IN THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT IN AND

FOR MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA

LAKE POINT PHASE I, LLC, and
LAKE POINT PHASE II, LLC,
Florida limited liability companies,

Plaintiffs,

Case No.: 2013-001321-CA
v.

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, a
public corporation of the State of
Florida, MARTIN COUNTY, a
political subdivision of the State of
Florida, and MAGGY
HURCHALLA,

Defendants.
____________________________/

PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF
E-MAILS FROM DEFENDANT MARTIN COUNTY

Plaintiffs, Lake Point Phase I, LLC and Lake Point Phase II, LLC (collectively Lake
Point), through their undersigned counsel, move to compel the production of certain e-mails
from Martin County (the County) and to require that the County make a full and complete
disclosure of its efforts to obtain such e-mails from each County Commissioner, and state as
follows:
Introduction
1. Lake Point has contracts with the South Florida Water Management District and
the County (the Contracts) to construct a public works project (the Lake Point Restoration
Project) in Martin County. The Lake Point Restoration Project is designed to ultimately treat
polluted water from Lake Okeechobee and the St. Lucie Canal. Once it is cleaned, the water will
2
be transported to various points throughout South Florida. Among other claims, Lake Point has
sued the County for breach of contract and Defendant Maggy Hurchalla (Ms. Hurchalla) for
tortious interference.
2. Ms. Hurchalla, a former five-time Martin County commissioner, has been
working aggressively behind the scenes to improperly induce the County to breach the Contracts
with Lake Point. To date, discovery has revealed that Ms. Hurchalla has surreptitiously
communicated with various County Commissioners (the Commissioners) by sending messages
to their private e-mail accounts under Ms. Hurchallas code name DEEP Rockpit directing
certain County Commissioners to terminate the Lake Point Contracts. Discussion about the way
in which the County should terminate the Contracts with Lake Point is public business by any
reasonable test. These communications constitute public records and are discoverablejust as if
they were made to the Commissioners public e-mail addresses.
1
This Motion is to require that
the County produce all public records and responsive documents related to Lake Point and to
require that the County account for its efforts to obtain such e-mails.
The Commissioners Have Used Private E-Mail Addresses to Evade Discovery and Access to
Public Records.

3. Over nine months ago, on February 7, 2013, Lake Point made a public records
request to the County for e-mails from several commissioners concerning Lake Point (the
Public Records Request). (Exhibit A). The Public Records Request sought, in part, [A]ll
communications between you and Maggy Hurchalla. Id. On February 11, 2013, Lake Point
served a request for production on the County. (Exhibit B). Lake Point requested that the
County produce the following:

1
Under Florida law, any and all e-mails sent to or received by a Commissioner via a personal e-
mail address in which public business is conducted are public records. See Butler v. City of
Hallandale Beach, 68 So. 2d 278, 280-81 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).
3
- Any and all documents from or to Maggy Hurchalla sent or received since
December 1, 2012. (Request No. 5.)

- Any and all documents from or to Maggy Hurchalla related to the Lake Point
Restoration Project. (Request No. 6.)

The County did not object to these requests, and produced documents revealing Ms. Hurchallas
communications with the Commissioners via their public e-mail addresses for Martin County.
4. For example, the County produced an e-mail sent by Ms. Hurchalla on January
13, 2013, titled Tues Lake Pt. Agenda item, to the public e-mail addresses of all Martin
County Commissioners regarding the upcoming January 15, 2013 County board meeting agenda
(the January 13th Public E-mail) (Exhibit C). In the January 13th Public E-mail, Ms.
Hurchalla chose her words carefully, stating: I know that it is very hard to look a gift horse in
the mouth, but I would strongly advise that you take [the Lake Point Restoration Project] off the
agenda until you know what you are getting into. Exhibit C.
2

5. Unbeknownst to Lake Point, Ms. Hurchalla had sent an e-mail the day before, on
January 12, 2013, to Commissioner Ed Fieldings private e-mail account, discussing the same
January

