12-003291 Elizabeth Padron vs. Carl J. Ekblom And Department Of Environmental Protection
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Wednesday, June 5, 2013.


View Dockets  
Summary: Ekblom's application to install a boat lift on an existing dock was exempt from DEP permitting requirements, and did not create a navigational hazard; a cradle lift need not be physically attached to the dock.

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.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 07/25/2014
Proceedings: Opinion filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/23/2014
Proceedings: Opinion
PDF:
Date: 08/29/2013
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 08/29/2013
Proceedings: Florida Department of Environmental Protection's Response to Elizabeth Pardron's Exceptions filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/29/2013
Proceedings: Petitioner's Exceptions to the Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/29/2013
Proceedings: (Agency) Final Order 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
PDF:
Date: 06/05/2013
Proceedings: Recommended Order (hearing held March 5, 2013). CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 06/05/2013
Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
PDF:
Date: 05/13/2013
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/13/2013
Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection's Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/13/2013
Proceedings: Respondent Ekblom's Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/22/2013
Proceedings: Order Granting Extension of Time.
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: Prehearing Stipulation filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/01/2013
Proceedings: Petitioner Elizabeth Padron's Notice of Filing (Proposed) Trial Exhibits filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/01/2013
Proceedings: Department's Notice of Filing Proposed 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: 02/15/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition (of R. Camuccio) filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/12/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition (of C. Hitchins) 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: 01/30/2013
Proceedings: Order Following in Camera Inspection.
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: 01/23/2013
Proceedings: Order (on Petitioner's motion to compel production).
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: 01/18/2013
Proceedings: Respondent Ekblom's Response to Motion to Compel filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/17/2013
Proceedings: Petitioner's Motion to Compel Production, or in the Alternative, In Camera Inspection filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/17/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance and Designation of E-mail Addresses 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: 01/15/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum (of E. Padron) filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/14/2013
Proceedings: 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: 01/04/2013
Proceedings: Order on Objections.
PDF:
Date: 01/02/2013
Proceedings: Order on Motions.
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: 12/28/2012
Proceedings: Reply to Response to Motions to Compel 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: 12/26/2012
Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance.
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: 12/21/2012
Proceedings: Order Denying Motion to Dismiss.
PDF:
Date: 12/19/2012
Proceedings: Response to Motion to Continue Final Hearing 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: 12/19/2012
Proceedings: Order on Motions to Strike.
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: Motion for Continuance of Final Hearing 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: 12/07/2012
Proceedings: Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing 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: 12/06/2012
Proceedings: Amended Order.
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: 12/05/2012
Proceedings: Order.
PDF:
Date: 12/04/2012
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum (of G. Smith) 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: 11/06/2012
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
PDF:
Date: 10/24/2012
Proceedings: Notice of Unavailability filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/23/2012
Proceedings: Notice of Designation of Primary and Secondary E-mail Addresses filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/23/2012
Proceedings: Order Granting Extension of Time.
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: 10/22/2012
Proceedings: Response to Petitioner's Motion to Disqualify filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/19/2012
Proceedings: Order Granting Extension of Time.
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: 10/18/2012
Proceedings: Joint Response to Initial Order 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.
PDF:
Date: 10/17/2012
Proceedings: Petitioner's First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/15/2012
Proceedings: Motion to Disqualify filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/12/2012
Proceedings: Initial Order.
PDF:
Date: 10/10/2012
Proceedings: Request for Assignment of Administrative Law Judge and Notice of Preservation of Record filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/10/2012
Proceedings: Petition for Administrative Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/10/2012
Proceedings: Agency action letter 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

Related DOAH Cases(s) (3):

Related Florida Statute(s) (6):

Related Florida Rule(s) (2):