The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether Pioneer Community Development District (“Pioneer”) is entitled to an individual environmental resource permit (“ERP”) from St. Johns River Water Management District (“District”) for construction of a proposed road.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner Tomm Friend is a resident and landowner in Volusia County. He uses the Doris Leeper Spruce Creek Preserve (“Preserve”) for kayaking, canoeing, biking, horseback riding, and observation of flora and fauna. Petitioner Derek LaMontagne is a resident and landowner in Volusia County. He uses the Preserve for hiking, biking, and nature photography. Petitioner/Intervenor Turnbull Bay Community, Inc. (“Turnbull Bay”), is a Florida non-profit corporation. Its mission is to promote a sense of community and preserve the quality of life enjoyed by its residents. It was stipulated that a substantial number of Turnbull Bay’s members use the Preserve for hiking, biking, fishing, canoeing, kayaking, and nature photography. Petitioner/Intervenor Friends of Spruce Creek Preserve, Inc. (“Friends, Inc.”) is a Florida non-profit corporation. Its purpose is to promote the acquisition of lands for the Preserve and promote long-term protection and sound management of the Preserve. It was stipulated that a substantial number of Friends, Inc.’s members use the Preserve for hiking, biking, fishing, canoeing, kayaking, and nature photography. Respondent Pioneer is a Community Development District (“CDD”) created by the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (“FLWAC”) under chapter 190, Florida Statutes. Pioneer is the applicant for the ERP. Respondent District is an independent special district of the State of Florida created, granted powers, and assigned duties under chapter 373, Florida Statutes, including powers and duties related to the regulation of construction activities that affect wetlands. The proposed road is within the boundaries of the District. The Proposed Road Pioneer proposes to construct an extension of Williamson Boulevard from its current terminus near Airport Road southward to Pioneer Trail. The road would be constructed on property owned by Pioneer in the City of Port Orange. Pioneer’s interest in constructing the road is to facilitate the development of the property. Long-term plans by Volusia County have called for the phased extension of Williamson Boulevard to the far south part of the County. The road would serve County objectives of creating an alternate route between the cities of Port Orange and New Smyrna Beach to relieve traffic on I-95, and connecting Williamson Boulevard to a large development in the south called Farmton. Pioneer entered into an agreement with Volusia County to design, engineer, and finance the construction of the road. After completion, the road would be purchased by the County. In the ERP application, the proposed road is described as “2.3 miles of county roadway within a 130-foot right-of-way . . . in order to accommodate four travel lanes with on-road bike lanes, [a] closed drainage system, [a] 22-foot wide curbed and grassed median, and a minimum 5-foot wide sidewalk on each side of the road. The existing two-lane roadway south of Airport Road will be widened to four lanes.” Existing Site Conditions The parcel of land through which the road would be built is approximately 722 acres. It consists primarily of mesic pine forest uplands and cypress swamp wetlands. The parcel is along the west side of I-95, east of Pioneer’s existing Cypresshead residential development. Across I-95 is the Preserve. The parcel is within the Spruce Creek Hydrologic Basin. The wetlands located on the west side of the parcel are in “near-pristine” condition. They have healthy hydric periods and ecological functions. These high value wetlands would be avoided by the proposed road alignment. The wetlands located on the east and south sides of the parcel are of lower quality because of human disturbance, including past silvicultural activities. These wetlands are partially drained and their ecological functions are diminished. All of the wetlands on the parcel currently drain to Spruce Creek, some through culverts under I-95. Petitioners contend a section of the old “Kings Highway” runs across the parcel and is a historical resource that would be adversely affected by construction of the proposed road. However, Pioneer conducted an archaeological and historical survey of the parcel and determined the proposed road project would have no effect on cultural resources either listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. What Petitioners refer to as “Kings Highway” is the “Fort Kingsbury to Smyrna Road.” The survey concluded that this road no longer has historical physical integrity or can “convey its historical significance.” The Division of Historical Resources within the Florida Department of State reviewed the survey findings and concurred. Impacts to Wetlands A little more than 79 acres will be impacted by the proposed road, including 22.2 acres of wetlands. The proposed road would not follow a straight line. An alignment was chosen to minimize impacts to wetlands. Pioneer’s consultants explored approximately a dozen different alignments for the road before selecting the current proposed alignment. The alignment extends east from its current terminus toward I-95, then runs south approximately parallel to I-95, and then turns back to the southwest to connect to Pioneer Trail. More than a third of the proposed road’s path would occur in disturbed land that was cleared, filled, and is regularly mowed under a power line and otherwise hugs I-95. The east edge of the road would lie within 100 to 125 feet of the west margin of the I-95 pavement. There are “stub-outs” planned for the road in anticipation of future streets. They are proposed for locations that avoid the need for additional wetland impacts. Petitioners argue the road should be limited to two lanes because that would reduce wetland impacts. However, Williamson Boulevard north of Airport Road is a four-lane road. The segment of Williamson from Airport Road to its current terminus is two-lane, but was built on a wide right-of-way in anticipation of a future expansion to four-lanes. The County’s plans for Williamson Boulevard call for four lanes all the way to the ultimate southern terminus at Farmton. Petitioners suggested that building an elevated pier- supported road would lessen wetland impacts. However, Petitioners did not present persuasive evidence that such a design was necessary or practicable. They presented no details. Mitigation of Impacts Pioneer proposes to purchase a total of 44.6 wetland mitigation bank credits to mitigate for the 22.2 acres of wetland impacts that would be caused by construction of the road and stormwater management system. The credits would be purchased from two separate wetland mitigation banks: the Farmton North Mitigation Bank and the Port Orange Mitigation Bank. These mitigation banks support wetland resources similar to those that would be impacted by the road. Petitioners contend that, because the mitigation banks are not in the Spruce Creek Hydrologic Basin, Pioneer would not be providing adequate mitigation. The mitigation banks are located within the Halifax River Mitigation Basin, also known as drainage basin #17. This mitigation basin includes the Spruce Creek Hydrologic Basin and Pioneer’s parcel. Pioneer presented persuasive evidence that its mitigation would provide regional ecological value. Petitioners did not dispute that the credits from these two wetland mitigation banks would provide greater long-term ecological value than the wetlands impacted by the proposed road. The Stormwater Management System Under Pioneer’s proposal, the water management functions performed by the wetlands that would be impacted by the road would be replaced by