Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Dr. Jack G. Nichols, is a resident of the State of Illinois. He and his parents have, for many years, owned property on Dog island, a barrier island in Franklin County, Florida. Dr. Nichols owns Lots 107 and 108 on Dog Island, and has for many years entertained plans of building a beach house on each lot, consisting of a single-family residence for himself on Lot 108 and such a house on Lot 107 for his parents. Dr. Nichols has the habit of visiting Dog island to inspect his property on his vacations and has done so from time to time prior to April, 1984. Over the years he conceived of the general type of house he wished to build and determined prior to April, 1984 to locate the houses landward of the then-existing Coastal Construction Control Line. Pursuant to Chapter 161, Florida Statutes, the Department of Natural Resources undertook to survey and delineate a new Coastal Construction Control Line for Franklin County. The location of that line is described in Rule 16B- 26.14, F.A.C. and the new jurisdictional line became effective on April 30, 1984. Dr. Nichols came to Dog Island for his vacation in April, 1984, at which time he learned for the first time that the Department of Natural Resources had adopted the new Coastal Construction Control Line. After hearing of this new jurisdictional boundary from other property owners on the island, he sought to determine how that newly-defined boundary would affect his property and his plans for constructing a beach house. He observed aerial photographs depicting the Coastal Construction Control Line which would take effect April 30, 1984. He determined that the sites he had selected for the houses on his lots would be seaward of the new control line, as opposed to the preexisting line which he had taken into account in selecting his original home site. He also learned that if the houses he envisioned were under construction upon the effective date of the new Coastal Construction Control Line then he would be able to proceed with their construction without having to obtain a permit from the Department of Natural Resources. The Petitioner had not originally intended to construct the houses on his lots as early as April, 1984, but he became concerned that if he did not commence construction prior to the effective date of the new control line, he would not be able to place the houses at the location he had previously planned for. Thus, he took steps to retain a contractor and commence construction immediately. The Petitioner contacted Mr. William A. Shults, a contractor with experience building in the coastal areas of Franklin County. Mr. Shults was available and able to undertake construction activities and the two parties entered into a contract calling for construction of a beach house for both lots on approximately April 20, 1984. Mr. Shults immediately had necessary engineering work accomplished, had plans drafted for the structures and retained a construction crew. He cleared sufficient area on both lots to accommodate the residences and thereafter, on April 26, obtained a building permit for the structures. Materials were delivered to the island by landing craft on April 26 and 27, 1984. Mr. Shults also had a truck equipped with an auger or drilling equipment transported to the island and placed on the job site on or before April 27, 1984. The plans called for construction of the houses with a piling or pole foundation, so that the houses would be constructed above the specified flood levels. The poles and other materials necessary for construction of the foundation had all been delivered by April 27, 1984. The foundation lines were marked, the corner "batter boards" placed and other minor site preparation accomplished. The holes for the piling were to have been drilled on Saturday, April 28 but the trucks with the auger machine aboard, suffered a broken axle prior to its being positioned on Dr. Nichols' lots so that it was impossible to get the auger machine to the lots on April 28 or 29. Mr. Shults and his crew attempted to pull the truck to the site, but the difficulty of the terrain rendered that impossible. There was one other piece of auger equipment on the island, but its owner was engaged in construction activity with it at the time. That person agreed to bring his machine to the site on April 29 and begin augering and placing the poles for the pilings. His work became behind schedule however, and his machine was still involved in construction activity at his own site and could not be brought to Petitioner's site on that day. Mr. Shults, upon learning that the augering machine would not be available when needed, began commencing hand-digging of the pilings with post hole diggers on April 29. This method was a slow and laborious process because the holes had to be excavated much deeper than the length of the post-hole diggers. As a result, when the hole was dug as deep as the post-hole digger could reach from the surface of the ground, a hole had to be dug alongside the piling foundation hole so that a crew member could stand down in that hole and thus dig the piling hole deeper, handing the post-hole diggers with each load of dirt up to another crew member on the surface to dump, who would then hand the post-hole diggers back to the lower-placed crew member. This made the process of digging the foundation piling holes much slower than the use of the auger equipment. In this manner, however, Shults succeeded in digging four foundation holes on Lot 105. At that point, the augering machine arrived on the site and four piling holes were dug and the pertinent poles placed in them on Lot 107 as well. Throughout this construction process, Mr. Shults' crew was working on both foundations at one time. This allowed for less