12-003291
Elizabeth Padron vs.
Carl J. Ekblom And Department Of Environmental Protection
Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Wednesday, June 5, 2013.
Recommended Order on Wednesday, June 5, 2013.
1STATE OF FLORIDA
4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
8ELIZABETH PADRON,
10Petitioner,
11vs. Case No. 12 - 3291
17CARL J. EKBLOM AND DEPARTMENT OF
23ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION,
25Respondents.
26/
27RECOMMENDED ORDER
29This matter was heard before the Division of Administrative
38Hearings (DOAH) by its assigned Administrative Law Judge, D . R.
49Alexander, on March 5, 2013, by videoconferencing at sites in
59Marathon and Tallahassee, Florida.
63APPEARANCES
64For Petitioner : Patricia M. Silver, Esquire
71John W. Annesser, Esquire
75The Silver Law Group , P.A.
80Post Office Box 710
84Islamorada, Florida 33036 - 0710
89For Respondent : Hillary Copeland Powell, Esquire
96(D epartment) Department of Environmental Protection
1023900 Commonwealth Boulevard
105Mail Station 35
108Ta llahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000
114For Respondent : James S. Lupino, Esq uire
122( Ekblom ) Brittany N. Miller , Esquire
129Hershoff, Lupino and Yagel, LLP
13490130 Old Highway
137Tavernier, Florida 33070 - 2348
142STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
146The issue is whether Carl J. Ekblom's (Ekblom's)
154application to install a boatlift a t an existing dock in a man -
168made body of water in Islamorada is exempt from the need for an
181Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) .
186PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
188On August 20, 2012, the Department of Environmenta l
197Protection (Department) gave notice that Ekblom's application to
205install a boatlift on an existing dock in Islamorada was exempt
216from Department permitting requirements and did not require
224proprietary review. Petitioner, Elizabeth Padron (Padron) , who
231o wns the existing dock on the adjacent lot, filed her Petition
243for Administrative Hearing challenging that determination . The
251matter was then referred by the Department to DOAH. Prior to
262hearing, Padron filed an Amended Petition. The case was later
272trans ferred from Administrative Law Judge Bram D.E. Canter to
282the undersigned.
284Numerous discovery disputes arose during the course of this
293proceeding and their disposition is shown on the docket sheet.
303A PreHearing Stipulation (Stipulation) was filed by the parties .
313At the final hearing, Petitioner presented the t estimony of
323Dr. Paul Lin, a coastal engineer and accepted as an expert in
335coastal engineering ; Captain Thomas E. Danti, accepted as an
344expert in navigation; and Marcus J. Soto , Petitioner's son.
353Als o, Petiti oner's Exhibits 1 - 10 were received in evidence.
365Exhibit 10 is the deposition testimony of P adron . The
376Department presented the testimony of Celia E. Hitchens, an
385Environmental Specialist II and accepted as an expert in
394applying ERP rules . Also, D epartment Exhibits 1 - 7 were received
407in evidence. Ekblom testified on his own behalf and presented
417the testimony of Randy Whiteside s , an expert in marine
427construction; and Robert J. C amuccio, an expert in navigation .
438Finally, R e spondent's Exhibits 1 - 4, 6, and 14 - 18 were received
453in evidence.
455A T ranscript of the hearing (two volumes) has been
465prepared. Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law were
475timely filed by each party, and they have been considered in the
487preparation of this Recommended Order.
492FINDINGS OF FACT
495A. Background
4971. Ekblom owns property and resides at 107 South Drive
507(Lot 27) , Islamorada . Padron owns the neighboring property
516immediately to the south located at 109 South Drive (Lot 28).
5272. The two pie - shaped lots sit at the V - shaped western end
542of Plantation Lake, an art i ficial body of water on which several
555houses are located. Each of the two properties has a marginal
566dock running along the shoreline that meet s to form an acute
578angle. 1 A 33 - foot finger pier juts out f rom the vertex of the
594angle, running along the border of the property line. Pursuant
604to an understanding with the pr ior owner of Lot 28, and later
617formalized in an easement agreement, for the past 12 years
627Ekblom has used the north side of the finger pier to moor a
64035 to 36 - foot long boat with a beam of about 12 feet, six
655inches . 2 During that time, he has never had a navigational
667incident or complaint . Recently, he purchased a slightly
676smaller boat that is 31 feet, seven inches long and will replace
688t he larger vessel . The outboard motors will add an additional
700two feet.
7023. A jet ski lift currently exists on the north side of
714the finger pier and can only be accessed and used from that side
727of the pier . It was purchased, paid for, and installed by
739Ekb lom in 2000 pursuant to an agreement with the prior owner of
752Lot 28. See Endnote 2 , infra . The jet ski lift has not been
766used by Ekblom since 2004. The drawings submitted by Ekblom
776with his verification application did not depict the lift.