the proposed stormwater system. Runoff from the road would be collected and conveyed via curbs, gutters, inlets, and piping into the stormwater system. Several culverts would be built beneath the road to maintain the existing flow of water and prevent on-site and off- site flooding. The proposed system meets the design standards in the Environmental Resource Permit Applicant’s Handbook (“Applicant’s Handbook”), including regular and special design criteria intended to prevent degradation of water quality, as discussed in the next section. Water Quality Petitioners contend that pollutants from the road’s construction and operation would degrade the water quality of Spruce Creek. Because Spruce Creek is designated by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) as an Outstanding Florida Water (“OFW”), the District’s permitting regulations require applicants to provide reasonable assurance that, in addition to the treatment required for discharges to non-OFWs, the system provides 50 percent additional treatment volume and residence time for runoff. Pioneer’s proposed stormwater management system would provide the 50 percent additional treatment volume and residence time before discharging off-site. The proposed project is also subject to special criteria applicable within the Spruce Creek Hydrologic Basin. Pioneer is required to provide reasonable assurance that the stormwater management system will retain more than three inches of runoff from the directly-connected impervious surface area within the Most Effective Recharge Area. The proposed system includes dry retention facilities designed to meet this requirement. DEP is responsible for the total maximum daily load (“TMDL”) program for the State. The program develops TMDLs for water bodies that have impaired water quality. DEP lists Spruce Creek as suffering impairment by nutrients, specifically for phosphorus and fecal coliform bacteria. When a proposed receiving water body is listed by DEP as nutrient-impaired, the District will typically require the permit applicant to provide calculations of pre- and post- development loading of the listed nutrient(s). The applicant must then also calculate the removal efficiency of its proposed stormwater treatment system to show the project will not contribute to the impairment of the receiving water. Pioneer calculated pre- and post-development phosphorus loading of Spruce Creek and determined that the phosphorus removal capabilities of the proposed stormwater management system would be sufficient to ensure that construction and operation of the road would not contribute to the nutrient impairment in Spruce Creek. Roads do not generate fecal coliform bacteria. Therefore, the proposed road would not contribute to the fecal coliform bacteria impairment in Spruce Creek. Petitioners contend the proposed road would adversely affect Spruce Creek by altering levels of chloride, nitrogen, dissolved oxygen, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. The ERP rules do not require specific analyses of these constituents. Petitioners did not present persuasive evidence that the construction or operation of the road would cause measurable changes in the concentrations of these constituents in Spruce Creek. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law, Petitioners’ contention that the stormwater management system will not adequately protect water quality is an attempt to rebut the presumption that compliance with the District’s design standards provides reasonable assurance that state water quality standards will be met. Petitioners' evidence fell short of rebutting the presumption. Secondary and Cumulative Impacts Petitioners contend that the proposed road is integrally related with the construction of a new I-95 interchange at Pioneer Trail, and the impacts to wetlands caused by the State or Federal Government’s construction of the interchange should have been taken into account as secondary impacts of Pioneer’s road project. There is no current funding agreement in place for the construction of the interchange. The interchange is still in the early stages of review. Volusia County believes that even without an interchange, the extension of Williamson Boulevard to Pioneer Trail is a justified transportation project. Petitioners contend that the proposed alignment of the road, turning back to the southwest away from I-95 before connecting to Pioneer Trail, is proof that the road was designed to accommodate the interchange. However, the alignment at the south end was designed to avoid the raised section of Pioneer Trail which passes over I-95, as well as existing electrical power lines and a utility station. This proposed alignment also avoids impacts to wetlands directly south of Pioneer Trail in the future extension of Williamson Boulevard by the County. CDD Conditions Petitioners contend that “[a] foundational issue that must be answered in order to address the ultimate issue is whether [Pioneer] has met the conditions for its establishment as a Community Development District.” The condition that the Petitioners believe Pioneer has violated comes from the following statement contained in the Recommended Order presented to FLWAC in the proceeding related to Pioneer’s application to establish the CDD: Based on the record evidence, as supplemented and corrected, the Petition appears to meet all statutory requirements, and there appears to be no compelling reason not to grant the Petition, as supplemented and corrected, and establish the proposed Pioneer Community Development District by rule, unless establishment would be at odds with State plans to purchase the 450 acres east of I-95. In re: Petition for Rule Creation – Pioneer Community Development District, Case No. 05-1852 (Fla. DOAH Sept. 21, 2005; FLWAC July 5, 2006). First, this recommendation was not adopted by FLWAC as part of the rule establishing the Pioneer CDD. Second, the parcel of land that was the subject of the recommendation is located east of I-95. Petitioners did not show how Pioneer’s proposed road would impair the State’s ability to acquire that parcel. Petitioners did not call any knowledgeable State employee as a witness to confirm Petitioners’ claim that the proposed road would impede the State’s acquisition efforts.
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 approving the issuance of the ERP to Pioneer, with the conditions set forth in the Technical Staff Report dated November 3, 2014. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of March, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of March, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: Christopher Thomas Byrd, Esquire The Byrd Law Group 3505 Lake Lynda Drive, Suite 200 Orlando, Florida 32817 (eServed) Kealey A. West, Esquire St. Johns River Water Management District 4049 Reid Street Palatka, Florida 32177 (eServed) Wayne E. Flowers, Esquire Lewis, Longman and Walker, P.A. 245 Riverside Avenue, Suite 150 Jacksonville, Florida 32202-4931 (eServed) Hans G. Tanzler, III, Executive Director St. Johns River Water Management District 4049 Reid Street Palatka, Florida 32177 (eServed)
The Issue Whether subject signs violate state and federal laws and should be removed.
Findings Of Fact The following described signs are located in agriculture zones and violate set-back requirements, each being closer than 660 feet from the nearest edge of the road right of way. Copy on each sign advertises the Camp-A-Wyle Lake Resort. U.S. 19 5.29 miles South of Hernando/Citrus City Line U.S. 19 2.61 miles North of State Road 50 U.S. 19 6.04 miles South of Hernando/Citrus City-Line U.S. 19 8.83 miles South of Hernando/Citrus City Line Notice of violation regarding subject signs was properly sent by Complainant and received by Respondent. No application was made or permit for erecting subject signs issued and the signs have no permit tags placed on them.