15th meeting (the January 12th Private E-mail) (Exhibit E). In contrast to the
January 13th Public E-mail, Ms. Hurchalla holds nothing back about Lake Point in her
communication to Commissioner Fielding using his private e-mail.
6. In the January 12th Private E-mail, Ms. Hurchalla directs Commissioner Fielding
to ask staff to bring back an agenda item terminating the Interlocal [A]greement, to Just set
up a meeting to legally void that contract, and to Get the contract cancelled and wait for staff

2
Lake Point made similar requests toand received a similar e-mail fromMs. Hurchalla. Lake
Point has asked Ms. Hurchalla during her deposition whether she produced all responsive
documents related to Lake Point. Ms. Hurchalla represented that she had conducted a search of
her e-mails, compiled all responsive documents, and produced all responsive documents, which
include communications with the Commissioners related to Lake Point. (Exhibit D).

4
to come back. Id. (emphasis added). Ms. Hurchalla even gives a roadmap to Commissioner
Fielding on how to pit one Commissioner against another during a public hearing regarding Lake
Point:
Avoid discussion of other issues. Dont complicate things. Just set up a meeting to
legally void that contract.
***
Dont issue any cease and desist order on the mining. Get the contract cancelled
and wait for staff to come back. Doug [Commissioner Smith] will scream that you
are missing an opportunity to save the river and giving up money due the county.
Engineering will back him up. Donaldson is Dougs man.

(Exhibit E). At the January 15, 2013 public hearing, Commissioner Fielding followed Ms.
Hurchallas direction by: (1) moving to postpone the hearing; (2) directing the County staff to
prepare a termination document; and (3) asking that the staff not take any actions other than to
come back at the next meeting to get the contracts canceled. Commissioner Fielding did not
disclose Ms. Hurchallas e-mail on the record at that time.
7. The County did not produce the January

12th Private E-mail until November 8,
2013, and only then after repeated requests by Lake Point that the County investigate the use of
personal e-mail accounts for the use of public business related to Lake Point. In sum, this e-mail
was (1) not disclosed in a public meeting; (2) not available on the Countys public records
website;
3
(3) not produced in response to the Public Records Request Lake Point made over nine
months ago; (4) not produced in response to Lake Points request for production; and (5) not
produced by Ms. Hurchalla. In all respects, Lake Points efforts to uncover all efforts by the
County and Ms. Hurchalla to cancel and interfere with the Contracts have been thwarted.


3
When the County Commissioners use e-mail as a means to communicate public business, the e-
mails are uploaded to a public records website that allows the public to review such e-mails at
any time.
5

The County Should Be Required Under Oath to Account for All of the Requested E-Mails
8. It appears from the limited production to date that Ms. Hurchalla has been
communicating with individual Commissioners about Lake Point using private e-mail addresses
over an extended period of time. It is certainly a reasonable inference based upon the limited e-
mails produced to date that Ms. Hurchalla had similar communications with other
Commissioners on their private e-mail addresses like the January 12th Private E-mail; indeed,
Ms. Hurchalla has produced some e-mails related to Lake Point that she had sent to
Commissioner Sarah Heards private e-mail account. No e-mails to or from any other
commissioners private e-mail accounts, however, have been produced.
4
The County should be
required to account for all e-mails sent to/from the private e-mail addresses of its Commissioners
with Ms. Hurchalla relating to Lake Point, and to produce all such e-mails. Further, given the
obvious attempted evasion by the Commissioners of public records requirements, the County
should be required to explain under oath what methodology it has used to search the various e-
mail accounts of Martin County Commissioners for e-mails pertaining to Lake Point.
9. Because the County acts through its Commissioners, the County has the legal
right to the requested documents from the individual Commissioners, as they pertain to County
business, rather than the Commissioners personal lives. See Rosie D. v. Romney, 256 F. Supp.
2d 115 (D. Mass. 2003) (concept of control exists, among other circumstances, where party
has a legal right to obtain documents). Consequently, the County certainly has the requisite
possession, custody, or control of the requested documents under the discovery rules. Indeed,

4
Lake Point has a related motion to compel pending directed to documents, including e-mails,
from Commissioner Sarah Heard's private e-mail account pertaining to Lake Point.

