06-002313 Charlie Jones vs. Paul Crum And Department Of Environmental Protection
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Friday, December 22, 2006.


View Dockets  
Summary: Petitioners Brooks and Cole presented no evidence at the hearing and thus failed to prove their standing. Petitioner Jones failed to prove that the proposed dock would significantly impede access to a nearby tidal creek.

1STATE OF FLORIDA

4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

8DONNA BROOKS , CHARLIE JONES, )

13AND DAVID COLE, )

17)

18Petitioner s, )

21)

22vs. ) C ase Nos. 06 - 2312

30) 06 - 2313

34PAUL CRUM AND DEPARTMENT OF ) 06 - 2314

43ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION , )

46)

47Respondent . )

50)

51RECOMMENDED ORDER

53A formal administrative hearing in this case was held on

63November 9, 2006, in Jacksonville, Florida, before Bram D. E.

73Canter, an Administrative Law Judge of the Division of

82Admi nistrative Hearings (“DOAH”).

86APPEARANCES

87For Petitioners: Richard L. Maguire, Esquire

93Charles F. Mills, III, Esquire

98Rogers Towers, P.A.

1011301 Riverplace Boulevard, Suite 1500

106Jacksonville, Florida 32207 - 9000

111For Respondents Paul Crum, Sr., and Paul Crum, Jr. 1

121Marcia Parker Tjoflat, Esquire

125Angela M. Sarabia, Esquire

129Pappas, Metcalf, Jenks & Mil ler, P.A.

136245 Riverside Avenue, Suite 400

141Jacksonville, Florida 32202 - 4926

146For Respondent Florida Department of Environmental

152Protection:

153Timothy E. Markey, Esquire

157Department of Environmental Protection

161The Douglas Building, Mail Station 35

1673900 Commonwealth Boulevard

170Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000

175STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

179The issue in this ca se is whether Respondents Paul Crum,

190Sr. , and Paul Crum, Jr. (the "Crums") , are entitled to the

202Noticed General Permit issued by the Department of Environmental

211Protection ("Department") for the construction of a single -

222family residential dock and associat ed structures.

229PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

231On December 6, 2005, the Department gave notice of its

241Determination of Qualification for Noticed General Permit

248No. 16 - 253057 - 002 - EG ("the Permit”) to the Crums for a single -

266family residential dock located at 15696 Sh ark Road West,

276Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida. Donna Brooks, Charlie

283Jones, David Cole, and Patty Cole timely filed petitions for

293hearing to challenge the proposed agency action, and the

302Department referred the matters to DOAH. The cases were

311subseq uently consolidated for hearing. Before the final

319hearing, Petitioner Patty Cole filed a Notice of Voluntary

328Dismissal.

329Petitioners stipulated that all the regulatory and

336proprietary criteria applicable to the proposed dock were

344satisfied except with reg ard to the criteria related to the

355effect of the proposed dock on navigability in public waters.

365Petitioners contend that the proposed project will significantly

373impede navigability by obstructing access to a small tidal creek

383near the proposed dock.

387At t he final hearing, the Crums presented the testimony of

398Ernest Frey, P.E., who was accepted as an expert in civil

409engineering, with a specialty in environmental engineering and

417in design and permitting of dredge and fill projects in aquatic

428preserves; Paul Crum, Sr.; and Randall Armstrong, who was

437accepted as an expert in navigation and piloting and in marine

448biology. The Department presented the testimony of James Maher,

457P.E., Submerged Lands/Environmental Resource Program

462Administrator for the Department’ s Northeast District. Joint

470Respondent Exhibits 1 through 19 were admitted into evidence

479without objection. Petitioners presented the testimony of

486Charlie Jones. Petitioners’ Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 3A1, 3A2, 3B1,

4963B2 , and 3C were admitted into evidence witho ut objection.

506Upon the request of the Crums, and without objection,

515official recognition was taken of Chapters 253 and 258, Florida

525Statu t es (2005); Florida Administrative Code Rules 18 - 20, 18 - 21,

53962 - 113, 62 - 341, and 62 - 343.075; as well as the Operating

554Ag reement Concerning Regulation Under Part IV, Chapter 373,

563F lorida S tatutes , and Aquaculture General Permits Under Section

573403.814, F lorida S tatutes. Between St. Johns River Water

583Management District and Department of Environmental Protection

590(“Operating A greement”); and the Nassau River - St. Johns River

601Marshes and Fort Clinch State Park Aquatic Preserves Management

610Plan April 1986.

