In a recent government meeting, the commission convened for a final order hearing regarding the case of Grace versus 6111 Rome, LLC and the Environmental Protection Commission (EPC). The hearing, described as a quasi-judicial process, focused on a permit application by 6111 Rome for wetland impact and mitigation to facilitate residential development on a nearly five-acre property in Tampa, located near the Hillsborough River.

The EPC had previously issued a permit allowing the filling of 0.12 acres of wetlands, contingent upon the use of a mitigation bank to offset environmental impacts. This decision was challenged by local residents—Greco, Perepps, Kramer, and Addison—who live in proximity to the proposed development. Their challenge led to an evidentiary hearing, akin to a civil trial, conducted by a contracted EPC hearing officer. The officer ultimately recommended that the wetland permit be granted, a decision made in June 2024.

During the meeting, it was noted that two of the appellants, Kramer and Greco, filed exceptions to the hearing officer's findings, allowing them to present oral arguments. The commission was reminded that it could not alter findings of fact based on substantial evidence already in the record, emphasizing the high threshold required to overturn such findings. The commission's role is to assess whether the hearing officer overlooked any critical evidence rather than to re-evaluate the entire case.

Each party was allotted ten minutes for oral arguments, focusing strictly on the exceptions raised. The commission will subsequently deliberate and issue a final order, which may involve adopting, modifying, or reversing the hearing officer's recommendations. The meeting underscored the procedural rigor involved in environmental permitting and the community's engagement in local development decisions.