DEP03-1180
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
THE BRIDGE TENDER INN, INC., and
FRED BARTIZAL, AS PRESIDENT OF
THE BRIDGE TENDER INN,
Petitioners,
vs.
HARRY BROWN, DAVID TEITELBAUM,
and DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
/
OGC CASE NO.
03-1315
DOAH CASE NO. 04-0212
FINAL ORDER
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
On June 3, 2002, DEP issued a Consolidated Environmental Resource Permit
No. 41-01935093-001 to Harry Brown and David Teitelbaum (collectively Brown), in
care of Teitelbaum Development Company, for the construction and expansion of an
existing multi-slip docking facility located in Bradenton Beach, Florida. Notice of DEP’s
action was published on June 26, 2003, in the legal ad section of the Sarasota HeraldTribune.
On or about December 1, 2003, Petitioners, The Bridge Tender Inn, Inc. and
Fred Bartizal (Bartizal), as president of The Bridge Tender Inn, Inc. (Petitioners), filed an
Amended Petition for Administrative Hearing (Amended Petition) with DEP. On January
15, 2004, DEP referred the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH)
and requested the assignment of an administrative law judge to conduct all proceedings
required by law and to submit a recommended order to DEP.
On January 29, 2004, Brown filed an amended motion to dismiss Petitioners’
Amended Petition. On March 1, 2004, Administrative Law Judge J. Lawrence Johnston
denied the amended motion to dismiss. On March 11, 2004, the case was transferred
to the undersigned to conduct further proceedings.
Brown submitted a Pre-Hearing Statement on or about March 8, 2004. On
March 9, 2004, Petitioners filed a Pre-Hearing Statement. On March 10, 2004, DEP
filed a Pre-Hearing Statement.
The final hearing was held on March 16 ,2004, in Bradenton, Florida. DEP
presented the testimony of Theodore Michael Murray, and Environmental Manager in
the Environmental Resource Management Program with DEP and an expert in
environmental resource procedures. DEP Exhibits 1 through 8 were admitted into
evidence.
Respondents, Harry Brown and David Teitelbaum, called Melvin Rector, an
environmental consultant, as an expert witness; Mark Claire, a middle school teacher
and holder of a boat Captain’s license and owner of a boating services company, as an
expert witness; and Jeffrey L. Hostetler, a Florida licensed Professional Surveyor and
Mapper (P.S.M.) as an expert rebuttal witness.
Petitioners called the following witnesses: Dr. Fred Bartizal, a medical doctor;
Raymond M. McClarney, president of McClarney, Inc.; John Maschino, general
manager of The Bridge Tender Inn; Darrell Konecy, a licensed boat Captain, an expert
2
witness; and Mike C. Greig, a licensed boat Captain, an expert witness. Petitioners’
Exhibits A, D,I, J, and K were admitted into evidence.
Brown and Petitioners’ Joint Exhibits 1 through 24 were admitted into evidence.
Petitioners’ Exhibits I and J were also designated as Joint Exhibits. (Tr. 42-44.)
Volumes A and B of the Transcript of the final hearing were filed with DOAH on
April 12, 2004. On May 6, 2004, Petitioners filed a Proposed Recommended Order
(PRO). On May 11, 2004, Brown filed a Proposed Recommended Order. On May 12,
2004, DEP filed a Proposed Recommended Order.
On May 18, 2004, Brown filed a letter, which was sent to DEP’s counsel and
Petitioners’ counsel, objecting to a portion of DEP’s PRO. On May 19, 2004, Brown
filed a letter, written to the undersigned, and enclosed a copy of the May 18, 2004,
letter. On May 19, 2004, DEP responded to the May 18, 2004, Brown letter.
All post-hearing PROs have been considered in the preparation of this
Recommended Order. See Endnot 3.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Parties
1.
The Bridge Tender Inn (Inn) is a restaurant and a Green Bay Packer bar
located at 135 Bridge Street, Bradenton, Florida. Dr. Fred Bartizal is a medical doctor
and the president of the Bridge Tender Inn, Inc. and the owner of the Inn. Petitioners
are adjacent landowners who object to the proposed permit issued to Brown. The
general public uses the Inn’s two existing docks. (The southernmost dock is adjacent to
the Brown dock that is the subject of this proceeding.) Petitioners are in the process of
3
obtaining a submerged land lease (from DEP) for the southern dock. Petitioners are
substantially affected persons.
2.
