91-005335RX
Depot Key Joint Venture Partnership And George Rex Andrews vs.
Trustees Of The Internal Improvement Trust Fund
Status: Closed
DOAH Final Order on Thursday, June 4, 1992.
DOAH Final Order on Thursday, June 4, 1992.
1STATE OF FLORIDA
4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
8JOHN D. REMINGTON and BARRETT OTT, )
15IDLEWYLD CORPORATION, INC., LOST )
20TREE VILLAGE CORPORATION, ROGER )
25BRODERICK, THEODORE WATROUS and )
30THOMAS MUNZ, DEPOT KEY JOINT )
36VENTURE PARTNERSHIP and GEORGE REX )
42ANDREWS, FLORIDA ELECTRIC POWER )
47COORDINATING GROUP, INC., )
51)
52Petitioners, )
54)
55vs. ) CASE NOs. 91- 5329RX
61) 91- 5330RX
64BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL ) 91- 5331RX
73IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND, ) 91- 5334RX
79) 91- 5335RX
82Respondent, ) 91- 5336RX
86and )
88)
89SIERRA CLUB, INC. and FLORIDA )
95AUDUBON SOCIETY, )
98)
99Intervenors. )
101___________________________________)
102FINAL ORDER
104Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly
115designated Hearing Officer, James E. Bradwell, held a formal hearing in this
127case on October 28-29, and November 4-8, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida.
138APPEARANCES
139For Petitioners M. Christopher Bryant, Esquire
145Broderick, Munz and Robert C. Downie, Esquire
152& Watrous: OERTEL HOFFMAN FERNANDEZ & COLE
159Post Office Box 6507
163Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507
166For Petitioner Mary F. Smallwood, Esquire
172Lost Tree: and Margaret Ray Kemper, Esquire
179RUDEN BARNETT McCLOSKY SMITH
183SCHUSTER & RUSSELL
186Monroe Park Tower, Suite 1010
191101 North Monroe Street
195Tallahassee, Florida 32301
198For Petitioners Robert P. Diffenderfer, Esquire,
204Remington, Ott R. Steve Lewis, Esquire
210& Idlewyld: and Anne Longman, Esquire
216MESSER VICKERS CAPARELLO MADSEN
220LEWIS & METZ
2232000 Palm Bch Lakes Boulevard, Suite 900
230West Palm Beach, Florida 33409
235For Petitioners Deborah A. Getzoff, Esquire and
242Andrews & Depot Pamela Presnell Garvin, Esquire
249Key: FOWLER WHITE GILLEN BOGGS
254VILLAREAL & BANKER
257Monroe Park Tower, Suite 910
262101 North Monroe Street
266Tallahassee, Florida 32301
269For Respondent Debra W. Schiro, Esquire
275Board of and Edwin Steinmeyer, Esquire
281Trustees: Department of Natural Resources
2863900 Commonwealth Boulevard
289Tallahassee, Florida 32399 3000
293For Intervenor Debra Swim, Esquire
298Sierra Club: Route 35, Box 1815
304Tallahassee, Florida 32310
307For Intervenor Jozeph Z. Fleming, Esquire
313Florida Audubon JOZEPH Z. FLEMING, P.A.
319Society: 620 Ingraham Building
32325 Southeast Second Avenue
327Miami, Florida 33131
330ISSUES PRESENTED FOR DECISION HEREIN
335Whether or not the proposed amendments to Respondent's Rules 18-21.003 and
34618-21.004, Florida Administrative Code, comply with Section 120.54, Florida
355Statutes, or is otherwise an invalid exercise of delegated legislative
365authority.
366Specifically, the following issues are raised by the pleadings and
376presentation of the parties: a) Whether the proposed rule amendments exceed the
388Respondent's grant of authority by placing a moratorium on the issuance of
400requests to use sovereign submerged lands adjacent to coastal islands, as more
412specifically defined by the rule; b) Whether Respondent failed to materially
423follow rulemaking procedures as prescribed by Section 120.54, Florida Statutes
433in preparation of the economic impact statement; c) Whether the amendments are
445arbitrary and capricious because they are unnecessary and are unrelated to the
457administration and management of sovereign submerged lands; d) Whether the
467proposed amendments contained terms and definitions which are vague and
477ambiguous, because the terms as defined are not ascertainable; e) Whether the
489proposed amendments effectuate a "taking" of Petitioner's property; and f)
499Whether the claims of Petitioner's Andrews, Depot Key and Lost Tree that the
512Board of Trustees are estopped from promulgating the proposed amendments are
523without merit. Additionally, Respondent raised the issue of whether the
533Petitioners had standing to bring the subject rule challenge.
542PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
544The Governor and the Cabinet, acting as the trustees of the Internal
556Improvement Trust Fund (herein Trustees or Respondent) are responsible for
566protecting the public trust in the management and regulation of submerged
577sovereignty lands. By virtue of constitutional provisions, the Trustees may
587only grant leases or easements or convey any such sovereignty property held in
600public trust when doing so is in the public interest, Article X, Section 11 of
615the Florida Constitution as amended in 1970.
622The Trustees, in the process of reviewing applications for the use of
634sovereignty lands protected by the foregoing constitutional mandate and
643statutory provisions became concerned that allowing utilization of public lands
653to encourage, facilitate and enable development of unbridged islands could
663result in utilization of public lands which would be contrary to the public
676interest or otherwise not in the public interest. As a result of that concern,
690the Trustees commissioned Respondent to work in conjunction with other
700appropriate agencies to formulate and promulgate specific rule amendments
709regarding permitting of public trust lands for the purpose of facilitating
720development on coastal islands. Following the Trustees commission, Respondent
729held a series of workshops to address the concerns and to study the issues
743presented and formulated the subject proposed rule. During the interim, a
754temporary moratorium was implemented to defer pending applications regarding
763such unbridged coastal islands, which proposed rule amendments are now being
774challenged here by Petitioners.
778Following the conclusion of Petitioners' case, Respondent moved to dismiss
788as to all Petitioners for lack of standing and Intervenor Audubon moved for a
802directed verdict but later abandoned its motion. The motion to dismiss was
814briefed prior to submission of proposed final orders. That motion, as well as
827all pending motions, will be ruled upon herein.
835Petitioners qualified as expert witnesses, Erik Olsen in coastal
844engineering and civil engineering; James Nicholas in land economics; and Ross
855McWilliams in biology and marine biology and related state permitting issues.
866The Trustees qualified as expert witness, George Schmahl in biology, coastal
877ecology and coastal resource management. Intervenor, Sierra Club, qualified as
887expert Russell Nelson in fisheries and fisheries management. Intervenor Florida
897Audubon qualified as expert Mark Benedict in ecology specializing in coastal
908ecosystems and plant ecology and related natural resource management areas and
919Bernard Yokel in fisheries biology, estuarine ecology and related water quality
930impacts.
931Based on my consideration of the entire record compiled herein, the
942following relevant facts are found.
947FINDINGS OF FACT
9501. The Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Trustees)
962holds state land in trust for the use and benefit of the people of the State of
979Florida, pursuant to Section 7, Article II, and Section 11, Article X of the
993State Constitution.
9952. The Division of State Lands within the Department of Natural Resources
1007( DNR) performs all staff duties and functions related to acquisition,
1018administration and disposition of state lands, title to which is or will be
1031vested in the Trustees pursuant to Section 253.002, Florida Statutes.
10413. The Trustees are vested and charged with the acquisition,
1051administration, management, control, supervision, conservation, protection and
1058disposition of all lands owned by, or which may inure to, the State or any of
1074its agencies, departments, boards, or commissions, except for certain exceptions
1084contained in Section 253.03(1), Florida Statutes. Among lands vested in the
1095Trustees are all tidal lands and all lands covered by shallow waters of the
1109ocean or gulf or bays or lagoons thereof, and all lands owned by the state
1124covered by freshwater (i.e., sovereign submerged lands).
11314. The Trustees are authorized to administer all state-owned lands and are
1143responsible for creating an overall and comprehensive plan of development
1153concerning acquisition, management, and disposition of state-owned lands so as
1163to insure maximum benefit and use. To accomplish this mandate, the Trustees are
1176empowered to adopt all necessary rules and regulations pursuant to Section
1187253.03(7)(a), Florida Statutes.
11905. Currently, the administration and management of sovereign submerged
1199lands is governed by the provisions of Chapters 18-18, 18-20 and 18-21, Florida
1212Administrative Code. Pursuant to rules contained therein, the Trustees may
1222approve the following types of uses of sovereign submerged lands: a) Consents
1234of use, b) Easements, c) Management Agreements, d) Use Agreements and e) Leases.
12476. On June 27, 1989, the Trustees were asked to consider approving the
1260issuance of a 5-year sovereign submerged land lease for the construction of a
127342-slip private residential docking facility located adjacent to Atsena Otie
1283Key, an island located off the coast of Cedar Key, which would serve a proposed
1298upland development. Approval of that lease would, if granted, preempt over
130914,500 sq. ft. of sovereign submerged lands.
13177. Under pertinent rules in place when the Trustees considered the Atsena
1329Otie Key request, Trustees' staff recommended that they approve the requested
1340use. However, based on written public opposition to the approval of that
1352request, the Trustees, during the subject Cabinet meeting, heard from eight
1363persons appeared who urged denial of the requested use maintaining that the
1375proposed project was not in the public interest.
13838. Based on public opposition and the concerns raised, the Trustees
1394rejected staff's recommendation and unanimously deferred action on the Atsena
1404Otie lease request. Additionally, the Trustees directed the Division of State
1415Lands to compile a report of what types of federal and state protection of
1429coastal islands currently existed. The Trustees thereafter commissioned its to
1439pull together their authority and promulgate a rule enunciating common standards
1450for application on barrier islandseasurer Gallagher moved to have the DNR
1461develop rules for the trustees to follow when making decisions regarding
1472development on coastal islands which was to be presented to the Trustees at the
1486August 22, 1989 Cabinet meeting.
