20-002994 Shelley Meier vs. Kelly Endres, Ifrain Lima, And Department Of Environmental Protection
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Tuesday, December 1, 2020.


View Dockets  
Summary: Respondents established a prima facie case of entitlement to the environmental resource permit. Petitioners did not carry their ultimate burden of persuasion to prove a case in opposition to the permit.

1R ECOMMENDED O RDER

5Pursuant to notice, a final hearing was held before Francine M. Ffolkes,

17the assigned Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative

27Hearings (DOAH), on September 17, 2020, in Tallahassee, Florida, via Zoom

38video conferenc e .

42A PPEARANCES

44Petitioners: Tracy L. Kochman n , P ro se

52249 Carolyn Drive

55Oviedo, Florida 32765

58Shelly M. Meier , P ro se

64208 Long Acres Lane

68Oviedo, Florida 32765

71Brain Hacker , P ro se

76170 Long Acres Lane

80Oviedo, Florida 32765

83For Respondent Department of Environmental Protection:

89Jay Patrick Reynolds, Esquire

93Department of Environmental Protection

97Mail Station 35

1003900 Commonwealth Boulevard

103Tallahassee, Florida 32399

106For Respondent s Kelly Endres and Ifrain Lima:

114Neysa Borkert, Esquire

117Garganese, Weiss, D’Agresta and Salzman

1221 1 1 North Orange Avenue

128Post Office Box 398

132Orlando, Florida 32802

135S TATEMENT OF THE I SSUE

141The issue in this case is whether the Respondents, Kelly Endres and

153Ifrain Lima (Endres/Lima) , are entitled to an Environmental Resource

162Permit ( ERP ) that would allow use of 0.535 acres of previously impacted

176wetlands for the construction of a single - famil y residence and associated

189structures, a 30 ' x 30 ' private dock with a 4 ' access walkway, and a 12 ' wide

209boat ramp (Project) at 160 Long Acres Lane, Ov i edo, Florida (Pro perty ).

224P RELIMINARY S TATEMENT

228On August 22, 2019, Respondents Endres/Lima submitted an application

237for the ERP. On February 7, 20 20 , Respondent , Department of

248Environmental Protection (Department) , issued a notice of intent to issue

258the ERP (NOI) for the Project .

265On May 26, 2020, Petitioner , Shelley Meier (Meier) , timely filed a

276p etition for h earing with the Department. On June 11, 2020, Petitioner ,

289Brian Hacker (Hacker) , and Petitioner , Tracy Kochmann (Kochmann) ,

297separately , timely filed petitions for hearing with the Department. On

307July 1, 2020 , the Department referred the three petitions to DOAH . DOAH

320consolidated the petitions on July 7, 2020.

327The parties filed their Joint Pre - Hearing Stipulation on September 8,

3392020 , and an Amended Joint Pre - Hearing Stipulation on September 14,

3512020. Respondents Endres/Lim a filed a Motion to S trike Witness David

363Mahnken ( Mahnken ) and Petitioner Kochmann filed an objection to the

375motion on September 16, 2020. The Department filed a Motion in Limine also

388on September 16, 2020. On September 17, 2020 , the Department’s motion

399was granted , in part , a s it related to matters concerning the City of Oviedo 's

415enforcement action ; and was denied as to the previous dredge and fill

427violation on the Property. Respondents Endres/Lima’s motion to strike was denied at the final hearing.

442At the final hearing, Joint Exhibits J - 1 through J - 6 were admitted

457into evidence. Respondents Endres/Lima presented the expert and fact

466testimonies of John Herbert ( Herbert ) , who was accepted as an expert in

480civil engineering; and Gary Exner (Exner) , who w as accepted as an expert in

494biology. Respondents Endres/Lima’s Exhibits R - 1 , R - 5 , and R - 6 were

509admitted into evidence.

512The Department presented the fact testimony of Megan Warr (Warr) ,

522Environmental Specialist III ; and Jason Seyfert, Environmental Manager .

531The Department’s Exhibits D - 1 through D - 3 were admitted into evidence.