DEP has the statutory authority to issue Environmental Resource Permits
(ERP) for the construction of docks such as the modification proposed by Brown.
3.
Respondent, Harry K. Brown (Brown), owns the property at Section 4,
Township 35 South, Range 16 East, Manatee County Florida. The property is located
in and on Anna Maria Sound off of Bay Drive South, between Third and Fourth Streets
South, in Bradenton Beach, Florida. Brown owns the property upland to the proposed
dock extension. See Endnot 1. The existing dock, as proposed for modification, is
located in Sarasota Bay, a Class II Outstanding Florida Water. See Fla. Admin. Code
R. 62-302.400(12)(b)41. The Gulf of Mexico is west of Anna Maria Sound and Sarasota
Bay.
Brown’s Original Application for Permit Authorization to Construct a Dock
4.
In 1994, Brown filed an application with the Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) for a permit “to perform work in and affecting navigable waters of the United
States.” On December 19, 1994, the Corps authorized Brown “to construct a T-shaped
dock with four boat slips (one covered) in Anna Maria Sound” at the above-described
property, in accordance with the “drawings and conditions which are incorporated in,
and made a part of, the permit.”
5.
There are two drawings attached to the Corps permit. Joint Exhibit 4. The
first shows the proposed Brown T-shaped dock with four identified boat slips, two on the
south and two on the north sides of the portion of the dock running perpendicular to the
shore. The approach to the “T” portion of the proposed dock extended 120 feet
4
waterward (to the east.) The described “T” end of the dock measured 10’ x 60’. The
proposed covered slip was adjacent to the northern portion of the “T”, with a boat slip
adjacent to the west. (There are also two mooring pilings shown on the north side that
indicate the boundaries of the covered and uncovered boat slips.) Joint Exhibit 4.
6.
This drawing also shows part of the existing and adjacent boat dock to the
north of the Brown dock that runs perpendicular to the shoreline and has a T-shape at
the end, running in a north and south direction. The drawing indicates that the
southeastern portion of the dock to the north is “20’” from the mooring piling that forms
the western boundary for the covered boat slip. Based on the “20’” designation, it
appears that the second mooring piling to the west is also shown approximately 20 feet
from the southeastern portion of the other boat dock. (Part of the explanation portion of
this drawing was not copied.)
7.
Another, hand-drawn drawing (identified as “Exhibit D,” dated April 25,
1995, prepared by Florida Permitting, Inc., and stating “REVISED APPLICATION”)
shows the location of the two docks. The distance between the southeastern corner of
the northern boat dock (the Bartizal dock) and the eastern mooring piling (on the north
side of the Brown dock and the western boundary for the covered boat slip (slip 1)) is
shown as approximately “40’.” There is no measurement shown for the distance
between the southeastern corner of the Bartizal boat dock and the western mooring
piling for slip 2 on the north side of the Brown dock. The distance appears to be less
than 40 feet but more than 35 feet from the southeast corner of the Bartizal “T” shaped
dock.
5
8.
On September 14, 1994, Brown also filed an application with DEP to
construct a dock with four slips. (Fred Bartizal and Barbara Lohn are listed as adjacent
property owners.) The Brown project was “revised to ensure adequate water depths
and minimal impacts, and to maintain reasonable access to both the proposed dock and
the existing dock to the north” as reflected in three drawings (Sheets A-C-dated April 25,
1995, and prepared by Florida Permitting, Inc.) that are a part of the application. Joint
Exhibit 5. (Sheet C is the same as “Exhibit D,” described in Finding of Fact 7. See also
DEP Exhibit 7, Sheet A.) The three sheets are similar and provide the same locations
for the proposed Brown and built Bartizal docks, including the “40’” measurement. Also,
as revised, the approach to the Brown dock “T” is shown to be 130 feet long and the “Tend” of the dock is reduced by 12 feet, for a total length of 48 feet, and the width
reduced from 10 to 8 feet, or 48’ x 8’.
9.
On August 8, 1995, DEP issued Permit No. 412576623 authorizing the
construction of a four slip private docking facility consisting of 904 square feet, with a
conservation easement granted to DEP. Brown was required to submit “as-built”
drawings to DEP within 30 days of completion of the authorized work. “Record
drawings shall include the controlling elevations of all permitted structures, including
final elevations as shown I the permit drawing(s)” in the “Plan View” “Sheet A,” which
shows to “40’” measurement.
10.