Findings Of Fact By application dated March 3, 1983, Respondent ITT Community Development Corporation (ITT) requested a permit from Respondent Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) to dredge 815 cubic yards of material from the Intracoastal Waterway In Flagler County, Florida, as part of the construction of a high-level concrete highway bridge over the intracoastal Waterway. The proposed bridge project will extend Palm Coast Parkway from the end of existing pavement to State Road A1A east of the Intracoastal Waterway, and thus complete the Interstate 95 connector link with coastal State Road A1A. At the present tine, there are two drawbridges across the Intracoastal Waterway some ten miles south at Flagler Beach. and approximately 15 miles north at Crescent Beach. Existing high bridges across the Intracoastal Waterway are further north and south of the proposed bridge project. (Testimony of Smith, ITT Exhibits 1, 9- 12) The proposed bridge is a fixed concrete bridge approximately 2,598 feet long and 52 feet, 7 inches in width. The bridge will have a minimum vertical clearance of 65 feet above mean high water and 66.4 feet above mean low water, with a horizontal clearance of 90 feet between fenders. It will involve a cast- in-place concrete deck set upon prestressed concrete columns. The bridge will be supported by sets of concrete beams and placed on top of pilings, which will be driven into the surface to a depth of approximately 80 feet. The center two support piers, which are the subject of the requested permit, will be set upon concrete seals constructed inside of cofferdams, which will be located within the right-of-way of the Intracoastal Waterway. It is the construction of these two piers within the limits of the cofferdam that involves the removal of material which is considered dredging pursuant to DER rules. (Stipulation) The cofferdams will be made of steel and will be driven into place to encompass the pier foundations, with the 815 cubic yards of material excavated from inside the cofferdams being placed on a barge and transported to the adjacent uplands as part of the bridge approach construction. During construction of each support pier, a turbidity curtain will be placed around the cofferdams and the barge. Bridge deck drains will be omitted over the Intracoastal Waterway, and first flush storm water runoff will be retained in a stormwater management system which meets the requirements of Chapter 17-25, Florida Administrative Code. Piles used in the construction of the two fenders shall be made of concrete rather than treated timber. Treated timber may be used for the horizontal wales, the catwalks, and other components of the fender system which do not extend below M.S.L. Reasonable assurance has been provided by ITT that the release of preserving chemicals by the timber components of the fender system will not adversely affect the waters of the Intracoastal Waterway in violation of Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code. Turbidity controls will be used during the the construction of the two piers in the Intracoastal Waterway if the level of turbidity produced exceeds 29 NTUs. (Stipulation, Greene) The bridge will connect two parcels of land under the ownership of ITT, and will facilitate access between Palm Coast Parkway and the State Road A1A. (Stipulation, ITT Exhibits 1, 9-12) After receiving the ITT application, DER solicited comments from adjoining landowners, the Flagler County Board of Commissioners, and the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, but none were received. By letter dated April 13, 1983, the Department of Natural Resources gave its authority for the project under Section 253.77, Florida Statutes. An onsite inspection of the proposed site was made by DER in June 1982 and March 1983, who found that the project site was devoid of literal vegetation and that minimal impact could be expected from the project provided that turbidity is contained during construction. They further determined that the bridge pilings would not eliminate valuable habitat or alter the natural flow of the Intracoastal Waterway, a Class III body of water. Further, in view of the fact that the dredging activities would be isolated by the cofferdams, no turbidity problems re expected. On May 18, 1983, the DER District Manager issued a notice of its intent to issue the requested permit for the reason that reasonable assurance had been provided that the short-term and long-term effects of the proposed activity would not result in violation of water quality criteria under Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Cede, and that the proposed activity would not interfere with the conservation of fish, marine and wildlife or other natural resources to such an extent as to be contrary to the public interests, or create an navigational hazard or impediment, or alter or impede the natural flow of navigable waters so as to be contrary to the public interests. The intent to issue provided that the permit would be subject to the condition that turbidity controls would be used during construction if the level of turbidity produced exceeds 50 JTU above background. (Testimony of Tyler, ITT Exhibits 2-5, 7) By Resolution No. 83-13, dated August 18, 1983, the Flagler County Board of County Commissioners expressed its support of the concept of the proposed project as long as the cost of construction is funded through ITT funds or bridge tolls. (ITT Exhibit 13) In their prehearing and posthearing stipulations, the parties agreed to the following: That reasonable assurance has been provided by ITT that the short-and long-term effects of the bridge construction will not adversely affect the surficial aquifer to such an extent that it will cause harm to its use by Petitioners as a potable water supply. That the construction and operation of the proposed bridge will not interfere with the conservation of the Florida Scrub Jay, the Gopher Tortoise, or the Indigo Snake. Reasonable assurance has been provided by ITT that the release of preserving chemicals by the timber components of the fender system will not adversely affect the waters of the Intracoastal Waterway in violation of Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code. Reasonable assurance has been provided by ITT that the short-term effects of turbidity will not adversely affect the waters of the Intracoastal Waterway in violation of Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code. The proposed bridge will not create a navigational hazard or a serious impediment to navigation, or substantially alter or impede the natural flow of navigable waters so as to be contrary to the public interests, and the proposed bridge will not result in the destruc- tion of oyster beds, clam beds, or marine productivity, including but not limited to destruction of natural marine habitats, grass- flats suitable as nursery or feeding grounds for marine life, and establish[ed] marine soil(s] suitable for producing plant growth of the type useful as nursery or feeding grounds for marine life or natural shoreline processes to such an extent as to be contrary to the public interests. If the permit is issued, it shall be issued with the following conditions: Turbidity controls will be used during construction of the two piers in the Intracoastal Waterway if the level of turbidity produced exceeds 29 NTUs above background. Piles used in the construction of the two fenders shall be made of concrete rather than treated timber. Treated timber may be used for the horizontal wales, the catwalks, and other components of the fender system which do not extend below M.S.L. In view of the above stipulations by the parties, the only remaining disputed issues of material fact are whether the proposed project will interfere with the conservation of the Florida panther and Florida black bear to such an extent as to be contrary to the public interests. The black bear is considered to be a "threatened" species of wildlife by the State of Florida. A wildlife survey of some 2,000 acres of land surrounding and including the project area during the period 1979-82 by an expert in the field of wildlife ecology revealed traces indicating the presence of the black bear on two occasions in a location east of the proposed project area. On those occasions, bear tracks were found east of State Highway A1A in a hammock area north of the bridge corridor in 1979. However, the signs were insufficient to indicate that there was a resident bear population in the area. Signs of the black bear are fairly common on the west side of the Intracoastal Waterway in swampy wilderness areas, such as Long's Creek area and Graham's Swamp. It is possible that, on occasion, a black bear may wander into or cross the bridge area; however, construction and operation of the bridge should have little or no adverse impact on any black bear population which is located either several miles south or north of the proposed bridge area. (Testimony of Brown) The Florida panther is classified as an "endangered" species by the State of Florida. The four-year survey of wildlife undertaken by ITT during the period 1979-82 failed to disclose any traces of the panther in the area surrounding the proposed project site. There are only approximately 20 to 30 Florida panthers in the state, and all are located to the south and west of Lake Okeechobee in the Everglades. The Florida panther requires a vast area of undisturbed habitat. Approximately 400 square miles are necessary for males and some 50 to 100 square miles for a female. They avoid populate areas. Several state personnel saw a tan catlike animal near the entrance to Washington Oaks State Gardens which is located a number of miles north of the proposed bridge site, on May 13, 1983. They reported to the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission that the animal was a Florida panther, and plaster casts of the animal's tracks were submitted to that agency for verification. However, the casts were insufficient upon which to base an identification of the animal as a Florida panther, and the park personnel admittedly lacked sufficient qualifications to determine if the animal was, in fact, a Florida panther. There have been other purported sightings of panthers in the general area during past and recent years by Petitioner Gerald D. Schatz and others who reported such sightings to him for investigation. However, it has never been confirmed that the said sightings were of the Florida panther. Although a suitable habitat for the panther is the Graham Swamp, that area is not large enough to be sustain the Florida panther, and It is unlikely that any of that species are present in the area of the proposed bridge. It is accordingly found that construction of the bridge would have no impact on the Florida panther. (Testimony of Brown, Wood, Ganson, Nichols, Schatz; Petitioner's Exhibits 3-5)
Recommendation That the Department of Environmental Regulation issue the requested permit pursuant to Chapter 253 and 403, Florida Statutes, and Public Law 92-580, subject to standard conditions, and the special conditions set forth in paragraph 6 above of the Conclusions of Law herein. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM 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 30th day of November, 1983.