costly construction due to the efficiency of undertaking the same kind of work on two structures with the same crew at the same time. Since the two lots and construction sites adjoined each other, one crew could efficiently be used for both construction sites in an economic fashion. On April 30, Shults' construction crew proceeded to work on the structure on Lot 108 to further secure and place foundation posts. The four pilings placed in the holes on Lot 107 the day before remained in place. The construction crew and most of its equipment, and most construction work, was proceeding on Lot 108 merely because of the order of Mr. Shults to his crew to finish placing the foundation posts on that lot first, on that day. During the morning of that day, representatives of the Department arrived on the site and advised Mr. Shults that the construction activities appeared to be illegal and seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line. They advised him that any further activity of that type would be undertaken at his and the lot owner's risk and expense. Mr. Shults thus ceased activities on both lots for a time, but during the following week, after discussing the dispute with certain Department employees, arrived at the opinion that the owner's construction activities had achieved grandfather status and that no permit from the Department would be required. He thus undertook to finish placing the foundation pilings on both lots. All the foundation pilings were installed on both lots by the end of the second week of May, 1984. Mr. Shults then contacted Dr. Nichols by telephone in Illinois informing him about the progress of the job, including the height of the piling. During this conversation Dr. Nichols became concerned that the pilings on Lot 107 did not project above the surface of the ground as far as he had anticipated, thus obstructing his view of the Gulf of Mexico from the beach house which would be constructed on top of the pilings. The view would be obstructed by the existing sand dune which Dr. Nichols had not wanted to disturb, hence locating his house in the more landward position at issue. In order to provide the desired view of the Gulf over the intervening sand dune, Dr. Nichols instructed Mr. Shults to replace the existing pilings on Lot 107 with longer ones. Mr. Shults purchased new pilings, had them delivered to the site, removed the original poles and installed the new ones in their place in the same holes, including the four holes that were dug prior to the effective date of the Coastal Construction Control Line. Dr. Nichols and Mr. Shults established that the original poles had been placed with the intention that they would be the permanent foundation for the house and no decision was contemplated nor made concerning their removal and replacement with the longer poles until after the foundation was fully constructed. In any event, by its letter of May 21, 1984, advising Dr. Nichols of the alleged violation of the Coastal Construction Control Line, the Department made a "free-form" determination that the construction activities on Lot 107 before April 30, 1984, were not sufficient to confer "grandfathered" status and that the activities were illegal unless a permit was obtained. The subject petition was filed and this proceeding ensued. It is true that Dr. Nichols' original intent was not to commence construction of the beach houses as soon as he did in April, 1984 and that he only began construction at that earlier time when he learned of the impending effective date of the new Coastal Construction Control Line which would require him to obtain a permit before constructing the houses at the sites he had previously selected. However, it is equally true that Dr. Nichols' bona fide intention when he retained Mr. Shults to commence construction was to not merely clear the site and place pilings and then construct the houses at some indefinite later time, but rather to commence construction and pursue construction activities on an ongoing, uninterrupted basis through to completion of both houses on both lots. If the Department had not intervened with its letter to the effect that the Petitioner might be in violation of the Coastal Construction Control Line, construction activities on Lot 107 would have continued to completion in an uninterrupted fashion. Prior to the effective date of the Department's Coastal Construction Control Line, the Petitioner's construction activity, involving the excavation for and placing of the foundation pilings for the residence to be on Lot 107, was undertaken and engaged in a continuous, uninterrupted fashion. The decision to remove the original pilings and replace them with longer poles was not envisioned, intended or made prior to the completion of the entire pole foundation for the house on Lot 107 in the first or second week of May. It was only at this time, when the poles were all installed, that it was determined by the owner and Mr. Shults that the original pilings were not long enough to confer a sufficient view of the Gulf from the house to be constructed on top of them. Thus, the removal of the original pilings and the replacement of them with longer poles in the same holes the original pilings had been installed in, was not an interruption in the construction activities, but was rather the correction of a deficiency in the original materials. This replacement did not involve an alteration or modification of the design, extent and type of materials of the original foundation (except to the immaterial extent that the replacement poles were round instead of square). In short, the construction activity undertaken after April 20, 1984 was a good faith effort to commence construction on the house on Lot 107 and continue it to completion in an uninterrupted fashion. The parties, Dr. Nichols and Mr. Shults, intended from the beginning to use the poles first placed in that foundation as the ultimate foundation for the structure, and did not intend merely placing those original poles, which were later removed, as a subterfuge to obtain a grandfathered status for the construction activity. The construction was landward of the Coastal Construction Control Line as it existed prior to April 30, 1984.