Based on the weight of the evidence, “Sheet A” depicts the 1995 DEP
approved location of the Brown dock. See DEP Exhibit 7, stamped approved by DEP,
August 8, 1995, and Joint Exhibit 5, Sheet A.
6
11.
It appears that the original Brown dock, as revised and approved by DEP
Permit No. 412576623 in 1995, was actually constructed such that there is 33.4 feet
between the northwestern corner of the Brown “T” portion facing north, and the southern
portion of the adjacent Bartizal dock, rather than approximately 43 feet. Compare Joint
Exhibit 1, 20, and 23 and Petitioners’ Exhibit J with Joint Exhibit 5, Sheet A and DEP
Exhibit 7, which are the same document. See Finding of Fact 24. The mooring piling
on the west side of slip 1, as depicted on DEP Exhibit 7, was constructed approximately
27 to 30 feet from the southeastern corner of the Bartizal dock (not approximately 40
feet as shown on DEP Exhibit 7) and the second mooring piling to the west was
approximately 25 to 28 feet from the southeastern corner of the Bartizal dock. These
are rough approximations.
12.
The ultimate finding is that the two western mooring pilings on the north
side of the Brown dock and the main walkway of the Brown dock were originally
constructed closer to the Bartizal dock than authorized by DEP in 1995.
The 2002 Application Requesting Approval for Modification of the Existing Dock
13.
On or about January 3, 2002, Sherri Neff, Environmental Specialist with
Florida Permitting, Inc., and Melvin Rector, president of Florida Permitting, Inc., on
behalf of Brown, filed an application with DEP requesting approval of an Environmental
Resource Permit for a modification of the dock previously authorized pursuant to Permit
No. 412576623. Bartizal and Gregory Ellis Watkins are listed as adjoining property
owners. The dock modification requested the replacement and extension of an existing
structure to accommodate the dockage of 11 boats. DEP Exhibit 1.
14.
The “Project Narrative” included with this application stated in part:
7
The egress to the proposed recreational pier currently falls along
the187’ shoreline located along Bay Drive South. Access to the structure
is provided by an easement from the City of Bradenton Beach. If
permitted, the egress associated with the modified structure will remain at
the current length of 121’ beyond the jurisdiction line. The northern
extension of the existing T-shaped structure, currently measured at 9.9’ by
21.5’, will be eliminated, and the southern extension will be reduced in
width to six foot with a 28’ length. In addition, an L-shaped extension is
proposed to extend beyond the existing pier linearly approximately 27’ into
Sarasota Bay while maintaining four-foot width. A 43’ by two-foot
perpendicular arm would extend north at the terminus of this structure.
Eleven mooring slips of specified size (Table 1) are proposed in areas of
suitable water depth around the structure. The modified pier would
encompass an estimated 846 square feet, a reduction of 58 square feet, in
relation to the originally permitted 904 square foot structure (the existing
structure measures approximately 965 square feet).
15.
The application included, among other documents, a plan view of the dock
modification and a cross section; a summary of structures over wetlands and other
surface waters; an aerial of the area; a photograph of the existing Brown T-shaped dock
and the two mooring pilings and part of the Bartizal dock to the north, including the two
mooring pilings on the south side of the Bartizal dock, see also DEP Exhibit 8 and Joint
Exhibit 20; water depth data; and a document showing the proposed structure and the
location of the local channel. See also DEP Exhibits 2 and 4.
16.
In part, Brown granted DEP a perpetual conservation easement for 0.12
(submerged) acres as shown on an attached survey which is a rectangular area south
of the Brown dock, running parallel to the shoreline and Bay Drive South. See Joint
Exhibit 3, diagram identified as P 16 and DEP Exhibit 6. This diagram also shows what
purports to be the pre-existing Brown T-shaped dock, the portion on the south side that
is to be removed, and the location of the proposed addition, with the main portion of the
dock extending east of the existing “T” and to the north. The location of the 11 boat
8
slips is shown with the mooring pilings. Bartizal’s dock is not shown on this diagram,
although it is shown on an aerial of the area dated March 1, 2002, DEP Exhibit 3.
17.
DEP employee George Molinaro reviewed the Brown modification and
recommended approval. He no longer works for DEP and did not testify.
18.
On June 2, 2002, DEP issued Environmental Resource Permit, DEP
Project No.: 41-01935093-001 for the construction of a 846 squarefoot multi-slip
docking facility that would accommodate the mooring of 11 vessels. The approved dock
configuration was: “a 4 ft. x 121 ft. access walkway (484 sq. ft.), a 28 ft. x 6 ft. southern
extension (168 sq. ft.), a 4 ft. x 27 ft. extension (108 sq. ft.) and the 2 ft. x 43 ft. northern
finger pier (86 sq. ft).”