Findings Of Fact Background State Road 80 is part of the State Highway System. The road runs in an east-west direction from Interstate I-75 at Fort Myers in Lee County to U.S. Highway 27 in Hendry County. The road improvement project currently under construction on State Road 80 involves the expansion of the road from two lanes to six lanes. A raised median separates the eastbound lanes from the westbound lanes. To provide access from either direction to homes and businesses that are adjacent to the road, turn lanes and median openings have been designed into the project. This is not a "limited access facility" as defined by Section 334.03(11), Florida Statutes. Rather, it is a "controlled access facility" as defined by Section 334.03(6), Florida Statutes. Service roads restore access to properties that were accessed from both directions prior to the improvements. Pursuant to routine agency practices, the median openings were set at the "60% phase" of the project design in June or July of 1986. Petitioner Stevens & Layton, Inc. is a Florida corporation in which Petitioners Robert Wilenius and Harvey W. Stevens are officers and directors. In September 1987, Petitioner Stevens and Layton had drawings of a site plan completed for the development of a commercial building complex. The plans for the buildings involved real property located behind an existing business that fronts State Road 80. The existing business had a driveway that accessed State Road 80. The owner of the entire parcel of land (which included the existing business and the site of the proposed building complex) agreed that the existing driveway could be used as an access drive to the complex. The site plans were reviewed by the Lee County Department of Community Development Review. On October 15, 1987, Lee County rejected the proposed site plan. Right and left turn lanes onto the property had to be provided by the developer, Stevens & Layton, Inc., before the project would be considered. On November 10, 1987, a meeting was held that included the project engineer, John Bosserman, Robert Wilenius of Stevens & Layton, Inc., Patrick Hunt of Lee County Department of Community Development Review, and D. M. Heflin of the Florida Department of Transportation. During the meeting, Mr. Heflin confirmed that the proposed expansion of State Road 80 was of high priority in the area and should be let for bid in June 1988. Based upon this representation, the county decided to waive the requirement that the developer provide turn lanes into the property during Phase I of the project. This construction phase involved the completion of an office building and a mini-storage warehouse. During his revisions of the site plan after October 15, 1987, the professional engineer hired for the commercial building project obtained a copy of the Department's plans for the improvement of State Road 80. Evidence submitted at hearing shows that these plans were reviewed by the engineer on or before November 17, 1987. The plans reviewed show where the raised medians and the median openings were to be located in the future on the state road. It is clear on these road improvement plans that the parcel of land on which the commercial building complex was to be located, was not going to receive direct access to the expanded state road from both directions. A median opening was not planned by the Department in the immediate area of the driveway into the complex. In addition, the closest median opening east of the driveway was not designed to accommodate long industrial vehicles that might approach the commercial building complex from the eastbound lanes. This median opening allows access to the Wilson property which is adjacent to the property in question. In addition, a service road from the former Wilson driveway which is now public right-of-way, restores access to the dominant estate in front of Petitioner's property from the eastbound lanes. The Petitioners knew or should have known prior to their purchase of the real property involved in the commercial building complex that a median opening was not being provided by the Department for direct access into their property, which is behind the dominant estate which fronts the state road, both eastbound and westbound lanes of the improved State Road 80. The Petitioners Robert Wilenius and Sarah Wilenius, with Harvey W. Stevens and Mary Lou Stevens, purchased the real property on which the commercial building complex developed by Petitioner Stevens and Layton, Inc. was to be located on January 8, 1988. This area of land was severed from the dominant estate that continues to include the business and the driveway that abuts State Road 80. In order for the Petitioners to have access to the property from the state road, the owner of the dominant estate granted the new owners of the back portion of the parcel a non-exclusive easement for roadway purposes, through the driveway and across the front of the parcel. The property, including easement, was purchased for less than $100,000.00 according to the documentary tax stamps on the deed. After various revisions were made to the site plan, the development plans were approved for a Final Development Order from Lee County on January 12, 1988, with the following stipulation: Frontage road agreement including sidewalk, to be submitted with phase one prior to C.O. Right turn lanes to be constructed with phase two prior to C.O. Based upon the site plan in evidence, it was anticipated in January 1988 that the future frontage road easement across the dominant parcel would connect with the paved access drive onto the Petitioners' property. Apparently, this frontage road easement would allow traffic from the eastbound lanes of State Road 80 to enter Petitioners' access drive from one of the median openings east of Petitioners' property. In August of 1988, Phase One the commercial building complex was under construction. During this time period, Walter D. Stephens, P.E., the Acting Director of the Lee County Department of Transportation and Engineering, Division of Transportation Planning and Permitting, examined the proposed median crossover locations on State Road 80. Mr. Stephens opined on August 10, 1988, that if the Petitioners' commercial building complex were to have heavy construction vehicle (low-boy trailer truck) activity, these large vehicles would not be able to safely move from the first median opening east of the property onto the proposed frontage road under the following conditions: If a low-boy trailer truck made a left turn movement from the Wilson drive onto the frontage road to move west towards Petitioners' access drive, the back of the truck would still be on State Road 80 if there were other vehicles in the Wilson drive waiting in front of the truck to make the same turn. Patrick Hunt, the Development Review Supervisor for Lee County Department of Community Development, was promptly advised of Mr. Stephens' opinion. A revised print of the site plan for the commercial building complex received the professional seal of the engineer on the project on November 14, 1988. Lee County Department of Development Review approved the revised site plan on November 15, 1988. It is unknown to the Hearing Officer exactly when the certificate of occupancy for Phase One of the development was issued. However, based upon the verified complaint filed by Petitioners in circuit court, the certificate was issued before the complaint was filed because Stevens & Layton was operating its contracting business from this location. If Stevens & Layton proposed to go forward with Phase Two of their development on the property, they were obligated to construct right turn lanes prior to receiving a certificate of occupancy for the second stage of development. The circuit court judge denied the temporary preliminary injunction, but encouraged the Department and the Petitioner to negotiate for a median relocation. The judge will hear the merits of the pending suit after the Petitioners have exhausted administrative remedies for a median opening providing direct access from eastbound and westbound lanes on State Road 80 to their property. The Problem The Petitioners are seeking to have the Department provide them with a median opening in front of the road access easement to their property in order to allow the 70' low-boy tractor trailer used in Stevens & Layton Inc.'s pipeline business to enter from the eastbound lane of State Road 80 without having to make a U-turn from the median opening east of the property. The Petitioners maintain that a serious safety hazard could result to the tractor trailer or other traffic, if the current road design is allowed to remain in the area due to the tractor trailer's use of the median opening just east of Petitioner's