95-000102
Garden Villas Home Owner&Apos;S Association vs.
Department Of Environmental Protection
Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Monday, January 22, 1996.
Recommended Order on Monday, January 22, 1996.
1STATE OF FLORIDA
4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
8GARDEN VILLAS HOMEOWNERS' )
12ASSOCIATION, )
14)
15Petitioner, )
17)
18vs. ) CASE NO. 95-102
23)
24DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL )
28PROTECTION, )
30)
31Respondent. )
33_____________________________)
34RECOMMENDED ORDER
36Pursuant to notice, this cause came on for formal hearing before P. Michael
49Ruff, duly-designated Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative
58Hearings, on August 24, 1995, in Shalimar, Florida.
66APPEARANCES
67For Petitioner: Mr. Lawrence Sidel, pro se
74219 Carmel Drive, Number 33
79Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32547-1961
84For Respondent: Richard L. Windsor, Esquire
90Department of Environmental Protection
942600 Blair Stone Road
98Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
101STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
105The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Consent
117Order proposed to be entered between Whitrock Associates, Inc. and the State of
130Florida, Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is reasonable under the
140circumstances raised in the proceeding herein. Embodied within that general
150issue are the issues raised by the Petitioner, who is attacking the Consent
163Order, concerning illegal dumping at the site, failure to post a guard at the
177site, improper fencing, and the allegation that the site (a construction and
189demolition debris disposal facility) is in an area for which it is not zoned.
203The Petitioner also complains of declining property values of the homes in close
216proximity to the site, increased noise, dust in the air, increased vermin,
228visual blight and destruction of a stocked fishing lake.
237PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
239This cause arose upon the agreement by DEP and Whitrock Associates, Inc. to
252a Consent Order resolving an enforcement proceeding. Their disputes revolved
262around the management of a construction and demolition debris disposal facility.
273The Consent Order directs the Respondent to provide DEP with notification of
285intent to use a "general permit" for a construction and demolition debris
297disposal facility for the facility in question. Upon failing to so qualify for
310and obtain a general permit, DEP, under the provisions of the Consent Order,
323will close the facility within 180 days of the effective date of the Consent
337Order.
338The dispute arose when, upon advice and inspection, DEP personnel learned
349that the Respondent had disposed of construction and demolition debris in the
361water body (exposed ground water) in a pit at the facility. This was not inert
376construction and demolition debris but, rather, was organic debris in the nature
388of lumber, discarded shingles, and the like. The general permit and the
400regulations in Chapter 62-701, Florida Administrative Code, governing such
409facilities, provide that construction and demolition debris disposal facilities
418cannot accept such non-inert, organic construction and demolition debris.
427Consequently, the Consent Order provides that the material wrongfully disposed
437of be removed from the facility and that the Respondent pay DEP $2,300.00 in
452financial settlement of the matters addressed in the Consent Order. This
463includes an amount for civil penalties for violation of Section 403.161, Florida
475Statutes, and DEP's rules embodied in Chapter 62-701, Florida Administrative
485Code, and for costs and expenses incurred during the investigation and
496preparation of the enforcement action culminating in the Consent Order.
506The Consent Order provides penalties for failure to comply with it within
518certain time limits and for assessment of separate penalties for each violation
530of the Consent Order. In general, it provides detailed procedures for the owner
543of the facility to accomplish compliance with the terms of the Consent Order.
556The Consent Order also affords a point of entry for a Section 120.57(1), Florida
570Statutes, proceeding, of which the Petitioner has taken advantage. It has
581raised the issues referenced above, taken from the Petition filed in this
593matter.
594The cause came on for hearing as noticed. At the hearing, DEP, Respondent,
607presented the testimony of Billy Ross Mitchell, an Environmental Specialist with
618DEP, involved in the solid-waste regulation section, with some 14 years of
630experience. Additionally, the Respondent presented four exhibits, which were
639admitted into evidence.