613No party ordered a transcript of the hearing. The parties

623timely filed Proposed Recommended Orders that were carefully

631consid ered in the preparation of this Recommended Order.

640FINDINGS OF FACT

643Background

6441. The Crums are the owners of the riparian property

654located at 15696 Shark Road West, Jacksonville, Florida. The

663Crum property is adjacent to Pumpkin Hill Creek, which lies

673w ithin the Nassau River - St. Johns River Marshes Aquatic

684Preserve. Extending from the Crum property into Pumpkin Hill

693Creek is an existing wood dock approximately 90 feet long and

704four feet wide, with a platform near the landward end of the

716dock.

7172. Petiti oner Brooks owns the property immediately

725adjacent to and north of the Crum property. Petitioner Brooks

735has a dock and boat lift.

7413. Petitioner Cole owns the property immediately adjacent

749to and southeast of the Crum property. The Cole property is

760locat ed on a salt marsh and has no dock.

7704. Petitioner Jones lives approximately 3,200 feet north

779of the Crum property, on a tributary to Pumpkin Hill Creek.

790Petitioner Jones has fished Pumpkin Hill Creek and the

799surrounding waters for over 25 years.

8055. Noti ced General Permits are a type of environmental

815resource permit granted by rule for those activities which have

825been determined to have minimal impacts to water resources.

834Florida Administrative Code Rule 62 - 341.427 grants by rule a

845general permit to cons truct a single family pier, along with

856boat lifts and terminal platforms, provided certain specific

864criteria are met.

8676. In August 2005, the Crums applied for a Noticed General

878Permit to extend their existing dock into deeper water. The

888Department issued a Notice of Determination of Qualification for

897Noticed General Permit, but later rescinded the authorization

905after Petitioner Brooks complained to the Department that the

914landward end of the existing dock is located only 21 feet from

926her property boundary and, therefore, did not comply with

935Florida Administrative Code Rule 18 - 21.004(3)(d) , which requires

944that a dock be set back a minimum of 25 feet "inside the

957applicant's riparian rights lines."

9617. In November 2005, the Crums re - applied for a Noticed

973Gene ral Permit. Their revised plans called for removal of the

984existing dock and construction of a new dock extending

993approximately 255 feet out into Pumpkin Hill Creek. The

1002proposed dock would be located a minimum of 25 feet inside the

1014Crums' riparian rights lines.

10188. On December 6, 2005, the Department issued a Notice of

1029Determination of Qualification for a Noticed General Permit for

1038the revised dock, stating that the project satisfied the

1047requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62 - 341.427, as

1057well as the conditions for authorization to perform activities

1066on state - owned submerged lands set forth in Florida

1076Administrative Code Rule 18 - 21 and for activities in an aquatic

1088preserve under Florida Administrative Code Rule 18 - 20.

10979. In April 2006, Petitio ners filed three petitions for

1107hearing with the Department alleging that the proposed dock

1116significantly impedes navigation by restricting access to a

1124tidal creek and extends more waterward than necessary to access

1134a water depth of (minus) - 4 feet at mean low water, which is

1148prohibited for docks in aquatic preserves under Florida

1156Administrative Code Rule 18 - 20.005(3)(b)3.

116210. Petitioners attached to their petitions a copy of a

1172bathymetric survey showing the elevations of the submerged lands

1181in the vicinity of the proposed project. In response to the

1192information contained in the survey, the Crums revised their

1201plans to shorten the dock to its currently proposed length of

1212186.56 feet. A new Notice of Determination of Qualification for

1222a Notice General Permi t was then issued by the Department on

1234October 16, 2006.

123711. The final dock project consists of: (a) removal of

1247the existing wood dock; (b) construction of a four - foot wide,

1259186.56 - foot long, single family residential dock consisting of

1269an access pier, a 12 - foot by 12 - foot terminal platform, and a

128414 - foot by 20 - foot open boat lift with catwalk (the “proposed

1298dock”).

129912. The proposed dock will terminate where the water will

1309be four feet deep at mean low water.

1317Navigating in and Near the Tidal Creek

132413. T o the south of the Crum property is a wide expanse of

1338salt marsh. Within the salt marsh are unnamed tidal creeks.

1348The mouth of one tidal creek that flows to Pumpkin Hill Creek is

1361located approximately 90 feet south of the existing Crum dock.

