00-002524 Michael L. Guttmann vs. Adr Of Pensacola And Department Of Environmental Protection
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Friday, February 1, 2002.


View Dockets  
Summary: Proposed mitigation measures (baffles and pilings) to offset adverse impacts of turbidity and propeller scarring of seagrass were likely to be successful. Permit for construction of pier and dock approved.

1STATE OF FLORIDA

4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

8MICHAEL L. GUTTMANN, )

12)

13Petitioner, )

15)

16vs. ) Case No. 00 - 2524

23)

24DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL )

28PROTECTION and ADR OF )

33PENSACOLA, INC., )

36)

37Respondents. )

39______________________________)

40RECOMMENDED ORDER ON REMAND

44Pursuant to notice, this matter was heard before the

53Division of Administrative Hearings on October 23, 2001, by

62video teleconference by its assigned Administr ative Law Judge,

71Donald R. Alexander.

74APPEARANCES

75For Petitioner: Michael L. Guttmann, Esquire

81314 South Baylen Street, Suite 201

87Pensacola, Florida 32501 - 5949

92For Respondent: Charles T. Collette, Esquire

98(Department) Lucinda R. Roberts, Esquire

103Department of Environmental Protection

1073900 Commonwealth Boulevard

110Mail Station 35

113Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000

118For Respondent: David A. Sapp, Esquire

124(ADR) 1017 North 12th Avenue

129Pensacola, Florida 32501 - 3306

134STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

138The issue is whether ADR of Pensacola, Inc.'s proposed

147mitigation measures offset the a dverse impacts of a dock project

158on the public interest criteria in Section 403.918(2)(a)2., 4.,

1675., and 7., Florida Statutes (1991).

173PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

175This matter began on May 15, 2000, when Respondent,

184Department of Environmental Protection, issued its Consolidated

191Notice of Intent to Issue Wetland Resource Permit and Sovereign

201Submerged Lands Authorization to Respondent, ADR of Pensacola,

209Inc. The permit and authorization allow the construction of a

21930 - slip docking facility on Big Lagoon in Escambi a County,

231Florida.

232After a challenge to the proposed agency action was filed

242by Petitioner, Michael L. Guttmann, hearings were conducted on

251November 30 and December 13, 2000. In a Recommended Order

261entered on February 28, 2001, the undersigned recommend ed that

271the application be denied on the ground that the proposed

281project was contrary to the public interest within the meaning

291of Section 403.918(2)(a)2., 4., 5., and 7., Florida Statutes

300(1991).

301On April 13, 2001, the Department of Environmental

309Prote ction entered its Order of Remand and requested that

319further proceedings be held to allow the applicant "an

328opportunity to propose mitigation measures acceptable to DEP to

337offset the adverse impacts of the dock project on the public

348interest criteria." By Order dated April 20, 2001, the case was

359reopened for that limited purpose. The matter was then

368temporarily abated pending an appeal of the Order of Remand by

379Petitioner. That appeal was later dismissed for lack of

388jurisdiction. Guttmann v. Dep't of En vir. Prot. and ADR of

399Pensacola, Inc. , 787 So. 2d. 977 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).

409By Notice of Hearing dated August 1, 2001, a hearing was

420scheduled by video teleconference on October 23, 2001, with the

430parties participating in Pensacola and Tallahassee, Flori da.

438At the hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of

446Dr. Kenneth L. Heck, Jr., a marine biologist and ecologist who

457was accepted as an expert, and James Veal, an architect who

468resides near the project site. Also, he offered Petitioner's

477Exhibits 1 and 2, which were received in evidence. Respondent,

487ADR of Pensacola, Inc., presented the testimony of Terrence C.