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Natural Resources enter a Final Order determining that the structure on Lot 107, Dog Island, Franklin County, Florida is not in violation of the Department of Natural Resources permitting authority. DONE and ENTERED this 25th day of September, 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of September, 1985.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: By application dated March 9, 1981, and received by the DNR's Bureau of Beaches and Shores on March 13, 1981, respondent sought a permit to construct five single-family dwellings on five 64-foot-wide parcels of land located seaward of the established coastal construction control line (CCCL) on Grayton Beach. Attached to the application were site plans, an affidavit of ownership and a warranty deed showing respondent Roberts to be the owner of the subject property. (DNR Exhibit 1) Question number 5 on the permit application required the "specific reasons the applicant feels that the permit should be approved and why construction seaward of the control line . . . is considered necessary for reasonable use of the property." The answer provided by the applicant to this question was "the landward property line is located 150 feet seaward of the control line. Therefore, no upland property is available on the site for development." (DNR Exhibit 1) By form letter dated March 16, 1981, DNR notified respondent Roberts that his application for a permit was incomplete and that two further items of information were necessary before his application could be considered. One item was written evidence that the proposed project would not contravene local setback requirements or zoning or building codes. The other item was detailed site, grading, drainage and structural plans and specifications for the proposed structure. These plans were to be certified by a registered Florida engineer or architect. (DNR Exhibit 2) On or about March 31, 1981, the DNR received the certified architectural plans from the project architect, who is registered in the State of Florida. These plans, as well as the site plans submitted by the engineer, contained the signature and seal of the architect and the engineer. They each intended their signature and seal to constitute a certification that, in their opinion, the drawings or plans were in compliance with all statutes, rules, local ordinances and/or other regulations which govern the project. A certification of documents by the placement of signature and seal of an engineer or architect is the commonly accepted practice and usage in those professions. It is not the policy of DNR to require an itemized certification reciting every requirement of the DNR rules. By form letter dated April 6, 1981, the DNR notified the applicant that written evidence of compliance with local government regulations was still lacking. (DNR Exhibit 4) On April 13, 1981, DNR received a letter dated April 9, 1981 from the Walton County Attorney advising that "The Board of County Commissioners of Walton County has no local setback requirements or zoning or building requirements which would prohibit the proposed activity as submitted to the Bureau." (DNR Exhibit 5) This letter satisfied the requirement of Rule 16B-33.08(1)(c), Florida Administrative Code, that the proposed project would not contravene local setback requirements or zoning or building codes. Full scale copies of topographic and site plans were received by the Bureau of Beaches and Shores on April 15, 1981. The application for a permit was deemed complete as of April 15, 1981, (DNR Exhibit 7), and respondent Roberts' agent was notified by letter dated June 23, 1981 that the DNR Executive Director had recommended to the Governor and Cabinet (the agency head of the DNR) approval of the application. (DNR Exhibit 10) The completed application reflects that the five single-family dwellings are to be supported by treated timber pilings with an underside minimum elevation of +14 feet (NGVD). The Federal Base Flooding Elevation for Grayton Beach is +9 feet (NGVD). The architect has certified that the proposed dwelling units are designed to withstand 140 mile per hour winds. The seaward- most dwelling of the five is a maximum of 263 feet seaward of the coastal construction control line, and the applicant's entire parcel of land is located over 150 feet seaward of the control line. The project is located approximately 230 feet from the mean high water line. The project also includes the construction of a private road, septic tanks and drainfields. The dune system in front of the proposed structure will offer substantial protection to the structure against storm and wave action. The excavation proposed includes that necessary for the placement of the pilings, the septic tanks and the drainfields, and the construction of the proposed driveway. The proposed drainfields will extend partially above existing grade and fill material i11 be placed over them. The driveway consists of a 16-foot asphalt paved road located landward of the proposed dwellings. The dunes will be reduced in height where the driveway is to be constructed. It is not clear from the testimony or the documentary evidence adduced at the hearing where the parking of vehicles belonging to residents or guests of the five units is to occur. While there was testimony from Mr. Truitt to