545Petitioners presented the fact testimony of Nicholas Lenssen and

554Mr. Hacker ; and the expert testimony of Mr. Mahnken, an environmental

565scientist. Petitioners ’ Exhibits P - 1 , P - 8 , and P - 22 were admitted into

582evidence. The Petitioners proffered exhibits P - 2, P - 13, and P - 21, which

598were denied admission into evidence.

603The three - volume Transcript of the hearing was filed with DOAH on

616October 16, 2020. The parties timely filed their propos ed recommended

627orders on November 6, 2020.

632References to Florida Statutes are to the 2019 version, unless otherwise

643stated.

644F INDINGS OF F ACT

649The following Findings of Fact are based on the stipulations of the parties

662and the evidence adduced at the final hearing.

670The Parties

6721 . The Department is the administrative agency of the state statutorily

684charged with, among other things, protecting Florida's air and water

694resources. The Department administers and enforces certain provisions of

703chapter 373, part IV, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated ,

713thereunder , in the Florida Administrative Code. Under that authority, the

723Department determines whether to issue or deny applications for ERPs .

7342. Respondents Endres/Lima own the Property and are the a pplicants for

746the ERP at issue in this consolidated proceeding.

7543. Petitioner Meier is a neighboring property owner to the south of the

767Property. Petitioner Meier ' s property includes a single - family residence with

780accessory structures and is located on Long Lake. Petitioner Meier is

791concerned that the NOI provides inadequate environmental protections and

800that there will be flooding on adjacent properties from the Pr oject.

8124. Petitioner Hacker is the neighboring property owner adjacent to the

823south of the Property. Petitioner Hacker ' s property includes a single - family

837residence with accessory structures and is located on Long Lake. He is

849concerned with the completene ss of the application for the Project, the

861calculation of wetland impacts, that reasonable assurances were provided,

870and that the Department ' s NOI ignores willful negligence and allows

882d i sp a rate treatment of Respondents Endres/Lima.

8915. Petitioner Kochmann is a property owner with a single - family

903residence and accessory structures located on Long Lake. She is concerned that the NOI is based on a misleading application and provides no evidence

927that the Respondents Endres/Lima made reasonable efforts to elimi nate and

938reduce impacts detrimental to the environment.

944History of the Project and Application

9506. On April 12, 2018, Respondents Endres/Lima applied for an ERP for

962proposed wetland impacts associated with a planned single - family home on

974the Property. This was the first ERP application for the Property. The

986Department sent a Request for Additional Information (RAI) on April 24,

9972018, and a second RAI on November 2, 2018.

10067. Respondents Endres/Lima provided a Mitigation Service Area Rule

1015Analysis for " As If In - Basin " for the Lake X Mitigation Bank for the St. Johns

1032River Water Management District Basins to the Department via email on

1043May 10, 2018. Respondents Endres/Lima submitted revised plans to the

1053Department on September 19, a nd October 30, 2018.

10628. On January 7, 2019, the Department denied the ERP application. The

1074Department and Respondents Endres/Lima, on July 18, 2019, entered into a

1085Consent Order (CO) . The Department found , and Respondents Endres/Lima

1095admitted , that approximately 0.80 acres of juris dictional wetlands were

1105dredged and filled without a valid ERP from the Department ; and was done

1118with improperly installed erosion and sedimentation controls.

11259. On August 22, 2019, Respondents Endres/Lima submitted a second

1135ERP application. The Department sent an RAI on September 20, 2019, to

1147which Respondents Endres/Lima responded on December 19, 2019. In

1156addition, Respondents Endres/Lima reserved 0 .60 of forested U niform

1166Mitigation Assessment Method (U MAM ) wetland credits from the Lake X

1178Mitigation Bank and provided the Department with an updated site plan and

1190Lake X Mitigation Bank credit reservation letter.

119710. The Department issued a n NOI on February 7, 2020 , which was timely

1211published in the Sanford He rald on February 9, 2020. Respondents

1222Endres/Lima provided timely proof of publication to the Department on

1232February 13, 2020.

1235Consent Order and Compliance

123911. A w arning l etter was issued to Respondents Endres/Lima on

1251January 30, 20 19, for the dredging and filling of approximately 0.80 acres of

1265forested wetlands and improper installation of erosion and sedimentation control.