785B. The Proje ct
7894. Ekblom has contracted with a marine construction firm
798to install a boat lift for his new boat. The lift will be on
812the north side of the finger pier, in a location selected to
824provide for straight ingress and egress.
8305. After inspecting the prop erty, the contractor decided
839that a four - post, or cradle lift, is the best option for the
853space, to allow for a straight - in ingress and egress. A cradle
866lift consists of four pilings, one on each corner. Two lifting
877mechanisms sit on top of the pilings, running parallel to the
888boat's location, and a set of cables reach down from the pilings
900to a pair of lifter beams used to lift the boat out of the
914water. Ekblom selected a 13,000 - pound cradle lift, which is
926approximately 12 feet, six inches, center to ce nter, by 12 feet,
938six inches, out to out. A ten - inch piling on either side will
952add an additional five inches on either side of the center to
964center measurement. The lift is not physically attached to the
974pier because a four - post lift is freestanding, as opposed to an
987elevator lift, which attaches to the side of a seawall or dock.
9996 . The lift will need to be placed adjacent to the finger
1012pier so that it is approximately two feet inside of Ekblom's
1023property line. The boat will be moored bow - in, so that t wo -
1038thirds of the boat's overall length will be towards the inside
1049of the finger pier.
10537 . The contractor prepared the drawing depicting the
1062placement of the lift, which was attached to Ekblom's
1071application. The drawing, which was not to scale, showed the
1081lift as 12 feet, six inches, by 14 feet. Use of a boarding
1094platform or access walkway will be necessary to get to the boat
1106on the lift, but this was not shown on the application.
11178 . On August 10, 2012, an Environmental Specialist II,
1127Celia Hitchins, wh o reviews between 30 and 60 exemption
1137applications per month, reviewed Ekblom's request to install the
1146cradle lift . The submittal consisted of a cover letter, an
1157application, a property record card, a copy of the easement, and
1168project drawings and specifi cations. Ms. Hitchins determined
1176that the project was exempt from ERP permitting requirements
1185under Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E - 4.051(3)(b)(1995). 3
1194Because the activity would take place in a n artificially created
1205body of water, no proprietary re view was required.
12149. After an exemption letter was issued, in October 2012
1224Ekblom filed a corrected application with new project drawings,
1233but the project was not changed in any substantial way. After a
1245challenge to the Department's determination was filed by Padron,
1254Ms. Hitchens conducted a site inspection in February 2013. She
1264did not change her original determination.
127010. The project drawings do not depict the boat lift as
1281physically attached to the finger pier. About half of the
1291exemptions Ms. H itchins reviews are for elevator lifts, which
1301attach to a dock, and the other half are for cradle lifts, which
1314do not need to be physically attached to the dock. Both type s
1327of structures may be exempt, as the Department interprets the
1337word "attached" in r ule 40E - 4.051(3)(b) to mean either
1348physically attached or in close proximity and associated with a
1358docking facility. "Close proximity" means a close step, or a
1368reasonable step, or some sort of means of access, such as a
1380boarding platform or access walkway . It does not include
1390needing to run and jump on the vessel or needing to swim to the
1404vessel. This is a more reasonable and logical interpretation of
1414the rule than th e narrow one advocated by Padron. Ms. Hitchins
1426determined from the project drawings tha t the lift was in close
1438proximity to the finger pier and met the requirements of the
1449rule.
14501 1 . Padron engaged Dr. Lin to take measurements of the
1462project area and develop scaled drawings. In these scaled
1471drawings, he depicted the boat lift as 12 feet, si x inches, by
148414 feet, ten inches. He arrived at the latter measurement by
1495using the generic drawing specifications for the 16,000 - pound
1506boat lift that showed the width as 14 feet from center to
1518center, and added ten inches to acc ommodate a ten - inch piling on
1532each side.
15341 2 . Dr. Lin prepared six alternative placements of the
1545boat lift, including placements with a two and eight - foot
" 1556safety zone " (buffer zone) between the boat on the lift and
1567Ekblom's marginal dock.
1570C. Petitioner's Objections
15731 3 . In the parties' Stipulation, Padron contend ed that the
1585boat lift will not be used for recreational, non - commercial
1596activities; it will involve filling or dredging other than
1605necessary to install the pilings; it will create a navigational
1615hazard; and it will not be the sole dock constructed pursuant to
1627the exemption. She also argue d that the boat lift must be
1639physically "attached" to the finger pier. In her Proposed
1648Recommended Order, however, sh e focuses primarily on whether the
1658boat lift will create a navigati onal hazard and whether the
1669cradle lift must be physically attached to the finger pier in
1680order to qualify for an exemption.