14919. Based on the Trustees desire to develop a more clearly enunciated
1503policy of what the state would allow its lands adjacent to coastal islands to be
1518used for in the future and to put the public on notice as to what they could
1535expect the Trustees to permit in terms of the use of sovereign submerged lands
1549adjacent to coastal islands and to also provide its staff with guidance as to
1563how they would analyze requests prior to submitting them for consideration, the
1575proposed rule here under challenge was promulgated to put in place a statewide
1588policy regarding development of undeveloped coastal islands. In addition, the
1598Trustees were concerned about issues being raised as to the use of sovereign
1611submerged lands to facilitate coastal island development which was not being
1622adequately addressed by the local governments comprehensive planning processes.
163110. The next developmental stage of the coastal island policy was agendaed
1643at the August 22, 1989 Cabinet meeting. At that meeting, staff presented a
1656report entitled, "Analysis Of Existing Policy And Programs Affecting Florida's
1666Coastal Resources." That report summarized and analyzed the existing federal
1676and state programs affecting Florida's coastal islands. It is noted that there
1688existed no single state or federal program with sufficient standards and
1699authority to adequately protect and manage the entire beaches, dunes, back
1710barriers and wetland systems of Florida's coastal islands. Likewise, there was
1721no easy accessible resource data base or model criteria to assist local and
1734state agencies in the planning, management and regulation of coastal island
1745development and protection. The findings in that report triggered the Trustees
1756to approve a temporary moratorium on authorizations for the use of sovereign
1768submerged lands that would facilitate development of currently unbridged,
1777undeveloped coastal islands until such time as the Trustees could adopt a policy
1790for considering such requests. At that meeting, the Trustees invited public
1801comment before taking action on staff's recommendations. Following public
1810discussions, the Trustees unanimously accepted the staff's report and a
1820temporary moratorium was placed on authorizations for use of sovereign submerged
1831lands that would facilitate development of currently unbridged, undeveloped
1840coastal islands until DNR's Division of State Lands could propose a
1851comprehensive policy for such requests. Following approval of the staff's
1861report and recommendations, the Trustees reconsidered the Atsena Otie Key
1871request for authorization to construct the 42-slip docking facility and the
1882Trustees approved the lease request but made the approval subject to several
1894amendments including a reduction in size from a 42-slip to a 25-slip private
1907residential docking facility.
191011. The Trustees next addressed the developing coastal island policy at
1921the December 19, 1989 Cabinet meeting. At that meeting, the Trustees deferred
1933voting on staff's recommendation that they adopt an interim policy governing the
1945use of sovereign submerged lands adjacent to unbridged coastal islands until the
1957February 1990 Cabinet meeting.
196112. At the February 6, 1990 Cabinet meeting, following a lengthy public
1973discussion, the Trustees again deferred action on adoption of the interim policy
1985until they more fully reviewed the issues surrounding the emerging policy at a
1998Cabinet workshop.
200013. During that meeting, the Trustees were advised by opponents to their
2012policy about the potential environmental impacts that would arise if the
2023policies were implemented and developers were forced to seek alternative means
2034of providing sewer, water and electricity to their developments. After listing
2045to those concerns, the Trustees considered the opponents position but retained
2056their position of restricting the use of sovereign lands. At the conclusion of
2069the discussion, the Trustees voted unanimously to defer action for 90 days until
2082a Cabinet level workshop could be held to delineate the issues regarding the use
2096of sovereign lands to facilitate upland development and to define the extent of
2109the Trustees' jurisdiction and authorization to proceed.
211614. During the March 12, 1990 Cabinet workshop, the Trustees received
2127input on their emerging coastal island policy from the Department of
2138Environmental Regulation ( DER), the Department of Community Affairs ( DCA) and
2150both the Governor's coastal resources Interagency Management Committee ( IMC) and
2161the Citizen's Advisory Committee ( CAC). 1/
216815. As a result of the workshop at the May 8, 1990 Cabinet meeting, the
2183Trustees directed the staff to develop recommendations for continuing the
2193moratorium and to develop a plan for identifying specific islands that would be
2206protected under the policy. Staff was also directed to work with the DCA to
2220secure funding to complete the inventory and compile data on natural resource
2232values, as a potential land use/development status and development potential on
2243all unbridged coastal islands.
224716. At the May 8, 1990 meeting, several of Petitioners voiced opposition
2259to the moratorium but spoke in support of the agency proceeding with rulemaking.
227217. Following comments from the public, the Trustees voted to approve and
2284extend the moratorium imposed on August 22, 1989, and for staff to begin
2297rulemaking immediately to begin development of an interim policy until a
2308comprehensive policy and rules governing coastal islands could be adopted by the
2320Board of Trustees. Staff was also directed to work with relevant agencies
2332including the DCA, the coastal resources IMC, and the CAC to develop a
2345definition of coastal islands and undeveloped coastal islands and to give
2356reasonable consideration to development of a comprehensive plan which would be
2367compatible with the Coastal Barrier Resources Act ( CBRA). Also, during that
2379meeting, staff was directed to work with the DCA, the IMC and the CAC to develop
2395definitions of "coastal island" and "undeveloped coastal island". The Trustees
2406reiterated the directions to staff to give reasonable consideration to the
2417comprehensive plans of coastal communities and that the policy be compatible
2428with CBRA.
243018. The first draft was to be presented to the Trustees in June and a
2445final form of the proposed rule was to be presented at the Trustee's second
2459meeting in September.
246219. The Trustees directed staff to include, at a minimum, all unbridged,
2474undeveloped coastal islands units contained within CBRA and all unbridged
2484undeveloped coastal islands within aquatic preserves. The rule was to also
2495address islands which were heavily developed at one end and totally undeveloped
2507at the other. Finally, the staff was to consider the local government's
2519comprehensive plans for coastal communities.
252420. At the June 12, 1990 Cabinet meeting, the Trustees were asked to adopt
2538the draft rule prepared. The Trustees after considering the draft, authorized
2549staff to proceed with rulemaking by publishing the rule in the Florida
2561Administrative Weekly and conducting at least three public meetings.
257021. On August 31, 1990, DNR received petitions challenging the proposed
2581rules and the moratorium. The petitions raised several issues regarding the
2592proposed rule which had been voiced at the public hearings. In response to
2605those issues, DNR staff sought authority to make amendments to the proposed
2617rule. A report outlining the status of the rule and the revisions were
2630presented to the Trustees at the October 9, 1990 Cabinet meeting. At that
2643meeting, the Trustees accepted the status report including the revision to the
2655amendment to Rules 18-21.003 and 18-21.004, Florida Administrative Code, and
2665authorization to proceed was given to revise the proposed rule.
267522. At the October 23, 1990 Cabinet meeting, staff presented the revised
2687proposed rule to the Trustees and requested authorization to formally withdraw
2698the originally proposed rule and to give notice of revision on the instant rule
2712for adoption. An outline explaining the revisions were included within the
2723report. At that meeting, the Trustees approved staff's recommendation to
2733withdraw the original rule and allow the CAC and the IMC to be afforded an
2748opportunity to review the revised rule.
275423. On November 11, 1990, the IMC held a public meeting on the revised
2768rule at which time the Trustees received comments, both pro and con, to the
2782revised rule. As a result of those comments, modifications were suggested to
2794the revised rule. At the December 18, 1990 Cabinet meeting, the Trustees
2806authorized staff to withdraw the original proposed amendments and to provide
2817notice of the withdrawal in the Florida Administrative Weekly. As a result of
2830the Trustees consideration of the modification to the rule recommended by the
2842IMC, the following amendment was made to Section 18-21.004(1)(h)(1), Florida
2852Administrative Code:
2854The application is for the purpose of
2861obtaining authorization for a use which was
2868included in a development project which has
2875undergone development of regional impact
2880review and a final development order has
2887been issued pursuant to Chapter 380, Florida
2894Statutes as of the effective date of this rule,
2903and is otherwise permitted by and consistent
2910with the provisions of Rule Chapters 18-18,
291718-20, and 18-21, Florida Administrative Code
2923provided, however, that in the case of a
2931substantial deviation to said development
2936order, no authorization of use may be granted
2944for any use that was not included in the
2953original order.
295524. Additionally, staff amended the definition of "coastal island segment"
2965to be consistent with CBRA and to provide that if an island segment had an
2980overall density of less than one structure per 5 acres of fastland as of the
2995effective date of the rule, that it be included within the operation of the
3009revised rule.
301125. Prior to approval, opponents of the proposed rule engaged the Trustees
3023in a discussion about whether the local government's comprehensive plan process
3034adequately addressed the Trustees' concerns about the protection of natural
3044resources. Following consideration of that discussion, the Trustees made no
3054modification to their policy. The Trustees thereafter voted to continue the
3065moratorium until adoption of the proposed coastal island rule.
307426. On August 2, 1991, the Trustees published notice in the Florida
3086Administrative Weekly, Volume 17, No. 31, of their intention to adopt the
3098proposed rule amendments to Rules 18-21.003 and 18-21.004, Florida
3107Administrative Code. As specific authority, Sections 253.03(7) and 258.43(1),
3116Florida Statutes was referenced.
312027. On August 31, 1991, Petitioners herein filed challenges, with the
3131Division of Administrative Hearings, to the proposed rule amendments.
314028. On September 12, 1991, staff presented the Trustees with a status
3152report regarding the proposed rule in view of the pending challenges. At that
3165meeting, the Trustees reaffirmed their desire to protect undeveloped coastal
3175islands and their adjacent natural resources and directed staff to defend the
3187proposed rule against challenges.
319129. In support of this position, the Trustees reaffirmed their desire to
3203curtail development of undeveloped barrier islands as development of such
3213islands poses threats to the natural resources and coastal marine environment
3224and their stated desire to protect those resources.
323230. In Section 18-21.003, Florida Administrative Code entitled,
"3240Definitions", was amended by the Trustees' adoption of its coastal island
3251policy to include four new definitions: "Coastal Island", " Fastland",
"3260Undeveloped Coastal Island" and "Undeveloped Coastal Island Segment."