642The Petitioner presented the testimony of Lawrence Sidel, Vice President
652and "acting counsel" for the Petitioner and Don Bragg, President of the
664Petitioner. Eddie Phillips, Owen Karr, Robert Hartley, and Erma Mahler, unit
675owners in the Garden Villas Homeowners' Association, a development proximate to
686the construction and demolition debris disposal site at issue, testified as
697well.
698Upon conclusion of the proceeding, the parties were afforded an extended
709briefing schedule to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
721They requested and were allowed to submit these 30 days after the filing of the
736transcript in this matter. Some months elapsed and no transcript was yet filed.
749Upon inquiry by the Hearing Officer, counsel for the DEP advised that a
762transcript would be filed and a Proposed Recommended Order would thereafter be
774timely filed. The transcript was received, but ultimately, on November 3, 1995,
786the Hearing Officer received advice, by counsel for DEP, that it had elected not
800to submit a Proposed Recommended Order. None was submitted by the Petitioner.
812FINDINGS OF FACT
8151. The Petitioner is comprised of residents of the residential
825neighborhood in close proximity to the construction and demolition debris
835disposal site or pit maintained by Whitrock Associates, Inc.. Its President is
847Jim Whitfield, a party Respondent to the subject Consent Order. The Petitioner
859complains that illegal dumping is occurring at the disposal site, that there is
872no guard maintained at the gate, and that the gate is not locked when no one is
889present. It complains that DEP does not inspect the facility enough by only
902inspecting it once per year and that the facility should be closed down. Its
916chief objections are that refuse is being dumped in what it considers to be a
931stocked fishing lake. The "lake" is a borrow pit partially filled with water,
944which resulted when excavation of the dirt in the pit penetrated below the
957ground water table. The chief objections raised by the Petitioner amount to the
970nuisance "eye-sore" nature of the facility and the concomitant deleterious
980effect its presence and activity has arguably had on property values and the
993Petitioner's members' ability to re-sell homes. The Petitioner's standing is
1003not contested.
10052. The Respondent is an agency of the State of Florida charged with
1018regulating landfills, construction and demolition debris disposal sites and
1027other such waste sites, within the purview of Section 403.161, Florida Statutes,
1039concerning pollution discharge and, more specifically, rules contained in
1048Chapter 62-701, Florida Administrative Code, concerning solid waste and similar
1058materials and disposal facilities. DEP is a party Respondent to this proceeding
1070because the Consent Order it has entered into with the owner and operator of the
1085site, Whitrock Associates, Inc., has been challenged, within the point of entry
1097period afforded by that Consent Order, by the above-named Petitioner.
11073. Whitrock Associates, Inc. maintains a construction and demolition
1116debris disposal site, in the form of an excavated pit, located between Carmel
1129Drive and Vicky Leigh Road in Fort Walton Beach, Okaloosa County, Florida. An
1142inspection of the facility by DEP personnel on October 13, 1994 revealed the
1155disposal of organic debris in surface water at the site, the disposal of which
1169is illegal in ground or surface waters. It also came to DEP's attention at this
1184time that the facility was operating with an expired general permit.
1195Consequently, an enforcement action was initiated against the owner and operator
1206of the facility. After extensive negotiations, the subject Consent Order
1216resulted, which has been challenged by the Petitioner.
12244. The essential provisions of the Consent Order would require that the
1236Respondent to it, meaning Whitrock Associates, Inc., cease disposal of
1246construction and demolition debris at the facility, which is not "clean debris".
"1259Clean debris" is inert debris, such as brick, glass, ceramics, and
1270uncontaminated concrete, including embedded pipe or steel. The Consent Order
1280provides that within 60 days of its effective date, all such non-conforming
1292construction and demolition debris shall be removed from the water at the site
1305and that the Respondent, Whitrock Associates, Inc., shall submit a notification
1316of intent to use a general permit for the construction and demolition debris
1329disposal facility to DEP. Failure to proceed to obtain the general permit would
1342result in closure of the facility, pursuant to Rule 62-701.803(10), Florida
1353Administrative Code. The Consent Order also provides that a $2,300.00 civil
1365penalty and cost payment shall be made to DEP in full settlement of the matters
1380addressed in the Consent Order. That payment shall be made within 30 days of
1394the effective date of the Consent Order. The Consent Order then enunciates, in
1407great detail, the manner in which future penalties will be assessed for any
1420violation of the Consent Order and related time limits, as well as payment
1433methods and circumstances. It also provides a means for handling of delays in
1446compliance with the Consent Order. It provides the means for enforcement of the
1459terms of the Consent Order.