the effect that no net loss of sand will occur and that the project will involve more of a balancing of grade as opposed to excavation, the engineering plans submitted with the application illustrate at least nine rather large areas of cut and fill associated with the driveway, septic tanks and drainfields. The project engineer had considered no studies on the topography or littoral trends of this specific site, had no knowledge of engineering data regarding adjacent properties and had not reviewed any data regarding major storms on the subject project site. The engineering plans submitted as a part of the application contain a diagram illustrating five separate 750 gallon septic tank systems, one for each dwelling unit, with the "drainfield [for each unit] to be constructed in accordance with Chapter 10D-6, F.A.C." (DNR Exhibit 1) The larger scale engineer's drawing submitted to DNR on April 15, 1981, gives more specific information regarding the location and depth of the below grade drainfields on the seaward side of the structures. A DNR interoffice memorandum dated June 1, 1981, reflects that the applicant's agent agreed in a telephone conversation that, "if possible, he would move the septic tank (750 gal) and related drainfields to the landward side of the buildings." (Joint Exhibit 1) The Cabinet agenda item dated later in time, however, notes that the "septic tanks (750 gallon) and drainfields will extend an additional 50 feet seaward of each dwelling." (DNR Exhibit 8) The exact proposed location of the septic tanks and drainfields was not clarified at the final hearing, nor was sufficient evidence adduced concerning the justification for the proposed discharge system. Evidence concerning the availability of any existing alternatives to the system proposed by the applicant was not adduced, nor was evidence presented concerning storm water discharge. As of the time of the hearing in this matter, the applicant had no plans for heating or cooling the five dwelling units. When asked at the hearing what "justification" the Bureau of Beaches and Shores received for the proposed waste water discharge system, Mr. Clifford Truitt, the Bureau's chief engineer and the person responsible for review of this application, replied in two ways. First, he stated that the fact that the property was located entirely seaward of the CCCL was justification for the discharge system. However, he admitted that a "dry sanitary system" would be a better alternative. Later, Mr. Truitt stated that "justification" for the domestic waste system is only required when there is a beach level discharge. Mr. Truitt was accepted as an expert witness in the area of coastal engineering. His opinions regarding the proposed project were based upon his review of aerial photography of the Grayton Beach area and comparison of topographic profiles of the area, his review of the engineering and topographic information submitted with the application itself and his familiarity with the project location. No evidence was adduced that engineering data concerning storm tides related to shoreline topography was considered by Mr. Truitt or anyone else. No specific studies exist regarding the stability, littoral trends or the erosional history of the proposed site and surrounding area. The project site has been the subject of other permit applications considered by the DNR, and Mr. Truitt was of the opinion that a mitigating feature of the present application was that "the present proposal has the lowest density and least extension seaward of the control line of any proposal to date." (DNR Exhibit 8) It was Mr. Truitt's opinion that the dwelling unit structures were adequately elevated and designed to adequately resist the natural forces associated with a 100-year return interval storm event and would not increase the threat of damage or danger to nearby structures. Factual evidence concerning the 100-year storm event was not presented at the hearing. Mr. Truitt further opined, without the aid of engineering data or the studies mentioned above, that the proposed construction would not affect the natural shoreline fluctuations or the stability of the dunes in the area. Such an opinion contains no factual basis in the record of this proceeding, and thus is not sufficient evidence upon which to make a similar finding of fact. On various sporadic occasions, a waterway or pass connecting Western Lake to the Gulf of Mexico runs in a westerly direction in the vicinity of the applicant's property. At times, this watercourse has been wide and deep enough to allow swimming, diving and the passage of small boats. The witnesses who testified about this watercourse were not qualified as surveyors or experts in estimating or calculating the exact location of that watercourse relative to the proposed site, and there was no testimony that such an event had occurred within the past twenty years. At least two witnesses testified that the last time they could recall the watercourse or pass traversing or abutting the applicant's property was in the late 1950s. The proposed project site has been covered with storm waters on at least two occasions in the past seven years. No evidence was adduced at the hearing concerning the substantial interests in this permit application of named petitioners Colonel G. A. P. Haynes, Mr. and Mrs. Roy Cawthon, Mrs. Kate Florence, Mrs. Burton Murray, Colonel and Mrs. Lee Fry, Mrs. Laney Ellis and Mrs. Randall Jones. Mrs. G. A. P. Haynes, one of the petitioners in this proceeding, owns and resides on property immediately adjacent to the project site, and presently entertains an unbroken view of the beachfront. She is concerned with potential sewage problems and damage to her residence from flying debris caused by wind or storm should the proposed construction be approved. Mrs. Haynes was also concerned about the potential adverse effect of the proposed construction on the value of her adjacent property. Petitioner Burton Murray lives to the north of the project site, at least several hundred feet away. His prime concern was that no structure could survive at that location and that the project would therefore be a waste of money. Petitioner Elizabeth Hayes Jones (named as Ms. Lisbeth Haas in the petition) lives across the street and to the east of the project site. Her residence was completely destroyed by hurricane and has since been rebuilt at the same site. She feels that the applicant's project site is not safe for construction, and fears storm damage to her home from the buildings if constructed.