497Bosso, an environmental consultant who was accepted as an

506expert, and Dr. Joe A. Edminsten, an environmental consultant

515who was accepted as an expert. Also, Respondent offered

524Respondent's Exhibits 1 - 3, 6, and 8, which were received in

536evidence. Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection,

542presented the testimony of Larry O'Donnell, environmental

549manager for permitting for the Pensac ola District Office, who

559was accepted as an expert. Finally, the undersigned took

568official recognition of Section 403.918, Florida Statutes

575(1991), which governs this proceeding, and Part III, Chapter 62 -

586312, Florida Administrative Code, which contains mi tigation

594standards for projects in Escambia County, Florida.

601A Transcript of the hearing (two volumes) was filed on

611December 6, 2001. By agreement of the parties, the time for

622filing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law was

632extended to January 15, 2002. The same were timely filed by the

644parties, and they have been considered by the undersigned in the

655preparation of this Recommended Order.

660FINDINGS OF FACT

663Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of

673fact are determined:

676a. Ba ckground

6791. This matter is on remand from Respondent, Department of

689Enviromental Protection (DEP), for further proceedings to allow

697Respondent, ADR of Pensacola, Inc. (applicant), "an opportunity

705to propose mitigation measures acceptable to DEP to offset

714adverse impacts of the dock project on the public interest

724criteria [in Section 403.918(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1991)]."

731The applicant proposes to construct a 442 foot x 4 foot access

743pier with seventeen 30 foot x 1.5 foot finger piers, thirteen 40

755foot x 1.5 foot finger piers, and a 74 foot x 1.5 foot terminal

769platform to form a 30 - slip docking facility on Big Lagoon, a

782Class III water in Escambia County, Florida. The application is

792opposed by Petitioner, Michael L. Guttmann, who resides within a

802mile o f the project site.

8082. In a Recommended Order entered on February 28, 2001,

818the undersigned found that "the proposed activity will adversely

827affect fish and their habitat by virtue of the applicant's

837docking 30 boats in a small area just beyond a healthy seagrass

849area" [Section 403.918(2)(a)2.]; that "the proposed activity

856will adversely affect marine productivity because the fish

864nursery habitat will decline through a further thinning out of

874the seagrass colony in Big Lagoon" [Section 403.918(2)(a)4.];

882th at "the activity is permanent in nature" [Section

891403.918(2)(a)5.]; and that "the 'current conditions' and

898'relative value' of [the] functions [of seagrass] will be

907negatively impacted if the dock is constructed" [Section

915403.918(2)(a)7.]. Based on these expected adverse impacts, the

923undersigned recommended that the application be denied on the

932ground that the project was contrary to the public interest.

9423. Because DEP had made a preliminary determination that

951the project complied with all applicable cr iteria, and its staff

962had presented evidence in support of the application at the

972hearing, DEP concluded in an Order of Remand dated April 13,

9832001, that "it would not be appropriate to enter a final order

995denying the requested permit and authorization wit hout first

1004affording ADR an administrative forum for proposing mitigation

1012measures for consideration by DEP." (Order of Remand, page 17).

1022The applicant then filed proposed mitigation measures, as later

1031amended, and these proceedings followed.

1036b. Mitigat ion measures

10404. The negative impacts which formed the basis for finding

1050that the project would be contrary to the public interest were

1061secondary in nature. That is to say, the facility itself (the

1072dock, platform, and pilings) will not cause the negative impacts

1082described in the Recommended Order. Rather, unless appropriate

1090mitigation measures are implemented, secondary impacts

1096associated with additional boat traffic would likely cause

1104increased turbidity (and a diminution of water clarity in the

1114areas wh ere seagrass currently thrives) due to wave action from

1125the boats, and the boat propellers would likely cause the

1135scarring of seagrass which grows near the shoreline. Thus, the

1145secondary impacts were found to have an adverse impact on fish

1156and habitat, th e fishing and marine productivity in the area,

1167and the current condition and relative value of functions being

1177performed by the areas.

11815. To mitigate the secondary impact of propeller scarring,

1190applicant proposes "to place [8] pilings on 20 feet centers on

1201the southernmost margins [of the project] to further deter boats

1211from accessing across and navigating in the seagrasses in the

1221vicinity of the proposed dock." In addition, the pilings will

1231have signage stating "NO BOATING BEYOND THIS POINT."