drive. Alternative Requests for Median Opening One request for a median opening submitted to the Department by Petitioners requested a median opening that gives them a turn lane into their property from both the eastbound and westbound lanes of traffic from State Road 80. The second alternative suggested by Petitioners is to place the median opening planned for the entry onto the Wilson property between the two existing driveways, still allowing those drives to remain in place. The proposed additional center driveway could carry two-way traffic and would have a sufficient turning radius for large trucks planning to turn left onto Petitioners' access easement from the dominant estate. First Alternative The first alternative suggested by the Petitioners would be approximately 240' west of the planned median opening that allows traffic to enter the drive in front of the Wilson property. In other locales with similar development and a similar roadway design, the Department does not allow median openings within 660' of other median openings. Speed is one of the prime considerations. Longer acceleration and deceleration lanes are needed on roads with higher speeds such as this one, to allow drivers reaction time to use the openings. A short lane, such as the one proposed, would create a safety hazard and would not solve the problem the Petitioners are seeking to solve: the difficulty a driver would have with the turn of the long low-boy trailer from the eastbound lane into their access easement back to their property. There is a conforming road connection which allows Petitioners a reasonable means of connection to the public roads system. Second Alternative The second alternative failed to detail information for all properties using the proposed median opening. In addition, there was no concurrence by all affected property owners on the joint driveway usage. The plan greatly enhances the value of Petitioners' property, which does not even front the existing road. The plan also significantly decreases the value of the adjoining Wilson property, the dominant estate to Petitioners' property, and the right-of-way previously purchased by the Department. The right-of-way was purchased to provide the dominant estate a reasonable means of connection to the public roads system from the driveway also used by Petitioner. Additional Findings Why the Requested for Median Openings Should Not Be Granted The Petitioners' purchase and use of this back portion of the parcel was not contemplated by the road designers at the time the road improvement design with median placements went into effect. Right-of-way was purchased by the Department to create a frontage road to provide reasonable access from the drive now used by Petitioners to the dominant estate that used the drive to connect to the public road system. The problem the Petitioners are seeking to cure with the proposed median opening is curable without obligating the State to create an additional median opening or improving the access to Petitioners' property while decreasing access to other property owners whose property abuts State Road 80. For example, the Petitioners could advance the construction of the westbound right turn lane relating to their Phase Two construction. This would provide additional pavement width to aid in the negotiation of a turn. It would also be at Petitioners' expense, as previously stipulated to with Lee County in its approval of the Development Order for the property. A driver could also select a more appropriate turning area further east of the property on State Road 80 to reverse the direction of the low boy. A circumferential route of I-75, SR 78, SR 31 and then west of SR 80, could be used by the low-boy driver to eliminate the left turn across opposing traffic. The low boy driver could use the present median opening as designed. The tractor trailer could cross at the present opening, enter the right-of-way in front of the Wilson drive, and turn left on the one way frontage road which accesses the easement to Petitioners' property. Drivers should be cautioned to use an alternative route if other vehicles are stored in the right-of-way in front of the Wilson drive, waiting to turn left. This could prevent the safety problem previously raised by Walter D. Stephens, P.E. If the Department permitted either of the proposed alternative median openings, federal funding on the entire project could be in jeopardy. This could require the state to pay $34.6 million for the improvement out of its own funds.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioners' application to relocate the median opening or for a joint use median opening be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of August, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of August, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE No. 89-4196 Petitioners' proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Rejected. See HO #4. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #10-#11. Accepted. See HO #6. Rejected. Irrelevant. See HO #7-#9. Rejected. Irrelevant. See HO #4, #7-#9, and HO #12. Rejected. Contrary to fact. The Petitioners were either acting under self- imposed blindness (see Conclusions of Law) or were trying to increase the value of their back parcel at public expense. Rejected. The letter was not even from Petitioners. In addition, the county could have made an application to change the roadway traffic patterns under Section 335.20, Florida Statutes. Alternative routes for low boy trailers could have then been explained to the county by the Department. Accepted except for the improper conclusion that an "impasse" has been reached. This is a mischaracterization of fact. See HO #17. Accepted. See HO #18. Accepted. See preliminary matters. Rejected. Contrary to fact. The Petitioners could resolve any safety issues. See HO #28-#33. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #28-#33. Rejected. Improper Conclusion of Law. See Section 335.187, Florida Statutes. The Petitioners are on notice that a permit must be obtained due to the significant change in the use, design or traffic flow of the connection and the state highway. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. There was no showing that Mr. Hunt could render an expert opinion that should be given greater weight than that of the professional engineer presented by the Department. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #34. Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Rejected. These definitions are defined by law and rule as they relate to this case. Accepted. See HO #17-#18. Accepted. See preliminary matters. Rejected. Irrelevant. Petitioners could have borne expense. 5. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #1. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #3. Accepted. See HO #3. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. See pleadings as to Petitioners in this case. Rejected. See HO #4 and HO #10. There was no showing of the parties interests in all businesses. It is not a significant material fact in these proceedings. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #10-#11. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #6. Rejected. Irrelevant. See HO #7-#9. Rejected. Irrelevant. Stevens & Layton, Inc. had its own consulting engineer. See HO #7. Rejected. Irrelevant. See HO #7. Accepted. See HO #7. Accepted. See HO #30-#33. Rejected. Speculative. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #24. Accepted. See HO #26. Rejected. This was not sufficiently proved at hearing. There was no evidence the Committee reviewed the proposals. Rejected. There was no evidence the Federal Highway Administration has been approached regarding the change in the median opening. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #24. Accepted. Rejected. See #37 above. Rejected. See #38 above. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #26. Rejected. See #37 above Rejected. See #38 above. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to law. See Section 335.187(1), Florida Statutes. Rejected. Contrary to evidence presented and law previously cited in #51 above. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #24. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward M. Chew, Esquire Department of Transportation P.O. Box 1249 Bartow, FL 33830 J. Jeffrey Rice, Esquire Goldberg, Goldstein & Buckley, P.A. P.O. Box 2366 Fort Myers, FL 32902-2366 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation 605 Suwanee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams, General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact (Because the Petitioner's findings of fact were not numbered, a number has been assigned to each paragraph beginning with the first paragraph of page 1). Partially adopted in findings of fact 5, 6, 8 and 9. The proposed finding that "the Petitioner continuously notified her employer of her medical condition by telephone" is rejected as misleading and not supported by competent substantial evidence. The proposed finding that the Petitioner was released on August 31, 1985 with physician's instructions to "go home and have complete bed rest" is rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Partially adopted in findings of fact 4, 11, and 19. Matters not contained therein are rejected as misleading and/or a recitation of testimony. Covered in conclusions of law section. Rejected as legal argument. Partially adopted in findings of fact 4, 6, 7 and 15. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate. Partially adopted in findings of fact 4 and 7. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate. Partially adopted in finding of fact 10. Matters not contained therein are rejected as recitation of testimony. Adopted in findings of fact 11, 12, 13 and 14. RULINGS ON PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT, SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT (None submitted)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED THAT: The Department of Administration enter a final order re- instating Petitioner to her position as a toll collector at the Mathews Bridge toll facility in Jacksonville, Florida; and It is further Recommended that Petitioner's request for back pay and benefits from September 17, 1985 be DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of March, 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administration Hearings this 21st day March, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esq. Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Bldg., M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Brenda Washington 28 West 28th Street Jacksonville, Florida 32206 Sharon A. Hood Staff Representative AFSCME, Florida Council 79 6308 N. Main Street Jacksonville, Florida 32208 Richard L. Ropel, Esq. Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Kathryn L. Ward, Esq. 345 S. Magnolia Drive Suite F-21 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gilda H. Lambert Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Augustus D. Aikens, Esq. General counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case.
Findings Of Fact The sign here in issue was erected in 1992 and remained in the same location until December 1986. The sign is located along the west side of U.S. 19 in Pasco County, Florida, 41 feet from the western edge of the pavement. The DOT right-of-way at this location is 57 feet. U.S. 19 is part of the state highway system. Respondent stipulated that the sign was located in the DOT right-of-way and was in violation. Upon receipt of the violation notice, the association relocated the sign off of the DOT right-of-way within ten days of the notice of violation (December 11, 1986).
Conclusions This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order upon submission of an Order Closing File and Relinquishing Jurisdiction by Thomas P. Crapps, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, pursuant to Petitioner’s Notice Of Dismissal, a copy of which is attached and incorporated by reference in this order. The Department hereby adopts the Order Closing File and Relinquishing Jurisdiction as its Final Order in this matter. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this case is CLOSED. Filed May 29, 2013 9:27 AM Division of Administrative Hearings DONE AND ORDERED this Ay day of May, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Bureau of Issuance Oversight Division of Motorist Services Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A338 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Motorist Services this QQ day of May, 2013. tes Vorecvcte Nalini Vinayak, Dealer Ficense AE NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS Judicial review of this order may be had pursuant to section 120.68, Florida Statutes, in the District Court of Appeal for the First District, State of Florida, or in any other district court of appeal of this state in an appellate district where a party resides. In order to initiate such review, one copy of the notice of appeal must be filed with the Department and the other copy of the notice of appeal, together with the filing fee, must be filed with the court within thirty days of the filing date of this order as set out above, pursuant to Rules of Appellate Procedure. JB/jdc Copies furnished: A. Edward Quinton, III, Esquire Adams, Quinton and Paretti, P.A. Brickell Bayview Center 80 Southwest 8" Street, Suite 2150 Miami, Florida 33130 equinton@adamsquinton.com John C. deMoulpied, Esquire Barack, Ferrazzano, Kirschbau, Perlman & Nagelberg LLP 200 West Madison Street Chicago, Illinois 60606 john.demoulpied@pbfkn.com James R. Vogler, Esquire Barack, Ferrazzano, Kirschbau, Perlman & Nagelberg LLP 200 West Madison Street Chicago, Illinois 60606 Jim.vogler@bfkn.com Thomas P. Crapps Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Nalini Vinayak Dealer License Administrator STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS LOKEY OLDSMOBILE, INC. d/b/a LOKEY VOLKSWAGEN, Petitioner, Case No.: 13-0007 vs. VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC., Respondent. / NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE COMES NOW Petitioner, LOKEY OLDSMOBILE, INC. d/b/a LOKEY VOLKSWAGEN, by and through its undersigned counsel and hereby files this Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice regarding its pending Petition Protesting Charge-back of Incentive Payments, pursuant to settlement of this matter. I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served on the parties as reflected on the attached Service List, this 13" day of May, 2013. s/ A, Edward Quinton, III (Florida Bar No. 464074) ADAMS, QUINTON & PARETTI, P.A. Attorneys for Petitioner 80 SW 8™ Street, Suite 2150 Miami, Florida 33130 PH: (305) 358-2727 Email: equinton@adamsquinton.com Filed May 13, 2013 3:24 PM Division of Administrative Hearings SERVICE LIST Jennifer Clark Office of the Hearing Officer Florida Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Bldg. - Room A-308 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0635 jenniferclark@flhsmv.gov James R. Vogler, Esquire John C. deMoulpied, Esquire Barack Ferrazzano Kirschbaum & Nagelberg LLP 200 West Madison Street, Suite 3900 Chicago, IL 60606 jim.vogler@bfkn.com john.demoulpied@bfkn.com STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS LOKEY OLDSMOBILE, INC., d/b/a LOKEY VOLKSWAGEN, Petitioner, vs. Case No. 13-0007 VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC., Respondent. ~~~ rere rere re rere rr ORDER CLOSING FILE AND RELINQUISHING JURISDICTION This cause having come before the undersigned on Petitioner’s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice, filed May 13, 2013, and the undersigned being fully advised, it is, therefore, ORDERED that: 1. The final hearing scheduled for June 18 through 21, 2013, is canceled. 2. The file of the Division of Administrative Hearings is closed. Jurisdiction is relinquished to the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. DONE AND ORDERED this 21st day of May, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. va bay THOMAS P. CRAPPS 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 21st day of May, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Jennifer Clark, Agency Clerk Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A-430 2900 Apalachee Parkway, Mail Stop 61 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 A. Edward Quinton, III, Esquire Adams, Quinton and Paretti, P.A. Brickell Bayview Center 80 Southwest 8th Street, Suite 2150 Miami, Florida 33130 equinton@adamsquinton.com John C. deMoulpied, Esquire Barack, Ferrazzano, Kirschbaum, and Nagelberg LLP 200 West Madison Street Chicago, Illinois 60606 john.demoulpied@bfkn.com James R. Vogler, Esquire Barack, Ferrazzano, Kirschbaum, Perlman & Nagelberg, LLP Suite 3900 200 West Madison Street Chicago, Illinois 60606 jim.vogler@bfkn.com
The Issue The issues in this case are: (1) whether proposals by Richard and Mildred Olson to widen an existing bridge (designated Bridge 1) and construct two new pedestrian bridges (designated Bridges 2 and 4) across Bessey Creek in Martin County, Florida, qualify for the Noticed General Permit established by Rule 62-341.475; and (2) whether Petitioner participated in this proceeding for an improper purpose under Section 120.595(1). (Citations to sections are to the 2000 codification of Florida Statutes. Rule citations are to the current Florida Administrative Code.)