16861 4 . Padron purchased her home in January 2011. Between
1697May and July 2012, she expended around $18,000.00 in maintenance
1708work on t he finger pier. She testified that she opposes
1719Ekblom's proposed boat lift because it will prevent her from
1729having full an d complete use of the pier and will be dangerous
1742to people jumping into the water near it. She owns a 23 - foot
1756boat , but only her son us es it. When not in use, the boat is
1771normally stored in her garage or at her primary residence in
1782Miami. S he has never swum in the basin behind her house, and
1795she does not kayak. Her family occasionally swims in the water.
1806In both her pleadings and t estimony, Padron suggest s t hat if
1819this appeal is unsuccessful, she is going to have the finger
1830pier demolished.
18321 5 . Marcos Soto, Padron's son, who resides in Miami, tries
1844to visit his mother's house on weekend s when he "[has] the
1856chance . " He testified that "we" use the area behind the house
1868for boating, swimming, and fishing. However, only he and his
1878nephew fish. Mr. Soto owns three small boats and plans to
1889purchase a jet ski. He acknowledged that his primary objection
1899to the boat lift is that he wi ll be unable to use the jet ski
1915lift. Mr. Soto has no ownership in the property.
1924a. Recreational, Non - commercial Activities
19301 6 . Ekblom testified that he will use the boat and lift
1943for recreational purposes. Padron offered no contrary evidence
1951on this p oint.
1955b. Dredging
19571 7 . To install the lift, the contractor will generally use
1969a drop hammer from a crane on a barge to punch four holes for
1983the pilings. Installation does not involve any more excavation
1992than that. Also, Ms. Hitchins did not see anything in the plans
2004that would require dredging or filling. Therefore, the lift
2013will not require more dredging and filling than necessary to
2023install the pilings. This evidence was not refuted.
20311 8 . The proposed exemption does not include any exemption
2042determin ation as to electrical service.
2048c. Navigational Hazard
20511 9 . There are no channel markers in the middle of the
2064basin , and the basin has only one exit and entrance at its
2076eastern end. The lift will be located at the dead end of the
2089waterway, in an area o f the basin in which only a few boats
2103would navigate. Also, the boat will be on the lift in the same
2116position as if Ekblom tied it to the finger pier. The small
2128inlet into the basin limits the size of a boat coming in, and
2141the water in the basin is calm, compared to the open ocean.
215320 . Ekblom's neighbor to the northeast on Lot 2 6 , Carl
2165Wright, docks a 30 - foot boat on the seawall in front of his
2179property. When Mr. Wright leaves his dock, he pushes the stern
2190of his boat away from the seawall, and backs aw ay. Once he
2203clears the seawall with his bow, he puts the port engine in
2215forward, turns the boat on its center, then leaves the area with
2227the bow pointing out. When he returns, he parks the boat
2238against the seawall. There is no way for Mr. Wright to egre ss
2251bow first. Mr. Wright did not file any objection to the
2262project.
226321. Ekblom will egress parallel to the finger pier. He
2273will never need to navigate on the south side of the finger
2285pier. Once the lift is installed, Ekblom will not use his
2296marginal do ck to moor another boat, as one will not fit there.
23092 2 . Ekblom's expert, Mr. Camuccio, testified that the boat
2320lift would not create a navigational hazard. He visited the
2330site by boat and reviewed the documentation submitted to the
2340Department. His opini on did not change after reviewing
2349Dr. Lin's drawings.
235223. Ms. Hitchins opined that the lift would not cause a
2363navigational hazard. She further opined that the lift would not
2373interfere with navigation to and from the Padron side of the
2384finger pier to the south, since the lift was located on the
2396north side . Also , it would not preclude ingress and egress of
2408vessels to Lot 26 to the northeast . She would not consider the
2421boat lift to be any more intrusive than a boat moored in the
2434same area. Any boa t on Lot 26 would only need a small amount of
2449clearance for ingress and egress.
24542 4 . Padron's navigation expert, Mr. Danti , concluded that
2464the boat lift would be a navigational hazard in each of the six
2477different scenarios Dr. Lin prepared. He concluded t hat the
2487lift would preclude access to the northern side of the finger
2498pier, would create a navigational hazard for the neighbor to the
2509northeast on Lot 26 , and would be a hazard for a jet ski's
2522ingress and egress to the jet ski lift.
25302 5 . The mere fact tha t the lift may preclude access to the
2545north side of the finger pier does not make it a navigational
2557hazard. As Mr. Camuccio testified, inherently, a boat lift
2566occupies some portion of navigable water that is potentially
2575open for navigation, but it does no t mean the lift is a
2588navigation hazard. Notably, Ekblom has moored a boat on the
2598north side of the pier for at least 12 years without incident or
2611complaint .