326831. The DNR's Office of Marine and Program Planning primarily developed
3279the definitions included in the rule.
328532. George Schmahl, an employee at DNR for approximately two years who was
3298accepted herein as an expert in the fields of biology, coastal ecology and
3311coastal resource management, was assigned the task of coordinating the drafting
3322of the definitions. Mr. Schmahl received his guidance for the development of
3334the necessary definitions from the Trustees at the May 8, 1990 staff meeting.
3347The initial draft of the definitional section of the rule contained only the
3360terms "coastal island" and "undeveloped coastal island." Thereafter, the draft
3370was expanded to include definitions for the terms " fastland" and "undeveloped
3381coastal island segment." The definitions were presented to the Trustees for
3392consideration at the June 12, 1991 Cabinet meeting, at which time the Trustees
3405approved staff's draft and directed them to proceed with the rulemaking process.
341733. The rule defines "coastal island" as:
3424[A] coastline geological feature lying above
3430mean high water that is completely separated
3437from the coastal mainland by marine or estuarine
3445waters, including those parcels of land which
3452become insular due to natural causes, and is
3460composed of any substraint material, including
3466spoil material. This specifically includes,
3471in addition to exposed coastal island;
3477(a) All islands within aquatic preserves except
3484for Lake Jackson, Rainbow River, Lake Weir and
3492Wekiva River aquatic preserves; and
3497(b) Other islands within confined or
3503semi-confined marine or estuarine waters with
3509an open connection to the Atlantic Ocean or
3517Gulf of Mexico such as bays, lagoons, or
3525inlets. Except for coastal islands within the
3532specified aquatic preserves, it does not include
3539islands or portions of islands within rivers
3546leading into marine and estuarine waters more
3553than one mile upstream of a line drawn at the
3563river mouth from headland to headland.
356934. The nucleus for the definition of "coastal island" was derived from
3581the existing definition of "coastal barrier island" found at Section 161.54,
3592Florida Statutes. Schmahl modified the definition in Chapter 161 to take into
3604consideration the phrase as defined by CBRA, and be further modified it to
3617encompass virtually all islands within Florida's coastline.
362435. Spoil islands were included in the definition of "coastal island"
3635because the definition of "coastal barrier island" in Chapter 161 specifically
3646includes islands created from spoil disposal. Schmahl opined that "an island so
3658far as the impacts to state lands and the benefits of islands in terms of
3673protection to landward aquatic habitats and mainland ... it didn't matter what
3685the composition of the island ... the issues were the same."
369636. Schmahl excluded islands more than one mile upstream from the mouth of
3709a river because the rule was not intended to include, within its operations,
3722islands that occur in river and lake systems within the interior portion of the
3736state. Thus, by excluding islands more than one mile upstream from the mouth of
3750the river, the rule would primarily capture those islands located in close
3762proximity to Florida's coastline.
376637. Schmahl explained the choice of one mile upstream as the point at
3779which to connect a line drawn at the river mouth from headland to headland after
3794rejecting other forms of measurements, such as the water salinity or the extent
3807of the tidal influence in the river system, because such methods were difficult
3820to implement and the choice provided a standardized form of measurement which
3832could be objectively applied.
383638. A section within the definition of "coastal island" was added to
3848insure that the rule encompassed all islands within aquatic preserves except
3859those islands within freshwater preserves. The freshwater aquatic preserves
3868listed in the rule were identified as islands within freshwater preserves by
3880reviewing aerial maps and excluding any islands located entirely within
3890freshwater aquatic preserve systems.
389439. The rule defines the term " fastland" as:
3902That portion of a coastal island above the
3910upper limit of tidal wetland vegetation or
3917if such vegetation is not present, that portion
3925of the island above the mean high water line.
393440. Fastland is a common term which is defined in Webster's Third
3946International Unabridged Dictionary as "high and dry land or land above the
3958range of the tides." The term was included within the federal legislation
3970implementing CBRA and was therefore, included within the rule to comply with the
3983Trustees' direction that the definitions be compatible with CBRA's legislation.
399341. The term " fastland" was defined to determine whether a particular
4004unabridged island met the definitions for "undeveloped coastal island" and
"4014undeveloped coastal island segment."
401842. The rule defines "undeveloped coastal island" as:
4026[A] coastal island not directly or indirectly
4033connected to the mainland by a bridge suitable
4041for automobile traffic, and which has an overall
4049density of less than one structure per five
4057acres of fastland as of December 18, 1990. For
4066the purpose of this definition, a structure means
4074a wall and roofed habitable structure that is
4082principally above ground and affixed to a
4089permanent foundation with a projected ground
4095area exceeding 200 square feet and constructed
4102in conformance with all applicable legal
4108requirements. For the purpose of determining
4114density, facilities such as docks, groins,
4120utility poles and pipelines are not counted as
4128structures.
412943. The term "undeveloped coastal island" was primarily derived from
4139definitions used by the Department of Interior Legislation implementing CBRA and
4150is in keeping with the Trustees' instruction that the rule definitions be
4162compatible with CBRA. Likewise, the density threshold of one man-made structure
4173per five acres was taken directly from CBRA's implementing legislation.
418344. The term "undeveloped coastal island segment" is defined as:
4193[A]n unbridged coastal island with an overall
4200density of greater than or equal to one
4208structure per five acres of fastland, a
4215segment or portion of the island which either
4223is at least one-quarter mile in linear shoreline
4231length or comprises a minimum of 25% of the
4240total fastland of the island and which consist
4248of less than one structure per five acres of
4257fastland as of December 18, 1990. A segment
4265boundary shall be contiguous with a line drawn
4273from the shore at the point of the outermost
4282structure within a developed area to intersect
4289each shoreline, then continue laterally along
4295the sinuosity of each shoreline until another
4302developed area is encountered or the end of
4310the island is reached. See "undeveloped
4316coastal island" for the definition of a
4323structure.
432445. This phrase was included as a result of specific input from the IMC
4338who convinced the Trustees of the importance of protecting large undeveloped
4349areas of island when one or more portions of the islands were developed.
436246. In keeping with instructions received from the Trustees and relying on
4374his professional experience, Schmahl also relied on a review of the following
4386documents in developing the rules definitional sections: Coastal Barrier
4395Resources Act, Public Law 97-348, 16 USC, Section 3500; and the Executive
4407Summary of the Report of Congress on the Coastal Barrier Resources System.
441947. Section 18-21.004, Florida Administrative Code, entitled "Management
4427Policies, Standards and Criteria," was amended by the Trustees' adoption of the
4439coastal island policy to include four exceptions to the application of the rule.
4452The Division of State Lands drafted language for this section under the
4464direction of the Division's Director who viewed the rule's purpose as a means to
4478modify the moratorium which had been opposed as the Trustees developed and
4490refined the coastal island policy. The rule was to serve as an interim device
4504until a multi-agency comprehensive policy could be developed to address
4514development of and protection of coastal islands and their adjacent resources.
452548. The Trustees policy is reflected in language of Section 18-21.004(h),
4536Florida Administrative Code, which provides:
4541No application to use sovereignty, submerged
4547land adjacent to or surrounding an unbridged,
4554undeveloped coastal island or undeveloped
4559island segment may be approved by the Board of
4568Trustees unless it meets the following criteria... .
4576The remaining section codify exceptions to the
4583moratorium which had been defined over the
4590approximate 18-month development stage that
4595the policy underwent.
459849. Exception (1), contained in 18-21.004, states:
4605The application is for the purpose of
4612obtaining authorization for a use which was
4619included in a development project that has
4626undergone development of regional impact review
4632and a final development order has been issued
4640pursuant to Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, as
4647of the effective date of this rule and is
4656otherwise permitted by and consistent with the
4663provisions of Rule Chapters 18-18, 18-20 or 18-21,
4671Florida Administrative Code, as applicable,
4676provided, however, that in the case of a
4684substantial deviation to said development order,
4690no authorization of use may be granted for any
4699use that was not included in the original order.
470850. The rationale for the exception was premised on the fact that if a
4722project had undergone DRI review, both regional and state agencies had had an
4735opportunity to participate in review of the development. Therefore, such
4745proposed projects had undergone a higher level of review as to the propriety and
4759continuity with development plans than would have otherwise occurred had the
4770review been conducted only at the local level.
477851. Thus, the exception was a way of lending credence to this state's
4791policy of encouraging developers to use the DRI review process.
480152. The second exception to the Trustees coastal island policy states:
4812The proposed facility is limited to a 2-slip
4820private residential dock that complies with
4826the standards set forth in Section
483218-20.004(5)(b), Florida Administrative Code
4836and the upland parcel to which the facility
4844will be attached was not created by platting
4852or subdividing after December 18, 1990.
4858However, as an alternative to multiple private
4865residential docks, the Board may authorize a
4872private docking facility of more than 2-slips
4879if it determines that such a facility would
4887result in greater environmental protection for
4893sovereignty submerged land resources than
4898multiple individual docks, and provided the
4904facility complies with all of the applicable
4911standards. The number of slips associated
4917with such a facility shall not exceed the
4925number of slips which would have been
4932authorized as individual docks.
493653. This exception recognized that under certain circumstances a person
4946could construct a dock on their property. However, the intent was to provide
4959notice that as to those purchasers of waterfront property on a coastal island
4972within the definition of the rule after the December 18, 1990, date would be on
4987notice that they would not be permitted to construct a single-family dock and
5000will therefore have no reasonable expectation to receive one. The Trustees
5011recognized that riparian owners have a right to access their property but that
5024such does not extend to a statutory right to construct a dock.
503654. The third exception which addresses the provision of utility services
5047provides:
5048With respect to applications to use
5054sovereignty submerged lands for the provision
5060of public utility services, such services were
5067in place as of December 18, 1990, and the
5076requested usage of sovereignty, submerged land
5082will not result in a upgrade of capacity or
5091will not serve additional customers on a
5098unbridged, undeveloped coastal island or
5103undeveloped coastal island segment.
