99-002212 Larry M. Albright vs. Richard G. Manner And Department Of Environmental Protection Status: Closed Recommended Order on Tuesday, April 25, 2000.

Summary: Applicant for after-the-fact coastal construction control line permit failed to present a prima facie case establishing entitlement; neither the application nor any supporting documentation was presented at the final hearing.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

LARRY M. ALBRIGHT, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 99-2212

)

RICHARD G. MANNER and )

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL )

PROTECTION, )

)

Respondent. )

___________________________________)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursu ant to notice, a formal hearing was conducted in this

case on November 16, 1999, in Fort Myers, Florida, before

Lawrence P. Stevenson, a duly-designated Administrative Law Judge

of the Division of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Steven C. Hartsell, Esquire

Pavese, Haverfield, Dalton,

Harrison & Jensen, L.L.P.

1833 Hendry Street

Post Office Drawer 1507

Fort Myers, Florida 33902

For Respondent Michael J. Ciccarone, Esquire

Manner: Annis, Mitchell, Cockey,

Edwards & Roehn, P.A.

Post Office Box 60259

Fort Myers, Florida 33906-6259

For Respondent Francine M. Ffolkes, Esquire

DEP: Department of Environmental Protection

3900 Comm onwealth Boulevard

Mail Station 35

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue presented for decision in this case is whether

Respondent Richard G. Manner is entitled to an after-the-fact

coastal construction control line ("CCCL") permit for

construction seaward of the CCCL on the Gulf of Mexico at Fort

Myers Beach, Florida.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

By order dated December 10, 1998, the Department of

Environmental Protection ("DEP") granted Permit No. LE-823 ATF,

an "After-The-Fact Permit for Construction or Other Activities

Pursuant to Section 161.053, Florida Statutes" (the "Permit") to

Respondent Richard G. Manner ("Respondent"). By letter to E. Olu

Sawyerr of DEP, dated December 29, 1998, Petitioner Larry M.

Albright objected to issuance of the permit and requested

additional time to retain legal counsel and file a formal

administrative petition. The record does not unequivocally

indicate that this request for additional time was granted, but

neither Respondent nor DEP objected to the timeliness of the

petition. By letter to DEP’s Office of General Counsel, dated

April 28, 1999, Petitioner requested an administrative hearing.

On May 17, 1999, DEP forwarded the matter to the Division of

Administrative Hearings for assignment of an Administrative Law

Judge and the conduct of a formal administrative hearing in this

matter, pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The

case was assigned to the undersigned and scheduled for hearing on

September 17, 1999. Pursuant to Respondent’s motion, the hearing

was continued and rescheduled for November 16, 1999.

At the final hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of

Eric Olu Sawyerr, the processing engineer for DEP who prepared,

processed, and recommended for approval Respondent’s application.

Respondent also presented the testimony of Mr. Sawyerr.

Petitioner offered no exhibits. Respondent Richard G.

Manner's, Exhibits 1-7 were admitted into evidence. Respondent

Richard G. Manner proffered Exhibits 8-10 as rebuttal exhibits

should the undersigned rule in favor of Petitioner’s contention

that certain post-permit activities undertaken by Respondent are

relevant to this proceeding. It is found that the post-permit

activities are not relevant to this proceeding, and thus that

Exhibits 8-10 are not admitted.

At the hearing, counsel for DEP submitted for official

recognition a document purporting to be the text of Chapter

62B-33, Florida Administrative Code. This document was used by

the parties at the hearing, and its text and numeration of rule

provisions is reflected in the transcript. In his post-hearing

submittals, Petitioner pointed out that the document submitted by

DEP contained numerous inaccuracies and inconsistencies. The

undersigned’s own review of the document confirmed Petitioner’s

observation. The references to sections of Chapter 62B-33,

Florida Administrative Code, contained in this Recommended Order

reflect the official language and numeration of those provisions,

not the flawed language of the document submitted by counsel for

DEP.

A Transcript of the final hearing was filed on December 3,

1999. The parties stipulated that their proposed recommended

orders would be timely if filed on or before December 17, 1999.