14645. Billy Ross Mitchell is an Environmental Specialist with 14 years of
1476experience with DEP. He works in the solid waste section. Among his other
1489duties, he inspects solid waste disposal facilities. He has a degree in
1501environmental resource management.
15046. Mr. Mitchell established that this is the type of facility, where,
1516because of the disposal of inert construction debris, which does not pose a
1529significant pollution threat, a so-called "general permit" is sufficient
1538authorization for operation of the facility. The facility was operating with an
1550expired general permit at the time of Mr. Mitchell's inspection, but a new
1563general permit has since been authorized. Mr. Mitchell performed the inspection
1574of the facility, at which he observed illegal construction debris being placed
1586in the water at the site. DEP's rules allow inert material, such as brick,
1600glass, ceramics, and so forth to be placed in water at the site, which, in
1615essence, is a borrow pit. The rules forbid organic materials, such as shingles,
1628lumber and other similar materials, which can sometimes be constituted of
1639pollutant substances, from being placed in the surface or ground water.
16507. As shown by the Respondent's Exhibit 3, a letter from Mr. Cooley, a
1664District Director of DEP, to Mr. Lawrence Sidel of the Petitioner,
1675uncontaminated dirt and "clean debris", such as chunks of concrete and the like,
1688are not considered under Florida law to be solid waste. DEP takes the position
1702that there is no prohibition against a person using clean fill, without a
1715required permit, to fill land or bodies of water that are not "state
1728jurisdictional water." The water body on the Whitrock property is not a state
1741jurisdictional lake or water body. It is an old borrow pit, wholly contained on
1755the Whitrock property. State law allows its owners to fill it with dirt or
1769clean fill. Whitrock is not allowed to use any material classified as "solid
1782waste" in filling the pit, hence the violation cited to that firm in the
1796particular mentioned above, concerning the non-inert construction debris that
1805was placed in the water.
18108. The Respondent's Exhibit 4 is an engineer's report prepared for the
1822Whitrock facility involving the "notification of proposed use of a general
1833permit" process for the operation of the construction and demolition debris
1844disposal facility. This is the general permit notification process and general
1855permit referenced in the Consent Order. 1/
18629. The site has been used for many years as a borrow pit for dirt fill
1878material or sand, as well as a disposal site for construction debris. In the
1892general permit achievement process, the owner proposes to grade the site so that
1905the final grade is the original, natural grade, with a slight two percent top
1919slope to promote runoff to surrounding retention swales which will be installed
1931at the site. The soil borings reflect that at all depths tested, sand is the
1946underlying soil at the site. The borrow pit has been excavated below the
1959natural water table, which has resulted in ponding of water on the floor of the
1974borrow pit. This is proposed to be filled with "clean" debris, as it is
1988received on site. Clean debris is solid waste which is virtually inert and
2001which poses no pollution threat to ground or surface waters, is not a fire
2015hazard, and is likely to retain its physical and chemical structure under
2027expected conditions of disposal or use. Examples of it are as depicted in
2040paragraphs six and seven, supra. Clean debris disposal is thus proposed within
2052the pit bottom to an elevation of one foot above water table, above which
2066construction and demolition debris will be disposed.
207310. The owner of the facility will be the person responsible for
2085operation, maintenance, and closure of the proposed disposal facility.
2094Procedures will be followed to control the types of waste received, the
2106unloading, compaction, application of cover, final cover, and control of storm
2117water at the site. The existing perimeter fence will remain with a lockable
2130gate at the entrance to the site.