5107Applications may be approved under this
5113provision only to allow the maintenance or
5120repair of existing utility lines, or as
5127necessary to maintain public safety as ordered
5134by the Public Service Commission.
513955. The purpose of that exception was to provide notice to the utility
5152companies that if utility service already existed on an island, and it became
5165necessary for the company to work on lines either to repair or maintain existing
5179service, the rule would not prohibit such activity. The purpose was one of
5192protecting some sovereign submerged resources and not facilitate development by
5202use of sovereign lands, and that utility companies would be prohibited from
5214using sovereign lands to serve additional customers or to upgrade existing
5225service.
522656. The final exception to the Trustees' policy states:
5235The proposed use is for the purpose of allowing access, for public purposes,
5248to publicly owned uplands or submerged lands for recreation, research,
5258conservation, mosquito control or restoration activities only, at the discretion
5268of the Board, and is otherwise consistent with the provisions of Rule Chapters
528118-18, 18-20, or 18-21, Florida Administrative Code.
528857. This exception was developed to allay concerns that the state had
5300acquired a number of coastal islands pursuant to its "Save Our Coast Program"
5313for public recreation which would be subject to the moratorium and therefore not
5326used and the exceptions made clear that the use of coastal islands for public
5340purposes and for the general public's enjoyment, remained in tact.
5350Development of the Economic Impact Statement
535658. Pursuant to Section 120.54(2)(b), Florida Statutes, each agency shall
5366provide information on its proposed action by preparing a detailed Economic
5377Impact Statement ( EIS) which shall include an estimate of the cost to the agency
5392of the implementation of the proposed action, including the estimated amount of
5404paperwork; an estimate of the cost or the economic benefit to all persons
5417directly affected by the proposed action; an estimate of the impact of the
5430proposed action on competition and the open market for employment, if
5441applicable; a detailed statement of the data and method used in making each of
5455the above estimates; and an analysis of the impact on small business as defined
5469in the Florida Small and Minority Business Assistance Act of 1985.
548059. DNR prepared an EIS which was included with the proposed rule
5492amendments that contained estimates of the cost to the agency of the
5504implementation of the proposed action including the estimated amount of
5514paperwork; of the cost of the economic benefit to all persons directly affected
5527by the proposed action; of the impact of the proposed action on competition in
5541the open market for employment; of the data and method used in making each of
5556the above estimates; and contained an analysis of the impact on small business
5569as defined in the Florida Small and Minority Business Assistance Act of 1985.
558260. The EIS was prepared for DNR by Ed Wood, a senior management analyst,
5596with the Division of State Lands. He is coordinator for rule development at the
5610Division and is responsible for the budget and personnel functions for the
5622Division. He holds a master's degree in education and administration with a
5634specialty in school finance and a bachelor's degree in business administration.
5645He has prepared similar EIS's and received a primer from staff on the agency's
5659rationale for proposing the subject rule.
566561. Wood read the draft EIS prepared by Dr. Bell, an economist for the
5679Department, who was hired to assist in the preparation of the EIS. Wood
5692consulted with DNR staff regarding information received at public hearings from
5703citizens possibly affected by the proposed rule in order to assess public
5715opinion about the rule prior to undertaking the paths of development of the EIS.
5729Wood relied heavily on the Department of State's document entitled, "Guide to
5741Rules Promulgation Under The Florida Administrative Procedures Act" dated
5750November 1986, which included examples of EISs. Based on his familiarity with
5762the Division's budget and personnel functions, he is infinitely familiar with
5773cost and both paperwork and manpower necessary to implement the proposed action
5785which would be affected by the proposed rules.
579362. At the time Wood consulted with Department staff, there were only six
5806applications pending out of an estimated 867 coastal islands. Based on an
5818inadequate sample of potentially affected parties, Wood did not rely on them as
5831a basis for determination of economic impact, as such would have been
5843speculative.
584463. Those portions of Dr. Bell's EIS which were relevant were adopted and
5857utilized heavily by Wood in preparation of the EIS. Likewise, irrelevant
5868portions including analysis of benefits from storm protection, hazard avoidance
5878and shoreline protection, none of which are under the Division's jurisdiction
5889were excluded.
589164. The Division fully considered all impacts that were capable of being
5903considered based on the information which was furnished and which was reliable.
5915Estimates of the impact on the action of competition and the over-market for
5928employment were taken verbatim from Dr. Bell's draft EIS. The criteria utilized
5940and adopted from Dr. Bell's draft EIS were sufficiently documented to be
5952utilized and therefore was in fact utilized by Wood in the subject EIS. The
5966information relied upon by Wood in preparation of the EIS was included in the
5980statement of data and methods used. At the time of Wood's preparation of the
5994EIS, there were no pending applications for marinas on affected islands and
6006therefore any impact in that area was deleted as being mere speculation.
6018Finally, as to those estimates of the various impacts which were indeterminate,
6030they were stated as such and Wood failed to speculate as to such costs.
6044Facts Relevant to Petitioner's Depot Key
6050Joint Venture Partnership and George Rex Andrews
605765. After being deferred by the Board at its June 27, 1989 meeting, the
6071Andrews lease application for the multi-slip docking facility was Item 22 on the
6084Board's agenda for the August 22, 1989 meeting. Item 21 on the agenda was for
6099recommendation for approval of a moratorium on authorizations for use of
6110sovereignty, submerged land that would facilitate development of unbridged,
6119undeveloped coastal islands. Based on the staff's recommendation in favor of
6130the moratorium, the Andrews lease application was recommended for withdrawal.
614066. The Board first approved the lease after amending it to allow 25 slips
6154and approved the moratorium.
615867. In April 1991, George Rex Andrews and Verna Andrews Woodlief
6169transferred title to Atsena Otie to the Depot Key Joint Venture to obtain
6182financial resources to develop Atsena Otie in accordance with the approved
6193development plan. The development plans for Atsena Otie include an electrical
6204transmission line to be laid between the town of Cedar Key and Atsena Otie. An
6219easement for the utility transmission line will be required from the Board of
6232Trustees. The proposed rule amendments will prohibit the Trustees from granting
6243the easement necessary for the utility transmission line. Petitioners Andrews
6253and Depot Key Joint Venture argue that the marketability of the lots at Atsena
6267Otie will be greatly reduced if they are unable to obtain the easement required
6281for the utility transmission line.
6286Facts Relevant to Petitioner Lost Tree Village Corporation
629468. Lost Tree owns undeveloped islands within the Indian River in Indian
6306River County, Florida, which are unbridged, not served by public or private
6318utilities and which were not platted or subdivided prior to December 18, 1990.
633169. Lost Tree has preliminary development plans for a residential
6341development and a golf course on seven of its islands. Other islands which have
6355large areas of wetlands will not be developed but would be part of an overall
6370environmental enhancement and preservation plan. Lost Tree's proposed plan of
6380development will require approval for the use of sovereign, submerged lands.
639170. The proposed rule would prohibit a bridge to the island across
6403sovereign submerged lands, the extension of utilities, and docks on the islands.
6415Facts Relevant to Petitioners Munz, Watrous and Broderick
6423Thomas Munz - Burgess Island
642871. Thomas Munz is the majority owner of a corporation, Burgess Island
6440Associates, which owns an island known as Burgess of Little Bokeelia Island in
6453Pine Island Sound, Lee County, Florida; the minority interest owners are Munz'
6465wife and children. The island is over 100 acres in size of which about 26 acres
6481is uplands. The applicable local zoning will limit development of the island to
649427 units.
649672. Munz' development plans for the islands offer a total of 27 homes on
6510the island including any of the four existing structures which continue to be
6523used as residents; some of which may be converted to an office and a museum.
6538The existing residences are served by septic tanks and obtain potable water
6550through a combination of wells and cisterns. The island was not platted or
6563subdivided as of December 18, 1990.
656973. Variances have been sought from some local zoning regulations relating
6580to road widths and other development standards, which request was in process as
6593of October 18, 1991.
659774. There are currently four docks serving the island. As no bridge will
6610be constructed, plans are to provide a dock for each lot for access, although
6624physical restrictions may require some lots to share a common dock.
6635Authorization for such docks will be needed from the Trustees.
664575. Sewage treatment is to be by septic tanks. Potable water would be
6658provided through wells and a Reverse Osmosis (RO) system--either individual RO
6669plants or a central system. Permits necessary for water withdrawal, treatment
6680and distribution systems had been applied for as of October 1991, including a
6693consumptive use permit from the South Florida Water Management District ( SFWMD);
6705and an industrial discharge permit from DER; and a water plant and distribution
6718system permit from HRS. A surface water management permit from SFWMD was also
6731being sought.
673376. Sufficient electrical facilities are in place to meet the needs of the
6746proposed development. Electricity in the form of an overhead utility line from
6758Pine Island which is submerged for a portion of its route to go underneath a
6773channel.
677477. Petitioners urge that the marketability and value of the lots on
6786Little Bokeelia Island would decrease without the availability of individual
6796docks for prospective lot owners. Petitioners urge that a distant, central dock
6808is impractical.
6810Ted Watrous - Buck Key
681578. Ted Watrous is the majority owner of a parcel of property,
6827approximately 100 acres in size, on an unbridged island known as Buck Key and
6841Pine Island South. The island is approximately 325 acres in size, the remainder
6854of which is owned by the federal government and the Sanibel-Captiva Conservation
6866Foundation.
686779. The island is not connected by bridge to any other land mask, nor is
6882the island platted, subdivided, or currently served by any utilities. Watrous
6893plans to develop 28 to 30 single-family homes on a portion of Buck Key; current
6908local land use regulations would allow up to 35 or 36 single-family residences.
6921Primary plans are for 20 of those lots to be waterfront with individual docks.
693580. Buck Key is separated from Captiva Island by a channel approximately
6947500 ft. wide and which gradually slopes to a depth of approximately 8 ft.
6961Access to Buck Key would be by boat from Captiva Island, which is bridged to the
6977mainland through Sanibel Island.