Petitioner filed a Proposed Recommended Order on December 16,

1999. Respondent sent a Proposed Recommended Order by facsimile

transmission after the close of business on December 17, 1999,

which was deemed filed on December 20, 1999. No party objected

to the late filing, and no party was prejudiced thereby. DEP did

not submit a proposed recommended order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the

final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the

following findings of fact are made:

1. R espondent owns an existing one-story, single family

stilt house located on the beach front on the Gulf of Mexico at

Fort Myers Beach. The house is situated seaward of the CCCL.

2. Petitioner owns a house that is an "immediately adjacent

property" as defined in Rule 62B-33.002(28), Florida

Administrative Code, and is thus a person whose substantial

interests are affected by DEP’s intent to issue the Permit.

3. At some point prior to May 18, 1998, Respondent built

additions to the existing one-story stilt house by adding two

bedrooms and two bathrooms to the ground level beneath the stilt

house, adding lattice work, and extending a wooden deck, all

without applying for a DEP permit.

4. On January 20, 1998, DEP cited Respondent for the

unauthorized destruction of native salt-tolerant vegetation

seaward of the CCCL. DEP required Respondent to restore the

vegetation.

5. On May 18, 1998, DEP reported additional unauthorized

activity seaward of the CCCL. DEP discovered the unpermitted

two-bedroom, two-bathroom addition that Respondent had built in

the open area underneath the one-story stilt home, as well as the

elevated wooden deck extension and lattice work enclosure. DEP

concluded that "the unauthorized construction is a major

violation of Section 161.053, Florida Statutes. Richard Manner,

as an owner of gulffront [sic] property, knew or should have

known that a [DEP] permit was required for this activity."

6. DEP records indicate that on June 25, 1998, Respondent

filed an after-the-fact application. The application itself was

not entered into the record of this proceeding. Mr. Sawyerr,

the DEP processing engineer for CCCL permits in Lee and Collier

counties, testified that the application described the project as

"remodeling the interior of the first floor and replace flooring

of the deck and square off and install additional lattice work on

the existing deck and install a fence." This description was

misleading, in that it made no mention of the new construction in

the open area beneath the stilt house, and did not disclose that

the existing deck had been extended.

7. Mr. Sawyerr testified that the first step in processing

an application is to review it for completeness, then apply the

requirements of DEP’s rules and governing statutes to the

completed application in a substantive review of the proposed

project.

8. Mr. Sawyerr testified that the most important rules for

this review were Rule 62B-33.007, Florida Administrative Code,

which sets forth the structural and other requirements necessary

for permit approval, and Rule 62B-33.008, Florida Administrative

Code, which sets forth the permit application requirements.

9. The general requirements for obtaining a permit state

that "the applicant shall provide the Department with sufficient

information pertaining to the proposed project to show that any

impacts associated with the construction have been minimized and

that the construction will not result in a significant adverse

impact." Rule 62B-33.005(2), Florida Administrative Code. An

applicant must demonstrate that a permit is "clearly justified"

by demonstrating that all standards, guidelines and other

requirements of Part I, Chapter 161, Florida Statutes, have been

met.

10. Rule 62B-33.007(1), Florida Administrative Code,

requires that all structures be designed to minimize any expected

adverse impact on the beach-dune system, marine turtles, or

adjacent properties and structures, and be designed consistent

with Rule 62B-33.005, Florida Administrative Code.

11. Rule 62B-33.007(2) , Florida Administrative Code,

requires that habitable major structures that extend wholly or

partially seaward of the CCCL be designed to resist the predicted

forces associated with a 100-year storm event.

12. Mr. Sawyerr testified that Respondent’s hou se is a

"habitable major structure," as that term is defined in Rule

62B-33.002(54)(e)2, Florida Administrative Code, and used in Rule

62B-33.007(2), Florida Administrative Code.

13. Rule 62B-33.007(3), Florida Administrative Code, sets

forth a series of requirements that must be met by major

structures. Rule 62B-33.007(3)(a) provides that habitable major

structures must be designed in accordance with the minimum

building code adopted for the area.