Findings Of Fact Richard and Mildred Olson own property in Rustic Hills Phase III in Martin County, Florida. The Olsons own lots 191, 192, 195, 212, 213, and 214. Each lot is approximately two acres in size. The Olson home is on lot 213, and a rental home is on lot 195. On their property, the Olsons raise miniature goats, guinea hens, and peacocks; they also have ducks, geese, chickens, and dogs. Bessey Creek winds through Rustic Hills and the Olsons' lots. The Olsons propose to use DEP's NGP for Minor Activities established by adoption of Rule 62-341.475 to widen one existing bridge and construct two others for access to their property across Bessey Creek. Bessey Creek is a tributary of the St. Lucie River, through man-made Canal 23. Navigating upstream on Bessey Creek, a boat would have to pass under the Murphy Road Bridge, which is 9 feet, one inch above mean high water (MHW), just before reaching the first of the four bridges involved in this case, Bridge 1. Bridge 1 is a steel span bridge (with no pilings in the water) that connects two portions of lot 191, which is split by the creek. The Olsons propose to widen existing Bridge 1. It is not clear from the evidence whether pilings will be required to widen Bridge 1. But it seems clear that a centerline stream clearance (horizontal width) of 16 feet and a bridge height above mean high water (MHW) (vertical clearance) of 9 feet will be maintained. Proposed pedestrian Bridge 2 is the next bridge upstream, at a point where the creek is only approximately 24 feet wide from MHW to MHW. It is designed to be a 192 square foot piling-supported bridge, with an 8-foot wide by 24-foot long walkway. To support Bridge 2, sets of pilings will placed in the creek bed so as to maintain a centerline stream clearance of 16 feet. The proposed vertical clearance for Bridge 2 is 8 feet above MHW. Existing Bridge 3, the next upstream, is at a point where the creek is approximately 35 feet wide from MHW to MHW. Bridge 3 is a wooden bridge approximately 25 years old. It connects lots 192 and 193 to lot 191. The Olsons use existing Bridge 3 on a daily basis. Bridge 3 was built to span the creek; later, two sets of wooden piles were added. There is a centerline stream clearance of 13 feet between the piles. Vertical clearance is 8 feet above MHW. Proposed pedestrian Bridge 4, the farthest upstream, is designed in the same manner as proposed pedestrian Bridge 2. It is located at a point where the creek is approximately 35 feet wide from MHW to MHW. Bridge 4 will connect lots 195 and 212. Navigability Proposed pedestrian Bridges 2 and 4 are designed to have the same 8-foot vertical clearance as existing Bridge 3; they are designed to have three feet more horizontal clearance than existing Bridge 3. Neither they nor widened Bridge 1 will restrict navigation as much as existing structures, natural conditions (including numerous fallen trees, underwater snags and low, overhanging vegetation), and docked boats. The United States Coast Guard and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWC) concur that the bridges would not have any deleterious effect on the navigation in this area of Bessey Creek. While not specifically alleging impedance of navigation, Petitioner alleged that existing Bridges 1 and 3 are lower than measured by the Olsons' environmental consultant. But there was no evidence to support such a finding. Meanwhile, the Olsons' consultant explained how he determined the vertical clearance of those bridges above MHW by measurements adjusted for MHW using NOAA tide charts. Even if existing Bridges 1 and 3 had less vertical clearance than determined by the Olsons' consultant, Bridges 2 and 4 are designed to have the same vertical clearance as the consultant determined Bridge 3 to have. For that reason, even if the consultant's determinations were incorrect, the vertical clearances of Bridges 2 and 4 are designed to be the same as the vertical clearance of Bridge 3, and the vertical clearance of Bridges 2 and 4 will not impede navigation any more than Bridge 3. Flooding Bessey Creek is a typical tidal creek. It has low volume and low velocity. Being influenced by tidal ebb and flow, its flow is not continuously downstream except during and just after times of high precipitation, such as hurricanes. Under these conditions, build-up of debris around pilings of these bridges would not be expected, and none was observed around at the existing bridges. The chances of vegetation or organic matter building up over time in the area of these bridges to create a beaver dam effect and cause flooding are small. The proposed new pedestrian bridges have four pilings, which is typically less than a single-family dock. The pilings of a single-family dock are closer to the shoreline and, particularly with a boat alongside, would have more potential to trap debris and cause flooding than the proposed bridges. The same can be said of the fallen trees and low, overhanging vegetation existing under natural conditions in Bessey Creek. The proposed bridges are not expected to have an adverse impact of a significant nature with respect to off-site flooding. Petitioner did not present any expert testimony regarding allegations of off-site flooding potential. Dan White testified as a lay person that flooding occurs in the area during times of high precipitation and that Petitioner was concerned that the proposed bridges would exacerbate those conditions. But, while the evidence was clear that flooding is a condition to be expected under certain conditions in low-lying areas like Rustic Hills Phase III, White failed to make any causal connection between existing periodic flooding and the bridges, existing or proposed. Improper Purpose Petitioner's request for hearing, by letter dated November 16, 2000, thanked DEP for "this opportunity to contest the granting of a Noticed General Permit to the Olson's [sic]" and also requested "an Administrative Review to ensure your department has all the information needed to make a fair decision regarding this matter." It also requested: "Since we are a small community, I hope the Department will review this petition in light of the author's lack of familiarity with the specific form and format used by the environmental consultants and those who work with you on a regular basis." Petitioner "respectfully submit[ted] the following information which is required to dispute the Department's actions and to request an Administrative hearing if necessary." In response to Petitioner's letter, DEP referred the matter to DOAH. Apparently, Petitioner (and the other parties) did not receive a copy of the Initial Order. Petitioner, which was not represented by counsel at the time, failed to comply with the Amended Initial Order entered on March 23, 2001. But apparently neither did the Olsons, who also were not represented by counsel at the time, or DEP, which was. The Olsons complained by letter filed April 26, 2001, that Petitioner had not contacted them. But there was no indication or evidence that, up to that point in time, the Olsons attempted to contact Petitioner or DEP, or that DEP attempted to contact Petitioner or the Olsons, in response to the Amended Initial Order. The Joint Response to Initial Order filed by the Olsons and DEP on May 1, 2001, recited that Petitioner's contact person-of-record, Treasurer Jim Fyfe, "no longer was associated with Rustic Hills" and that Petitioner's President, Dan White, was "out of town and could not be reached." Based on the Joint Response to Initial Order filed by DEP and the Olson's, final hearing was scheduled for May 24, 2001. The Order of Pre-Hearing Instructions entered along with the Notice of Hearing on May 3, 2001, required that the parties exchange witness lists and copies of exhibits and file their witness lists by May 14, 