698181. Watrous' plans for the Buck Key development include electric utility
6992lines and telephone cable from Captiva Island. The alternative energy source
7003available is diesel generators. Sewage treatment would be handled on-site via
7014septic tanks. The proposed rule would allow Watrous a single two-slip dock for
7027his parcel which he contends would be impractical and would lower his selling
7040price for the lots due to the limited access which would be occasioned by the
7055two-slip dock for the development.
7060Roger Broderick - Chino Island
706582. Roger Broderick is the owner of Chino Island, a 55 acre island located
7079in Pine Island Sound. The island is unbridged or proposed to be bridged to
7093another island and is not currently served by utilities.
710283. Broderick plans to develop up to 15 single-family residences on the
7114southernmost 15 acres of the island in two phases, the first phase consisting of
712810 homes. The northern portion of the island will be maintained in its natural
7142state except that as a condition of a DER permit for the installation of a
7157subaqueous utility line to the island. An existing man-made berm around the
7169perimeter of the northern portion of the island would be removed to improve the
7183flushing in the area and promote reestablishment of mangroves and other native
7195vegetation. Exotic or nuisance vegetation species such as Brazilian pepper and
7206Australian pine would also be removed as a condition of that permit.
721884. Broderick desires to live on the island in addition to developing
7230homesites for sale. A majority of the island including wetlands is proposed to
7243be placed under a conservation easement in perpetuity.
725185. Of the southern portion of the island where homes are proposed to be
7265located, a man-made canal exist in the interior of the island with direct deep-
7279water access to Pine Island Sound. It is anticipated that individual docks to
7292serve the residential lots will be constructed in the canal on privately owned
7305submerged lands so no Trustee authorization would be needed to construct docking
7317facilities.
731886. Broderick has received authorization for many aspects of his
7328development specifically SFWMD has approved a surface water management permit
7338for control of stormwater runoff. Broderick proposes to provide water to
7349residences with a well and a distribution system; SFWMD has issued a withdrawal
7362permit for the water and HRS has issued a permit for the distribution system.
737687. Broderick proposes to provide electricity to the island with a
7387submerged utility cable. The cable would be installed by supersaturating the
7398bottoms with water to create a trench then immediately laying the cable in the
7412trench and allowing settlements to settle in over the cable. Both DER and the
7426U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have issued dredge and fill permits for the
7439installation of the subaqueous line.
744488. DER investigated the alignment of the submerged utility line and
7455determined that its impacts would be insignificant.
746289. A portion of the submerged utility line is co-located in the
7474maintenance channel of an existing easement for an overhead utility line issued
7486by the Trustees to the Lee County Rural Electric Cooperative for an electric
7499utility line running from Pine Island to Sanibel Island. An application has
7511been submitted to the Trustees for the submerged line covering both the co-
7524located portion of the line and the spur necessary to run to Chino from the
7539existing corridor. As of the final hearing, that application was not complete.
755190. Broderick urges that he has explored the possibility of alternative
7562means of providing electricity and determined that the cost would be prohibitive
7574and the alternatives would be inconvenient, unreliable, adversely affecting the
7584marketability of the lots.
758891. Lee County has issued a final development order for the project,
7600authorizing commencement of construction of the infrastructure and housepads.
7609Lee County has found the development consistent with its comprehensive plan.
762092. Sewage treatment will be provided by individual treatment systems that
7631will disinfect the effluent prior to discharge to a drainfield; the septic tank
7644system is not the typical design and was specifically designed to avoid
7656impacting shellfish harvesting areas.
7660CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
766394. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the
7673subject matter of and the parties to this action pursuant to Section 120.54(4),
7686Florida Statutes.
768894. Petitioners have the burden of proving that the proposed rules are an
7701invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
770795. Petitioners adequately established that they have the requisite
7716standing to challenge the proposed rule amendments.
772396. Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part that:
"7733Invalid exercise of delegated legislative
7738authority" means action which goes beyond the
7745powers, functions, and duties delegated (to
7751an agency) by the Legislature.
7756It further provides that if any one or more of the following applies, an
7770agency's proposed or existing rule is invalid:
7777(a) The agency has materially failed to follow
7785the applicable rulemaking procedures set forth
7791in s. 120.54;
7794(b) The agency has exceeded its grant of
7802rulemaking authority, citation to which is
7808required by s. 120.54(7);
7812(c) The rule enlarges, modifies, or contravenes
7819the specific provisions of law implemented,
7825citation to which is required by s. 120.54(7);
7833(d) The rule is vague, fails to establish adequate
7842standards for agency decisions, or vests unbridled
7849discretion in the agency; or
7854(e) The rule is arbitrary or capricious.
786197. As noted herein, the Trustees followed all applicable rulemaking
7871procedures set forth in Section 120.54, Florida Statutes in the promulgation of
7883its amendments to Chapter 18-21, Florida Administrative Code. Specifically,
7892notice was given of the proposed amendments in the Florida Administrative
7903Weekly, including the complete text and a statement of the economic impact of
7916the proposed rules. These proposed amendments were filed with the Department of
7928State as required. The Trustees approved the adoption of the proposed rules
7940and, in keeping with its authority, actively participated in their development.
7951The Trustees, responding to their statutory mandate to manage sovereign
7961submerged lands for the benefit of all people of Florida, developed a coastal
7974island policy that led to the promulgation of the proposed rules. Additionally,
7986it is herein found that the Economic Impact Statement prepared by the Department
7999of Natural Resources complied with Section 120.54(2)(b), Florida Statutes, as it
8010included the essential requirements as set forth in that section. Although the
8022parties debate some of the estimates provided, all of the concerns that were
8035required to be addressed were included in the Economic Impact Statement. See
8047Florida Waterworks Association v. Florida Public Service Commission, 473 So.2d
8057237, 247 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985, rev. denied. 486 So.2d 596 (Fla. 1986)).
8070Petitioners failed to show any deficiencies which were so grave as to impair the
8084fairness of the proceeding, even with the minute scrutiny that they presented at
8097the formal hearing herein. See, Healthcare and Retirement Corporation v.
8107Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 463 So.2d 1175 (Fla. 1st DCA
81191984).
812098. The rule does not exceed the Department's rulemaking authority or
8131otherwise enlarge, modify, or contravene specific provisions of law.
8140Specifically, the authority for the proposed rules is contained in the
8151provisions of Sections 253.03(7) and 258.43(1), Florida Statutes. Generally,
8160these sections authorize Trustees to promulgate rules which further their
8170statutory authority to acquire, manage and administer state-owned lands which
8180they hold in trust for the people of the State of Florida, pursuant to Section
8195253.03, Florida Statutes. The rules presently proposed are in response to the
8207Trustees' express need to implement a policy to manage sovereign submerged lands
8219for the benefit of Floridians. The actions of the Trustees in development of
8232the policy was based upon well-reasoned responses to a public concern expressed
8244at all levels of government. In so doing, the Trustees complied with their
8257statutory mandate to manage and administer state-owned lands for the benefit of
8269the people of Florida, pursuant to Section 253.03, Florida Statutes. The
8280proposed rules are not arbitrary or capricious and are reasonably related to the
8293purposes of the enabling legislation and are within the Trustees authority. See
8305Graham v. Edwards, 472 So.2d 803 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Several cases have
8318commented upon the authority of the Trustees and the rights of riparian owners.
8331Courts have uniformly held and reasoned that because riparian owners have no
8343title in lands and because consent to erect structures on sovereign submerged
8355lands involve the state's proprietary interest as owners of the lands, Trustees
8367have the authority to prohibit the building of structures on sovereign submerged
8379lands. e t h e r o r n o t t h h e r u s t e e s a c t i o T n w n T u r n i n g t o t h g e s s u e r e s p e c t i i s
8438were otherwise arbitrary and capricious, a recent case decided that the Trustees
8450have the authority to preclude the construction of private docks when it is in
8464the public interest to do so. Here, there has been an adequate showing that the
8479Trustees had a reasonable basis to implement a policy to protect the sovereign
8492submerged lands and this policy furthers their efforts to do so in a logical and
8507reasonable manner. The development of the policy was not done in an arbitrary
8520and capricious manner and there was statutory authorization for the Trustees to
8532so act. See Marie M. Krieter v. Lawton Chiles, et al, 17 FLW 444 (Fla. 3d DCA
8549Feb. 21, 1992). The proposed rule does not constitute an unconstitutional
8560taking of property without due process and just compensation and the proposed
8572rule, including its terms, is clear and plain.
858099. Finally, equittable estoppel does not apply to bar the Trustees from
8592denying submerged land permits to the Petitioners. See Residence Inn Resort v.
8604Department of Community Affairs, 11 FALR 5692 (1989).
8612ORDER
8613Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is
8626ORDERED that:
8628The Petitions filed herein seeking an administrative determination of the
8638invalidity of proposed rules 18-21.003 and 18-21.004, Florida Administrative
8647Code, are hereby dismissed for failure to demonstrate the invalidity of the
8659proposed amendments to rules 18-21.003 and 18-21.004, Florida Administrative
8668Code, and the relief sought herein is denied.
8676DONE and ORDERED this 4th day of June, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County,
8689Florida.
8690___________________________________
8691JAMES E. BRADWELL
8694Hearing Officer
8696Division of Administrative Hearings
8700The DeSoto Building
87031230 Apalachee Parkway
8706Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
8709(904)488-9675
8710Filed with the Clerk of the
8716Division of Administrative Hearings
8720this 4th day of June, 1992.
8726APPENDIX
8727Rulings on Respondent, Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust
8738Fund proposed Final Order:
8742Paragraphs 10, 12, 13, 26 and 30, rejected as a recitation of commentary
8755and unnecessary.
8757Paragraph 14, adopted as modified, Paragraph 8, Final Order.
8766Paragraph 15, rejected, irrelevant and unnecessary.
8772Paragraph 15, rejected, unnecessary.
8776Paragraph 19, adopted as modified, Paragraph 9, Final Order.
8785Paragraph 34, rejected, unnecessary and/or irrelevant.
8791Paragraph 36, adopted as modified, Paragraph 10, Final Order.