1371The tidal c reek is shallow and is not navigable at or near low

1385tide.

138614. Petitioner Jones owns an 18 - foot flatboat which he

1397sometimes keeps at his residence and sometimes at Petitioner

1406Brooks' property. The boat draws about one foot of water.

1416Petitioner Jones uses this boat to fish in the tidal creek

1427located near the Crum property about ten times every month.

143715. No evidence was presented to show that Petitioner

1446Brooks or Petitioner Cole ever navigate in or otherwise use this

1457tidal creek.

145916. There are many other tidal creeks located in the

1469marshes associated with Pumpkin Hill Creek. Petitioner Jones

1477boats and fishes in most of them.

148417. Petitioner Jones said that, currently, he must wait

1493two hours past low tide for the water depth to be sufficient for

1506him to ge t into the tidal creek near the Crum property. His

1519usual course to the creek lies just beyond the end of the

1531existing Crum dock. He claims there is a channel there, but no

1543channel is shown on the survey or in any of the parties'

1555photographs. After the p roposed dock is constructed, Petitioner

1564Jones' usual course to the tidal will be obstructed. He

1574contends that the new course he would have to take to the tidal

1587creek will take him across shallower areas of Pumpkin Hill Creek

1598so that he will have to wait t wo more hours (a total of four

1613hours) after low tide to get into the creek. Therefore,

1623Petitioner Jones' alleged injury is the reduction of the hours

1633available to him to navigate in and out of the tidal creek for

1646fishing.

164718. The existing Crum dock termi nates on a broad mud flat

1659which is exposed at mean low water. However, the bathymetric

1669survey shows the mud flat is at a lower elevation near the end

1682of the dock so water covers this area before it covers the rest

1695of the mud flat. However , the bathymetri c survey also shows the

1707elevation of the bottom rising as one moves south from the

1718existing dock. At the mouth of the tidal creek the elevation is

17301.0 feet NGVD (National Geodetic Vertical Datum, an official,

1739surveyed reference point). Because the tidal creek drains into

1748the main body of Pumpkin Hill Creek, a reasonable inference can

1759be made that the bottom elevations in the creek generally become

1770higher (and the water depths decrease) as one moves up the creek

1782toward dry land.

178519. Prop scars in the expo sed bottom at the end of the

1798existing dock indicate that boats have traveled over this area

1808when the water was so shallow that the engine props were

1819striking the bottom. Prop scarring can cause turbidity and

1828damage to benthic organisms.

183220. The bathymetr ic survey indicates that mean high water

1842in this area of Pumpkin Hill Creek is 3.03 feet NGVD , and the

1855mean low water is - 1.78 feet NGVD. The mean tidal fluctuation

1867between mean low water and mean high water is thus 4.81 feet.

187921. Randall Armstrong, who was accepted as an expert in

1889navigation and piloting, explained that in this area, where

1898there are two daily tides, the water elevation will generally

1908increase by 1/12 of the mean tidal fluctuation in the first hour

1920after mean low water, another 2/12 of th e fluctuation in the

1932second, and 3/12 in the third hour. Applying this general rule

1943to the tidal fluctuation here of 4.81 feet results in an

1954estimated 1.2 - foot increase in water elevation two hours after

1965low tide and a 2.4 - foot increase three hours after low tide.

1978Based on the mean low water elevation of - 1.78 feet NGVD, the

1991water elevation would usually be about - 0.6 f oo t NGVD two hours

2005after low tide and 0.6 f oo t NGVD three hours after low tide.

201922. Therefore, the tidal creek (with a bottom elevation o f

20301.0 f oo t NGVD at the mouth) would usually be "dry" two hours

2044after low tide and would usually have less than a foot of water

2057three hours after low tide. That evidence contradicts

2065Petitioner Jones' statement that he now navigates into the tidal

2075creek two hours after low tide. That might occasionally be

2085possible, but the bathymetric survey indicates the creek would

2094usually be too shallow at that time. In fact, the evidence

2105suggests that the tidal creek is only reliably navigable without

2115causing prop scar s to the bottom by using boats with very

2127shallow draft and waiting until high tide (or shortly before or

2138after) when the water depth at the mouth of the creek would be

2151about two feet.