12396. The piling system will consist of four pilings placed

124920 feet apart on each side of the dock along the outer edge of

1263the seagrass bed (approximately 175 to 200 feet from the

1273shoreline) and which will parallel the shoreline. The pilings

1282(with signage) are des igned to deter boaters from entering the

1293area where the seagrass thrives and scarring the grass with

1303their boat propellers.

13067. This type of barrier (pilings with signage) has been

1316successfully used in other areas around the State to mitigate

1326concerns ab out encroachment into shallow areas by boat traffic.

1336It is designed to deter not only members of the general public,

1348but also boaters docking at the facility.

13558. Similar pilings have been placed at a project known as

1366Landfall which is located on the nort h shore of Big Lagoon

1378around a mile away. Landfall has 50 boat slips and utilizes

1389concrete piling structures to provide a visible and

1397psychological barrier for the seagrass beds. Like the

1405applicant's proposal, Landfall's dock extends a substantial

1412distan ce from the shoreline (550 feet), and boats are moored

1423beyond the seagrass beds. That marina has been in place for

1434more than a decade, and the more persuasive evidence shows that

1445the pilings have had a positive impact on the protection of

1456seagrass beds.

14589. To mitigate the turbidity (or decline in water clarity)

1468caused by wave action from the boats, the applicant proposes to

1479place "a[n] [aluminum] baffle system along the outermost slips

1488(waterward side) of the facility." The system will be installed

1498app roximately 400 feet from the shoreline where the water

1508reaches a depth of 17 feet, will be 78 - feet long, and is

1522designed to eliminate or minimize wave energy from stirring and

1532re - suspending shoreline sediment. The baffles will be 8 feet

1543wide aluminum slat s, 6 feet long, and spaced 8 feet apart to

1556allow the re - flow of water. However, the baffles will disperse

1568the wave action over a much greater area than the actual length

1580of the system. Besides dispersing the wave action from boats

1590using the dock, the sys tem will also minimize the wave action

1602created by boats traversing the main channel. Currently, no

1611such protection is afforded the shoreline from boats used by the

1622general public or other Big Lagoon residents.

162910. Once the baffle system is installed, it will become

1639colonized with sessils (barnacles and oysters), which should

1647provide a new habitat for fish in the area.

165611. The evidence shows that similar baffle systems have

1665been used in other areas of the State, especially in South

1676Florida along the Int ercoastal Waterway. There, the systems

1685have successfully minimized the wave action on shorelines which

1694are caused by the numerous boats using that waterway.

170312. The more persuasive evidence supports a finding that

1712the mitigation plan, as proposed by th e applicant, will likely

1723be successful and will offset the expected adverse impacts

1732described in the Recommended Order of February 28, 2001.

1741Therefore, the applicant has given reasonable assurance that the

1750proposed mitigation measures will offset the adve rse impacts of

1760the project.

176213. Through testimony of an expert witness and argument

1771advanced in his Proposed Recommended Order, Petitioner contends

1779that the mitigation plan is flawed and does not offset the

1790adverse impacts with any degree of reasonable ce rtainty. These

1800contentions have been carefully considered but are rejected as

1809being contrary to the more credible evidence.

1816CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

181914. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

1826jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties hereto

1835pu rsuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes

1844(2001).

184515. As the party proposing mitigation measures, the

1853applicant bears the burden of providing reasonable assurances

1861that the measures offset the adverse impacts of the project.

1871Rule 62 - 312 .340, Florida Administrative Code.

187916. The role of an administrative law judge in determining

1889the sufficiency of mitigation measures is limited to resolving

"1898any factual disputes on mitigation." Collier Develop. Corp. v.

1907State, Dep't of Envir. Reg. , 59 2 So. 2d 1107, 1109 (Fla. 2d DCA

19211991). This is because "DEP has the exclusive final authority

1931to determine the sufficiency of the proposed seagrass

1939mitigation," and the "'findings' related to the sufficiency of

1948mitigation are essentially conclusions of l aw and not binding on

1959DEP." Save Anna Maria, Inc. v. Dep't of Trans. et al. , 700 So.

