WILLIAM R. CULLEN, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA AUDUBON SOCIETY, FLORIDA KEYS AUDUBON SOCIETY & UPPER KEYS CITIZENS ASSOCIATION ET AL., AND STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
William Cullen appealed the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation's denial of a permit to construct a marina in Key Largo. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial, finding the hearing officer's recommended order contained sufficient findings of fact on water quality standard violations and that the final order complied with statutory requirements for permit denials.
The court held that the recommended order contained specific findings of fact on water quality standard violations (found in the appendix), that these findings were not conflicting, incomplete, or confusing, and that the final order complied with Section 403.92, Florida Statutes, by explaining the reasons for denial and describing what project modifications would be necessary for approval.
[1] A hearing officer's recommended order is legally sufficient if specific findings of fact regarding violations are set forth in an appendix and accepted from opposing part…
[2] A final order denying a permit must contain an explanation of the reasons for denial and, in general terms, what changes are necessary for approval.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the final order contains, as required "an explanation by the department of the reasons for denial [of the permit]," namely, that Cullen had failed to provide assurance that water quality standards would not be violated by the project based on the water quality violations found by the hearing officer.”
Establishes that the permit denial order satisfied statutory requirements by explaining the reasons for denial
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCullen applied for a permit to construct a marina in Key Largo. The hearing officer found that the proposed marina project would violate water quality…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Water Quality Standards cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by a permit applicant, William R. Cullen, from a final order of the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation denying a permit to construct a marina in Key Largo. We affirm.
First, we find no merit in Cullen’s contention that the recommended order of the hearing officer is legally insufficient because of an alleged failure to set forth specific findings of fact on violations of water quality standards in Cullen’s proposed marina project. To the contrary, such findings are found in the appendix to the recommended order wherein the hearing officer specifically accepted certain findings of facts proposed by the opponents to the permit application as to violations of water quality standards for nutrients, heavy metals, biological integrity, turbity, ambient water quality, and oil. We further conclude that the findings of fact in the recommended order are not, as urged, conflicting, incomplete or confusing. See Inverness Convalescent Center v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 512 So. 2d 1011, 1015 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).
Second, we find no merit in Cullen’s contention that the final order violates Section 403.92, Florida Statutes (1989). To the contrary, the final order contains, as required “an explanation by the department of the reasons for denial [of the permit],” namely, that Cullen had failed to provide assurance that water quality standards would not be violated by the project based on the water quality violations found by the hearing officer. .
Moreover, the order further contains, as required, “an explanation, in general terms, of what changes, if any, in the permit application are necessary in order for the department to approve the proposed project, namely, that a significant reconfiguration of the project design was necessary to clear up the water quality violations in the marina project as found by the hearing officer if, indeed, this project was permittable at all, particularly with respect to the difficult problems with biological integrity. Compare 1800 Atlantic Developers v. Department of Envtl. Regulation, 552 So. 2d 946, 954 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), rev. denied, 562 So. 2d 345 (Fla.1990).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ganter v. Dep't OF Ins., 620 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…on of findings of fact as conclusions of law did not in any way materially impair the fairness or correctness of the proceeding. Schomer v. Department of Professional Regulation, 417 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Cullen v. Florida Audubon Society, 582 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). In addition, while the charging document did not allege that appellant knew or should have known of his employee’s misconduct, we are unable to ascertain how holding appellee to the stricter standard results in prejudice to appel…
Authorities Cited
- Bocharski v. The Cir. Court OF the Second Jud. Cir., 552 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Inverness Convalescent Ctr. v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 512 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)