215423. It was Mr. Armstrong's opinion that the 1.0 - foot NGVD

2166elevation at the mouth of the tidal creek determines when and

2177how long the tidal creek is navigable, and those times would not

2189be affected by the proposed dock. He described the new course

2200that a boater would use to navigate into the tidal creek after

2212the proposed doc k is built. He used the bathymetric survey to

2224show that when the water is deep enough to navigate into the

2236tidal creek, the water depth is also sufficient to navigate the

2247new course.

224924. The proposed dock might, as Petitioner Jones alleges,

2258cause boaters to traverse a longer section of the mudflat then

2269they do currently. However, the more persuasive testimony

2277supports the Crums' position that the navigability of the tidal

2287creek is controlled by its shallowest point at the 1.0 - foot NGVD

2300elevation and that the proposed dock will not interfere with

2310navigation of the tidal creek by requiring boaters to traverse

2320shallower areas.

232225. Petitioner Jones testified that he regularly navigates

2330his boat close to the existing Crum dock. The evidence does not

2342indicate that the proposed dock would cause an unreasonable risk

2352of collision for boaters using the new course to the tidal

2363creek.

2364CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

236726. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

2374jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of this

2385proceeding pursuant to Section 120.569 and Subsection 120.57(1),

2393Florida Statutes (2006). 2

239727. The Department is the state agency authorized by Part

2407IV , Chapter 373, Florida Statutes ; Title 62, Florida

2415Administrative Code ; and the Operating Agreement to i mplement a

2425regulatory program to prevent harm to the water resources of the

2436District, and to administer and enforce Part IV , Chapter 373,

2446Florida Statutes.

244828. The Department is the state agency authorized by

2457Chapter 253, Florida Statutes, and Florida Adm inistrative Code

2466Chapter 18 - 21 to review and authorize certain uses of state -

2479owned submerged lands.

248229. The Department is the state agency authorized by

2491Chapter 258, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code

2499Rule 18 - 20, to review and authorize act ivities in aquatic

2511preserves.

251230. The Nassau River - St. Johns River Marshes Aquatic

2522Preserve Management Plan, adopted by the Board of Trustees of

2532the Internal Improvement Trust Fund in April 1986, provides

2541policy guidelines for state agencies that have jur isdiction to

2551maintain the natural resources and environmental quality of

2559designated aquatic preserves.

256231. Under Subsection 120.569(1), Florida Statutes, formal

2569administrative proceedings are limited to persons whose

2576substantial interests will be determin ed by an agency. Neith e r

2588Petitioner Brooks nor Petitioner Cole presented evidence at the

2597hearing. No evidence was presented that they have ever used the

2608tidal creek for boating or fishing. The only evidence in the

2619record relevant to their standing is th eir ownership of

2629properties adjacent to the Crum property and Brooks' ownership

2638of a dock and boat. That evidence is not sufficient to

2649establish that these petitioners have a substantial interest in

2658navigating the tidal creek, which is the interest they a lleged

2669would be adversely affected. Their interest in the navigability

2678of the creek, therefore, was not shown to be greater than the

2690general interest that any citizen of Florida might have in the

2701matter. Petitioners Brooks and Cole failed to prove their legal

2711standing in this case.

271532. The Crums also argue that Petitioner Jones lacks legal

2725standing. However, Petitioner Jones presented evidence that he

2733frequently boats and fishes in the tidal creek, and there is no

2745dispute that the proposed dock will aff ect how Petitioner Jones

2756will gain access to the creek. His evidence was sufficient to

2767prove he has a substantial interest that will be affected.

2777Petitioner Jones' failure to prove his claim that navigation of

2787the tidal creek will be significantly impede d by the proposed

2798dock does not negate his standing. Standing and the merits of a

2810claim are different concepts. See , e.g. , Village Park Mobile

2819Home Ass'n., Inc. v. State Dept. of Business Regulation , 506 So.

28302d 426, 433 (Fla . 1st DCA 1987) ; St. Martin's Episcopal Church

2842v. Prudential - Bache Securities , 613 So. 2d 108, 109 n. 4 (Fla.

28554th DCA 1993) . If standing was based on whether a claim was

2868proved, every losing petitioner would lack standing.

287533. As the applicants for the Noticed General Permit, the

2885Cru ms have the ultimate burden of proving their entitlement to

2896the permit by a preponderance of the evidence. Dept. of Transp.

2907v. J.W.C. Co., Inc. , 396 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

291934. In order to prove their entitlement to the Noticed

2929General Permit, th e Crums must provide reasonable assurances

2938that the proposed dock meets all applicable regulatory and

2947proprietary criteria. However, the parties stipulated that the

2955only criteria at issue in this case are the following:

2965Whether the activity will significa ntly

2971impede navigability in the water body.