19722d 113, 116 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). See also 1800 Atlantic

1983Developers v. Dep't of Envir. Reg. , 552 So. 2d 946, 955 (Fla.

19951st DCA 1989)("It is the responsibility of [DEP], no t the

2007[administratative law judge], to define mitigative measures that

2015would be sufficient to offset the perceived adverse effects of

2025the dredging and filling contemplated by the project in accord

2035with the statutory criteria for determining public interest .")

204517. "Mitigation" is defined as "an action or series of

2055actions that will offset the adverse impacts on the waters of

2066the state that cause a proposed dredge and fill project to be

2078not permittable." Rule 62 - 312.310(6), Florida Administrative

2086Code. "Th e goal of the mitigation proposal shall be to offset

2098the expected adverse impacts of the project that have resulted

2108in the project being deemed unpermittable such that the

2117resulting project with mitigation is not contrary to the public

2127interest." Rule 62 - 312.330, Florida Administrative Code. In

2136considering these measures, each proposal "must be evaluated on

2145a case by case basis," including the "likelihood that the

2155mitigation will be successful." Rule 62 - 312.340, Florida

2164Administrative Code.

216618. In the R ecommended Order entered on February 28, 2001,

2177the undersigned concluded that the project was contrary to the

2187public interest because it adversely impacted the public

2195interest criteria under Section 403.918(2)(a)2., 4., 5., and 7.,

2204Florida Statutes (1991). 1 Those provisions require that the

2213Department consider and balance the following factors:

22202. Whether the activity will adversely

2226affect the conservation of fish and

2232wildlife, including endangered or threatened

2237species, or their habitats;

22414. Whether the activity will adversely

2247affect the fishing or recreational values or

2254marine productivity in the vicinity of the

2261activity;

22625. Whether the activity will be of a

2270temporary or permanent nature;

22747. The current condition and relative value

2281of functions bein g performed by areas

2288affected by the proposed activity.

229319. Rule 62 - 312.060(10), Florida Administrative Code,

2301provides that "[w]hen the Department determines that a project,

2310as submitted or modified, fails to meet the criteria in Sections

2321403.918(1) and (2)(a)1. - 7. and 403.919, F.S., the applicant may

2332propose mitigation measures to the Department as provided in

2341Chapter 62 - 312, Part III, F.A.C." The purpose of this

2352proceeding is to consider the applicant's mitigation measures.

236020. The more persuasive evi dence supports a conclusion

2369that the applicant's mitigation plan offers reasonable assurance

2377that the expected adverse effects of the project will be offset,

2388and that the project will not be contrary to the public

2399interest. Therefore, the application shou ld be approved.

240721. In reaching this conclusion, the undersigned has

2415considered Petitioner's contention that the mitigation measures

2422fail to address the effects of wave action on other areas of Big

2435Lagoon. However, the applicant only has the responsibili ty of

2445mitigating impacts in the area of the project site, and not the

2457entire 13 miles of Big Lagoon. Likewise, concerns about lifts,

2467paint leaching, future monitoring of the site, and full - time

2478pumpout station assistance have already been addressed in the

2487Recommended Order in the form of recommended conditions, and

2496they need not be incorporated into the mitigation plan, which

2506addresses only turbidity and prop scarring. Petitioner also

2514contends that no scientific studies have been conducted as to

2524the relia bility of pilings and baffles, and therefore these

2534measures are suspect. The more persuasive evidence, however,

2542reflects that these measures have been successfully used on

2551projects not only in other areas of the State, but also at a

2564similarly - sized projec t no more than a mile away. The

2576Department has had an opportunity to assess the use of pilings

2587at the latter project for more than a decade. As to this

2599contention, the statute only requires reasonable assurance, not

2607scientific certainty.