8800Paragraph 49, adopted as modified, Paragraph 23, Final, Order.
8809Paragraph 50, rejected, irrelevant and unnecessary.
8815Paragraph 58, adopted as modified, Paragraph 29, Final Order.
8824Paragraph 108, rejected, irrelevant and unnecessary.
8830Paragraphs 132 and 133, rejected, irrelevant and unnecessary.
8838Paragraph 142, rejected, irrelevant and unnecessary.
8844Rulings on Petitioners' proposed Final Order: 1/
8851Paragraph 2, adopted as modified, Paragraph 3, Final Order.
8860Paragraph 3, rejected, irrelevant.
8864Paragraph 4, rejected, unnecessary.
8868Paragraph 5, rejected except the last sentence which is adopted as
8879modified, Paragraph 2, Final Order.
8884Paragraph 6, rejected, unnecessary.
8888Paragraph 8, adopted as modified, Paragraph 7, Final Order.
8897Paragraph 9, rejected, irrelevant and unnecessary.
8903Paragraph 13(E), last paragraph, rejected as contrary to the greater weight
8914of evidence.
8916Paragraph 14, last paragraph, rejected as being contrary to the weight of
8928evidence and factual findings demonstrating that the action taken by the
8939Trustees were based on a fully developed and comprehensive policy through the
8951use of input from Petitioners and other concerned regulatory agencies during a
8963series of workshops, see Paragraphs 9-19, Final Order.
8971Paragraphs 15-19, rejected as presenting an illogical hypothetical of which
8981Petitioners failed to introduce like situations in their respective
8990applications.
8991Paragraph 20, rejected, irrelevant and/or speculative.
8997Paragraph 22, adopted as modified, Paragraphs 29 and 36, Final Order.
9008Paragraph 24, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence,
9019Paragraphs 19 and 29, Final Order.
9025Paragraph 25, rejected as contrary to relevant findings, Paragraph 15,
9035Final Order.
9037Paragraph 26, rejected as contrary to relevant findings, Paragraphs 19, 24
9048and 50, Final Order.
9052Paragraph 27, rejected, irrelevant.
9056Paragraph 28, rejected, unnecessary.
9060Paragraph 29, rejected, unnecessary.
9064Paragraph 30, last paragraph rejected as being contrary to the weight of
9076evidence and no evidence of arbitrariness was adduced at hearing, Paragraph 9,
9088Final Order.
9090Paragraph 31, rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence which
9101indicates that the proposed rules were based on substantial input from all
9113regulatory agencies including Petitioners through a series of workshops and
9123public meetings where public comment was invited. Paragraphs 9-19, Final Order.
9134Paragraph 32, rejected, irrelevant.
9138Paragraph 33, rejected, irrelevant and not probative of the issues posed.
9149Paragraphs 34-38, rejected, irrelevant, speculative and/or unnecessary to
9157resolve the issues posed.
9161Paragraph 39, rejected, irrelevant.
9165Paragraph 40, rejected, irrelevant and unnecessary and contrary to the
9175greater weight of evidence.
9179Paragraph 41, rejected as being argument.
9185Paragraph 42, rejected, irrelevant and unnecessary.
9191Paragraph 43, rejected, irrelevant and speculative.
9197Paragraphs 44-50, rejected, unnecessary and irrelevant.
9203Paragraph 52, rejected, speculative and unnecessary or irrelevant.
9211Paragraphs 53 and 54, rejected, irrelevant and not probative.
9220Paragraph 55, rejected, irrelevant and unnecessary.
9226Paragraphs 57 and 59, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence,
9238Paragraph 40, Final Order.
9242Paragraph 60, rejected, contrary to the weight of evidence, Paragraphs 60
9253and 61, Final Order.
9257Paragraph 61, rejected, irrelevant and not probative.
9264Paragraph 62, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence,
9275Paragraphs 62-64, Final Order.
9279Paragraph 63, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence,
9290Paragraph 64, Final Order.
9294Paragraphs 64, 65 and 66, rejected, Paragraphs 62-64, F i n a l O r d e r .
9314Paragraph 67, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence,
9324Paragraphs 58, 59 and 64, Final Order.
9331Rulings on Intervenor Florida Audubon Society's proposed Final Order:
9340Paragraph 1, adopted as modified, Paragraph 17, Final Order.
9349Paragraph 4, rejected as being more in the form of a recitation of
9362testimony and argument in support of the proposed rule amendments and not in the
9376nature of proposed findings of fact.
9382Rulings on Intervenor Sierra Club, Inc.'s proposed Final Order:
9391Paragraphs 2-5, rejected, irrelevant and unnecessary.
9397Paragraph 6, adopted as modified, Paragraph 3, Final Order.
9406Paragraphs 7-10, rejected, unnecessary and not probative.
9413Paragraph 11, adopted as modified, last sentence, Paragraph 3, Final Order.
9424Paragraphs 12-34, rejected as not probative and unnecessary. While the
9434proposed findings are factually correct and lie at the core of the Trustees'
9447concern respecting the development of a comprehensive policy and their desire to
9459curtail development of undeveloped barrier islands as they pose threats to the
9471natural resources and coastal marine environment and a e t o r p o t e r c i e d d e t a t s s t
9501those resources, as noted in Paragraph 29, Final Order, these proposed findings
9513were not necessary to determine whether the propose rule amendments complied
9524with Section 120.54, Florida Statutes.
9529Paragraph 35, adopted as modified, Paragraph 4, Final Order.
9538Paragraphs 36-38, rejected, irrelevant and unnecessary.
9544Paragraph 39, adopted as modified, Paragraph 17, Final Order.
9553Paragraph 40, adopted as modified, Paragraphs 9, 13 and 19, Final Order.
9565Paragraph 41, adopted as modified, Paragraphs 8 and 9, Final Order.
9576Paragraphs 42-52, rejected, not probative or unnecessary.
9583Paragraph 53, adopted as modified, Paragraphs 14 and 19, Final Order.
9594Paragraph 54, rejected, unnecessary.
9598Paragraphs 55 and 56, adopted as modified, Paragraph 43, Final Order.
9609Paragraphs 57-61, rejected, unnecessary and not probative.
9616Paragraph 62, adopted as modified, Paragraph 9, Final Order.
9625Paragraph 63-67, rejected, irrelevant, unnecessary and/or a statement of
9634position.
9635Paragraph 68-80, rejected, unnecessary.
9639APPENDIX ENDNOTE
96411/ The Citizen's Advisory Committee ( CAC) is an advisory body comprised of 17
9655members appointed statewide by the Governor and represents a broad and diverse
9667perspective on coastal issues. The CAC advises the Governor and cabinet, state
9679agencies, the interagency management committee, the Legislature and Congress on
9689ways to improve implementation of the coastal management program. The
9699Interagency Management Committee ( IMC) consist of the secretaries of the
9710Department of a l R e g u l a t i o n , D e p a r t m e n t t o n m Commerc e , D e p a r t m e n t o f E n v i r o n e f
9762Transportation (DOT), Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) and
9772veteran and community affairs, the director of the Archives and Forestry
9783Department and the executive director of the Department of Natural Resources,
9794the Game & Fresh Water Fish Commission, and the director of the Governor's
9807office of planning and budgeting. Members were selected based on the importance
9819of each agency's program to coastal management. The IMC serves as a central
9832mechanism for carrying out a coordinated interagency coastal management program.
9842COPIES FURNISHED:
9844ANNE LONGMAN ESQ
9847STEVE LEWIS ESQ
9850MESSER VICKERS CAPARELLO,
9853MADSEN LEWIS & METZ P.A.
9858PO BOX 1876
9861TALLAHASSEE FL 32302 1876
9865MARY F SMALLWOOD ESQ
9869RUDEN BARNETT McCLOSKY SMITH
9873SCHUSTER & RUSSELL P.A.
9877MONROE-PARK TOWER, STE 1010
9881101 N MONROE ST
9885TALLAHASSEE FL 32301
9888M CHRISTOPHER BRYANT ESQ
9892OERTEL HOFFMAN FERNANDEZ
9895& COLE P.A.
9898PO Box 6507
9901TALLAHASSEE FL 32314 6507
9905DEBORAH A GETZOFF ESQ
9909FOWLER WHITE GILLEN BOGGS
9913VILLAREAL & BANKER P.A.
9917101 N MONROE ST STE 910
9923TALLAHASSEE FL 32301
9926WILLIAM H GREEN ESQ
9930RICHARD S BRIGHTMAN ESQ
9934HOPPING BOYD GREEN & SAMS
9939123 S CALHOUN ST
9943TALLAHASSEE FL 32314
9946DEBRA W SCHIRO ESQ
9950ASST GENERAL COUNSEL
9953DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
99573900 COMMONWEALTH BLVD MS 35
9962TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 3000
9966KENNETH J PLANTE ESQ
9970DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
99743900 COMMONWEALTH BLVD MS 10
9979TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 3000
9983LIZ CLOUD CHIEF
9986BUREAU OF ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
9990THE CAPITOL RM 1802
9994TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 0250
9998CARROLL WEBB EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
10002ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES COMMITTEE
10005HOLLAND BLDG RM 120
10009TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 1300
10013DEBRA SWIM
10015RT 35 BOX 1815
10019TALLAHASSEE FL 32310
10022JOSEPH Z FLEMING
10025620 INGRAHAM BLDG
1002825 SE SECOND AVE
10032MIAMI FL 33131
10035VIRGINIA D WETHERELL
10038EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
10040DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
100443900 COMMONWEALTH BLVD
10047TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 3000
10051NOTICE OF RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW
10057A PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO JUDICIAL
10071REVIEW PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES. REVIEW PROCEEDINGS ARE
10081GOVERNED BY THE FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE. SUCH PROCEEDINGS ARE
10092COMMENCED BY FILING ONE COPY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE AGENCY CLERK OF THE
10108DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS AND A SECOND COPY, ACCOMPANIED BY FILING
10119FEES PRESCRIBED BY LAW, WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST DISTRICT, OR
10132WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT WHERE THE PARTY
10145RESIDES. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RENDITION OF THE
10160ORDER TO BE REVIEWED.
