DocketNumber: No. BO-61
Citation Numbers: 502 So. 2d 9, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2145, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10073
Judges: Shivers, Smith, Zehmer
Filed Date: 10/13/1986
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/18/2024
Appellant, South Broward Citizens for a Better Environment, Inc., brings this appeal from a final order of the Electrical Power Plant Siting Board implicitly adopting the Hearing Officer’s denial of appellant’s motion to dismiss. We affirm.
The administrative proceedings which led to the filing of appellant’s motion to dismiss began on April 8,1985, when appellee, South Broward County Resource Recovery Project, Inc., filed an application with the Department of Environmental Regulation for electrical power plant site certification, pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. Appellant became a party to the certification proceedings by filing, on May 10,1985, a notice of intent to participate as a party under section 403.508(4)(b)3. On November 21, 1985, the next to last day of a certification hearing lasting several days, Citizens filed a motion to dismiss the application on the basis that appellee was not a proper applicant. The Hearing Officer entered an order denying the motion to dismiss on November 21, 1985, and an order recommending the granting of appellee’s certificate on April 8, 1986. In June 1986, the siting board entered its final order adopting the recommended order, with clarifications.
Since we find Citizens’ motion to dismiss to have been untimely filed, we need not address the merits of the motion. According to Rule 28-5.205, F.A.C., motions in opposition to a petition (including motions to dismiss) “shall be filed within 20 days of service of the petition.” (emphasis supplied) The corporation’s application, which was filed on April 8, 1985, meets the definition of “petition” found in Rule 28-5.201, F.A.C., which includes “any application or other document which expresses a request for formal proceedings.” The motion to dismiss in this case was filed more than seven months after the petition was served. Even assuming the 20-day deadline to have run from the date appel
Accordingly, the final order of the siting board, implicitly approving the Hearing Officer’s denial of appellant’s motion to dismiss, is hereby affirmed.