6
Florida courts have specifically required county commissioners to participate in the discovery
process in which their counties are involved. See e.g., Hillsborough Co. v. Pinellas Co., 425 So.
2d 1196, 1197 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (denying a countys motion for protective order to preclude
the depositions of each of the countys board of county commissioners).
WHEREFORE, Lake Point respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order in
accordance with this Motion, and provide Lake Point such other and further relief as appropriate.
CERTIFICATE OF GOOD FAITH
Pursuant to Local Rule 5(c), the undersigned has attempted to resolve this dispute without
Court intervention through several written communications and telephone calls, but has been
unsuccessful.
s/ Ethan J. Loeb
ETHAN J. LOEB
Florida Bar Number 0668338
ethanl@smolkerbartlett.com
heatherw@smolkerbartlett.com
JON P. TASSO
Florida Bar Number 0120510
jont@smolkerbartlett.com
cynthiam@smolkerbartlett.com
SMOLKER, BARTLETT, SCHLOSSER,
LOEB & HINDS, P.A.
500 East Kennedy Blvd, Suite 200
Tampa, Florida 33602
(813) 223-3888; Fax: (813) 228-6422
and
DAN BISHOP
Texas Bar 02348500; Florida Pro Hac Vice: 63645
dbishop@bishoplondon.com
lalaniz@bishoplondon.com
CHRISTINA CARLSON DODDS
Texas Bar 03813520; Florida Pro Hac Vice: 63641
cdodds@bishoplondon.com
mprice@bishoplondon.com
BISHOP LONDON & DODDS
3701 Bee Cave Road, Suite 200
Austin, TX 78746
(512)479-5900; Fax (512)479-5934
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and foregoing copy has been served via electronic mail
to David A. Acton, Senior Assistant County Attorney, Martin County, DActon@martin.fl.us, and
LegalEsvc@martin.fl.us, 2401 SE Monterey Road, Stuart, Florida; and Jeff Collier, Esquire
jacollier@sfwmd.gov and Edward Arteau, Esquire, edwartau@sfwmd.gov, South Florida Water
Management District, litigation@sfwmd.gov, mahall@sfwmd.gov, 3301 Gun Club Road, West
Palm Beach, Florida 33406-3007; Virginia P. Sherlock, Littman, Sherlock & Heims, P.A.,
LSHLawfirm@gmail.com, Post Office Box 1197, Stuart, Florida 34995; Andrew P. Rock,
Esquire, pleadings@rocklawpa.com; jlightfoot@rocklawpa.com and Cristina P. Cambo, Esquire,
ccambo@rocklawpa.com, Trey White, Esquire, dwhite@rocklawpa.com, The Rock Law Group,
1760 Fennell Street, Maitland, Florida 32751; John J. Fumero, Esquire, jfumero@sfflaw.com,
mwashington@sfflaw.com, Thomas F. Mullin, Esquire, tmullin@sfflaw.com, Sundstrom,
Friedman and Fumero, LLP, 7700 Congress Avenue, Suite 2201, Boca Raton, Florida 33487;
and John L. Wharton, Esquire, jwharton@sfflaw.com, brevell@sfflaw.com, Sundstron, Friedman
& Fumero, LLP, 2548 Blairstone Pines Drive, Tallahassee, Florida 32301 this 25th day of
November, 2013.