260922. Finally, as noted in the Recommended Order, it is fair

2620to infer that Petitioner's and his neighbors' primary concern is

2630the proposed construction by the applicant of a fairly large

2640condominium in an area where single - family homes are the norm.

2652Understandably, they a re opposed to such a project. This

2662proceeding, however, is concerned only with the dock, and not

2672with the wisdom of placing a condominium next to single - family

2684homes.

2685RECOMMENDATION

2686Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

2696Law, it is

2699RE COMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection

2707enter a final order approving the application of ADR of

2717Pensacola, Inc., as modified by the proposed mitigation plan.

2726DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of February, 2002, in

2736Tallahassee, Leon County, Fl orida.

2741___________________________________

2742DONALD R. ALEXANDER

2745Administrative Law Judge

2748Division of Administrative Hearings

2752The DeSoto Building

27551230 Apalachee Parkway

2758Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 1550

2763(850) 488 - 9675, SUNCOM 278 - 9675

2771F ax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

2778www.doah.state.fl.us

2779Filed with the Clerk of the

2785Division of Administrative Hearings

2789this 1st day of February, 2002.

2795ENDNOTE

27961/ Because the project is located within the jurisdiction of the

2807N orthwest Florida Water Management District, even though the

2816statute has been repealed, Section 403.918(2)(a), Florida

2823Statutes (1991), continues to be the governing statutory basis

2832for the public interest criteria applicable to the project. See

2842Section 37 3.4145(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2001).

2848COPIES FURNISHED:

2850Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk

2855Department of Environmental Protection

28593900 Commonwealth Boulevard

2862Mail Station 35

2865Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000

2870Michael L. Guttmann, Esquire

2874314 South Baylen St reet, Suite 201

2881Pensacola, Florida 32501 - 5949

2886Charles T. Collette, Esquire

2890Department of Environmental Protection

28943900 Commonwealth Boulevard

2897Mail Station 35

2900Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000

2905David A. Sapp, Esquire

29091017 North 12th Avenue

2913Pensacola, Flori da 32501 - 3306

2919Teri L. Donaldson, General Counsel

2924Department of Environmental Protection

29283900 Commonwealth Boulevard

2931Mail Station 35

2934Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000

2939NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

2945All parties have the right to submit written exce ptions within 15

2957days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to

2968this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will

2979render a final order in this matter.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 03/18/2002
Proceedings: Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/14/2002
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 02/28/2002
Proceedings: ADR of Pensacola, Inc.`s, Response to Petitioner`s Exceptions to Recommended Order (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 02/01/2002
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 02/01/2002
Proceedings: Recommended Order on Remand issued (hearing held October 23, 2001) CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 02/01/2002
Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying hearing record referred to the Agency sent out.
PDF:
Date: 01/18/2002
Proceedings: Proposed Recommended Order on Remand filed by Petitioner.
PDF:
Date: 01/15/2002
Proceedings: Proposed Recommended Order on Remand (filed by Petitioner via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 01/15/2002
Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection`s Proposed Recommended Order (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 01/15/2002
Proceedings: Respondent`s Proposed Recommended Order filed.
Date: 01/11/2002
Proceedings: Transcript, Volumes I and II filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/11/2002
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Depositions filed by Respondent.
Date: 12/06/2001
Proceedings: Transcript, Volumes I and II filed.
Date: 10/23/2001
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held; see case file for applicable time frames.
PDF:
Date: 10/23/2001
Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection`s Request for Official Recognition (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 10/23/2001
Proceedings: Letter to Judge Alexander from D. Sapp regarding Exhibit 7a and 7b, Exhibits filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/23/2001
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Exhibits for Respondent, ADR of Pensacola, Inc. (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 10/17/2001
Proceedings: Hearing Exhibits filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/17/2001
Proceedings: Department`s Notice of Filing of Transcript of 11/30/00 & 12/13/00 Hearing Together With the Parties` Exhibits Admitted There During filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/17/2001
Proceedings: Notice of Service of Answers to Interrogatories filed by Petitioner.
PDF:
Date: 08/22/2001
Proceedings: Respondent, ADR of Pensacola, Inc.`s Notice of Filing Mitigation Plan (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 08/01/2001
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing by Video Teleconference issued (video hearing set for October 23, 2001; 9:30 a.m.; Pensacola and Tallahassee, FL).
PDF:
Date: 07/31/2001
Proceedings: Department Counsel`s Notice of Availability for Hearing (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 07/27/2001
Proceedings: Letter to Judge Alexander from M. Guttmann regarding setting final hearing (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 07/26/2001
Proceedings: Letter to Judge Alexander from D. Sapp regarding dates available for hearing (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 07/26/2001
Proceedings: Response to Initial Order in Letter Form (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 07/18/2001
Proceedings: Mandate filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/17/2001
Proceedings: Order issued (the parties shall confer and advise within 15 days from the date of this Order suggested dates for rescheduling the remand hearing).
PDF:
Date: 07/02/2001
Proceedings: Opinion filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/29/2001
Proceedings: Mandate
PDF:
Date: 06/29/2001
Proceedings: Opinion
PDF:
Date: 06/15/2001
Proceedings: Stipulation to Extend Time to Answer Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/31/2001
Proceedings: Department`s Notice of Withdrawal of It`s Opposition to Petitioner`s Motion for Extension of Time (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 05/30/2001
Proceedings: Department`s Memorandum in Opposition to Petitioner`s Motion for Extension of Time to Answer Interrogatories (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 05/30/2001
Proceedings: Notice of Service of Respondent, ADR of Pensacola, Inc.`s Response to Interrogatories (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 05/24/2001
Proceedings: Order issued (the case is abated pending the outcome of appeal).
PDF:
Date: 05/21/2001
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing by Video Teleconference issued (video hearing set for June 29, 2001; 9:30 a.m.; Pensacola and Tallahassee, FL).
PDF:
Date: 05/18/2001
Proceedings: Letter to DOAH from the District Court of Appeal filed. DCA Case No. 1D01-1890
PDF:
Date: 05/03/2001
Proceedings: ADR of Pensacola, Inc.`s Expert Interrogatories to Michael L. Guttmann (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 05/03/2001