26132 6 . The lift will not be a navigational hazard to
2625Mr. Wright on Lot 26. Mr. Danti based hi s opinions on Dr. Lin's
2639scaled drawings. But the specifications Dr. Lin used for the
2649lift were too large, and Dr. Lin admitted that there was no way
2662to verify whether he depicted the correct location of the
2672riparian line. His drawings could inaccurately depict the
2680proposed location of the boat lift by approximately two feet,
2690seven inches. Mr. Danti admitted that he would need to
2700recalculate his opinions if the proposed boat lift was up to two
2712feet smaller in width than depicted.
27182 7 . Mr. Danti 's opinion was also based on his conclusion
2731that a jet ski would need a minimum of an eight - foot safety zone
2746for ingress and egress. He would not change the size of the
2758safety zone even if the conditions presented were changed; his
2768opinion is based on the premise th at a safety zone must be one -
2783half of the beam of the vessel all around the vessel. However,
2795Mr. Camuccio approximated the distance needed for any jet ski as
2806four feet, which would give six inches on either side for
2817clearance of other structures. He added that when docking a
2827boat, the distance between the boat and the dock becomes zero at
2839some point, because docking is nothing more than a controlled
2849crash. Mr. Danti admitted that when docking a vessel, the
2859circumstances c an get tight, as opposed to the op en ocean.
28712 8 . Even if the lift is installed to leave an eight - foot
2886safety zone, any boat at Lot 26 will still have a small amount
2899of room for clearance for ingress and egress.
2907d. Sole Dock
29102 9 . The Department considers a boat lift to be an
2922associated st ructure under rule 40E - 4.051(3)(b). Thus, the fact
2933that Ekblom has a marginal dock on his property and a jet ski
2946lift would not preclude a determination that the boat lift is
2957exempt.
2958CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
296130 . Padron has presented sufficient evidence to
2969demo nstrate that her substantial interests could reasonably be
2978affected by the exemption determination. See, e.g. , Peace
2986River/Manatee Reg'l Water Supply Auth. v. IMC Phosphates Co. ,
299518 So. 3d 1079, 1084 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).
30043 1 . The burden of showing entit lement to an exemption is
3017on the applicant. See , e.g. , Lardas v. Dep't of Envtl. Prot. ,
3028Case No. 05 - 0458, 2005 Fla. ENV LEXIS 229 (Fla. DOAH Aug. 24,
30422005), adopted , OGC Case No. 04 - 1927, 2005 Fla. ENV LEXIS 228
3055(Fla. DEP Oct. 21, 1995). Because no permi t is being issued by
3068the Department, section 120.569(2)(p), Florida Statutes, do es
3076not apply.
30783 2 . Section 403.813(1)(b) provides that a permit is not
3089required under chapter 373 for "activities associated" with the
3098installation of private docks, provided t hey meet certain
3107conditions. Rule 40E - 4.051( 3 )(b) implements this statutory
3117exemption in relevant part as follows:
3123(b) . . . To qualify for this exemption,
3132any such dock and associated structure:
31381. Shall be used for recreational, non -
3146commercial activi ties;
31492. Shall be constructed or held in place by
3158pilings, including floating docks, so as not
3165to involve filling or dredging other that
3172[sic] necessary to install the pilings;
31783. Shall not substantially impede the flow
3185of water or create a navigationa l hazard;
3193and
31944. . . . Activities associated with a
3202private dock shall include the construction
3208of structures attached to the pier which are
3216only suitable for the mooring or storage of
3224boats (i.e., boatlifts) .
3228Padron contends that Ekblom fails to sati sfy any of the
3239foregoing criteria.
32413 3 . The unrefuted evidence supports a conclusion that
3251Ekblom's proposed boat lift will be used for recreational, non -
3262commercial purposes and will not involve more dredging and
3271filling than that necessary to install the p ilings.
32803 4 . Conflicting testimony was presented by the parties on
3291the navigational hazard issue. However, t he more persuasive
3300evidence supports a conclusion that the boat lift will not cause
3311a navigational hazard. Even if it arguably causes a slight
3321inc onvenience , this does not rise to the level of a navigational
3333hazard. See, e.g. , Scully v. Patterson , Case No. 04 - 1799, 2005
3345Fla. Div. Adm. Hear. LEXIS 948 (Fla. DOAH April 14, 2005),
3356adopted , OGC Case No. 04 - 1799 (Fla. DEP May 23, 2005). The rule
3370criter ion has been met.
33753 5 . Rule 40E - 4.051(3)(b) does not prohibit the cradle lift
3388solely because it is not physically attached to the finger pier.