The Challenge to the Modification
19.
An Amended Petition was filed on behalf of Petitioners. See Finding of
Fact 1. The southern Bartizal dock extends out from the upland property, and is north
of the Brown dock. The Bartizal dock is a four-foot wide dock that extends east into the
water approximately 95 feet. There is a “T” extension at the easterly portion of the dock
that extends to the north and south. There are two mooring piles that are west of the
southern portion of the “T” extension. See Joint Exhibits 1 and 23; DEP Exhibit 8; and
Petitioners’ Exhibit J.
20.
Boaters have moored their boats at the southern Bartizal dock, which has
two southern slips for purposes of docking. In this manner, these patrons can access
the Inn. Bartizal contends that boaters will be reluctant to use these slips because they
are too close to the Brown mooring pilings as built.
9
21.
Prior to the completion of the Brown modification requested in 2002, i.e.,
when the Brown dock had a “T” portion, depending on the tidal currents, Bartizal and
others would travel south, hugging the eastern portion of the Brown “T” following an
unmarked portion of the waterway. In this manner, he and other boaters could access
the inter-coastal waterway leading to the Gulf of Mexico. See Joint Exhibit 2. Now,
Bartizal contends that he and an uncertain number of others are unable to travel in this
manner because of the eastward extension of the Brown dock and mooring pilings and
the depth of the water in this location. Id.
Resolution of the Controversy
22.
One issue to be resolved is the distance between the Bartizal dock and
the westerly mooring pilings north of the Brown dock and whether the placement of the
Brown mooring pilings (and boats using these slips) interferes with and is potentially
hazardous to boats that enter and exit from the southern portion of the Bartizal dock and
boats moored at the Brown dock. See Endnote 3.
23.
The other issue to be resolved is whether the modification and extension
of the Brown dock adversely affects navigation.
24.
There is no “as built” survey of the originally permitted and constructed
Brown dock. However, there is a “sketch” drawn by Jeffrey L. Hostetler, P.S.M. (Joint
Exhibit 1) and an “as built” survey by Leo Mills, P.S.M. dated October 16, 2003, (Joint
Exhibit 23), which indicate that the distance from the southern portion of the Bartizal
dock to the northwestern corner of the old “T” portion of the Brown dock was 33.4 feet.
See also Joint Exhibit 13 and Petitioners’ Exhibit J. Based on all of the available
information of record, it appears that the western-most mooring piling of the previously
10
constructed Brown dock was approximately 25 to 28 feet from the southern portion of
the Bartizal “T” dock. The two originally constructed mooring pilings to the north of the
Brown dock were constructed closer to the Bartizal dock than originally permitted in
1995. See Finding of Fact 11.
25.
Based on a later, February 16, 2004, “as-built” survey by Leo Mills, Jr.,
P.S.M., Petitioners’ Exhibit J, it appears that the two western-most mooring piles that
extend northerly form the now-constructed Brown dock are 26.6 feet (west side of slip 3
(DEP Exhibit 6)) and 27.1 feet (west side of slip 4, id.) from the southeastern corner of
the Bartizal “T” dock, which appears to be in close proximity to the two mooring pilings
previously constructed. See also Findings of Fact 11 and 24. But, as noted herein,
they are not located 40 feet from the Bartizal dock. See DEP Exhibit 7.
26.
The water between the Bartizal dock and the Brown dock is very shallow.
Bartizal stated that he could probably wade out to his southern dock at mean low tide.
(Bartizal owns another dock to the north that also provides boat slips for access to the
Inn.)
27.
Bartizal testified that the previous configuration of the mooring pilings on
the north side of the Brown dock allowed easier ingress to and egress from the south
side of his dock. However, Bartizal further stated that the two western mooring pilings
that now exist on the north side of the Brown dock have a greater impact on ingress and
egress than the prior pilings. Bartizal believes that the two western-most mooring
pilings are not in the same location as previously constructed, although he is not sure.
28.