127512. The CO , executed on July 18, 2019, required Respondent s

1286Endres/Lima to cease any dredging, filling, or cons truction activities on the

1298Property, submit an application for an Individual ERP within 30 days , and

1310pay $5,599.00 in penalties and the Department 's costs and expenses.

1322After the issuance of an ERP, Respondent s Endres/Lima were also required

1334to implement the r estoration a ctions outlined in the CO.

134513. Respondents ’ Endres/Lima’s application , dated August 19, 2020 , was

1355submitted to the Department on August 22, 2020. Respondents E ndres/Lima

1366paid the CO's penalties and costs , and had multiple me etings with the

1379Department to complete the requirements of the CO.

138714. Respondents Endres/Lima’s expert , Mr. Exner , testified that he began

1397working on a restoration plan for the Property , which will be provided to the

1411Department once an ERP is issue d.

1418P ermitting Criteria

142115. The Department reviewed the complete a pplication and determined

1431that it satisfied the conditions for issuance und er Florida Administrative

1442Code R ule 62 - 330.301, and the applicable sections of the E RP Applicant ' s

1459Handbook Volume I (AH Vol. I).

146516. The Department also considered the seven criteria in r ule 62 - 330.302

1479and section 373.414(1)(a), and determined that implementing the Project

1488would not be contrary to the public interest.

1496Water Quantity, Flooding, Surface Water Storage and Conveyance

150417. Respondents ’ Endres/Lima' s civil engineering expert, Mr. Herbert ,

1514testified that a ccording to the drainage design, the Property would have

1526swales on either side of the proposed residence to slope water away from the

1540residence . There would also be a conveyance swale on the north property

1553boundary to convey water from the street area and front yard toward the

1566restoration and wetland areas with ultimate discharge to Long Lake.

157618. He stated that the elevation of the roa d at the front of the Property

1592would be at 47.4 feet , and the elevation at the terminus of the swale would be

1608at 45 feet . This would allow a 2.4 - f oo t vertical fall for the swales to convey

1628water to the lake. Th e design would preserve pre - development surface water

1642flow over the Property to Long Lake , which is the lowest elevation in the

1656area , and will ensure that storm water does not flood adjacent properties.

166819. M r. Herbert also testified that the Project design would maintain

1680pre - deve lopment water storage capacity. The impo rted fill that is currently

1694on the Property in the flood plain would be removed and reshaped so that the

1709lake elevation would be maintained and water can flow correctly.

1719Elimination or Reduction of Impacts and Mitigation

172620. Respondents Endres/Lima provid ed the Department with design

1735modifications to reduce impacts associated with the Project . These included a

174715 - foot restoration buffer along the lake front ' s northern shoreline, an

1761elevated access walkway five feet above the wetland restoration area to the

1773proposed dock, limiting the width of the access walk to four feet, and limiting

1787the boat ramp width to a single - lane.

179621. In June 2015 , an informal wetlands determination was conducted for

1807the Property. The informal determination concluded that the entir ety of the

1819Property w ere wetlands . H owever, this was an informal determination and

1832was not binding. In October 2016, before the first permit application was

1844submitted, Mr. Exner did a wetlands delineation flagging prior to the

1855Property being cleared or disturbed.

186022. Mr. Exner testified that , in his opinion , the Property was not all

1873wetlands because large pines near the road had no high water marks,

1885adventitious growth around the bases, or evidence of pine borer beetles along

1897with other indicators of up land habitat. This wetland delineation was p art of

1911the permit submittal, was shown o n the plans, was accepted by the

1924Department, and was used for the preparation of the UMAM scoring.

1935Mr. Exner ' s wetland delineation line was used by the Department to help

1949determine and map the wetland impacts identified in the CO.

195923. The direct impact area was assessed at 0.54 acres with a secondary

1972impact area of 0.02 acres for a total impact of 0.56 acres , and a functional loss

1988score of 0.364. Respondent s Endres/Lima reserved 0.6 forested UMAM

1998mitigation credits, almost double the amount of functional loss under the

2009UMAM assessment, agreed to purchase 0.46 credits. The excess mitigation

2019bank credits implement part of a plan that provide s regional ecologica l value

2033and greater long - term ecological value than the area of wetland adversely

2046a ffected.