Proceedings: Notice of Service of Respondent, ADR of Pensacola, Inc.`s Interrogatories to Michael Guttmann (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 05/03/2001
Proceedings: Motion to Shorten Time for Response to Interrogatories (filed by Respondent`s via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 05/03/2001
Proceedings: Request for Hearing (filed by Respondent`s via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 04/20/2001
Proceedings: Other
PDF:
Date: 04/20/2001
Proceedings: Order Reopening Case filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/20/2001
Proceedings: Order Reopening Case CASE REOPENED 1-FILE.
PDF:
Date: 04/16/2001
Proceedings: Order of Remand filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/16/2001
Proceedings: Order of Remand filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/13/2001
Proceedings: Remanded from the Agency
PDF:
Date: 02/28/2001
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 02/28/2001
Proceedings: Recommended Order issued (hearing held November 30 and December 13, 2000) CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 02/28/2001
Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying hearing record referred to the Agency sent out.
PDF:
Date: 01/31/2001
Proceedings: Appendix filed by Petitioner.
PDF:
Date: 01/31/2001
Proceedings: Proposed Recommended Order with diskette filed by Petitioner.
PDF:
Date: 01/31/2001
Proceedings: Certificate of Service (Proposed Rcommended Order) filed by Petitioner.
PDF:
Date: 01/30/2001
Proceedings: Respondent`s Proposed Recommended Order (filed by via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 01/04/2001
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Response to Respondent`s Joint Motion for Objecting to Petitioner`s Request for Official Recognition filed.
Date: 12/29/2000
Proceedings: Transcript (Volume 1 and 2) filed.
Date: 12/21/2000
Proceedings: Respondent`s Exhibits #14 and #15 filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/20/2000
Proceedings: Respondent`s Joint Motion Objecting to Petitioner`s Request for Official Recognition (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 12/14/2000
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Exhibits filed.
Date: 12/13/2000
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held; see case file for applicable time frames.
PDF:
Date: 12/13/2000
Proceedings: Supplemental Petition (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 12/13/2000
Proceedings: Motion for Leave to Supplement Petition (filed by Petitioner via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 12/12/2000
Proceedings: Letter to Judge D. Alexander from M. Guttmann In re: pictures relating to tomorrows hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/07/2000
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing issued (hearing set for December 13, 2000; 1:00 p.m.; Pensacola, FL).
Date: 11/30/2000
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Partially Held; continued to date not certain.
PDF:
Date: 11/29/2000
Proceedings: Motions to Intervene (filed by B. Carroll, E. Barger, W. Peacock, G. Bixel, K. Bixel, T. Woodside, M. Keaney, B. Stewart, E. Bidwell, R. Osborn, J. Crabtree, R. Rodgiers P. and D. Theys, R. Urguhart, Mr. and Mrs. W. Thorsen, H. Weber, N. Weber, O. Jordan, C. McMann, A. Anderson, J. Brady, J. M. Brady, Brown, C. Strickland, C. Morse, R. Notz, B. Notz, J. Sasparo, G. Gaspard, Y. Kayir, G. Azab, M. Thrasher, J. Kayir, J. Keaney, I. Kellogg, G. Kellogg, G. Lowry, E. Stullken, D. Stullken, J. Pallante, J. Matthews, P. Veal, J. Veal, J. Engle, A. Engle, J. Rice, W. Hampton, C. Hobgood, A. Scott, S. Carroll, W. Johnston, A. Lowry, J. Johnston, L. Pochurek, W. and A. Hatcher, B. Kellogg, S. Smith, R. Horton, N. Scott-Mayo, D. Allbritton, D. Mason, C. Cook, B. Martin, J. Fulford III, J. Fulford, W. Hatcher, J. Sexton, G. Peacock, M. Fulford, B. Gregory, N. White, L. Gregory, and J. Brown).
PDF:
Date: 11/29/2000
Proceedings: Joint Motion to Strike all Motions to Intervene (filed by Respondent via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 11/28/2000
Proceedings: Respondents` Joint Motion in Limine Objecting to Petitioner`s Request for Judicial Notice (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 11/22/2000
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Hearing issued. (hearing set for November 30, 2000; 10:00 a.m.; Pensacola, FL, amended as to 8).
Date: 11/21/2000
Proceedings: Request for Judicial Notice filed by Petitioner.
PDF:
Date: 08/31/2000
Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing issued (hearing set for November 30, 2000; 10:30 a.m.; Pensacola, FL).
PDF:
Date: 08/25/2000
Proceedings: Agreed/Consented Motion to Continue Hearing Date filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/11/2000
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (filed by D. Sapp).
PDF:
Date: 08/01/2000
Proceedings: Notice of Intent to Issue Wetland Resource Permit Letter Form filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/20/2000
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for September 14, 2000; 10:30 a.m.; Pensacola, FL)
PDF:
Date: 07/17/2000
Proceedings: (M. Guttmann) Response to Initial Order filed.
Date: 06/21/2000
Proceedings: Initial Order issued.
Date: 06/16/2000
Proceedings: Agency Action filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/16/2000
Proceedings: Notice of Intent to Issue filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/16/2000
Proceedings: Petition for Administrative Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/16/2000
Proceedings: Request for Assignment of Administrative Law Judge and Notice of Preservation of Record filed.

Case Information

Judge:
D. R. ALEXANDER
Date Filed:
06/16/2000
Date Assignment:
06/21/2000
Last Docket Entry:
03/18/2002
Location:
Pensacola, Florida
District:
Northern
Agency:
ADOPTED IN PART OR MODIFIED
 

Related DOAH Cases(s) (2):

Related Florida Statute(s) (5):

Related Florida Rule(s) (6):