2001. Petitioner complied with the requirement to file a witness list and also included a list of exhibits. There was no indication or evidence that Petitioner did not exchange exhibits as well. The Order of Pre-Hearing Instructions also required: "No later than May 18, 2001, the parties shall confer with each other to determine whether this cause can be amicably resolved." When the Olsons' environmental consultant, Bruce Jerner, went to Dan White's home on May 14, 2001, to provide him a copy of the Olsons' exhibits, he invited White to discuss settlement in accordance with the Order of Pre-Hearing Instructions. White responded to the effect that, even if Petitioner did not have a strong case, Petitioner preferred to go to hearing, and White did not want to mediate or discuss settlement with Jerner. At that point, Jerner indicated that he would be sending White a letter confirming the Olsons' attempt to comply with the Order of Pre-Hearing Instructions. The letter dated the next day requested "an informal conference to determine whether the above referenced case can be amicably resolved and avoid hearing proceedings." Significantly, there was no indication or evidence that DEP complied with the Order of Pre-Hearing Instructions in any respect. It appears that DEP distanced itself from the dispute between Petitioner and the Olsons, preferring to allow them to settle or litigate as they saw fit. In view of DEP's noncompliance, DEP at least certainly may not rely on Petitioner's noncompliance as a ground for an award of attorney fees and costs. In addition, while DEP's noncompliance does not excuse Petitioner from complying, it helps put Petitioner's actions in context and is relevant on the question whether Petitioner's noncompliance was evidence of improper purpose. In this regard, White testified to his belief that he had complied with all ALJ orders but did not "know why I would be obligated to respond to the consultant for Mr. Olson with regard to hearing or any other matters." While DEP and the Olsons in part cite Petitioner's failure to follow prehearing procedures, they primarily rely on the weakness of Petitioner's presentation at final hearing and posthearing efforts as evidence of improper purpose. But this evidence must be evaluated along with other factors resulting in the weakness of Petitioner's case. Not only did White misinterpret the Order of Pre- Hearing Instructions, the evidence indicated that he was unfamiliar with the administrative process in general and also was confused about the difference between the administrative hearing scheduled for May 24, 2001, and the County permitting proceedings on the bridges which also were on-going. White indicated repeatedly during final hearing that he and Petitioner had just recently learned more about distinctions between the administrative and County permit proceedings. As a result, White was beginning to recognize that several issues Petitioner had attempted to raise in this administrative proceeding may be relevant to on-going County permit proceedings but not this administrative proceeding. When it was established and explained at final hearing that DEP had no jurisdiction to require demolition or repair of existing bridges in this proceeding, White agreed to withdraw that part of Petitioner's request for relief. When it was established and explained that issues Petitioner raised relating to the "public interest" test under Rules Chapter 21-18 were premature, White did not object to those issues being dropped. Later, when Petitioner attempted to raise water quality issues relating to excrement from Olson livestock crossing these bridges, and it was ruled that no such issue was raised in Petitioner's request for hearing, White accepted the ruling. Final hearing proceeded on the only remaining issue specifically raised by Petitioner (alleged off-site flooding) (together with navigability--an issue addressed in the Olsons' presentation but not raised in Petitioner's request for hearing). To use White's words, Petitioner did not "have a very sophisticated presentation." Petitioner had no expert testimony, and White's lay testimony did not make a causal connection between flooding and the bridges. After the presentation of evidence, Petitioner did not withdraw its request for hearing in view of the evidence presented; but, in fairness, neither was Petitioner asked to do so. Petitioner did not order a Transcript, or a copy after the Olsons ordered a Transcript, and did not file a PRO. It is fairly clear from the evidence that Petitioner did not participate in this proceeding primarily to cause unnecessary delay. Even if Petitioner had never requested a hearing, the Olsons did not have all of the authorizations required of DEP for their proposals. In addition, County permits apparently also are required. It seems reasonably clear that, had Petitioner retained a competent expert to evaluate its case, the expert probably would have advised Petitioner that it would not be able to make a causal connection between flooding and the bridges. Had Petitioner retained counsel prior to final hearing, counsel probably would have advised Petitioner not to proceed with its request for hearing because, without a causal connection between flooding and the bridges, Petitioner would not be able to prevail. But there was no indication or evidence that Petitioner had and disregarded the benefit of professional advice. Under the totality of these circumstances, it was not proven that Petitioner's participation in this proceeding was for an improper purpose--i.e., primarily to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or for frivolous purpose or to needlessly increase the cost of licensing or securing the approval of the Olsons' applications.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that DEP enter a final order: denying Petitioner's challenge to the propriety of the Olsons' use of the NGP for minor activities for their proposals; authorizing the Olsons to use the NGP for their proposals (DEP File Nos. 43- 0137548-002 and 43-0158123-002) subject to the design criteria limitations and other conditions in the applicable general permit rules; and denying the Motion for Attorney's Fees from Petitioner under Section 120.595(1). Jurisdiction is reserved to enter a final order on the part of the Motion for Attorney's Fees seeking sanctions under Section 120.569(2)(e). DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of July, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of July, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Francine M. Ffolkes, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard The Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Dan White, President Rustic Phase III Property Owners Association 3337 Southwest Bessey Creek Trail Palm City, Florida 34990 Tim Morell, Esquire 1933 Tom-a-Toe Road Lantana, Florida 33426 Elizabeth P. Bonan, Esquire Cornett, Googe, Ross & Earle, P.A. 401 East Osceola Street Stuart, Florida 32991 Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk Office of General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri L. Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 David B. Struhs, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard The Douglas Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue At issue is whether an order recommending denial of the subject permits and variance should be rendered.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing statement of the case and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission enter a final order reversing Monroe County's decision to issue the subject permits and variance. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 29 day of January 1992. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29 day of January 1992.