2048Secondary and Cumulative Impacts

205224. The Project 's UMAM analysis assessed 0.02 acres , or 870 square feet ,

2065of secondary impacts . These impacts w ould be fully offset by the mitig ation

2080proposed for the Project.

208425. Petitioners ' expert, Mr. Mahnken, noted three areas where he thought

2096the application was incomplete. The first was that the site plan did not call

2110out the location of the secondary impacts. H owever, Part III: Plans of Section

2124B of the application , does not require that the site plan show the location of

2139the secondary impacts. T he application requirements for " plans " requires

2149only the boundaries and size of the wetlands on the Property and provide the

2163acreages of the upland areas, wetland impact areas , and the remaining

2174untouched area .

217726. Second, Mr. Mahnken questioned the calculation performed to

2186determine the secondary impact acreage . H owever, Mr. Mahnken read the

2198information incorrectly and stated that the secondary impact area was 0 .002

2210acres , or 87 square feet , when th e UMAM score sheet clearly showed that the

2225secondary impact area is 0 .02 acres , or 870 square feet.

223627. In addition, the Department ' s witness, Ms. Warr, testified that even if

2250the Department were to use Mr. Mahnken ' s analysis, the result would have

2264been the same, i.e., the requirement to purchase 0.46 mitigation credits.

2275Thus, Petitioners failed to support their claim t hat the Project would have

2288adverse secondary impacts.

229128. Third, Mr. M ahnken asserted that cumulative impacts were not

2302adequately addressed. He testified that the assessment for the Property

2312using spill over benefits, in his opinion, was not enough to ful ly offset the

2327impacts of the Project . Mr. Mahnken acknowledged, however, that his

2338opinion was open to debate , and that he had not con ducted any rigorous

2352hydrologic evaluation in reaching his opinion.

235829. Respondents Endres/Lima had submitted a report prepared by

2367Breedlove, Dennis & Associates (BDA Report) with their application in order

2378to demonstrate compliance with s ection 10.2.8, ERP AH Vol. I, regarding

2390cumulative impacts.

239230 . T he BDA Report utilized peer - reviewed hydrologic da ta that was

2407reviewed and approved by the South Florida Water Management District ,

2417and was accepted by the Department pursuant to section 373.4136(6)(c). This

2428was consistent with the Property's location within the mitigation service area for the Lake X Miti gation Bank.

24463 1 . The Project is located within the Econlockhatchee River drainage

2458basin, which is a nested basin within the larger St. Johns River [Canaveral Marshes to Wekiva] drainage basin. The Lake X Mitigation Bank is located

2483outside of the Econlockh atchee River drainage basin, but the Project is

2495located within the Lake X Mitigation Bank service area.

25043 2 . The BDA report determined that:

2512In summary, the Lake X Mitigation Bank is a

2521regionally significant mitigation bank site that has

2528direct hydrological and ecological connections to the

2535SJRWMD basins, to include the cumulative

2541impacts basin in which the subject property is located (i.e., SJRWMD Basin 19). The size,

2556biodiversity, and proximity of the mitigation bank

2563site to the SJRWMD basins, and the regionally

2571significant hydrological connection between the mitigation bank site and the contiguous SJRWMD mitigation basins, supports the use of this

2590mitigation bank site “as if in basin” mitigation for

2599the Lima/Endres Wetland Fill Project. Additio nally,

2606the evaluation of factors, to include connectivity of

2614waters, hydrology, habitat range of affected species, and water quality, demonstrates the spillover

2627benefits that the Lake X Mitigation Bank has on

2636the St. Johns River (Canaveral Marshes to Wekiv a)

2645mitigation basin, which includes the Econlockhatchee River Nested basin, and

2655demonstrated that the proposed mitigation will

2661fully offset the impacts proposed as part of the

2670Lima/Endres Wetland Fill Project “as if in - basin”

2679mitigation. The Lake X Mitigat ion Bank will

2687protect and maintain the headwaters of two

2694regionally significant drainage basins [i.e., the

2700Northern Everglades Kissimmee River Watershed and the Upper St. Johns River Watershed (to include the nested Econlockhatchee River basin)],

2719and will provide resource protection to both river

2727systems (SFWMD Technical Staff Report, November 29, 2016). Furthermore, the permanent protection and management of the Lake X Mitigation Bank will provide spillover benefits to

2752the SJRWMD basins located within th e permitted

2760MSA.