/s/ Ethan J. Loeb
ETHAN J. LOEB
Florida Bar Number 0668338


EXHIBIT "A"
EXHIBIT "B"
EXHIBIT "A"
EXHIBIT "A"
EXHIBIT "A"
EXHIBIT "A"
EXHIBIT "A"
EXHIBIT "A"
EXHIBIT "A"
EXHIBIT "B"
EXHIBIT "B"
EXHIBIT "B"
EXHIBIT "B"
EXHIBIT "B"
EXHIBIT "B"
EXHIBIT "C"
EXHIBIT "C"
EXHIBIT "C"
EXHIBIT "C"
EXHIBIT "C"
EXHIBIT "C"
EXHIBIT "C"
EXHIBIT "C"
EXHIBIT "C"
EXHIBIT "C"
EXHIBIT "C"
EXHIBIT "D"
EXHIBIT "D"
EXHIBIT "D"
EXHIBIT "D"
EXHIBIT "D"
EXHIBIT "D"
EXHIBIT "D"
EXHIBIT "D"
EXHIBIT "D"
EXHIBIT "D"
EXHIBIT "D"
EXHIBIT "D"
EXHIBIT "D"
EXHIBIT "D"
EXHIBIT "D"
EXHIBIT "D"
EXHIBIT "D"
EXHIBIT "D"
EXHIBIT "D"
EXHIBIT "D"
EXHIBIT "D"
EXHIBIT "D"
EXHIBIT "D"
EXHIBIT "D"
EXHIBIT "D"
EXHIBIT "D"
EXHIBIT "D"
EXHIBIT "D"
EXHIBIT "D"
EXHIBIT "D"
EXHIBIT "D"
EXHIBIT "D"
EXHIBIT "D"
EXHIBIT "D"
EXHIBIT "D"
EXHIBIT "D"
EXHIBIT "D"
EXHIBIT "D"
EXHIBIT "D"
EXHIBIT "D"
EXHIBIT "D"
EXHIBIT "D"
EXHIBIT "D"
EXHIBIT "D"
EXHIBIT "D"
EXHIBIT "D"
EXHIBIT "D"
EXHIBIT "D"
EXHIBIT "D"
EXHIBIT "D"
EXHIBIT "D"
EXHIBIT "D"
EXHIBIT "D"
EXHIBIT "D"
EXHIBIT "D"
EXHIBIT "D"
EXHIBIT "D"
EXHIBIT "D"
EXHIBIT "D"
EXHIBIT "D"
EXHIBIT "D"
EXHIBIT "D"
EXHIBIT "D"
EXHIBIT "D"
EXHIBIT "D"
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY CO:MMISSIONERS
MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA
RESOLUTION NO. 08-8.11
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA APPROVING THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT'S ACQUlSmON AND DEVELOPMENT OF A 2200
ACRE:t: PUBLIC STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROJECT IN MARTIN
COUNTY
WHEREAS, under the Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protection Program,
the South Florida Water Management District (the "District") has identified the need for
stonnwater management and water quality treatment areas; and
WHEREAS, the proposed St. Lucie River Watershed Protection Plan will be a
component of the Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protection Program: and
WHEREAS, the 2266 +/- acres Lake Point Project (the "Property") is within the
proposed St. Lucie River Watershed Protection Plan conceptual boundary and is located
as depicted on attached Exhibit "A"; and
WHEREAS, the District has detennined that the Property's location. connected
to the C-44/St. Lucie canal with a pennitted discharge easement to Lake Okeechobee.
and the ability to discharge south through the L-8 right-of-way extension. lends itself to
phosphorous reduction and water treatment and transfer possibilities; and
WHEREAS, the District has entered into a Letter of Intent with the Property
owner to acquire and develop the Property into a stonnwater management und treatment
facility, including approximately 1,600 acres of water quality and treatment areas ("the
. Public Works Facility"); and
WHEREAS, the Public Works Facility will provide a mechanism to divert
hannful freshwater discharges away from the St. Lucie Estuary; and
WHEREAS, fee title to the Property. subject to a twenty (20) year reservation
by the owner of mineral rights beneath the 1.000 acres intended [0 be mined, us shown on
Exhibit "B", will be conveyed to the District pursuant to a proposed agreement between
the property owner and the District; and
WHEREAS, the excavated mine will have value as a water quality treatment
and transfer area, and create a local source for limestone, aggregates and related materials
from lake ex.cavation activities for potential use in other public or private projects. such
as the Herbert Hoover dike remediation; and
EXHIBIT "E"
WHEREAS, approximately 150 acres of land adjacent to State Road 76 (as
depicted on Exhibit "B") will be donated to Martin County as a public recreation area
(lbe "Recreation Area"), together with an interest in the Property which may take the
fonn of an undivided interest or a conservation easement; and
WHEREAS, additionally, the Property owner has agreed with the District to pay
an environmental enhancement contribution to Martin County for use in :-;uch
conservation and environmental enhancement programs as Martin County shall
detennine from time to time, equal to five cents ($0.05) per yard of material hauled from
the Property. This environmental contribution will be in addition any other fee required
under Martin County's Land Development Regulations; and
WHEREAS, until the issuance of all necessary pennits for construction of the