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein it is RECOMMENDED that the application for a coastal construction control line permit to construct five single-family dwellings on Grayton Beach be DENIED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 25th day of May, 1982. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of May, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Jerry W. Gerde, Esquire Davenport, Johnston, Harris, Gerde & Harrison, P. A. 406 Magnolia Avenue Panama City, Florida 32401 W. Paul Thompson, Esquire Thompson and Adkinson P. O. Drawer 608 DeFuniak Springs, Florida 32433 Deborah A. Getzoff, Esquire Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Douglas Building, Suite 1003 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Dr. Elton J. Gissendanner Executive Director Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue Whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B- 33.008(4)(d) should be determined to be an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority? The Rule requires that an application for a permit for construction seaward of a coastal construction control line ("CCCL") contain "written evidence, provided by the appropriate local government agency . . ., that the proposed activity . . . does not contravene local setback requirements, zoning, or building codes and is consistent with the State approved Local Comprehensive Plan." Whether a statement alleged to have been made by an employee of the Bureau of Beaches and Wetland Resources in the Department of Environmental Protection ("DEP" or "the Department") violated Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes? The alleged statement is to the effect that in determining if structures littoral to the coast have established a continuous construction line closer to the mean high water line than the CCCL, the Department uses a 1000-foot distance to structures on either side of the proposed project.
Findings Of Fact The CCCL and Continuous Lines of Construction The CCCL The Legislature has declared it in the public interest to preserve and protect Florida's beaches and the coastal barrier dunes adjacent to them. See § 161.053(1)(a), Fla. Stat. In furtherance of this intent, the Department is empowered to "establish coastal construction control lines on a county basis along the sand beaches of the state fronting the Atlantic Ocean . . .". id., "after it has been determined from a comprehensive engineering study and topographic study that the establishment of such control lines is necessary for the protection of upland properties and the control of beach erosion." § 161.053(2)(a), Fla. Stat. The Department defines "Coastal Construction Control Line" or "CCCL" as "the line established pursuant to the provisions of Section 161.053, F.S., and recorded in the official records of the county, which [delineates] that portion of the beach-dune system subject to severe fluctuations based on a 100-year storm surge, storm waves, or other predictable weather conditions." Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B-33.002(12). Brevard County's CCCL bisects property along the Atlantic Ocean owned by Petitioner and her husband. Continuous Lines of Construction The Department is mandated to exempt from some regulation certain construction that is seaward of a CCCL. See, e.g., Section 161.053(2)(b)1., Florida Statutes, which relates to construction landward of beach armoring. In addition, the Department is granted discretion to permit construction seaward of a CCCL in other instances. One such instance relates to construction landward of "a reasonably continuous and uniform construction line," Section 161.053(5)(b), Florida Statutes (a "Continuous Line of Construction") that is seaward of the CCCL. Subsection 161.053(5)(b): (5) Except in those areas where local zoning and building codes have been established pursuant to sub-section (4), a permit to alter, excavate, or construct on property seaward of established coastal construction control lines may be granted by the department as follows: * * * (b) If in the immediate contiguous or adjacent area a number of existing structures have established a reasonably continuous and uniform construction line closer to the line of mean high water than the foregoing [the coastal construction control lines], and if the existing structures have not been unduly affected by erosion, a proposed structure may, at the discretion of the department, be permitted along such line on written authorization from the department. However, the department shall not contravene setback requirements or zoning or building codes established by a county or municipality which are equal to, or more strict than, those requirements provided herein . . . This proceeding involves a permit for construction seaward of the CCCL and landward or on a Continuous Line of Construction. The lines are in Brevard County where property is owned by both Petitioner and Intervenors, who, together with DEP, comprise the parties to this proceeding. The Parties Petitioner