276133. Mr. Mahnken stated that his review of the Project did not include a

2775hydrologic study and only looked at basic flow patterns for Long Lake. By

2788contrast, the BDA Report included an extensive hydrologic study, looked at

2799all required factors in section 10.2.8(b), ERP AH, Vol. I, and determined that

2812the Project would be fully offse t with the proposed m itigation. Thus,

2825Respondents Endres/Lima provided reasonable assurance that the Project

2833will not cause unac ceptable cumulative impacts.

2840Water Quality

284234. Rule 62 - 330.302(1)(e) requires that Respondents Endres/Lima provide

2852reasonable assurance that the Project will not adversely affect the quality of

2864receiving waters such that the state water quality standards will be violated .

287735. The conditions of the ERP would require the use of best management

2890practices including a floating turbidity curtain/barrier, soil stabilization with

2899grass seed or sod, and a silt fence.

290736. Respondent Endres/Lima' s experts, Mr. Herbert and Mr. Exner,

2917testified that there is an existing turbidity barrier in the lake around the property and a silt fence around the east half of the Property. While these

2944items are not required by the Department until construction of the Project,

2956par t of the silt fence and the turbidity barrier are already installed on the

2971Property and will be required to be repaired and properly maintained in

2983accordance with the conditions of the ERP and Site Plan SP - 2.

299637. Mr. Herbert testified that the Property will be graded in a manner

3009that will result in a gentle sloping of the lake bank in the littoral zone , which

3025would allow revegetation of the lake bank. Outside of the restoration area

3037and the undisturbed wetlands, the backyard would be covered with grass to

3049prevent migration of sand and soil discharging into the lake.

305938. Mr. Ex ner testified that the grass swales proposed for the Project

3072would provide a considerable amount of nutrient uptake and filtration of

3083surface water on the Property. Also, in the restoration area next to the lake,

3097the restoration plan include s a dense planting plan with native species that

3110have good nutrient uptake capability .

3116Impacts to Fish and Wildlife

312139. Rule 62 - 330.301(1)(d) requires that Respondents Endres/Lima provide

3131reasonable assurance that the Project will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and

3155other surface waters. Mr. Exner testified that , in his review of the Property,

3168he did not identify any c ritical wildlife habitat. He visited the Property

3181multiple times and he did not see any osprey nests, deer tracks, animal scat,

3195gopher tortoises , or sand hill cranes.

320140. The Department's Ms. W arr testified that the Florida Fish and

3213Wildlife Conservation Commission database was reviewed , a nd did not show

3224any listed species in the area.

3230Publication of N otice

323441. Petitioners argued that the notice published in the Sanford Herald on

3246February 9, 2020 , did not meet the requirements of section 373.413(4).

3257D esp ite the notice having no effect on their ability to timely challeng e the

3273proposed ERP, Petitioners argued that the published notice was insufficient

3283because the notice itself did not provide the name of the applicants or the

3297address of the Project, only a link to the Department ' s permit file.

331142. Unlike the notice required in section 373.413(3), where a person has

3323filed a written request for notification of any pending application affecting a

3335particular designated area, section 373.413(4) does not specify the contents of

3346the published notice. Section 373.413(4) does not require the published notice to include the name and address of the applicant; a brief description of the

3371proposed activity, including any mitigation; the location of the proposed

3381activity, including whether it is located within an Outstanding Florida Water

3392or aquatic preserve; a map identifying the location of the proposed activity

3404subject to the application; a depiction of the proposed activity subject to the

3417application; or a name or numbe r identifying the application and the office

3430where the application can be inspected.

343643. In response to the published notice, the Department received

3446approximately ten petitions challenging the NOI, including the petiti ons

3456timely filed by Petitioners. The refore, Petitioners were not harmed by any

3468information alleged to have been left out of the published notice.

3479Ultimate Findings

348144. Respondents Endres/Lima provide d reasonable assurance that the

3490Project will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to rec eiving waters and

3503adjacent lands; will not cause adverse flooding to on - site or off - site property;

3519and will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and

3531conveyance capabilities.

353345. Respondent s Endres/Lima provide d reasonable assurance that the

3543Project complie d with elimination and reduction of impacts , a nd proposed

3555more than adequate mitigation.