3399The Department considers the word "attached" to mean in close
3409proximity to or a short step from and associated w ith a docking
3422facility. This meaning is consistent with the definition of
"3431attach," which means "to connect as an adjunct or associated
3441part." Am. Heritage Dictionary (2d College e d., 1991).
3450Otherwise, cradle lifts would not be exempt from permitting
3459re quirements, while elevator lifts would, leading to an
3468unreasonable and absurd result. The Department's interpretation
3475of the rule is a reasonable and logical one ; the rule criterion
3487has been satisfied .
34913 6 . Petitioner contends, however, that this case " is on
3502all fours with and indistinguishable " from Rosenblum v. Zimmet ,
3511Case No. 06 - 2859, 2007 Fla. Div. Adm. Hear. LEXIS 577 (Fla. DOAH
3525Oct. 23, 2007), adopted , OGC Case No. 06 - 1444, 2007 Fla. Div.
3538Adm. Hear. LEXIS 866 (Fla. DEP Dec. 11, 2007) , in which a
3550r equest for a dock and lift exemption was denied . While there
3563are some similarities in the two cases, the Rosenblum case is
3574not on all fours and indistinguishable from the instant case, as
3585Padron claims . Like Ekblom and Padron, R ose n blum and Zimmet
3598shared a common boundary between their two lots on a man - made
3611canal. A n existing dock extended from Rosenblum's property into
3621the canal ; both owners had access to the dock , Rosenblum on the
3633north side and Zimmet on the south . Zimmet filed an application
3645reques ting an ERP exemption to install an eight - foot by 20 - foot
3660marginal dock with an elevator lift along his shoreline just
3670south of , and perpendicular to , the existing dock. The proposed
3680marginal dock and lift were designed to accommodate a boat that
3691Zimmet i ntended to purchase. In denying the application , the
3701Administrative Law Judge noted that if a boat of the size
3712typically used in the canal (around 24.5 feet) was docked on the
3724south side of the existing dock, it could "barely fit alongside
3735Mr. Zimmet' s bo at," whether moored on the new marginal dock or
3748the lift, and there would not be "a reasonable amount of
3759clearance for navigating a boat" to or from the south side of
3771the existing dock. Id. at *7. Likewise, if a typical sized
3782boat were docked on the sout h side of the existing dock, "there
3795would not be a reasonable amount of clearance for Mr. Zimmet to
3807use his proposed [marginal] dock and lift." Id. The Department
3817agreed that the project would create a navigational hazard and
3827adopted the recommendation t o deny the application.
38353 7 . But Ekblom does not intend to construct a new marginal
3848dock and lift adjacent to an existing finger pier ; he intends
3859only to construct a cradle lift attached to the finger pier .
3871His existing marginal dock will not be used to m oor another
3883boat, as one will not fit t here. Moreover, t he accepted
3895evidence here shows that the proposed lift will not preclude
3905ingress and egress to the finger pier , jet ski lift , or Lot 26 ,
3918or otherwise create a navigational hazard within the meaning o f
3929the rule . The Rosenblum case is clearly distinguishable.
39383 8 . Ekblom has demonstrated by a preponderance of the
3949evidence that his proposed boat lift meets the requirements of
3959rule 40E - 4.051(3) and is exempt from ERP requirements.
39693 9 . Ekblom's request for attorney's fees and costs under
3980section 120.595(1), first made in his Proposed Recommended Order
3989and not by motion as required by the statute, is denied.
4000RECOMMENDATION
4001Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
4011Law, it is
4014RECOMMENDED t hat the Department of Environmental Protection
4022enter a final order approving its determination that Ekblom's
4031application to install a boat lift is exempt from Department
4041permitting requirements.
4043DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of June , 20 1 3 , in
4055Talla hassee , Leon County, Florida.
4060S
4061D . R. ALEXANDER
4065Administrative Law Judge
4068Division of Administrative Hearings
4072The DeSoto Building
40751230 Apalachee Parkway
4078Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060
4083(850) 488 - 9675
4087Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847
4093www.doah.state.fl.us
4094Filed with th e Clerk of the
4101Division of Administrative Hearings
4105this 5th day of June , 201 3 .
4113ENDNOTE S
41151 A marginal dock is a fixed or floating structure placed
4126immediately contiguous and parallel to the shoreline. See Fla.
4135Admin. Code R. 18 - 21.003(29).
41412 In 200 2, an easement agreement was executed by Ekblom and the
4154previous owner of Lot 2 8 , which gives Ekblom access to the finger
4167pier and the right to dock his vessel on the north side. When
4180she purchased Lot 28 in 2011 , Padron testified that she was made
4192aware of the agreement and was told that Ekblom had a right to
4205dock his boat on the north side of the pier . See Petitioner 's
4219Ex. 10, p. 8. Even so, Padron has contended, at least in her
4232pleadings, that the easement does not give her neighbor access to
4243the pi er , but this issue must be resolved in circuit court, and
4256not by an administrative tribunal. For purposes of deciding this
4266case, the undersigned assumes that Ekblom has access to Padron's
4276dock. In any event, proof of ownership of, or access to, a dock
4289is not required in order to qualify for an exemption to construct
4301a boat lift.