Carol C. Pope resides part-time in a duplex along Wilson Avenue on Cape Canaveral in Brevard County. She owns this oceanfront property, littoral to the Atlantic Ocean, with her husband James M. Pope. Although the property has a Cocoa Beach mailing address, it is not within the city limits of Cocoa Beach. The pre-hearing stipulation filed by all of the parties offers this account of the property's location: "The Pope's property is Lot 11, Block 101, Avon by the Sea, as described in Plat Book 3 page 7, [presumably in the Official Records of Brevard County] and east to Ocean, except the west 13 feet of Lot 11." Ms. Pope is the Petitioner in both of the consolidated cases that comprise this proceeding. The Department Among many duties related to environmental protection, the Department of Environmental Protection is responsible for the administration of Chapter 161, Florida Statutes, Parts I and II, the "Beach and Shore Preservation Act." § 161.011, Fla. Stat. The Act confers on the Department the authority "to adopt rules related to the following provisions of this section [§ 161.053]: establishment of coastal construction control lines; activities seaward of the coastal construction control line; exemptions; property owner agreements; delegation of the program; permitting programs; and violations and penalties." § 161.053(21), Fla. Stat. Pursuant to its rule-making authority in Section 161.053 (together with other specific authority), the Department promulgated Rule Chapter 62B-33: "Office of Beaches and Coastal Systems - Rules and Procedures for Coastal Construction and Excavation (Permits for Construction Seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line and Fifty-Foot Setback)." Two employees of the Department Tony McNeal, P.E., and Srivinas Tammisetti, P.E., testified at hearing. Both are engineers and both are involved with the Coastal Construction Control Line Program. Mr. McNeal is the program administrator. Mr. Tammisetti is a Professional Engineer II with the Department's Bureau of Beaches and Wetland Resources (the "Bureau"). He is responsible for "coastal armoring projects for the entire state" (tr. 52) and he is the head engineer for Lee County. In his capacity with the Bureau, Mr. Tammisetti reviews applications for activities seaward of the coastal construction control line. The Rays Clifford and Maria Ray are the owners of the property adjacent to Petitioner's property and the holders of Permit No. BE-1083 (the "Permit") issued by the Department in its order filed September 19, 2003. The Permit is the subject of the administrative proceeding initiated by Ms. Pope in DOAH Case No. 03-3981. Events Preceding the Permit's Issuance The Rays applied to DEP for a permit to conduct activities seaward of the CCCL, including construction of an eight-story, multi-family dwelling, a swimming pool and deck, a wooden beach/dune walkway, a parking area, masonry walls, and an exfiltration system. The Department approved the application. The Department's order issuing the Permit is titled "Permit for Construction or Other Activities Pursuant to Section 161.053, Florida Statutes." Intervenor's Ex. 1, Tab 6, pg. 1. The Permit acknowledges the application is for "authorization to conduct . . . activities seaward of the coastal construction line" and describes the location of the proposed project as "landward of the 30-year erosion projection and the existing line of construction established by major structures in the immediate area [the Continuous Line of Construction]." Id. While the application was pending before DEP, Ms. Pope visited the offices of the Department in Tallahassee several times. During the first visit (June 23, 2003), Ms. Pope reviewed the permit file and met with Mr. Tamisetti. At one point in the meeting, Ms. Pope asked Mr. Tamisetti how he determines the existence of Continuous Construction Lines. Ms. Pope testified at hearing that Mr. Tamisetti's answer was to the effect that "we look at a thousand feet on either side of the proposed structure." (Tr. 20). These were not necessarily Mr. Tamisetti's exact words but it is clear from the record that the substance of Ms. Pope's claim of what was said is correct; Mr. Tamisetti told Ms. Pope that the Department uses a thousand-foot distance on either side of a proposed structure in order to determine whether existing structures have established a Continuous Line of Construction seaward of the CCCL. The Rule Among the rules in the chapter for which Section 161.053 served as the sole specific authority is Rule 62B-33.008 (the "Rule"). It bears the catchline "Permit Application Requirements and Procedures." The Petition of Ms. Pope in Case No. 03-3860RX challenges subsection (d) of Section (4) of the Rule: (4) Any person desiring to obtain a permit for construction seaward of the coastal construction control line (CCCL) . . . from the Department . . . shall submit two copies of a completed application form. * * * The application form shall contain the following specific information: * * * (d) Written evidence, provided by the appropriate local governmental agency having jurisdiction over the activity, that the proposed activity, as submitted to the Office, does not contravene local setback requirements, zoning, or building codes and is consistent with the state approved Local Comprehensive Plan. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B-33.008(4)(d). The Rule implements Section 161.052, "Coastal construction and excavation; regulation" as well as Section 161.053. Petitioner contends that the quoted portion of the Rule should be determined to be invalid because, while the statute directs that DEP in issuing permits of the kind obtained by the Rays "shall not contravene" local setbacks and building and zoning codes, it does not authorize DEP "to rely upon a letter mailed to an applicant from someone employed by an "appropriate" local government to prove that an activity would comply with the statutory directive." Proposed Final Order submitted by Petitioner, p. 18. As pointed out by Ms. Pope in her Proposed Final Order, DEP does not maintain nor does it require applicants for permits related to activity seaward of a CCCL to submit comprehensive land use plans, local setback requirements, zoning or building codes of counties and municipalities along Florida's coast. Instead, as sanctioned (in fact, required) by the Rule, DEP allows applicants to submit written evidence provided by the local government that the proposed activity does not contravene the enumerated regulations and is consistent with the local comprehensive plan. The parties have stipulated that the Department has not delegated its permitting authority under Chapter 161, Florida Statutes, to Brevard County. The Statement The statement made by Mr. Tamisetti (the "Statement") is similar to one he has made many times over the course of his employment with the Department. Without reservation, Mr. Tamisetti testified as much at hearing. The Statement has been interpreted as DEP's common method of prescribing lines of continuous construction by at least one member of the public. A professional engineer who conducts coastal engineering analysis, opined in writing to one of his clients that: The DEP has commonly prescribed the "line of continuous construction" by the line established by the average seaward limits of the foundations of the structures within 1000? feet north and 1000? feet south of the subject property or the seaward limits of the most seaward structures within 1000? feet north and south of the subject property Petitioner's Ex. 14, p. 1 following the cover letter. Mr. Tamisetti maintained at hearing, however, that the statement he made to Ms. Pope was not a common method for determining a Continuous Construction Line. Rather, the Statement constituted a starting point for those who inquired about how such lines were determined to exist. The Department does not contend otherwise. In the Pre-hearing Stipulation executed by all parties, the Department's position with regard to the Statement of Mr. Tamisetti is found on page 4: "The statement [that DEP uses a 1000-foot distance on either side of a proposed structure to establish a Continuous Line of Construction] is merely a guideline to allow applicants and their engineers a starting place for providing the Department information regarding the line of construction." The reason for the Statement was discussed by Mr. Tamisetti in his testimony. When a concerned party poses the question of how DEP would determine a Continuous Line of Construction as to a certain site, the question can only be definitively answered by asking questions of that party, in turn, and requesting sufficient data. Responding might entail costs prohibitive to the party. "A thousand feet" is offered as "a starting point . . . to give them something" (tr. 61) as an estimate for whether to pursue the effort to have such a line established. In one project, Mr. Tamisetti offered, the distance from a proposed structure to an existing structure might be "500 feet"; in another "2000 feet." (Tr. 61, 62). Ultimately, Mr. Tamisetti insisted the determination is site specific and cannot be made across the board on the basis of a measurement of 1000 feet. The Permit's Relationship to the Statement Ms. Pope produced evidence of the location of a Continuous Line of Construction determined by DEP to exist for purposes of the Ray's permit, DEP Permit No. BE-1083. She concludes in her proposed final order: [T]he line that DEP depicted approximates the line that would be derived by drawing a line from existing structures within 1000 feet on either side of the structure proposed in BE-1083. (citation to record omitted) The derivation of the line of continuous construction can only be a result of using the foundations of building within 1000-feet on either side of the proposed Michelina Condominium, as readily seen on the DEP April 2002 aerial photograph . . . Proposed Final Order, submitted by Petitioner, p. 8. Furthermore, Ms. Pope points out DEP has two rules relevant to the interrelationship between the permit and her claim that the Statement is a rule in violation of Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B-33.005(4), in her view, requires that applications for permits to conduct activity seaward of a CCCL "be 'clearly justified' by the applicant." Id. "Secondly," she asserts, DEP has an existing rule that requires applications to include surveys that depict accurate dimensions and locations of the foundation outlines of any existing structures in the immediate contiguous or adjacent areas that the applicant contends have established a reasonably continuous and uniform construction line. Rule 62B- 33.008(4)(f)15, F.A.C. Id., at 8-9. These rules relate, obviously, to the Permit Case. Coupled with the location of the Continuous Line of Construction determined by DEP with regard to the Rays' application for purpose of the un-promulgated rule challenge, however, they do not overcome other evidence as to how the Bureau determines the existence of Continuous Lines of Construction seaward of CCCLs. That evidence is the testimony of Mr. McNeal, the head of DEP's Coastal Construction Control Line Program. The Testimony of Mr. McNeal Ms. Pope's claim that the only credible evidence in the case demonstrates that the Statement is an un-promulgated rule overlooks convincing credible evidence provided by Mr. McNeal. Mr. McNeal's testimony shows that the Statement is not reflective of a policy followed by DEP that creates rights or imposes duties upon the regulated. It is not reflective of a