213711. In accordance with Rule 62-701.803(8), Florida Administrative Code, at
2147least one spotter/operator will be on duty when the site is operating to inspect
2161incoming waste. If prohibited waste is discovered, it will be separated from
2173the waste stream and placed in appropriate containers for disposal at a
2185properly-permitted facility. A commercial dumpster is located on site for
2195unpermitted waste and is regularly emptied by a sanitation contractor. This
2206practice is proposed to continue with the issuance of the general permit for
2219the construction and demolition debris facility. Construction and demolition
2228debris filling operations will proceed from the northwest corner of the site and
2241progress in an easterly direction along the north property fence line. Due to
2254the depth of the existing cut, approximately 25 feet, it will take approximately
2267three separate "lifts" of waste and compacted material in order to reach a
2280finished grade elevation, to match the original grade of the surrounding
2291terrain. Additional soils required for intermediate cover material and final
2301cover will be obtained off site from other sources. Filling operations should
2313allow for approximately a 100-foot wide working face to aide in keeping a
2326manageable disposal area. A dozer and front-end loader will be available on the
2339site to compact waste material into the "working face." Each lift will be six
2353to eight feet thick.
235712. Closure of each portion of the facility will occur as waste compaction
2370approaches original grade. Final cover, seeding or planting of vegetated cover
2381will be placed during stages, within 180 days after reaching final-design waste
2393elevations. The final cover will consist of a 24-inch thick soil layer, with
2406the top six inches being capable of supporting vegetation. The site shall be
2419graded to eliminate ponding, while minimizing erosion. Upon final cover
2429placement across the site, the owner will notify DEP within 30 days.
244113. Storm water will be controlled via retention swales surrounding the
2452site. The swales are sized to accommodate one-half inch volume across the site.
246514. These specifications are those proposed to be installed and operated
2476at the site in return for the grant of the general permit and are necessary
2491elements of the negotiations and ultimate settlement agreement reached embodied
2501in the Consent Order. Thus, they are required by the Consent Order, should it
2515become final agency action.
251915. Chief among the Petitioner's concerns is the matter of the alleged
2531non-compliance of the disposal site and facility with zoning for that area and
2544land-use ordinances, as well as concerns regarding property values, tax
2554assessments and the inherent difficulty in re-sale of homes caused by the
2566presence and operation of the facility. 2/ The Petitioner, whose members,
2577among others, are a number of adjoining landowners, some of whom testified, also
2590complains of pollution of the water body involved, the standing water in the
2603bottom of the borrow pit. Witness Mitchell, as well as Respondent's Exhibit 4,
2616concerning the conditions under which the general permit will be obtained and
2628operated (conditions also repeated in the Consent Order), established that the
2639deposition of only construction and demolition debris and clean fill in the
2651water will pose no pollution which violates Section 403.161, Florida Statutes,
2662and attendant rules.
266516. The terms in the Consent Order, which require the general permit and
2678the conditions referenced in the Respondent's Exhibit 4, concerning the general
2689permit, will result in minimal hazards of pollutants entering surface or ground
2701waters, or in polluted air or water emanating from the site in violation of
2715regulatory strictures, assuming frequent inspections by DEP are made to insure
2726compliance. Thus, it has been established that the proposed Consent Order is
2738reasonable under the circumstances. 3/
2743CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
274617. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the
2756subject matter of and the parties to this proceeding, pursuant to Section
2768120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
277118. This is a case initiated by third-party challengers (Petitioner) to
2782the terms of a Consent Order entered into between DEP and the owner and operator
2797of the subject facility. In essence, the Consent Order amounts to a formalized
2810settlement agreement, with the Petitioner taking advantage of the point of entry
2822afforded them in that Consent Order and in Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes,
2834to contest its terms.