14. Mr. Sawyerr testified that Respondent provided ev idence

that the minimum building code was met via a letter, dated

June 18, 1998, from Bob Stewart, Deputy Director of Lee County’s

Division of Community Development. The operative text of the

letter states: "The project currently does not contravene zoning

codes and is generally consistent with the Lee County Land

Development Code."

15. Mr. Sawyerr testified that DEP does not undertake an

independent investigation of an applicant’s compliance with local

codes. Rather, DEP relies on representations made by local

government, such as found in Mr. Stewart’s letter. This practice

is authorized by Rule 62B-33.008(1)(d), Florida Administrative

Code, which requires an application to include written evidence

provided by the appropriate local government agency that the

proposed activity does not contravene local setback requirements,

zoning or building codes, and is consistent with the state-

approved local comprehensive plan.

16. Mr. Sawyerr testified that DEP read Mr. Stewart’s

letter to be inclusive of the building code. Under cross-

examination, Mr. Sawyerr admitted that the letter does not

expressly address the minimum building codes. However, the Lee

County Land Development Code, Chapter 6, Article II, Division 3,

includes the minimum building code for Lee County. Thus, Mr.

Sawyerr was correct to accept Mr. Stewart’s letter as evidence

the project met the minimum building code.

17. Rule 62B-33.007(3)(b), Florida Administrative Code,

provides that major structures must be designed in accordance

with minimum design load standards adopted by the American

Society of Civil Engineering, and that an engineer or architect

must provide separate certification that the main wind-force

resisting system has been designed in accordance with those

standards. The engineer or architect must also certify that the

components and cladding have been selected and incorporated into

the design to withstand the wind loads determined in accordance

with the standards. Mr. Sawyerr testified that Respondent

provided none of the information required by Rule

62B-33.007(3)(b).

18. Rule 62B-33.007(3)(c), Florida Administrative Code,

provides:

All habitable major structures shall be

elevated on, and securely anchored to, an

adequate pile foundation in such a manner as

to locate the building support structure

above the design breaking wave crests or wave

approach as superimposed on the storm surge

with dynamic wave setup of a one-hundred year

storm. The storm surge with dynamic wave

setup of a one-hundred year storm shall be

the elevation determined by the Department in

studies published as a part of the coastal

construction control establishment process.

The Bureau will evaluate the applicant’s

proposed structural elevation based upon

available scientific and coastal engineering

data and will advise the applicant of the

specific elevation requirement for the site.

The Department will grant a waiver of the

elevation or foundation requirements for

additions, repairs or modifications to

existing nonconforming habitable major

structures, provided that the addition,

repair or modification does not advance the

seaward limits of construction at the site

and does not constitute rebuilding of the

existing structure. Staff evaluation in such

cases will be based on engineering data, site

elevations, any impact on the beach and dune

system, and design life of the structure.

19. Mr. Sawyerr testified that the quoted foundation and

elevation requirements were waived by DEP, based upon evidence

submitted by Respondent that the proposed addition did not

constitute a substantial improvement, and Respondent’s submitted

estimate of the cost of the improvement compared to the value of

the property overall. Neither the evidence regarding the

addition’s status as a "substantial improvement" nor the cost

estimates were made a part of the record in this proceeding.

20. Mr. Sawyerr testified that Respondent provided none of

the engineering data, site elevations, information regarding

impact on the beach and dune system, or design life of the

structure, required by Rule 62B-33.007(3)(c) as the basis of the

staff evaluation leading to a waiver of the foundation and

elevation requirements.

21. In summary, neither Respondent nor DEP submitted any

documentary evidence to support DEP’s decision to waive the

foundation and elevation requirements of Rule 62B-33.007(3)(c),

or even to demonstrate that DEP followed the substantive

requirements of its own rule in granting the waiver.

22. Rule 62B-33.007(3)(f), Florida Administrative Code,

provides that no substantial walls or partitions may be

constructed below the level of the first finished floor of

habitable major structures and seaward of the CCCL. Rule

62B-33.007(3)(f) further provides that its prohibition does not

preclude the grant of a permit for "break-away or frangible

walls."