355946. Respondents Endres/Lima provided reasonable assurance that the

3567Proj e ct will not cause adverse secondary impacts to water resources ; and

3580unacceptable cumulative impacts to wetlands and other surface waters

3589within the same drainage basin.

359447. Respondents Endres/Lima provided reasonable assurance that the

3602Project will not cause adverse water quality impacts to receiving water

3613bodies.

361448 . Respondents Endres/Lima provided reasonable assurance that the

3623P roject will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and

3637wildlife, and listed species by wetlands , or other surface waters.

364749. Petitioners failed to prove lack of reaso nable assurance by a

3659preponderance of the competent substantial evidence.

3665C ONCLUSIONS OF L AW

3670Nature of the Proceeding

367450. This is a de novo proceeding, designed to formulate final agency

3686action, and not to review action taken preliminarily. See Capeletti Bros. v.

3698Dep't of Gen. Servs. , 432 So. 2d 1359, 1363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).

371151. The standard of proof for this proceeding is a preponderance of the

3724evidence. See § 1 20.57(1)(j), Fla. Stat .

3732Burden of Proof

37355 2 . Petitioners ' challenge to the ERP is governed by section 120.569(2)(p) ,

3749Florida Statutes . This section requires that the applicant present a prima

3761facie case demonstrating entitlement to the permit. Thereafter, a third party challenging the issuance of the permit has the burden "of ultima te

3784persuasion" and the burden "of going forward to prove the case in opposition

3797to the . . . permit." If the third party fails to carry its burden, the applicant

3814prevails by virtue of its prima facie case. See § 120.569(2)(p), Fla. Stat.

382753. Section 120.569(2)(p) "clearly contemplates an abbreviated

3834presentation of the applicant's prima facie case." Last Stand, Inc., v. Fury

3846Mgmt., Inc. , Case No. 12 - 2574, RO ¶89 (Fla. DOAH Dec. 31, 2012; Fla. DEP

3862Feb. 7, 2013). The abbreviated presentation occurs beca use the statute

3873outlines the information that may constitute the applicant's prima facie case, which includes the application , and supporting materials , on which the

3894agency concluded that the applicant provided reasonable assurances of

3903compliance with app licable ERP criteria.

390954. Respondents E ndres/Lima established a prima facie case of

3919entitlement to the ERP by entering into evidence the complete application ,

3930supporting documentation and testimony, and the Department's NOI and

3939draft permit. Petitioners did not carry their burden of ultimate persuasion to

3951prove their case in opposition to the ERP by a preponderance of the

3964competent and substantial evidence. See Washington Cty. v. Bay C ty. & NW

3977Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist. , Case Nos. 10 - 2983, 10 - 2984, 10 - 10100 (Fla. DOAH

3994July 26, 2012; Fla. NWFWMD Sep. 27, 2012).

4002Permitting Standard

400455. Issuance of the ERP is dependent o n there being reasonable

4016assurances that the Project would meet applicable statutory and regulatory

4026standards. See §§ 373.413 , 373.4136, and 37 3.414, Fla. Stat. ; Fla. Admin.

4038Code R. 62 - 330; Sections 10.2 and 10.3 , ERP AH , Vol. I.

405156. "Reasonable assurance" means "a substantial likelihood that the

4060project will be successfully implemented." See Metro. Dade C ty. v. Coscan

4072Fl a. , Inc. , 609 So. 2d 644 , 648 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). Reasonable assurance does

4087not require absolute guarantees that the applicable conditions for issuance of

4098a permit have been satisfied. Further, speculation or subjective beliefs are

4109not sufficient to carry the burden of presenting contrary evidence or proving a

4122lack of reasonable assurance necessary to demonstrate that a permit should

4133not be issued. See FINR II, Inc. v. CF Indus., Inc. , Case No. 11 - 6495 (Fla.

4150DOAH Apr. 30, 2012; Fla. DEP June 8, 2012) , aff'd 118 So. 3d 809 (Fla. 1st

4166DCA 2013).