43043 In 1995, the Department adopted rule 40E - 4.051 by reference in
4317rule 62 - 330.200(4)(b). Thus, the rule as written in 1995 is the
4330controlling provision in this case. See § 120. 54(1) ( i)1., Fla.
4342Stat.
4343COPIES FURNISHED:
4345Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk
4349Department of Environmental Protection
43533000 Commonwealth Boulevard
4356Mail Station 35
4359Tallahassee, Florida 32 399 - 3000
4365Matthew Z. Leopold , General Counsel
4370Department of Environmental Pro tection
43753000 Commonwealth Boulevard
4378Mail Station 35
4381Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000
4386Patricia M. Silver , Esquire
4390The Silver Law Group, P.A.
4395Post Office Box 710
4399Islam o rad a , Florida 33036 - 0710
4407James S. Lupino, Esquire
4411Hershoff, Lupino & Yagel, LLP
441690130 Old Highway
4419Ta vernier , Florida 33070 - 2348
4425Hillary Copeland Powell, Esquire
4429Department of Environmental Protection
44333000 Commonwealth Boulevard
4436Mail Station 35
4439Tallahassee , Florida 32 399 - 3000
4445NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
4451All parties have the ri ght to submit written exceptions within 15
4463days of the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to
4474this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will
4485render a final order in this matter.
- Date
- Proceedings
- PDF:
- Date: 08/29/2013
- Proceedings: Florida Department of Environmental Protection's Response to Elizabeth Pardron's Exceptions filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/26/2013
- Proceedings: Respondent Carl J. Ekblom's Response to Petitioner's Exceptions to the Recommended Order filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/05/2013
- Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
- PDF:
- Date: 05/13/2013
- Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection's Proposed Recommended Order filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/19/2013
- Proceedings: Respondent Ekblom's Response to Motion for Extension of Time to File Proposed Recommended Order filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/17/2013
- Proceedings: Motion for Extension of Time to File Proposed Recommended Orders filed.
- Date: 03/28/2013
- Proceedings: Transcript Volume I-II (not available for viewing) filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 03/14/2013
- Proceedings: Deposition of Elizabeth Padron (not available for viewing) filed.
- Date: 03/14/2013
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Proposed Exhibits filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
- Date: 03/05/2013
- Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
- PDF:
- Date: 03/04/2013
- Proceedings: Respondent, Carl J. Ekblom's, Notice of Filing (Deposition Transcripts of Thomas Danti, Marcus Soto and Paul Lin, P.E) filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 03/04/2013
- Proceedings: Respondent, Carl J. Ekblom's, Notice of Filing (Deposition Transcripts of Gay Smith, Randy Whitesides, Carl Ekblom, Elizabeth Padron, Celia Hitchins and Robt. Camuccio) filed.
- Date: 03/04/2013
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Proposed Exhibits filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
- Date: 03/04/2013
- Proceedings: Respondent's Proposed Exhibits filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
- PDF:
- Date: 03/01/2013
- Proceedings: Respondent, Carl Ekblom's, Notice of Filing Trial Exhibit No. 13 filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 03/01/2013
- Proceedings: Petitioner Elizabeth Padron's Notice of Filing (Proposed) Trial Exhibits filed.
- Date: 03/01/2013
- Proceedings: Respondent's Department of Environmental Protection's (Proposed) Exhibit filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
- Date: 03/01/2013
- Proceedings: Respondent's Proposed Exhibits filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
- PDF:
- Date: 03/01/2013
- Proceedings: Respondent, Carl Ekblom's, Notice of Filing (Proposed) Trial Exhibits filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 02/18/2013
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Amended Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum (of R. Camuccio) filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 02/18/2013
- Proceedings: Notice of Taking Telephonic Deposition Duces Tecum (of P. Lin, P.E.) filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 02/18/2013
- Proceedings: Notice of Taking Telephonic Deposition Duces Tecum (of M. Soto) filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 02/18/2013
- Proceedings: Notice of Taking Telephonic Deposition Duces Tecum (of T. Danti) filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 02/08/2013
- Proceedings: Notice of Service of Petitioner Elizabeth Padron's Answers to Respondent DEP's First Set of Interrogatories filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 02/07/2013
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Response to Respondent DEP's First Request for Production of Documents to Petitioner filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 01/28/2013
- Proceedings: Order (denying motion for partial relinquishment of jurisdiction).