23. Mr. Sawyerr testified that DEP received "no engineering

data whatsoever" indicating that the construction below the first

floor level of Respondent’s stilt house would meet the

requirements for "break-away or frangible walls."

24. Rule 62B-33.008(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code,

requires that the applicant submit two copies of a topographic

survey drawing of the subject property. The rule sets forth 16

specific items of information that must be contained in the

topographic survey drawing.

25. Mr. Sawyerr testified that Respondent submitted no

topographic survey drawings, but only a boundary survey of the

property. Mr. Sawyerr stated that the boundary survey contained

some of the information required by Rule 62B-33.008(1)(f),

Florida Administrative Code.

26. However, Mr. Sawyerr testified that the boundary survey

did not contain the location of the contour line corresponding to

elevation 0 National Geodetic Vertical Datum ("NGVD"), the

location of the seasonal high-water line in relation to the CCCL,

or the date that the legal description of the CCCL used for the

survey was recorded in the county records. All of this

information is required by the cited rule provision. The

boundary survey itself was not submitted into evidence.

27. Rule 62B-33.008(1)(g), Florida Administrative Code,

requires that the applicant submit one copy of a dimensioned site

plan drawing to an appropriate scale showing the location of the

proposed structure and the location and volume of any proposed

excavation or fill, and all distances and locations referenced in

Rule 62B-33.008(1)(f).

28. Mr. Sawyerr testified that the submitted drawing was

not drafted to scale and did not include the required distances

and locations. The drawing itself was not submitted into

evidence.

29. Rule 62B-33.008(1)(h), Florida Administrative Code,

requires that the applicant submit one copy of a dimensioned

cross-sectional drawing to an appropriate scale showing: all

subgrade construction or excavation with elevations referenced to

the NGVD; a typical cross-section view of the structural

components above grade with elevations for the underside support

structure and crest elevations for any proposed coastal or shore

protection structure; the location of the CCCL; a typical profile

of the existing and proposed grade at the site; and the location

of the contour line corresponding to elevation 0 NGVD. Mr.

Sawyerr testified that Respondent did not submit such a drawing.

30. Rule 62B-33 .008(1)(j), Florida Administrative Code,

requires that the applicant submit two copies of detailed final

construction plans and specifications for all proposed

structures, signed and sealed by the design engineer or

architect. Mr. Sawyerr testified that Respondent did not submit

these plans and specifications, despite the fact that the

construction was essentially complete at the time the application

was submitted.

31. Mr. Sawyerr testified that when he reviewed the

application, he believed that Respondent was proposing interior

remodeling of the existing living space of his house.

32. Mr. Sawyerr stated that the usual practice of DEP is to

send a field representative to the site to take photos and send

in a description of the property. He then compares the site

inspection report to the proposal in the application, and "we

would draw whatever conclusions we need to."

33. Jennifer Cowart was the field inspector sent out to

Respondent’s property. She filed a site inspection report on or

about October 1, 1998. Ms. Cowart’s report concluded that

Respondent should be required to remove all of the new

construction, because the two bedroom, two bathroom addition was

not "remodeling" as represented in the application, and because

what was represented in the application as replacement of

flooring of an existing deck was actually an expansion of the

deck.

34. Mr. Sawyerr testified that the documents submitted by

Respondent do not provide sufficient information to form an

objective judgment whether Respondent’s construction meets the

requirements of DEP’s rules.

35. Despite the misleading and omitted information in the

application, the permit was issued for the following items:

1. An after-the-fact addition of an

understructure habitable space of

maximum dimensions 30 feet shore-normal

by 24 feet shore-parallel to an existing

non-conforming single family dwelling.

2. After-the-fact breakaway lattice walls

below deck and building.

3. After-the-fact enlargement of existing

wooden deck to dimensions 28 feet

maximum shore-normal by 32 feet maximum

shore-parallel.