Public Works Facility, the owner of the Property will continue to operate under the
Major Development Approval (County Resolution Nos. 07-5.14 dated May 22,
2007 and 0712.22 dated December 18,2007) for the Lake Point Ranches Project; and
WHEREAS, the District has assured the County that construction and operation
of the Public Works Facility will comply with the County's Excavation and Fill and
Mining Land Development Regulations. but in no event will the lakes be excavuted to a
depth in excess of twenty (20) feet from the control water level. (which level will not
exceed five (5) foot below natural grade); and
the Public Works Facility, as described above, qualifies as an
exempt "public stormwater management project" pursuant to Section 1O.1.E.2.e of the
Land Development Regulations.
Martin County shall not be required to contribute any funds to the
District's Public Works Facility; and
WHEREAS, Manin Coumy supports the proposed Public Works Facility as
described above.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it l"esolved by the Board of County Commissioners
of Martin County, Florida, that:
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated into this
Resolution.
2. Simultaneous with the execution of the agreement between the Property
owner and the District, the District and the County shall enter into an agreement
regarding the construction and operation of the Public Works Facility and regarding the
recreation land and the undivided interest or easement. Such agreement shall insure that
the District and the owner of the mineral rights have continued use of the existing
entryway on SR76 during construction of the Public Works Facility_ In addition. an
access easement shall be granted to the City of Pahokee between the tWO Pon Mayaca
EXHIBIT "E"
cemetery sites located on the south side of SR76 adjacent to the northeast comer of the
property. The location and size of said easement shall be acceptable to the City of
Pahokee; and
3. The agreement between the District and County shall also provide for the
fee title to reven to the entity that conveys the Property to the District in the event that
such entity is not able to timely obtain or able to maintain the penn its and approvals
necessary to mine and to construct the Public Works Facility as may be contemplated in
the agreement between the Property owner and the District.
4. This resolution is neither a development order nor an agreement with the
District or the Property owner, nor does it create any vested rights for the benefit of the
District or the Property owner.
DUL Y PASSED AND ADOPTED TIDS 12th DAY OF AUGUST, 2008.
ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,
MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA
~ ~ n
EXHIBIT "E"
IIF
Lake Okeechobee and Estuary Recovery Project
"'
For ...... ,. ............. '.- ~ _ Iii " ~ I 1 ........... _ ....... W I I I I I I ~ I L I I _ .. __
~
::r:
H
1;1:1
H
>-:l
;;
EXHIBIT "E"
EXHIBIT "'S"
LAND ACQUISITION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PROJECT:
COUNTY:
SIZE:
ACQUISITION PRICE:
,
APPRAaSED VALUE:
OWNI!R:
REQUEST:
HIGHLIGHTS:
St Lucie River Watershed Protection Program
Martin
2266 +/. acres
Donation
$53,500,000 (1212006)
lake Pointe Phase 1 LLC.
Rusbridge Family Trust, Harold D. Rusbridge. Trustee
George Undemann, Sr.
Frayda Undemann
Adam Lindemann
George Undernann, Jr.
Francis Judson Lalrd,IV
Authorize enby Into an agreement for donation of land and
constructIOn services to the South Florida Water Management
District
Creation of stormwater treabnent area and stormwater
management lake fronting on C-44 Canal with permitted outfall
easement to Lake Okeechobee and l-8 right of way extension
allowing for connection to Loxahatchee River and the L-8
Reservoir
CONSIDEM TIONa: The 2266 sere subject tract Is located in Martin County with its northem
bOundary fronting on the C-44/St. Lucie Canal while its eastern boundary Is adjacent to the
SFWMO owned 21,875 acre DUPUiS Management Area. (see Exhibit A)
The property's location, adjacent to C-44 with a permitted discharge easement to Lake
Okeechobee and the L-8 right of way extension on its southwestern boundary will play an
Integral part in phosphorous reduction and water storage possibilities for the st. Lucie River
Watershed Protection Program.
Approximately 1,000 acres of the property is currently fully permitted by all agencies for a