2977(Fla. Admin. Code R. 62 - 341.427(2)(c))

2984Whether the Proposed Project is an activity

2991contrary to the public interest in that it

2999adversely affects the traditional

3003recreational uses of fishing and boating by

3010advers ely affecting the navigability of the

3017water body. (Fla. Admin. Code R. 18 -

302521.004(1)(a))

3026Whether the Proposed Project is inconsistent

3032with maintenance of the sovereignty

3037submerged land of Pumpkin Hill Creek for the

3045traditional public recreational uses of

3050b oating and fishing. (Fla. Admin. Code R.

305818 - 21.004 (2)(a))

306235. The applicant's burden is to provide reasonable

3070assurances, not absolute guarantees. McCormick, et al. v. City

3079of Jacksonville , 12 F.A.L.R. 960 (Fla. Dept. of Env. Reg. 1990).

309036. The evide nce presented by the Crums provides

3099reasonable assurance that the depth of the water at the mouth of

3111the tidal creek is the limiting factor for navigating the tidal

3122creek and that , when the depth at the mouth of the tidal creek

3135is sufficient to navigate in and out without damaging the

3145submerged resources, the depth will also be sufficient

3153throughout the new course around the proposed dock to the tidal

3164creek. Therefore, the proposed dock will not significantly

3172impede navigability in Pumpkin Hill Creek, 3 inc luding the unnamed

3183tidal creek, and will not adversely affect or prevent the

3193maintenance of traditional public uses.

3198RECOMMENDATION

3199Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of

3209law, it is

3212RECOMMENDED that the Secretary of the Florida Departme nt of

3222Environmental Protection enter a final order that grants Noticed

3231General Permit No. 16 - 253057 - 002 - EG to the Crums.

3244DONE AND ENTERED this 2 2nd day of December , 2006 , in

3255Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

3259S

3260BRAM D. E. CANTER

3264Administrative Law Judge

3267Division of Administrative Hearings

3271The DeSoto Building

32741230 Apalachee Parkway

3277Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

3282(850) 488 - 9675 SUNCOM 278 - 9675

3290Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

3296www.doah.state.fl.us

3297Filed with the Clerk of the

3303Di vision of Administrative Hearings

3308this 2 2nd day of December , 2006 .

3316ENDNOTES

33171/ The challenged permit was issued to "Paul Crum, Jr., Et AL."

3329The real property involved is owned by Paul Crum, Sr., and Paul

3341Crum, Jr. The three petitions for hearing named only Paul Crum

3352as the permittee.

33552/ U nless otherwise indicated, all references to the Florida

3365Statutes are to the 2006 codification.

33713/ The channel of Pumpkin Hill Creek lies waterward of the

3382p roposed dock . No evidence was presented that the Proposed

3393Project would impede navigation in that channel.

3400COPIES FURNISHED :

3403Timothy E. Markey , Esquire

3407Department of Environmental Protection

3411The Douglas Building, Mail Station 35

34173900 Commonwealth Boulevard

3420Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000

3425Richard L. Maguire , Esquire

3429Charles F. Mills, III, Esquire

3434Rogers Towers, P.A.

34371301 Riverplace Boulevard, Suite 1500

3442Jacksonville, Florida 32207 - 9000

3447Marcia Parker Tjoflat, Esquire

3451Angela M. Sarabia, Esquire

3455Pappas, Metcalf, Jenks & Miller, P.A.