- Date: 01/28/2013
- Proceedings: Respondent Carl J. Ekblom's Notice of Compliance with Court Order of January 23, 2013, (emails are delivered under seal, for an in camera inspection).
- PDF:
- Date: 01/24/2013
- Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection's Response to Ekblom's Motion for Partial Relinquishment of Jurisdiction filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 01/24/2013
- Proceedings: Respondent Carl Ekblom's Notice of Compliance with Court Order of January 23, 2013 filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 01/22/2013
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Response in Opposition to Respondent Ekblom's Motion for Partial Relinquishment of Jurisdiction filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 01/18/2013
- Proceedings: Respondent Ekblom's First Motion for Partial Relinquishment of Jurisdiction filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 01/17/2013
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Motion to Compel Production, or in the Alternative, In Camera Inspection filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 01/16/2013
- Proceedings: Respondent, Carl J. Ekblom's, Notice of Filing Amended Privilege Log filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 01/15/2013
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Re-notice of Taking Deposition (of C. Ekblom) filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 01/11/2013
- Proceedings: Respondent Ekblom's Supplemental Response to Petitioner's First Request for Admissions filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 01/10/2013
- Proceedings: Re-notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum (of R. Whitesides) filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 01/08/2013
- Proceedings: Respondent Department of Environmental Protection's First Request for Production of Documents to Petitioner Elizabeth Padron filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 01/08/2013
- Proceedings: Notice and Certificate of Service of Respondent DEP's First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner Elizabeth Padron filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 01/04/2013
- Proceedings: Respondent Ekblom's Supplemental Response to Petitioner's First Request for Production filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 01/04/2013
- Proceedings: Respondent Ekblom's Notice of Service of Supplemental Answers to Petitioner's Second Set of Interrogatories filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 01/02/2013
- Proceedings: Notice of Hearing by Video Teleconference (hearing set for March 5, 2013; 9:00 a.m.; Marathon and Tallahassee, FL).
- PDF:
- Date: 12/31/2012
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Response in Opposition to Respondent Ekblom's Renewed Objections to Discovery Pursuant to this Court's Amended Order of December 6, 2012 filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 12/27/2012
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Response in Opposition to Respondent Ekblom's Motion to Compel Deposition Dates for the Deposition of Petitioner Padron and Motion to Compel Dates for Pre-hearing Meeting from Petitioner filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 12/21/2012
- Proceedings: Respondent Ekblom's Renewed Objections to Discovery Pursuant to this Court's Amended Order of December 6, 2012 filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 12/21/2012
- Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection's Response to Petitioner's First Request for Production filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 12/21/2012
- Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection's Response to Petitioner's First Request for Admissions filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 12/21/2012
- Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection's Notice of Service of Answers to Petitioner's First Set of Interrogatories filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 12/19/2012
- Proceedings: Respondent Ekblom's Motion to Compel Deposition Dates for the Deposition of Petitioner Padron and Motion to Compel Dates for Pre-hearing Meeting from Petitioner filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 12/18/2012
- Proceedings: Response to Petitioner's Objection to Issuance of Subpoena for Production from First American Title Company filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 12/18/2012
- Proceedings: Response to Petitioner's Objection to Issuance of Subpoena for Production from Sunshine Home Service and Maintenance, Inc. filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 12/14/2012
- Proceedings: Objection to Issuance of Subpoena for Production from First American Title Company filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 12/14/2012
- Proceedings: Objection to Issuance of Subpoena for Production from Sunshine Home Service and Maintenance, Inc. filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 12/13/2012
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Response in Opposition to Respondent Department of Environmental Protection's Motion to Strike Portions of the Amended Petition for Administrative Hearing filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 12/12/2012
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Response in Opposition to Respondent Ekblom's Motion to Strike Portions of Amended Petition for Administrative Hearing filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 12/12/2012
- Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection's Motion to Strike Portions of the Amended Petition for Administrative Hearing filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 12/12/2012
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Response in Opposition to Respondent Ekblom's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 12/11/2012
- Proceedings: Notice of Production from Third Party (Sunshine Home Service and Maintenance, Inc) filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 12/11/2012
- Proceedings: Notice of Production from Third Party (First American Title Company) filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 12/11/2012
- Proceedings: Amended Motion to Strike Portions of Amended Petition for Administrative Hearing filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 12/10/2012
- Proceedings: Motion to Strike Portions of Amended Petition for Administrative Hearing filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 12/06/2012
- Proceedings: Respondent Ekblom's Response to Petitioner's First Request for Production filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 12/06/2012
- Proceedings: Respondent Ekblom's Response to Petitioner's First Request for Admissions filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 12/06/2012
- Proceedings: Respondent Ekblom's Notice of Service of Answers to Petitioner's Second Set of Interrogatories filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 12/06/2012
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Response to Respondent Ekblom's First Request to Produce to Petitioner Elizabeth Padron filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 12/06/2012
- Proceedings: Notice of Service of Petitioner Elizabeth Padron's Answers to Respondent Ekblom's First Set of Interrogatories filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 12/06/2012
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Response to Respondent Ekblom's First Request for Admissions filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 12/06/2012
- Proceedings: Order (granting unoposed motion for extension of time to respond to Petitioner's discovery).