privete polo development with 44 ranchette sites, a polo field already constructed on site and a
mining operation en.;ompessing approximately 160 acres. The owner has an option to expand
the project to approximately 100 homes by exercising an option to buy tJie additional 1.200
acres by August 14, 2008. In December 2006, the South Florida Water Management District
appraIsed the raw land at 8 value of $53,500,000.
The main components of the draft donation agreement are as follows:
EXHIBIT "E"
Donation of approximately 2,200 acres to the District with the retention by Owner of the
rock mining rights under approximately 1.000 acres for approximately 20 years
1.000 acres mined under Martin County permit and, in accordance with District
stormwater manegement requirements, to maximum depth of 20 feet at Owner's
expense
Approximately 600 acres to be utilized as stormwater treatment areas constructed at
Owner's expense In conformance with District specifications
Approximately 150 acres in the northeastem uplands comer of the property adjacent to
the CM to be donated to Martin County for use &s a recreational site
Previously, In April 2008, the Gov8ming Board approved entering Into a non-bindIng letter of
intent regarding this donation transaction. At that time, the Board requested that a detailed
feasibility analysis be perform8d to ensure the viability of the intended project use of the
donated property as a 1000 acre stonnwater management lake and 600 acre stormwater
treatment area .
The feasibility team has run various modeling scenarios balancing treatment with water
avanability to provide a range of environmental benefits through phosphorus load reduction and
delivery of water to the Loxahatchee River. Thes8 benefits are being quantified with the cost of
construction and operating the facility to determine the costlbenefit of the project
The initial results appear to indicate that the facility has the potential to capture and treat
additional -excess'" basin water and make it available for other water related needs while at the
same Ume providing flexibility to function as a kidney for the treatment of Lake Okeechobee
water. Pr1Illmlna,y analysis shows a measured in three different directions: Lake
Okeechobee, thel-8 and st. Lucie Estuary. The final analysIs will be presented to the full
Board at the August meeting.
The benefits of this donation and construction proposal include:
Ability to cleanse, store and convey water between Lake Okeechobee, C-44/St. Lucie
Canal and the L-8 via 3 existing permitted pumps
Creation of 1,600 acres of storage and water quality sites
NO land acquisition cost for the land with substantial amount of the project construction
completed upon delivery of excavated portions of the property
Opportunity to reduoe the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) to Lake Okeechobee
'50 acres of recreational upland acres to Martfn County
Compliance with Martin County mining requirements to maximum of 20 feet
Creation of local limestone source for necessary public work projects such as the
Herbert Hoover Dike remediation
EXHIBIT "E"
TIming is critical. The Owner must exercise its option to acquire the remaining 1.200 acres by
August 14, 2008.
FISCAL IMPACT: No monetary cost for land acquisition with substantial amount of the
earthwol1c for the stormwater management lake and stormwater treatment area being provided
by the Owner.
RECOMMI!NDAnON: That the Governing Board of the South Florida Water Management
District aU1hortz8 eritry into an acquisition agreement for donation to the South Florida Water
Management District of 2266 -+-/. acres in Martin County and construction of substantJal project
components at no cost to the District for the St Lucie River Watershed Protection Program.
______ ________ ______ ___
Ruth P. Clements, Director
Land Acquisition Department
Approvedby: ____
Kenneth G. Ammon, P.E.
Deputy Exeeutlve Director
Everglades Restoration Resource Area
Date
Date
EXHIBIT "E"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "G"
EXHIBIT "G"
EXHIBIT H
From: Maggy Hurchalla
To: Sarah Heard; Doug Smith; J ohn Haddox; Anne Scott; Taryn Kryzda; Ed Fielding
Subject: Tues Lake Pt. Agenda item
Date: Sunday, J anuary 13, 2013 10:48:27 PM
Dear Commissioners,
You have another agenda item on the Lake Point rockpits on Tuesday.
The handling of the project continues to be very strange.
Did the staff just read the contract for the first time?