10164=================================================================
10165DISTRICT COURT ORDER
10168=================================================================
10169IN THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, LAKELAND, FLORIDA
10178DECEMBER 20, 1993
10181JOHN D. REMINGTON and
10185BARRETT OTT,
10187Appellant(s),
10188v. CASE NO. 92-02476
10192DOAH CASE NO. 91- 5329RX
10197BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
10202INTERNAL IMP. TRUST FUND,
10206Appellee(s).
10207______________________________/
10208BY ORDER OF THE COURT:
10213Counsel for appellant(s) having filed a notice of voluntary dismissal, upon
10224consideration, it is ORDERED that this appeal is hereby dismissed.
10234I HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING IS A TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL COURT ORDER.
10248_________________________
10249WILLIAM A. HADDAD, CLERK
10253c: Robert P. Diffenderfer, Esquire Kenneth J. Plante
10261Terry E. Lewis, Esquire
10265Joseph Z. Fleming, Esquire
10269Deborah Swim, Esquire
- Date
- Proceedings
- Date: 10/29/1997
- Proceedings: Record returned from the District Court, DOAH has sent them to the agency DER filed.
- Date: 11/09/1995
- Proceedings: Case files are being returned to the agency. dh
- Date: 07/13/1995
- Proceedings: BY ORDER of THE COURT (Appeal voluntary dismissed by appellant) filed.
- Date: 05/12/1995
- Proceedings: Record from the Second DCA sent to DEP-DH.
- Date: 01/03/1994
- Proceedings: Record returned from the second DCA -DH.
- Date: 10/19/1992
- Proceedings: Index, Record, Certificate of Record sent out.
- Date: 09/30/1992
- Proceedings: CC Letter filed. (from Terry E Lewis to Barret Ott; Re: Payment for record preparation)
- Date: 09/24/1992
- Proceedings: Second Supplemental and Amended Index & Statement of Service sent out.
- Date: 09/24/1992
- Proceedings: Statement of Service for Copying & Certifying exhibits of record sent out.
- Date: 09/21/1992
- Proceedings: Supplemental and Amended Index & Statement of Service sent out.
- Date: 09/18/1992
- Proceedings: (DCA) Order filed. (RE: Certified Copies)
- Date: 09/17/1992
- Proceedings: Directions to the Clerk from Robert P Diffenderfer filed.
- Date: 08/27/1992
- Proceedings: Index & Statement of Service sent out.
- Date: 08/21/1992
- Proceedings: (2DCA) Order filed. (motion to consolidate and transfer denied)
- Date: 07/20/1992
- Proceedings: Motion to Consolidate and Transfer filed.
- Date: 07/02/1992
- Proceedings: Certificate of Notice of Appeal sent out.
- Date: 07/01/1992
- Proceedings: Notice of Appeal filed.
- Date: 06/26/1992
- Proceedings: Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund's Proposed Final Order filed.
- Date: 06/18/1992
- Proceedings: Appendix sent out.
- Date: 06/18/1992
- Proceedings: Appendix to the Recommended Order issued June 4, 1992 sent out.
- Date: 06/04/1992
- Proceedings: CASE CLOSED. Final Order sent out. Hearing held October 28-29, 1991and November 4-8, 1991.
- Date: 06/04/1992
- Proceedings: CASE CLOSED. Final Order sent out. Hearing held October 28-29, 1991and November 4-8, 1991.
- Date: 03/20/1992
- Proceedings: (DNR) Notice of Appearance of Counsel; Notice of Filing Supplemental Authority filed.
- Date: 02/27/1992
- Proceedings: Board of Trustees of The Internal Improvement Trust Fund`s Response to Petitioners` Joint Motion to Strike Board of Trustees` Proposed Final Order; Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund`s Proposed Final Order filed.
- Date: 02/26/1992
- Proceedings: Response to FL Audubon Society to Petitioners` Joint Motion to Strike Proposed Final Order Filed by FL Audubon Society filed.
- Date: 02/20/1992
- Proceedings: Petitioners` Joint Motion to Strike Board of Trustees` Proposed Final Order; Petitioners` Joint Motion to Strike Proposed Final Order Filed by Florida Audubon Society filed.
- Date: 02/19/1992
- Proceedings: (Petitioner) Proposed Final Order of Lost Tree Village Corporation filed.
- Date: 02/19/1992
- Proceedings: Memorandum of Law in Support of Proposed Order of Sierra Club, Inc. filed. (From Debra Swim
- Date: 02/19/1992
- Proceedings: (Intervenor) Proposed Final Order of Sierra Club, Inc. filed.
- Date: 02/19/1992
- Proceedings: Respondent`s Request for Leave to File Proposed Recommended Order in Excess of Forty Pages; Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund`s Proposed Recommended Order filed.
- Date: 02/19/1992
- Proceedings: Proposed Final Order of Petitioners, Depot Key Joint Venture Partnership and George Rex Andrews; Proposed Final Order of Petitioners, RogerBroderick, Theodore Watrous and Thomas Munz; Proposed Final Order of Petitioners, Idlewyld Corporation and John D
- Date: 02/19/1992
- Proceedings: Motion of Florida Audubon Society for Leave to File a Proposed Final ORder in Excess of 40 Pages and to Utilize a Method Other Than FederalExpress to Submit The Proposed Final Order on Tuesday, February 18, 1992; Proposed Final Order of Interv
- Date: 02/10/1992
- Proceedings: Order Granting Extension of Time sent out.
- Date: 02/10/1992
- Proceedings: (Petitioner) Notice of Taking Deposition filed.
- Date: 02/03/1992
- Proceedings: Motion of Florida Audubon Society for An Extension of The Time Within Which to Submit Proposed Final Orders filed.
- Date: 02/03/1992
- Proceedings: (unsigned) Granting Extension of Time w/cover ltr filed.
- Date: 01/15/1992
- Proceedings: Response of Petitioners Remington and Idlewyld to Notice and Request of Florida Audubon Society filed.
- Date: 01/13/1992
- Proceedings: Response of Petition Depot Key to Notice of Reliance on Additional Citation and Request for Florida Audubon Society filed.
- Date: 01/13/1992
- Proceedings: (Intervenor) Notice of Reliance on Additional Citation and Request of Florida Audubon Society filed.
- Date: 01/06/1992
- Proceedings: Transcript (Vols 1-13) filed.
- Date: 12/31/1991
- Proceedings: Reply of Florida Audubon Society to the Response of Petitioner Roger Broderick Relating to the Audubon Society`s Objection to the Filing of the Broderick Deposition filed.
- Date: 12/20/1991
- Proceedings: Petitioners Broderick, Watrous, and Munz`s Response to Audubon`s Memorandum of Law; Petitioners Broderick, Watrous, and Munz`s Response to Motion to Dismiss filed.
- Date: 12/20/1991
- Proceedings: (Petitioner) Response to Petitioner, Lost Tree Village Corporation, to Florida Audubon Society`s Motion for A Directed Verdict; Response of Petitioner, Lost Tree Village Corporation, to Respondent`s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of St anding filed.
- Date: 12/20/1991
- Proceedings: Petitioner Depot Key Joint Venture Partnership and George Rex Andrews` Memorandum of Law in Support of Their Response to Respondent`s Motion to Dismiss; Depot Key Joint Venture of Partnership and George Rex Andrews`s Response to Respondent`s Motion to D
- Date: 12/20/1991
- Proceedings: (Petitioners) Memorandum of Keewaydin and Idlewyld In Opposition to Audubon Request for Directed Verdict filed.
- Date: 12/19/1991
- Proceedings: (Petitioners) Response to Motion for Directed Verdict and Memorandum of Law Filed by Audubon Society filed.
- Date: 12/18/1991
- Proceedings: Response to Petitioners Remington and Idlewyld to Trustees Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing filed.
- Date: 12/09/1991
- Proceedings: Petitioner Roger Broderick`s Response to Florida Audubon Society`s Objection to Filing of Deposition filed.
- Date: 11/27/1991
- Proceedings: Motion of Intervenor FL Audubon Society Requesting Notice be Taken ofits Objection to the Filing of the Deposition of Petitioner Roger Broderick and Request for Assistance; Memorandum of Law in Support of theRequest for Direct Ve rdict of FL Audubon So
- Date: 11/27/1991
- Proceedings: Tagged Letter to JEB from J. Fleming attaching exhibit no. 9 filed.
- Date: 11/27/1991
- Proceedings: Respondent`s Motion to Dismiss Petitioners` Rule Challenges for Lack of Standing; Memorandum of Law in Support of Respondent`s Motion to Dismiss filed.
- Date: 11/27/1991
- Proceedings: Respondent`s Motion to Dismiss Petitioners` Rule Challenges ; Memorandum of Law in Support of Respondent`s Motion to Dismiss filed.
- Date: 11/06/1991
- Proceedings: Subpoena Ad Testificandum w/Affidavit of Service filed. (From Margaret Ray-Kemper)
- Date: 10/29/1991
- Proceedings: Petitioners` Supplemental Response to Request for Admissions filed.
- Date: 10/28/1991
- Proceedings: Final Hearing Held Oct. 28-29 & Nov. 4-8, 1991; for applicable time frames, refer to CASE STATUS form stapled on right side of Clerk's Office case file.
- Date: 10/25/1991
- Proceedings: Respondent`s Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Admissions From Petitioners Roger Broderick, Theodore Watrous and Thomas Munz filed.
- Date: 10/25/1991
- Proceedings: (Respondent) Unilateral Proposed Prehearing Statement of Respondent, Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund; filed.
- Date: 10/25/1991
- Proceedings: Petitioners` Prehearing Statement filed.