3461245 Riverside Avenue, Sui te 400

3467Jacksonville, Florida 32202 - 4926

3472Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk

3476Department of Environmental Protection

3480Douglas Building, Mail Station 35

34853900 Commonwealth Boulevard

3488Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000

3493Greg Munson, General Counsel

3497Department of Environme ntal Protection

3502Douglas Building, Mail Station 35

35073900 Commonwealth Boulevard

3510Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000

3515Colleen M. Castille, Secretary

3519Department of Environmental Protection

3523Douglas Building

35253900 Commonwealth Boulevard

3528Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3 000

3534NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

3540All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

355015 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

3561to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

3572will issue the Final Order in this case.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 02/08/2007
Proceedings: Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/06/2007
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 12/22/2006
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 12/22/2006
Proceedings: Recommended Order (hearing held November 9, 2006). CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 12/22/2006
Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
PDF:
Date: 11/20/2006
Proceedings: Proposed Recommended Order of State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/20/2006
Proceedings: (Petitioner`s) Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/20/2006
Proceedings: Respondent Crums` Proposed Recommended Order filed.
Date: 11/09/2006
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 11/07/2006
Proceedings: Petitioners` Notice of Filing Joint Exhibit List (Proposed Hearing Exhibits not available for viewing).
PDF:
Date: 11/06/2006
Proceedings: Motion for Official Recognition filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/03/2006
Proceedings: Respondents` Notice of Filing Joint Exhibit List filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/02/2006
Proceedings: Petitioner David Cole`s Response to Respondent Paul Crum, Jr.`s First Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/02/2006
Proceedings: Petitioner Charlie Jones` Response to Respondent Paul Crum, Jr.`s First Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/02/2006
Proceedings: Petitioner Donna Brooks` Response to Respondent Paul Crum, Jr.`s First Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/30/2006
Proceedings: Prehearing Stipulation filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/23/2006
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Hearing (hearing set for November 9, 2006; 9:00 a.m.; Jacksonville, FL; amended as to Hearing date ).
PDF:
Date: 10/18/2006
Proceedings: Joint Statement Regarding Hearing Date filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/18/2006
Proceedings: Order of Dismissal (Patty Cole is dismissed as a party to this matter).
PDF:
Date: 10/16/2006
Proceedings: Notice of Voluntary Dismissal as to Petitioner Patty Cole only filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/12/2006
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition (of C. Jones filed).
PDF:
Date: 10/12/2006
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition (of D. Cole) filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/12/2006
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition (of D. Brooks) filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/09/2006
Proceedings: Respondent Paul Crum, Jr.`s Notice of Propounding Interrogatories to Petitioner David Cole filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/25/2006
Proceedings: Respondent Paul Crum, Jr.`s Notice of Propounding Interrogatories to Petitioner Charlie Jones filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/25/2006
Proceedings: Respondent Paul Crum, Jr.`s Notice of Propounding Interrogatories to Petitioner Patty Cole filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/25/2006
Proceedings: Respondent Paul Crum, Jr.`s Notice of Propounding Interrogatories to Petitioner Donna Brooks filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/21/2006
Proceedings: Order (Respondent Paul Crum`s Motion for Order to Supplement Prehearing Schedule is granted).
PDF:
Date: 09/06/2006
Proceedings: Respondent Paul Crum`s Motion for Order to Supplement Prehearing Schedule filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/01/2006
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance as Co-counsel for Department of Environmental Protection (filed by F. Ffolkes).
PDF:
Date: 08/14/2006
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (filed by R. Maguire).
PDF:
Date: 08/10/2006
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Hearing (hearing set for November 8 and 9, 2006; 9:00 a.m.; Jacksonville, FL; amended as to hearing date).
PDF:
Date: 08/07/2006
Proceedings: Consented/Agreed Motion by Department of Environmental Protection to Continue Final Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/12/2006
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (filed in DOAH Case No. 06-2312).
PDF:
Date: 07/12/2006
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (filed in DOAH Case No. 06-2313).
PDF:
Date: 07/12/2006
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (filed in DOAH Case No. 06-2314).
PDF:
Date: 07/12/2006
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
PDF:
Date: 07/12/2006
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for October 18 and 19, 2006; 9:00 a.m.; Jacksonville, FL).
PDF:
Date: 07/12/2006
Proceedings: Order of Consolidation (DOAH Case Nos. 06-2312, 06-2313 and 06-2314).
PDF:
Date: 07/10/2006
Proceedings: Petitioner`s & Department`s Response to Initial Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/28/2006
Proceedings: Initial Order.
PDF:
Date: 06/28/2006
Proceedings: Petition for Administrative Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/28/2006
Proceedings: Notice of Determination of Qualification for a Notice General Permit filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/28/2006
Proceedings: Notice of Intent to Use a Noticed General Permit filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/28/2006
Proceedings: Request for Assignment of Administrative Law Judge and Notice of Preservation of Record filed.

Case Information

Judge:
BRAM D. E. CANTER
Date Filed:
06/28/2006
Date Assignment:
06/28/2006
Last Docket Entry:
02/08/2007
Location:
Jacksonville, Florida
District:
Northern
Agency:
ADOPTED IN PART OR MODIFIED
 

Counsels

Related Florida Statute(s) (3):