283819. There are two types of consent orders. One, in reality, amounts to a
2852licensing or authorization for permitting, in the typical situation where DEP
2863has discovered that a certain type of activity is proceeding or about to
2876proceed, which should be permitted, but which is not the subject of a permit
2890application. After negotiation, the parties in such a situation typically enter
2901into an agreed settlement, culminating in a consent order, which will result in
2914permitting the type of activity involved. The second type of consent order is
2927one issued by DEP through an enforcement action, to resolve an alleged violation
2940of a statute or rule. The issues which may be raised by parties challenging a
2955consent order and the level and assignment of burden of proof vary, depending on
2969which type of consent order the forum and the parties are confronted with.
2982Thus, the consideration of level and assignment of burden of proof, as well the
2996germane legal issues concerning the Consent Order at hand, is in order.
300820. The case of Sarasota County v. State of Florida, Department of
3020Environmental Regulation and Ronald W. Falconer, DOAH Case No. 86-2463 (Final
3031Order entered March 8, 1987), provides some illumination in this area. In that
3044case, the Department determined that there are two classes of consent orders
3056issued by the Department:
3060The first class of consent order serves
3067as authorization for a permittable type
3073of activity that has not yet been conducted
3081or is ongoing in nature and is the type of
3091activity more properly the subject of the
3098permit application. . . . The second class
3106of consent order is issued by the Department
3114to resolve an alleged violation of statutes
3121or rule resulting from a facility being
3128constructed without a permit or from a
3135facility causing pollution that must be
3141ameliorated or both. Consent orders of
3147this class are issued to settle existing
3154outstanding violations of law and may require
3161any or all of the following as the specific
3170circumstances of each case dictate: payment
3176of penalties, reimbursement of Department
3181costs, payment of damages to the environment,
3188or remedial action.
3191When a hearing is requested on a consent order
3200of the first class, the burden of proof is on
3210the respondent desiring to conduct or continue
3217the authorized activity as in the permit
3224proceeding. In other words, the respondent
3230must demonstrate entitlement to the authoriza-
3236tion by providing reasonable assurances that
3242the criteria in Chapter 403, Florida Statutes,
3249and Department rules have been met. When the
3257challenged consent order is a vehicle for
3264resolving existing violations of law, however,
3270the Department and the settling party must
3277prove not reasonable assurance, but reasonable-
3283ness of the consent order.
3288When a consent order allows a project built
3296without a permit to remain, the threshold
3303question in determining the reasonableness
3308of the consent order is whether the project
3316would have been entitled to a permit had the
3325respondent applied for one. If the respondent
3332or the Department can carry the burden of proving
3341that a permit could have been obtained based
3349upon the reasonable assurance standard, an entry
3356of a consent authorizing the project to remain
3364is per se reasonable. Although the Department,
3371in the exercise of its enforcement discretion,
3378may find it appropriate to impose additional
3385requirements, such as imposition of penalties,
3391recovery of costs, or even removal of the
3399installation, those other requirements are not
3405the proper subject of review by third parties
3413in a Section 120.57(1), proceeding, since they
3420do not affect the substantial interests of the
3428third parties. Those interests are limited to
3435the environmental impacts of the projects them-
3442selves. If the project would not have been
3450entitled to a permit, however, inquiry as to
3458the appropriateness of the consent order may
3465be the subject of Section 120.57(1) review.
3472That review then focuses on whether the action
3480taken by the Department is a reasonable exercise
3488of its enforcement discretion. Factors such as
3495the nature of the violation, the sufficiency of
3503any penalty, the availability of Department
3509resources, Department enforcement priorities,
3513and the harm that might result from restoration
3521would then be considered in determining the
3528reasonableness of the Department's settlement.
3533The Department must have discretion in the
3540allocation of its enforcement resources, because
3546every violation cannot and should not be treated
3554equally. Unless a third party challenger can
3561show that discretion has been abused, its exercise
3569should not be disturbed. . . . Consent orders
3578which settle existing violations of law and allow
3586unpermitted structures to remain are more in the
3594nature of settlement agreements than licenses.
3600Licensing considerations and constraints are
3605important in evaluating the reasonableness of
3611such consent orders, but only under limited
3618circumstances are they absolutely determinative.