- Date: 10/24/1991
- Proceedings: Subpoena Ad Testificandum w/Affidavit of Service (3) filed. (From Margaret Ray-Kemper)
- Date: 10/23/1991
- Proceedings: Board of Trustees` Notice of Compliance With Petitioners` Remington, Ott and Idlewyld`s Request to Produce; Sierra Club, Inc`s Notice of Compliance With Petitioners` Remington, Ott and Idlewyld`s, Request to Produce; Board of Trustees` Amended Response
- Date: 10/23/1991
- Proceedings: Objections of Intervenor Florida Audubon Society to Petitioners Depot Key Joint Venture Partnership and George Rex Andrews` First Set of Interrogatories to Florida Audubon Society filed. (From Joseph Z. Fleming)
- Date: 10/23/1991
- Proceedings: Objections and Offer of Voluntary Production of Intervenor Florida Audubon Society to the Request of Petitioners Remington, Ott and Idlewyld for Production of Documents; Unilateral Prehearing Statement of Intervenor Florida Audubon Society filed. (From
- Date: 10/22/1991
- Proceedings: (Respondent) Response to Request for Admissions; Notice of Service of Respondent`s Answers to Petitioners` Depot Key Joint Venture Partnership and George Rex Andrews, First Set of Interrogatories filed.
- Date: 10/21/1991
- Proceedings: Notice of Service of Notice of Deposition Duces Tecum w/attached Notice of Deposition Duces Tecum filed. (From Mary F. Smallwood)
- Date: 10/18/1991
- Proceedings: Request of Petitioners Remington, Ott and Idlewyld for Production of Documents (3) filed. (From John D. Remington)
- Date: 10/18/1991
- Proceedings: (Petitioners) Notice and Certificate of Service of Interrogatories filed.
- Date: 10/17/1991
- Proceedings: (Petitioners) Motion of Depot Key Joint Venture Partnership and George Rex Andrews to Compel DNR`S Response to Request for Admission w/Exhibit-A filed.
- Date: 10/17/1991
- Proceedings: Objections to Petitioners Depot Key Joint Venture Partnership and George Rex Andrews Request for Admissions to Respondent filed. (From Debra W. Schiro)
- Date: 10/16/1991
- Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum filed. (From Mary Smallwood)
- Date: 10/15/1991
- Proceedings: Order Granting Intervention (for Florida Audubon Society's) sent out.
- Date: 10/14/1991
- Proceedings: (Petitioners) Notice and Certificate of Service of Interrogatories filed.
- Date: 10/14/1991
- Proceedings: Responses and Objections of Petitioners, Depot Key Joint Venture Partnership and George Rex Andrews, to Respondent`s Request for Production of Documents; (Petitioners) Request for Admissions filed.
- Date: 10/11/1991
- Proceedings: Order Granting Intervention (for Sierra Club, Inc.) sent out.
- Date: 10/11/1991
- Proceedings: Second Amended Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for Oct. 28, 1991 & Nov. 4-6, 1991: 9:00am; Tallahassee).
- Date: 10/11/1991
- Proceedings: Petitioner Roger Broderick`s Response to Request for Production of Documents; Petitioner Theodore Watrous` Response to Request for Production of Documents filed.
- Date: 10/11/1991
- Proceedings: Petitioner Theodore Watrous` Notice of Service of Answers to Respondent Board of Trustees Firs Set of Interrogatories; Petitioner Thomas Munz`s Response to Request for Production of Documents filed.
- Date: 10/10/1991
- Proceedings: Lost Tree Village Corporation, Inc`s Notice of Compliance With Respondent`s Request for Production of Documents filed.
- Date: 10/10/1991
- Proceedings: Notary Affidavit previously-submitted Answers to Interrogatories of Idlewyld filed. (From Anne Longman)
- Date: 10/10/1991
- Proceedings: Responses and Objections of Petitioners Remington and Ott to Request for Production of Documents of Trustees; Responses and Objections of Petitioner Idlewyld Corporation, Inc. to Request for Production of Documents Trustees filed.
- Date: 10/09/1991
- Proceedings: Notice of service of Petition Depot Key Joint Venture Partnership`s Answers to Respondent`s lst Set of Interrogs; Notice of Service of Petitioner George Rex Andrews` Answers to Respondent`s lst Set of Interrogs. filed.
- Date: 10/09/1991
- Proceedings: Respondent`s Request for Production of Documents (9) filed.
- Date: 10/08/1991
- Proceedings: Ltr. to MWC from P. Presness w/exhibit B of the Motion for Disqualification filed. filed.
- Date: 10/07/1991
- Proceedings: Respondent`s First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner, John D. Remington As Co-Trustee; Respondent`s First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner, Barrett Ott, As Co-Trustee; Respondent`s First set of Interrogatories to Petitioner Idlewyld Corporation,
- Date: 10/07/1991
- Proceedings: Order sent out. (RE: Motion for disqualification, granted; Cases transferred to Wm. Quattlebaum).
- Date: 10/07/1991
- Proceedings: Petitioner Tom Munz`s Notice of Service of Answers to Respondent Board of Trustees First Set of Interrogatories filed.
- Date: 10/07/1991
- Proceedings: Petitioner Roger Broderick`s Notice of Service of Answers to Respondent Board of Trustees First Set of Interrogatories filed.
- Date: 10/07/1991
- Proceedings: Respondent`s Request for Production of Documents (10) filed.
- Date: 10/07/1991
- Proceedings: (Petitioner) Withdrawal of Petition filed.
- Date: 10/07/1991
- Proceedings: (Petitioner) Request for Admissions; Notice of Service of Responses to Interrogatories w/Respondent`s First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner Lost Tree Village Corporation filed.
- Date: 10/07/1991
- Proceedings: John D. Remington and Barrett Ott's Response to Request for Admissions filed.
- Date: 10/04/1991
- Proceedings: Petitioners` Objections to Request for Admissions filed.
- Date: 10/04/1991
- Proceedings: Respondent`s Notice of Complying With Depot Key Joint Venture Partnership`s and George Rex Andres, First Set of Request for Production of Documents filed.
- Date: 10/04/1991
- Proceedings: Notice of Amendment to Respondent`s Interrogatories Served on St. Bart`s Development Corp w/Respondent`s First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner, Depot Key Joint Venture Partnership; Notice of Amendment to Respondent`s Interrogatories Served on RAVW,
- Date: 10/04/1991
- Proceedings: (2) Motion for Disqualification w/Exhibit-A filed. (From Mary F. Smallwood)
- Date: 10/04/1991
- Proceedings: (Petitioners) Response to Request for Admissions filed.
- Date: 10/04/1991
- Proceedings: Petitioner Deport Key Joint Venture Partnership`s Objections to Respondent`s First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner; Petitioner George Rex Andrews` Objections to Respondent`s First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner filed.
- Date: 10/03/1991
- Proceedings: Motion of Florid Audubon Society Seeking Leave to Intervene in Support of Respondent and Requesting Other Relief filed. (From Joseph Z. Fleming)
- Date: 10/02/1991
- Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum filed. (From Mary Smallwood)
- Date: 10/01/1991
- Proceedings: (Respondent) Notice of Service of Respondent`s First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, Inc. filed.
- Date: 10/01/1991
- Proceedings: Notice of Service of Respondent`s First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner Idlewyld Corporation, Inc.; Notice of Service of Respondent`s First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner, Roger Broderick; Notice of Service of Respondent`s First Set of Interr
- Date: 10/01/1991
- Proceedings: (Respondent) Request for Admissions (6); Notice of Service of Respondent`s First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner Thomas Munz; Notice of Service of Respondent`s First set of Interrogatories to Petitioners Theodore Watrous rec `d.
- Date: 10/01/1991
- Proceedings: Notice of Service of Respondent`s First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner Barrett Ott, As Co-Trustee; Notice of Service of Respondent`s First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner John D. Remington, As Co-Trustee filed. (From Debra W. Schiro)
- Date: 10/01/1991
- Proceedings: Notice of Service of Respondent`s First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner`s RAVW, Inc., As A General Partner of Depot Key Join Venture filed. (From Debra W. Schiro)
- Date: 10/01/1991
- Proceedings: Notice of Service of Respondent`s First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner`s St. Bart`s Development Corp., As A General Partner of Depot Key Joint Venture filed. (From Debra W. Schiro)
- Date: 09/24/1991
- Proceedings: Petition of Sierra Club, Inc. to Intervene in Support of Respondent filed. (From Debra Swim)
- Date: 09/19/1991
- Proceedings: Depot Key Joint Venture Partnership`s and George Rex Andrews` First Set of Request to Respondent for Production of Documents filed. (From Pamela P. Garvin)
- Date: 09/16/1991
- Proceedings: Prehearing Order sent out.
- Date: 09/16/1991
- Proceedings: Order and Amended Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for October 28, 1991: 9:00 am: Tallahassee)
- Date: 09/04/1991
- Proceedings: (Fl Electric Power Coordinating Group) Limited Waiver and Motion for Continuance filed.
- Date: 08/29/1991
- Proceedings: Notice sent out. (RE: Hearing Officer's ownership of property).
- Date: 08/29/1991
- Proceedings: Order for Accelerated Discovery and for Prehearing Statement sent out.
- Date: 08/29/1991
- Proceedings: Order of Consolidation and Notice of Hearing sent out. (Hearing set for Sept. 23, 1991; 9:00am; Tallahassee). (91-5329R, 91-5330R, 91-5331R, 91-5334R, 91-5335R, 91-5336R consolidated).
- Date: 08/28/1991
- Proceedings: Order of Assignment sent out.
- Date: 08/26/1991
- Proceedings: Letter to Liz Cloud & Carroll Webb from Marguerite Lockard
- Date: 08/23/1991
- Proceedings: Challenge to Proposed Rule Pursuant to Section 120.54(4), Florida Statutes and Petition for a Section 120.57 Formal Hearing (Exhibit A-D) filed.
Case Information
- Judge:
- JAMES E. BRADWELL
- Date Filed:
- 08/23/1991
- Date Assignment:
- 10/09/1991
- Last Docket Entry:
- 10/29/1997
- Location:
- Tallahassee, Florida
- District:
- Northern
- Agency:
- Department of Environmental Protection
- Suffix:
- RX