95-000102 Garden Villas Home Owner&Apos;S Association vs. Department Of Environmental Protection
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Monday, January 22, 1996.


View Dockets  
Summary: Petitioner didn't prove that terms of consent order weren't reasonable. Many objections about character of dump.

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.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
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.
PDF:
Date: 01/22/1996
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 01/22/1996
Proceedings: Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 8-24-95.
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.

Case Information

Judge:
P. MICHAEL RUFF
Date Filed:
01/11/1995
Date Assignment:
01/19/1995
Last Docket Entry:
03/13/2001
Location:
Shalimar, Florida
District:
Northern
Agency:
Department of Environmental Protection
 

Related DOAH Cases(s) (2):

Related Florida Statute(s) (2):

Related Florida Rule(s) (2):