of the lake bank in the littoral zone, which would allow revegetation of the lake bank. Outside of the restoration area and the undisturbed wetlands, the backyard would be covered with grass to prevent migration of sand and soil discharging into the lake. Mr. Exner testified that the grass swales proposed for the Project would provide a considerable amount of nutrient uptake and filtration of surface water on the Property. Also, in the restoration area next to the lake, the restoration plan includes a dense planting plan with native species that have good nutrient uptake capability. Impacts to Fish and Wildlife Rule 62-330.301(1)(d) requires that Respondents Endres/Lima provide reasonable assurance that the Project will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters. Mr. Exner testified that, in his review of the Property, he did not identify any critical wildlife habitat. He visited the Property multiple times and he did not see any osprey nests, deer tracks, animal scat, gopher tortoises, or sand hill cranes. The Department's Ms. Warr testified that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission database was reviewed, and did not show any listed species in the area. Publication of Notice Petitioners argued that the notice published in the Sanford Herald on February 9, 2020, did not meet the requirements of section 373.413(4). Despite the notice having no effect on their ability to timely challenge the proposed ERP, Petitioners argued that the published notice was insufficient because the notice itself did not provide the name of the applicants or the address of the Project, only a link to the Department's permit file. Unlike the notice required in section 373.413(3), where a person has filed a written request for notification of any pending application affecting a particular designated area, section 373.413(4) does not specify the contents of the published notice. Section 373.413(4) does not require the published notice to include the name and address of the applicant; a brief description of the proposed activity, including any mitigation; the location of the proposed activity, including whether it is located within an Outstanding Florida Water or aquatic preserve; a map identifying the location of the proposed activity subject to the application; a depiction of the proposed activity subject to the application; or a name or number identifying the application and the office where the application can be inspected. In response to the published notice, the Department received approximately ten petitions challenging the NOI, including the petitions timely filed by Petitioners. Therefore, Petitioners were not harmed by any information alleged to have been left out of the published notice. Ultimate Findings Respondents Endres/Lima provided reasonable assurance that the Project will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands; will not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property; and will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. Respondents Endres/Lima provided reasonable assurance that the Project complied with elimination and reduction of impacts, and proposed more than adequate mitigation. Respondents Endres/Lima provided reasonable assurance that the Project will not cause adverse secondary impacts to water resources; and unacceptable cumulative impacts to wetlands and other surface waters within the same drainage basin. Respondents Endres/Lima provided reasonable assurance that the Project will not cause adverse water quality impacts to receiving water bodies. Respondents Endres/Lima provided reasonable assurance that the Project will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife, and listed species by wetlands, or other surface waters. Petitioners failed to prove lack of reasonable assurance by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a Final Order granting Respondents’ Endres/Lima's ERP application. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of December, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRANCINE M. FFOLKES 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 COPIES FURNISHED: Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of December, 2020. Jay Patrick Reynolds, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Neysa Borkert, Esquire Garganese, Weiss, D'Agresta and Salzman 111 North Orange Avenue Post Office Box 398 Orlando, Florida 32802 (eServed) Tracy L. Kochmann 249 Carolyn Drive Oviedo, Florida 32765 (eServed) Shelley M. Meier 208 Long Acres Lane Oviedo, Florida 32765 (eServed) Brian Hacker 170 Long Acres Lane Oviedo, Florida 32765 (eServed) Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Justin G. Wolfe, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Legal Department, Suite 1051-J Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Noah Valenstein, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact At all times material, Edward G. Thompson was licensed as a real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0190143 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. (Respondent's answer, Petitioner's Exhibit #1) His place of business is Red Thompson Realty Inc., State Road 20, Post Office Box 260, Interlachen, Florida 32408. (Respondent's Answer) In July 1983, Phillip and Dorothy White from Jacksonville, Florida, contracted to purchase a lot on Mirror Lake in Putnam County for a vacation residence. Edward Thompson was the broker for the sale. He and his partner, James Meyer, owned the lot and property surrounding it and they were in the process of creating a subdivision on the lake. (tr-73, 93, Petitioner's Exhibit #4) The configuration of the White's lot, lot 3-A, Mirror Lake, is elongated and stretches from a roadway. Tapering down into the lake in a modified pie-slice shape. That is, there is less frontage on the water than along the roadway. (Petitioner's Exhibit #2, Respondent's Exhibits #3 and #4) On the day that Respondent showed the lot to the Whites, he and Mr. White paced the water frontage as close as they could get to the water, given the thick vegetation; the distance was approximately 84 feet. (tr-32, 52-53, 110) Back at the real estate office, Mr. Thompson gave the Whites a drawing of the lot prepared by Terry Short, a draftsman who did the initial design concept and layout of the subdivision. This drawing clearly indicates 84 feet of water frontage. (tr-32-33, 72-73, Petitioner's Exhibit #3) The White's relied on the fact that the property had this much frontage in deciding to purchase the lot. (tr-36,56,65) The sale to the Whites closed on August 1, 1983, at which time the White executed a Contract for Deed. (Petitioner's Exhibit #9, Respondent's Answer) Sometime in January 1985, when the Whites were clearing an area near the water, the adjacent lot owner came over to explain that they were on her property and showed them the survey markers. (tr-33, 48) The Whites hired a surveyor, Earl Wallace, who completed his survey on June 10, 1985. The Wallace survey of the White's lot shows 33 feet of water frontage at the ordinary high water line. (Petitioner's Exhibit #2) Sometime after the closing on the Whites property, the survey of the entire subdivision was completed. (tr-94) Mr. Thompson claims that it was mailed to Mr. White; Mr. White denies that he received it. (tr-33,82,113,119- 120) The survey obtained by the Whites and the subdivision survey are consistent in their depiction of the White's lot. Both indicate approximately 84 feet between the two survey markers that arc closest to the water front; they both show the water line a distance from those markers with less than 84 feet of lake frontage. (Petitioner's Exhibit #2, Respondent's Exhibits #1 and #3, Tr-24) The difference between the water frontage depicted on the drawing given to the Whites and the subsequent surveys is substantially due to a fluctuation in the Mirror Lake water level. When the adjacent lot owner bought her lot in early 1983, the concrete marker was in soggy ground, near the water. Now the water has receded considerably. (tr-104,105) The lakes in that area fluctuate widely in response to rain or drought. (tr-15,16,89,108) Because of its wedge shape, the water frontage of the White's lot increases or decreases with the level of the lake. Edward Thompson is not an engineer or surveyor and relied on Terry Short to draw an accurate depiction of the property. Short held himself out as an engineer and maintained an office in the same building as Thompson Realty. (tr-72,73) Mr. Thompson saw him designing other plats and houses and after paying him for his services, relied on his professionalism. (tr- 116, 117)