I know that it is very hard to look a gift horse in the mouth, but I would strongly advise that you take this
item off the agenda until you know what you are getting into.
Lake Point is asking you to acknowledge that the violations that happened in 2012 weren't really violations
because they were acting under the mining permit rather than the County approval.
If you accept the payment that is being offerred you may be causing the County some serious problems
arising from the fact that the Interlocal agreement with the SFWMD appears to be based on a clear
violation of the Martin County Comp Plan. You may be absolving the owner of all of the violations that
have occurred under the County permit by accepting the assertion that last year he was NOT acting under
the county permit.
The owner's attorney appears to believe that rescinding the County approvals and transferring the project
to management by the SFWEMD will exempt the project from the requirements of the Martin County
Comprehensive Plan.
I don't think you can or should let that happen.
The project's attorney asks that you accept the payment and recognize that in 2012 they were operating
under the mining permit. The mining permit allows 60 acres of wetlands to be destroyed.
The Interlocal agreement states that the project is exempt for the process required for development orders
as per 10.1.E.2.e of the LDRs. That section of the code specifically states that it MUST FOLLOW ALL
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES.
"The provisions of section 10.1.E.2. shall not waive any requirement of the Comprehensive
Plan, the Land Development Regulations, or the Code other than the procedures for
development review set forth in sections 10.2 through 10.7,10.9, and 10.11 through 10.14. "
It does NOT qualify for exemption from comp plan polices under 9.1.G.1.(7)(g)
"Policy 9.1G.1. Protection of wetlands. All wetlands in Martin County shall be protected.
Negative impacts shall not be allowed in wetlands or within the buffer surrounding the wetland.
All development shall be consistent with the wetland protection requirements of the CGMP and
Florida Administrative Code section 9J-5.013(3). Inconsistent and/or incompatible future land
uses shall be directed away from wetland areas.
(7)Waivers and exceptions. All wetland alterations allowed under these exceptions shall be
mitigated sufficiently to ensure no net loss of functions or of the spatial extent of wetlands in
Martin County. No exceptions or waivers will be granted to these standards except under the
conditions described below:
(g)Stormwater treatment projects listed in the adopted Capital Improvements Plan and
constructed by the Martin County Board of County Commissioners, as well as reservoirs,
stormwater treatment areas and related facilities constructed as part of the Comprehensive
EXHIBIT "C"
Everglades Restoration Plan in any part of Martin County"
THIS IS NOT A CERP PROJECT. IF THE COUNTY WAS TOLD IT WAS, THEN THE
AGREEMENT WAS BASED ON FALSE INFORMATION.
It does not qualify for exemption under Obj. 14.1.E.
You have a mess on your hands and for reasons I don't understand your staff seems unwilling to deal
with the problem.
Before taking any other action, the faulty Interlocal agreement needs to be corrected or voided.
Sincerely,
Maggy Hurchalla
1 I N THE NI NETEENTH J UDI CI AL CI RCUI T COURT I N AND
FOR MARTI N COUNTY, FLORI DA
2
CASE NO: 2013- 001321- CA
3
4
LAKE POI NT PHASE I , LLC, and LAKE POI NT
5 PHASE I I , LLC, Fl or i da l i mi t ed l i abi l i t y
compani es,
6
Pl ai nt i f f s,
7 vs.
8 SOUTH FLORI DA WATER MANAGEMENT DI STRI CT,
a publ i c cor por at i on of t he St at e of
9 Fl or i da; MARTI N COUNTY, a pol i t i cal
subdi vi si on of t he St at e of Fl or i da;
10 and MAGGY HURCHALLA,
11
Def endant s.
12 ________________________________________/
13
14
15 VI DEOTAPED DEPOSI TI ON OF
16 MAGGY HURCHALLA
17 TAKEN ON BEHALF OF THE PLAI NTI FFS
18 VOLUME I - PAGES 1 - 104
19
20 Wednesday, Oct ober 30, 2013
21 10: 24 a. m. - 4: 45 p. m.
22 Cl ar i on I nn
1200 Sout heast Feder al Hi ghway
23 St uar t , Fl or i da 34994
24
Ther esa Tomasel l i , RMR
25
MAGGY HURCHALLA Volume I
LAKE POINT vs. SOUTH FLORIDA
October 30, 2013
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
MAGGY HURCHALLA Volume I
LAKE POINT vs. SOUTH FLORIDA
October 30, 2013
1
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com