362321. The Consent Order with which we are confronted in this proceeding is
3636of the latter type, which is an enforcement action culminating in a consent
3649order which settles existing violations of law and which allows a previously un-
3662permitted structure (or site) to remain in operation under certain conditions.
3673The site was previously un-permitted in the sense that the previously authorized
3685general permit had expired. One of the conditions in the subject Consent Order
3698required by DEP is that appropriate steps and measures (represented by the
3710engineering report contained in Respondent's Exhibit 4 in evidence) be taken to
3722insure that a general permit was re-authorized. That has been done and as shown
3736by witness Mitchell for DEP, the new general permit has already been authorized
3749and is not the subject of litigation in this proceeding.
375922. In any event, general permits are granted administratively, if the
3770requirements for them are met, and are not the subject of opportunities for
3783third parties to challenge, under Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. Because
3793this Consent Order and the activity and negotiations it represents does not
3805really amount to a permitting in the traditional sense, where a permit applicant
3818must demonstrate reasonable assurances that water quality and public interest
3828standards are not violated, then licensing considerations involving proof to the
3839standard of reasonable assurances are not binding. Rather, they can be used as
3852guidance in evaluating the reasonableness of the enforcement-type Consent Order
3862at issue in this case.
386723. In that connection, unrefuted testimony adduced by DEP shows that if
3879the conditions enumerated in the Consent Order are carried out and the offending
3892pollutant material is removed from the borrow pit area, then the water quality
3905and public interest standards embodied in Sections 403.913, 918 and 919, Florida
3917Statutes, and Chapters 62-3, 62-302, and Rule 62-701.803, Florida Administrative
3927Code, would not be violated. This eventuality tends to support the
3938reasonableness of the enforcement action and resolution advanced by DEP's
3948position in the Consent Order. Moreover, under the relevant solid waste
3959permitting rules embodied in 62-701.730 and 62-701.803, Florida Administrative
3968Code, the activity conducted previously, and proposed to be continued, involves
3979only the disposal of construction and demolition debris. This does not require
3991a solid waste permit under these rules but, rather, is in the category of an
4006administratively granted "general permit" activity or installation. DEP's
4014evidence establishes that the requirements for such a permit have been met, and
4027the general permit has already been authorized.
403424. The point here is that, even if the air and water quality and public
4049interest protections, contained in the above-cited statutes and rules,
4058incorporated in the solid waste permitting rules at 62-701.803, Florida
4068Administrative Code, were applicable here, they would not be violated by the
4080activities proposed to be conducted and continued at the site. This is so if
4094the terms of the Consent Order are carried out. These factors and
4106considerations thus show that the terms and ameliorative steps advanced by the
4118Consent Order are reasonable under the circumstances and should be approved.
412925. The Petitioner decries the nuisance nature of the facility and the
4141activities conducted there in terms of its being an eyesore, having a
4153deleterious effect on the property values and the marketability of the members'
4165properties. The Petitioner contends that the facility violates local government
4175zoning ordinances. It has thus raised issues which are not within the
4187Department's or the Division of Administrative Hearings' jurisdiction, under the
4197statutory and regulatory authorization for this proceeding, contained in Chapter
4207403, Florida Statutes, the rules enacted thereunder and Chapter 120, Florida
4218Statutes. Zoning issues and nuisance-type issues are within the jurisdiction of
4229local government bodies and the civil court system, not the administrative forum
4241involved in the conduct of this proceeding.
424826. Aside from that, the Petitioner's arguments and testimony do not raise
4260any support for fact finding which would show that air or water quality
4273standards have been or will be violated by the continued operation of the
4286subject site in accordance with the restrictions imposed by the Consent Order.
4298It has not been shown that the public interest standards embodied in the above-
4312cited legal authority, which are the only ones DEP and, therefore, the Division
4325of Administrative Hearings are allowed to consider, will be violated by a
4337continuation of the activity as proposed in the Consent Order. Thus, it has not
4351been shown that the Consent Order is unreasonable under the above circumstances.