4. Installation of a fence.

36. The permit also contained several special conditions,

including the following:

1. The permittee shall submit two copies of

as-built plans for the understructure

addition within 60 days from the date of

this final order. These plans shall be

signed and sealed by an engineer

registered in the State of Florida, and

shall be certified to not increase the

potential for damage to the existing

dwelling unit during coastal storm

events.

37. T he final order issuing the after-the-fact permit was

issued on December 10, 1998. As of the date of the hearing,

Respondent had yet to submit the as-built plans for the

understructure additions, thus violating the express terms of

special condition number 1.

38. Mr. Sawyerr testified that it is not unusual for DEP to

issue an after-the-fact permit with conditions requiring that

certain information be submitted after issuance of the permit,

though the text of the rules call for that information to be

submitted prior to issuance of the permit. Mr. Sawyerr stated

that it is not unusual to require a permittee to submit signed

and sealed engineering plans as a permit condition.

39. Mr. Sawyerr acknowledged that the addition of the

understructure habitable space and enlargement of the existing

wooden deck without permits constituted a violation of Chapter

161, Florida Statutes. He stated that, rather than dealing with

that violation as part of the permitting process, DEP determined

to grant the permit and initiate a separate enforcement

proceeding to deal with the violations.

40. Respondent failed to establish a prima facie case of

entitlement to the permit. The only documentary evidence

submitted as proof at the hearing was the permit itself and a

cursory memorandum from Mr. Sawyerr. The permit application was

not made a part of the record. Mr. Sawyerr testified generally

as to "evidence" submitted by Respondent that led him to

recommend waiver of the elevation and foundation requirements of

the building code, but none of this evidence was submitted at the

hearing. None of the site plan drawings were submitted at the

hearing.

41. Mr. Sawyerr’s own testimony established that

Respondent’s application did not include information required by

Rules 62B-33.007(3)(b),(c),(f) and 62B-33.008(1)(f),(g),(h), and

(j), Florida Administrative Code. Mr. Sawyerr admitted that the

application was misleading, and that he did not learn the true

nature of the unpermitted improvements to Respondent’s house

until his field inspector submitted her site inspection report.

Mr. Sawyerr testified that the materials submitted by Respondent

do not provide data sufficient to allow an objective judgment

whether Respondent’s construction meets the requirements of DEP’s

rules.

42. Mr. Sawyerr’s testimony established that, in spite of

the many deficiencies in the application, the permit was

nonetheless issued with a special condition requiring Respondent

to submit two copies of the as-built plans for the understructure

addition within 60 days, and that Respondent proceeded to ignore

that special condition. As of the date of the hearing, more than

eleven months after issuance of the permit, Respondent had yet to

submit those plans. Respondent did not submit the plans at the

hearing.

43 . Respondent contended that DEP properly analyzed the

application and concluded that the proposed project met the

requirements of all applicable rules and statutes. However,

beyond the testimony of Mr. Sawyerr, Respondent offered no

evidence that would permit this tribunal to test the merits of

that contention. Mr. Sawyerr’s conclusion that his

recommendation was proper does not alone establish a prima facie

case for granting the permit.

44. Respondent also asserted that Petitioner’s case

constituted an attack on DEP’s authority to waive certain permit

requirements and to grant after-the-fact permits. This assertion

is without merit. DEP’s waiver and permitting authority was

unquestioned. Respondent simply failed to offer any documentary

evidence in support of DEP’s exercise of that authority in this

case. Mr. Sawyerr’s vague reference to "evidence" submitted by

Respondent is not a substitute for the documents upon which DEP

based its waiver and permitting determinations.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

45. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this cause,

pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

46. As the owner of a house that is an "immediately

adjacent property," as that term is defined in Rule

62B-33.002(28), Florida Administrative Code, Petitioner is a

person whose substantial interests are affected by DEP’s intent

to issue the permit, and thus has standing to bring this

proceeding.