- PDF:
- Date: 12/05/2012
- Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection's Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Petitioner's Discovery filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 12/04/2012
- Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum (of R. Whitesides) filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 11/30/2012
- Proceedings: Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Respondent Ekblom's Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike, and Respondent's DEP's Motion to Strike Pending the Court's Ruling on Petitioner's Motion to Amend Petition for Administrative Hearing filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 11/29/2012
- Proceedings: Respondent, Ekblom's, Response to Petitioner's Motion to Amend filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 11/27/2012
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Response in Opposition to Respondent Ekblom's Motion to Strike Portions of Petitioner's Discovery or in the Alternative Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Petitioner's Discovery and Motion to Strike Portions of the Motion filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 11/21/2012
- Proceedings: Respondent, Carl Ekblom's, Motion to Strike Portions of Petitioner's Discovery or in the Alternative Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Petitioner's Discovery filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 11/21/2012
- Proceedings: Motion to Amend Petition for Administrative Hearing in Response to Respondent Ekblom's Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike and Respondent Department of Environmental Protection's Motion to Strike filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 11/13/2012
- Proceedings: Petitioner's First Set of Interrogatories to Respondent State of Florida, Department of Environmental Protection filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 11/13/2012
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Request for Admissions to Respondent State of Florida, Department of Environmental Protection filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 11/13/2012
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Second Set of Interrogatories to Respondent Carl J. Ekblom filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 11/13/2012
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Second Request for Production to Respondent Carl J. Ekblom filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 11/13/2012
- Proceedings: Petitioner's First Request for Production to Respondent State of Florida, Department of Environmental Protection filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 11/13/2012
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Request for Admissions to Respondent Carl J. Ekblom filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 11/09/2012
- Proceedings: Respondent Carl J. Ekblom's First Request for Production to Petitioner Elizabeth Padron filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 11/09/2012
- Proceedings: Respondent Ekblom's First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner Elizabeth Padron filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 11/09/2012
- Proceedings: Respondent Ekblom's First Request for Admissions to Petitioner Padron filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 11/08/2012
- Proceedings: Respondent Ekblom's Response to Petitioner's First Request for Production filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 11/06/2012
- Proceedings: Respondent Ekblom's Notice of Service of Answers to Petitioner's First Set of Interrogatories filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 11/06/2012
- Proceedings: Notice of Hearing by Video Teleconference (hearing set for February 5, 2013; 9:30 a.m.; Marathon and Tallahassee, FL).
- PDF:
- Date: 10/23/2012
- Proceedings: Notice of Designation of Primary and Secondary E-mail Addresses filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 10/23/2012
- Proceedings: Motion for Extension of Time to File Response in Opposition to Respondent State of Florida, Department of Environmental Protection's Motion to Strike filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 10/23/2012
- Proceedings: Order (on Petitioner's motion to disqualify counsel for Respondent).
- PDF:
- Date: 10/22/2012
- Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection's Motion to Strike Pleadings filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 10/19/2012
- Proceedings: Waiver of Objection to Petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Ekblom's Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 10/19/2012
- Proceedings: Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Respondent Carl J. Ekblom's Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 10/17/2012
- Proceedings: Answer to Petition for Administrative Hearing, Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing, and Motion to Strike filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 10/17/2012
- Proceedings: Petitioner's First Request for Production to Defendant, Carl J. Ekblom filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 10/17/2012
- Proceedings: Notice of Service of Petitioner's First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant filed.
Case Information
- Judge:
- D. R. ALEXANDER
- Date Filed:
- 10/10/2012
- Date Assignment:
- 11/05/2012
- Last Docket Entry:
- 07/25/2014
- Location:
- Marathon, Florida
- District:
- Southern
- Agency:
- ADOPTED IN TOTO
Counsels
-
Carl J. Ekblom
Address of Record -
James S. Lupino, Esquire
Address of Record -
Hillary Copeland Powell, Esquire
Address of Record -
Patricia M. Silver, Esquire
Address of Record -
James S Lupino, Esquire
Address of Record