The two as-built Brown slips (3 and 4) measure 21 feet in length to the
north and nine feet in width. According to the document (Joint Exhibit 3, P 16 and DEP
11
Exhibit 6) that is stamped approved by DEP, slip 3 was approved to measure 18’ x 8’
and slip 4 was approved to measure 21’ x 8’, which means that the slip 3 western
mooring pile is off by three feet. Also, the actual width of all of the northern slips (slips
three through seven) is greater than what was approved. Compare Joint Exhibit 3, P 16
and DEP Exhibit 6 with Joint Exhibit 13 and Petitioners’ Exhibit J. (DEP Exhibit 6 shows
the DEP-approved distances between the pilings next to the Brown dock. It appears
that the distance between the out pilings is the same.)
29.
The two Bartizal slips facing the Brown dock are 22.4 feet in length by 12
feet. The southeastern corner of the Bartizal “T” dock is 51.6 feet from the northwestern
corner of the Brown extended and constructed “L” shaped finger-dock. The two
western-most Brown mooring pilings concern Bartizal. See Petitioners’ Exhibit J.
30.
There are two videotapes of record that show boats entering, docking, and
exiting from the slips at the Bartizal dock, on the south side facing the Brown dock.
There are also photographs of the Brown-Bartizal docks. Boat captains, navigating the
area in and around the Brown-Bartizal docks, described their adventures in docking
their boats.
31.
For the purpose of a video, Captain Claire operated a 21.6-foot Wellcraft
center console sport fishing boat with a 2.5-foot draft and an 8-foot wide beam and an
outboard motor. During the docking procedure at the Brown/Bartizal docks, at times,
Captain Claire trimmed his motor to avoid contacting the bottom with the propeller and
lower portion of the engine. Coming from the north, he pulled the boat in between the
Brown and Bartizal docks, backing the boat into the Bartizal boat slip, which is closest to
the Brown western-most mooring piling. According to Captain Claire, he “had very little
12
problem backing into that slip” which is 12 feet wide and 22.4 feet deep. If he had a
choice, Captain Claire would not dock a 21-foot boat in this area. Smaller vessels with
shallow drafts are more suitable for this location given the tidal influences and the
shallow water depth.
32.
Captain Claire was able to dock his boat at the same Bartizal boat slip by
going forward into the slip. Captain Claire stated the distance of 26.6 feet between the
Brown western-most mooring piling and the southeast portion of the Bartizal dock was
“[v]ery typical.” (The two western-most Brown boat slips were empty when Captain
Claire docked his boat, although there was a boat in the third slip that extended past the
mooring piling which did not impact his ability to dock his boat in the Bartizal slip.)
33.
Captain Claire also stated he would not proceed south of the Brown dock
in a large vessel unless the tide “was extremely high.”
34.
Darrell Konecy holds a U.S. Coast Guard license for an uninspected
passenger vessel. He operates a parasailing operation and keeps his boat moored off
of Bartizal’s northern dock. His boat is 28 feet in length and roughly a 9.5-foot beam
and a 3.5-foot draw, at the “lowest part of the scag.” For the video, he had difficulty
maneuvering his boat into Bartizal’s boat slips and between the Bartizal and Brown
pilings. With difficulty, he was successful when he backed in. The two western-most
Brown dock slips were not occupied at this time. Prior to the Brown extension, leaving
the Bartizal dock area to the north, Captain Konecy would travel to the east of the
Brown dock mooring pilings, then south out to Longboat Pass. Now, he states that he
cannot travel east of the new pilings because the water is too shallow. Captain Konecy
does not navigate his boat south of the Brown dock during low tide.
13
35.
Mike Greig holds a U.S. Coast Guard, “six pack license.” He has been
boating in the waters around the Inn for approximately 20 years. He runs a 24-foot
Robin, center console boat. He had difficulty docking his boat at the Bartizal dock in
light of the Brown dock and mooring pilings. Prior to the modification, he did not use the
south side of Bartizal’s dock.
36.
Prior to the construction of the modified Brown dock, Captain Greig was
able to pass “pretty close” to the east of the Brown dock and travel south. He stated
that there is a southern unmarked channel that runs from Longboat Pass up past the
Brown dock. He agreed that an unmarked channel such as this is highly dependent on
the tides and that the area would not be accessible to some boats at mean-low tide if
the water were a very low spring tide. (He said most boats in the area are “small
runabouts” which can get through the area.) He agreed that he could navigate his boat
east of the existing Brown dock mooring pilings and through 4.5 feet of water as
depicted on DEP Exhibit 4. He did not believe a boat that draws more than 3.5 feet
could skirt east of the Brown pilings. Captain Greig also agreed that a boat with a 3.5foot draw would have difficulty in waters as shallow as Sarasota Bay outside of the
marked channel.