EXHIBIT "D"
1 A. That ' s cor r ect .
2 Q. Al l r i ght . And i t l ooks l i ke a ser i es of
3 e- mai l s and ar t i cl es t hat wer e compi l ed?
4 A. Compi l ed?
5 Q. Yeah, because t hey appear t o al l - - i t l ooks
6 l i ke someone t ook and cut and past ed some ar t i cl es and
7 some e- mai l s i nt o t hi s.
8 A. I went t hr ough my e- mai l s - -
9 MR. WHI TE: Obj ect t o f or m.
10 THE WI TNESS: - - and I sear ched f or Lake
11 Poi nt .
12 BY MR. BI SHOP:
13 Q. Okay. And t hi s i s what came up?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And so, how exact l y was t hi s put t oget her and
16 pr i nt ed out ; I mean, j ust t he way t hat you t al ked about ?
17 A. Yeah.
18 Q. Okay. You di d a sear ch f or Lake Poi nt ?
19 A. Fi r st , I st ar t ed t r yi ng past i ng t hem
20 t oget her .
21 Q. Okay.
22 A. I do not have a f i l e on Lake Poi nt of
23 cont i nui ng i nf or mat i on - -
24 Q. Okay.
25 A. - - al l of t he hear i ngs and ever yt hi ng el se.
MAGGY HURCHALLA Volume I
LAKE POINT vs. SOUTH FLORIDA
October 30, 2013
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
MAGGY HURCHALLA Volume I
LAKE POINT vs. SOUTH FLORIDA
October 30, 2013
83
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
YVer 1f
1 Q. Okay.
2 A. So, I st ar t ed by t r yi ng t o past e t he e- mai l s
3 t oget her , f i gur ed out t hat woul d t ake f or ever , and
4 e- mai l ed e- mai l s - - f or war ded t he e- mai l s t hat I f ound
5 t hat i dent i f i ed Lake Poi nt t o my at t or ney.
6 Q. Okay. Di d your at t or ney put i t t oget her
7 t hen?
8 A. Fi nal l y, yes.
9 Q. Okay. So - - and I ' mgoi ng t o r ef er t o t hose
10 Bat es number ed - - Bat es number s at t he bot t omon t he
11 r i ght - hand si de of t he page. Do you see t hat ? I t ' s MH?
12 A. 175, 174, et cet er a?
13 Q. Uh- huh.
14 A. Okay.
15 Q. And I ' mgoi ng t o use t hose i n t al ki ng about
16 t he pages of t hi s - -
17 A. Okay.
18 Q. - - so t hat we know t hat we ar e on t he same
19 page l i t er al l y.
20 A. Al r i ght y.
21 Q. Al l r i ght . So, pages 174 t hr ough 1 - - t he
22 t op of 179 appear t o be newspaper ar t i cl es?
23 A. That appear s t o be cor r ect .
24 Q. And ar e t hey newspaper ar t i cl es t hat you had
25 somewher e i n your r ecor ds or how di d - - how di d you come
MAGGY HURCHALLA Volume I
LAKE POINT vs. SOUTH FLORIDA
October 30, 2013
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
MAGGY HURCHALLA Volume I
LAKE POINT vs. SOUTH FLORIDA
October 30, 2013
84
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions.com
YVer 1f
EXHIBIT "E"