436327. In summary, the preponderant evidence culminating in the above
4373Findings of Fact shows that the Consent Order, with the conditions and
4385restrictions it would impose, including the potential closing of the facility if
4397the provisions of the Consent Order are not carried out by Whitrock Associates,
4410Inc., is reasonable under the circumstances proven. If at any point the
4422Petitioner or DEP observe that the standards by which the general permit is
4435issued and which are embodied in the Consent Order have been violated, then an
4449appropriate enforcement action could be instituted by DEP on its own motion or
4462at the behest of the Petitioner or others similarly situated.
4472RECOMMENDATION
4473Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is
4486RECOMMENDED that the Consent Order issued in the case of State of Florida,
4499Department of Environmental Protection v. Whitrock Associates, Inc. be ratified
4509and adopted as final agency action, in accordance with Chapter 120, Florida
4521Statutes.
4522DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of January, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida.
4534___________________________________
4535P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer
4540Division of Administrative Hearings
4544The DeSoto Building
45471230 Apalachee Parkway
4550Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
4553(904) 488-9675
4555Filed with the Clerk of the
4561Division of Administrative Hearings
4565this 22nd day of January, 1996.
4571ENDNOTES
45721/ Rule 62-701.803, Florida Administrative Code.
45782/ While this activity and site, which the Petitioner considers to be a
4591nuisance, is upsetting to the Petitioner, and it is concerned about such an
4604effect on the property values and the marketability of the properties, such
4616complaints cannot be addressed before this administrative forum. They are
4626addressable, if at all, before local government bodies or a court of competent
4639jurisdiction.
46403/ See, Sarasota County v. State of Florida, Department of Environmental
4651Regulation and Ronald W. Falconer, 9 FALR 1822 (Final Order entered March 5,
46641987).
4665COPIES FURNISHED:
4667Mr. Lawrence Sidel
4670219 Carmel Drive, No. 33
4675Fort Walton Beach, FL 32547-1961
4680Richard L. Windsor, Esquire
4684Department of Environmental Protection
46882600 Blair Stone Road
4692Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
4695Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary
4699Department of Environmental Protection
4703Douglas Building
47053900 Commonwealth Boulevard
4708Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000
4711Kenneth Plante
4713General Counsel
4715Department of Environmental Protection
4719Douglas Building
47213900 Commonwealth Boulevard
4724Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000
4727NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
4733All parties have the right to submit to the agency written exceptions to this
4747Recommended Order. All agencies allow each party at least ten days in which to
4761submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to
4773submit written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will issue the
4785Final Order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing
4798exceptions to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order
4809should be filed with the agency that will issue the Final Order in this case.
- Date
- Proceedings
- Date: 03/13/2001
- Proceedings: Consent Order filed by Respondent
- Date: 02/26/1996
- Proceedings: Letter to HO from L. Sidel Re: Statement in referenced to RO filed.
- Date: 11/03/1995
- Proceedings: to G. Green from Richard Windsor Re: Transcript filed.
- Date: 10/16/1995
- Proceedings: to HO from Lawrence Sidel Re: Sufficient evidence to close dump filed.
- Date: 10/11/1995
- Proceedings: (Transcript) w/cover filed.
- Date: 06/13/1995
- Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
- Date: 04/03/1995
- Proceedings: Subpoena Ad Testificandum; Return of Service filed.
- Date: 02/20/1995
- Proceedings: Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 06/13/95;10:30AM;Shalimar)
- Date: 02/09/1995
- Proceedings: CC: to Petitioner from R. Windsor (re: response to initial order) filed.
- Date: 02/01/1995
- Proceedings: Ltr. to HO from Michelle Bragg re: Reply to Initial Order filed.
- Date: 01/19/1995
- Proceedings: Initial Order issued.
- Date: 01/11/1995
- Proceedings: Request for Assignment of Hearing Officer and Notice of Preservation of Record; Consent Order; Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing filed.