47. As the applicant and the party asserting an affirmative

entitlement to issuance of an after-the-fact permit by DEP,

Respondent has the burden of showing by a preponderance of the

credible and credited evidence that it is entitled to that

permit. Department of Transportation v. J.W.C. Company, Inc .,

396 So. 2d 778, 789 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Rule 62B-33.005(4),

Florida Administrative Code, provides that the applicant must

show that the requested permit is "clearly justified" by

demonstrating that all standards, guidelines, and other

requirements set forth in the applicable provisions of Part I,

Chapter 161, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 62B-33, Florida

Administrative Code, have been met.

48. In the cited case, the First District Court of Appeal

wrote:

We think it is essential, both for the

benefit of a hearing officer and the

petitioning objectors (to say nothing of the

agency and the appellate court) to have on

record a basic foundation of evidence

pertaining to the application so that the

issues can be understood, and so that

evidence directed to these issues by the

petitioning objectors can be properly

evaluated. At the very minimum, this

preliminary showing should include the

application, and the accompanying

documentation and information relied upon by

the agency as a basis for the issuance of its

notice of intent. To what extent it would be

advisable or necessary for this preliminary

presentation by the applicant to be further

expanded would depend, to a large extent, on

the nature of the objections raised by the

petitioners requesting a hearing.

J.W.C. Company , 396 So. 2d at 788.

49. Respondent in this case has failed to meet the "very

minimum . . . preliminary showing" that the court deemed

necessary to establish a prima facie case of entitlement to a

permit. Neither the application nor any of the supporting

documentation and information relied upon by the agency was

presented in evidence.

50. Rather, Respondent relied entirely on the testimonial

recollections of Mr. Sawyerr to establish the contents of the

application and other materials submitted by Respondent, and on

Mr. Sawyerr’s conclusion as to the sufficiency of those materials

to establish entitlement to the permit.

51. Respondent’s presentation of the case assumed that

which was to be proven: that Mr. Sawyerr’s evaluation of the

application and supporting materials was sound and that DEP’s

decision to award the permit was supported by the evidence and

was consistent with its governing rules and statutes. These

factual matters could not be established by having Mr. Sawyerr

testify that his evaluation was sound and the decision to award

the permit was proper, without presenting any of the supporting

documentation.

52. The facts of the case established that Respondent has

ignored the permitting requirements in building the additions to

his house, has submitted a permit application that appeared

designed to mislead DEP as to the nature of the additions, and

has disregarded the special conditions of the permit.

53. The facts of the case established that Respondent’s

application omitted material items required by Rules 62B-33.007

and 62B-33.008, Florida Administrative Code. To justify these

omissions, Respondent offered only Mr. Sawyerr’s conclusory

statements that these items had been waived.

54. The record in this case does not clearly justify

issuance of an after-the-fact permit. DEP should deny the permit

and either order removal of Respondent’s unpermitted additions,

or require Respondent to submit an application meeting all of the

requirements of Chapter 62B-33, Florida Administrative Code.

RECOMMENDATION

Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law,

it is recommended that the Department of Environmental Protection

enter a final order that denies Permit No. LE-823 ATF and

establishes a date certain by which Respondent must either remove

the unpermitted understructure habitable space, lattice walls,

and deck enlargement, or submit a complete after-the-fact CCCL

application that meets all requirements of Chapter 62B-33,

Florida Administrative Code.

DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of April, 2000, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

___________________________________

LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

(850) 488-96 75 SUNCOM 278-9675

Fax Filing [phone]

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 25th day of April, 2000.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Steven C. Hartsell, Esquire

Pavese, Haverfield, Dalton,

Harrison & Jensen, L.L.P.

1833 Hendry Street

Post Office Drawer 1507

Fort Myers, Florida 33902

Michael J. Ciccarone, Esquire

Annis, Mitchell, Cockey,

Edwards & Roehn, P.A.

Post Office Box 60259

Fort Myers, Florida 33906-6259

Francine M. Ffolkes, Esquire

Department of Environmental Protection

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard

Mail Station 35

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000

Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk

Department of Environmental Protection

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard

Mail Station 35

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000

Teri Donaldson, General Counsel

Department of Environmental Protection

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard

Mail Station 35

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15

days from the 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 case.