37.
Based on the weight of the evidence, including but not limited to
consideration of the tidal variations in and around the docks, the varying sizes of the
boats that may enter and exit from the Bartizal/Brown docks, the size of the slips for
both docks, and the varying skill of the boat captains, the two as-built western-most
mooring pilings on the north side of the Brown dock (slips 3 and 4, see DEP Exhibit 6)
are potentially hazardous to incoming boats attempting to dock at the Bartizal dock on
14
the south side and potentially hazardous to boats docked in slips three and four of the
Brown dock. These mooring pilings should be removed. See Endnote 3.
38.
The next issue is whether the extension of the Brown dock to the east,
including the “L” shaped extension to the north and the mooring pilings to the east,
adversely affects navigation.
39.
The local channel begins just south of the Brown dock and travels in a
north, northeast direction. DEP Exhibits 2 and 4; Joint Exhibits 7 and 15. Most of
Bartizal’s customers utilize the northern channel to access his docks and Inn.
40.
The water depths south of the Brown dock are shallower than north of the
Brown dock. The weight of the evidence indicates that there is no defined channel that
extends any further than approximately 20 feet south of the Brown dock.
41.
Bartizal and others have traveled east and close to the old Brown “T” dock
and then south of the Brown dock prior to the construction of the “L” extension. (The
largest boat used by Bartizal to travel to the south of the Brown dock prior to the
extension was 28 feet.) In this manner, they were able to access Longboat Pass via a
shorter route. Boaters from the south could access the Inn without going around and
entering the Bartizal docks from the north.
42.
Depending on the size of the boat and draft and the tide, it would not have
been prudent to proceed south of the Brown dock without having first-hand knowledge
of the water depths even prior to the extension.
43.
With the construction of the eastern extension of the Brown dock, when
the tide makes passage possible, the depth of the water is sufficient east of the new
Brown dock mooring pilings, i.e., east of the new northern “L” shaped finger-dock, to
15
permit passage to the south, depending on the size of the boat and draft. Boaters to the
south of the Brown dock can still proceed in a southeasterly direction through the Sound
and out through Longboat Pass, subject to the caveat noted above. Joint Exhibit 2.
44.
Larger boats leaving the Bartizal docks can proceed north, east, and then
south to access Longboat Pass. Joint Exhibit 2. While it may be inconvenient to
proceed in this fashion, the eastward extension of the Brown pilings and the “L” shaped
finger dock do not adversely affect navigation.
Any party to this proceeding has the right to seek judicial review of the Final
Order pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes, by the filing of a Notice of Appeal
pursuant to Rule 9.110, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, with the clerk of the
Department in the Office of General Counsel, 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, M.S. 35,
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000; and by filing a copy of the Notice of Appeal
accompanied by the applicable filing fees with the appropriate District Court of Appeal.
The Notice of Appeal must be filed within 30 days from the date this Final Order is filed
with the clerk of the Department.
DONE AND ORDERED this
day of July, 2004, in Tallahassee, Florida.
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
COLLEEN M. CASTILLE
Secretary
Marjory Stoneman Douglas Building
3900 Commonwealth Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
16
FILED ON THIS DATE PURSUANT TO § 120.52,
FLORIDA STATUTES, WITH THE DESIGNATED
DEPARTMENT CLERK, RECEIPT OF WHICH IS
HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGED.
CLERK
DATE
17
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing Final Order has been sent by
United States Postal Service to:
James A. Harrison, Esquire
Porges, Hamlin, Knowles & Prouty, P.A.
Post Office Box 9320
Bradenton, FL 34206-9998
Mark A. Nelson, Esquire
Ozark, Perron & Nelson, P.A.
2808 Manatee Avenue, West
Bradenton, FL 34205
L. Norman Vaughan-Birch, Esquire
Jackson C. Kracht, Esquire
Kirk Pinkerton, P.A.
720 South Orange Avenue
Post Office Box 3798
Sarasota, FL 34230
Ann Cole, Clerk and
Charles A. Stampelos, Administrative Law Judge
Division of Administrative Hearings
The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550
and by hand delivery to:
Nona R. Schaffner, Esquire
Department of Environmental Protection
3900 Commonwealth Blvd., M.S. 35
Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000
this
day of July, 2004.
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
J. TERRELL WILLIAMS
Assistant General Counsel
3900 Commonwealth Blvd., M.S. 35
Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000
Telephone 850/245-2242
18