4168Public Interest

417057. Section 373.414(1)(a) requires a determination that a proposed project

4180is not contrary to the public interest or is clearly in the public interest . The

4196Department "shall consider and balance" seven factors. All seven factors are

4207collectively considered to determine whether, on balance, a proposed project

4217satisfies the public interest test. See 1800 Atlantic Developers v. Dep't of

4229Envtl. Reg. , 552 So. 2d 946, 953, 957 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), rev. den. , 5 62 So.

42462d 345 (Fla. 1990); Last Stand, Inc. v. Fury Mgmt., Inc ., Case No. 12 - 2574

4263(Fla. DOAH Dec. 31, 2012; Fla. DEP Feb. 7, 2013).

427358. Respondents Endres/Lima demonstrated that the Project is not

4282contrary to the public interest pursuant to s ection 373.41 4(1)(a) . They proved

4296that the Project will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare; the conservation of fish or wildlife or their habitats; the navigation

4320or flow of water in Long Lake; fishing or recreational value of Long Lake; or

4335sig nificant historical resources. The current condition , and value of functions

4346being performed by areas affected by the Project , will not be adversely

4358affected . Mr. Exner persuasively testified that the quality of the wetlands on

4371the Property pre - clearing were of moderate condition and had been degraded

4384due to other developments along Long Lake resulting in a loss of continuity.

439759. Petitioners opposed the ERP , but did not show any contrary evidence

4409of equivalent quality to prove that the Project is contra ry to the public

4423interest. See Fla. Dep't of Transp. v. J.W.C. Co., Inc., 396 So. 2d 778, 789 (Fla.

44391st DCA 1981) .

4443R ECOMMENDATION

4445Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is

4458R ECOMMENDED that the Department enter a Final Order granting

4468Respondents ’ Endres/Lima's ERP application .

4474D ONE A ND E NTERED this 1st day of December , 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon

4489County, Florida .

4492F RANCINE M. F FOLKES

4497Administrative Law Judge

4500Division of Administrative Hearings

4504The DeSoto Building

45071230 Apalachee Parkway

4510Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

4515(850) 488 - 9675

4519Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

4525www.doah.state.fl.us

4526Filed with the Clerk of the

4532Division of Administrative Hearings

4536this 1st day of December , 2020.

4542C OPIES F URNISHED :

4547Jay Patrick Reynolds, Esquire

4551Department of Environmental Protection

45553900 Commonwealth Boulevard , Mail Station 35

4561Tallahassee, Florida 32399

4564(eServed)

4565Neysa Borkert, Esquire

4568Garganese, Weiss, D'Agresta and Salzman

4573111 North Orange Avenue

4577Post Office Box 398

4581Orlando, Florida 32802

4584(eServed)

4585Tracy L. Kochmann

4588249 Carolyn Drive

4591Oviedo, Florida 32765

4594(eServed)

4595Shelley M. Meier

4598208 Long Acres Lane

4602Oviedo, Florida 32765

4605(eServed)

4606Brian Hacker

4608170 Long Acres Lane

4612Oviedo, Florida 32765

4615(eServed)

4616Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk

4620Department of Environmental Protection

4624Douglas Building, Mail Station 35

46293900 Commonwealth Boulevard

4632Tallahassee, Florida 32399

4635(eServed)

4636Justin G. Wolfe, General Counsel

4641Department of Environmental Protection

4645Legal Department, Suite 1051 - J

4651Douglas Building, Mail Station 35

46563900 Commonwealth Boulevard

4659Tallahassee, Florida 32399

4662(eServed)

4663Noah Valenstein, Secretary

4666Department of Environmental Protection

4670Douglas Building

46723900 Commonwealth Boulevard

4675T allahassee, Florida 32399

4679(eServed)

4680N OTICE OF R IGHT TO S UBMIT E XCEPTIONS

4690All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15 days from

4703the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the Final Order in this

4729case.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 01/12/2021
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 01/12/2021
Proceedings: Agency Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/01/2020
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 12/01/2020
Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
PDF:
Date: 12/01/2020
Proceedings: Recommended Order (hearing held September 17, 2020). CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 11/05/2020
Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection's Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/05/2020
Proceedings: Respondent Endres/Lima Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/05/2020
Proceedings: (Kochmann Meier Hacker) Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/22/2020
Proceedings: Order Granting Extension of Time.
PDF:
Date: 10/21/2020
Proceedings: Petitioners Kochmann/Meier/Hacker Motion to Request Extension of Time to File Proposed Order (filed in Case No. 20-002994).
PDF:
Date: 10/16/2020
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Transcript.
Date: 10/16/2020
Proceedings: Transcript (not available for viewing) filed.
Date: 09/17/2020
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 09/17/2020
Proceedings: Order on Motion in Limine.
PDF:
Date: 09/16/2020
Proceedings: Florida Department of Environmental Protection's Motion in Limine filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/16/2020
Proceedings: Petitioners Kochmann/Meier/Hacker Objection to Motion to Strike Petitioners' Witness David Mahnken filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/16/2020
Proceedings: Respondents Endres/Lima's Motion to Strike Petitioners' Witness David Mahnken filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/15/2020
Proceedings: Respondents Endres/Lima's Amended Exhibit List (and exhibits) filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/14/2020
Proceedings: Amended Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/11/2020
Proceedings: Joint Exhibits filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
Date: 09/11/2020
Proceedings: Petitioner's Proposed Exhibits filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
PDF:
Date: 09/11/2020
Proceedings: Respondent State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection's Notice of Filing Proposed Exhibits filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/10/2020
Proceedings: Petitioners Kochmann/Meier/Hacker Exhibit List filed.
Date: 09/10/2020
Proceedings: Respondent's Proposed Exhibits filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
PDF:
Date: 09/09/2020
Proceedings: Respondents Endres/Lima's Exhibit List filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/08/2020
Proceedings: Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/02/2020
Proceedings: Combined Response to Interrogatories for Kochmann/Meier/Hacker filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/02/2020
Proceedings: (Kochmann Meier Hacker) Document List (2) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/24/2020
Proceedings: Petitioners Kochmann/Meier/Hacker's Revised Witness Disclosure List filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/19/2020
Proceedings: Respondent Florida Department of Environmental Protection's Notice of Taking Depositions Duces Tecum filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/18/2020
Proceedings: Petitioners Kochmann/Meier/Hacker's Revised Witness Disclosure List filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/10/2020
Proceedings: Petitioners' Kochmann/Meier/Hacker's Witness Disclosure List filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/10/2020
Proceedings: Respondent State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection's Witness Disclosure List filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/10/2020
Proceedings: Respondent Department of Environmental Protection's First Request for Production of Documents to Petitioner Brian Hacker filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/10/2020
Proceedings: Respondent Department of Environmental Protection's First Request for Production of Documents to Petitioner Shelley Meier filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/10/2020
Proceedings: Respondent Department of Environmental Protection's First Request for Production of Documents to Petitioner Tracy Kochmann filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/10/2020
Proceedings: Notice and Certificate of Service of Respondent Department of Environmental Protection's First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner, Brian Hacker filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/10/2020
Proceedings: Notice and Certificate of Service of Respondent Department of Environmental Protection's First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner, Shelley Meier filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/10/2020
Proceedings: Notice and Certificate of Service of Respondent Department of Environmental Protection's First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner, Tracy Kochmann filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/06/2020
Proceedings: Respondents Endres/Lima's Witness Disclosure List filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/15/2020
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
PDF:
Date: 07/15/2020
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing by Zoom Conference (hearing set for September 17 and 18, 2020; 9:00 a.m.; Tallahassee).
PDF:
Date: 07/13/2020
Proceedings: Response to Initial Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/07/2020
Proceedings: Order of Consolidation (DOAH Case Nos. 20-2993, 20-2994, 20-2995)
PDF:
Date: 07/06/2020
Proceedings: Initial Order.
PDF:
Date: 07/01/2020
Proceedings: Notice of Intent to Issue Environmental Resource Permit filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/01/2020
Proceedings: Request for Administrative Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/01/2020
Proceedings: Request for Assignment of Administrative Law Judge and Notice of Preservation of Record filed.

Case Information

Judge:
FRANCINE M. FFOLKES
Date Filed:
07/01/2020
Date Assignment:
07/06/2020
Last Docket Entry:
01/12/2021
Location:
Tallahassee, Florida
District:
Northern
Agency:
ADOPTED IN TOTO
 

Counsels

Related Florida Statute(s) (6):