policy of the Bureau of Beaches and Wetland Resources that does so either. Nor is it reflective of such a policy of the Bureau's Coastal Construction Control Line Program. As explained by Mr. McNeal, if an applicant would like to build on a Continuous Construction Line seaward of the CCCL, the applicant typically must demonstrate that the Continuous Construction Line exists by data provided with the application. Petitioner's Exhibit 7, entitled "Request for Additional Information" was identified by Mr. McNeal at hearing as "a template for our standard information package that comes with the application." (Tr. 40). "The items of information listed [on the request] are numbered to correspond with the item numbers on the application form." Petitioner's Ex. 7, p. 1. The following appears under Item 9: Two copies of a topographic survey drawing of the subject property. The topographic information depicted in the drawing shall be from field survey work performed not more than six months prior to the date of application. The topographic survey drawing shall include the following specific information: * * * - Accurate dimensions and locations of the foundation outlines of any existing structures in the immediate contiguous or adjacent areas that the applicant contends have established a reasonably continuous and uniform construction line if the permit is requested under the provisions of 161.053(5)(b), . . . Florida Statutes . . . (Id., pps. 2-3). There is no reference to the "1000 feet" measurement in the Bureau's Request for Additional Information. Furthermore, when an application is submitted that is incomplete with regard to the location of existing structures, the Department does not always resort to a request for additional information. The Department has an extensive database that includes aerial photographs, GIS images, and topographic information collected with regard to DEP reference monuments spaced along the shoreline. On occasion, the DEP database is sufficient to determine whether such a line exists without additional information provided by the applicant. When a determination of a Continuous Line of Construction is made by DEP, it is made specific to the site of proposed construction on the basis of the information submitted by the applicant or on the basis of publicly held data. The determination is not made on the basis of Mr. Tamisetti's statement to Ms. Pope or on the basis of unwritten policy related to existing structures within 1000 feet of the proposed structures. A Rule of Thumb for Prospective Applicants Mr. McNeal's testimony sheds direct light on the actual practice of DEP and the Bureau of Beaches and Wetland Resources in determining the existence and location of Continuous Lines of Construction. When the Petitioner's case is measured against the Department's, the best for Petitioner that can be said of the Statement is that it is precisely what Mr. Tamisetti claims. It is a "rule of thumb," and a rough one at that, for whether it is worthwhile for a party to pursue the establishment of a Continuous Construction Line in order to conduct activity, including construction, seaward of an established CCCL. It does not constitute an agency statement of general applicability that meets the definition of a "rule" in the Administrative Procedure Act and that is subject to the Act's rule-making requirements.
The Issue The issues for determination at final hearing were (1) whether Petitioner's coastal construction Permit No. 86-155PB, authorizing Petitioner to construct and temporarily maintain an experimental reef structure seaward of the DuPont residence in West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, should be extended under Special Permit Condition 10 of the Permit and (2) whether the experimental reef structure should be removed pursuant to Special Permit Conditions 3 and 12 of the Permit.
Findings Of Fact On April 6, 1987, American Coastal Engineering, on behalf of Willis H. DuPont (Petitioner) and Florida Atlantic University's Department of Ocean Engineering, was granted coastal construction Permit NO. 86-155PB 3/ (Permit) by the Department of Natural Resources (Respondent). 4/ The Permit authorized Petitioner to construct and temporarily maintain an experimental reef structure seaward of the DuPont residence in West Palm Beach, Florida. The experimental reef structure, referred to as a prefabricated erosion prevention reef (PEP reef), is a 550 foot submerged breakwater which was constructed using prefabricated concrete segments, placed end-to-end underwater in the nearshore area. The purpose of the PEP reef is to reduce erosion of the beach landward of the structure. The PEP reef was installed on May 5, 1988. Special conditions were placed on the Permit, to which Petitioner agreed. The special conditions in pertinent part provide: The permittee shall adjust, alter or remove any structure or other physical evidence of the work or activity permitted, as directed by the Executive Director, if in the opinion of the Executive Director, the structure, work or activity in question results in damage to surrounding property or otherwise proves to be undersirable or becomes unnecessary. Adjustment, alteration, or removal required under this provision, shall be accomplished by the permittee at no cost to the State of Florida. * * * 10. The proposed submerged breakwater shall be removed within two years following installation of the experimental structure unless determined by the staff to remain in place for an extended period of time. This determination shall be based on a staff evaluation of the monitoring data, existing statutory regulations, and the feasibility of the project in concurrence with the beach management plan at that time. The experimental structure shall only remain in place after two years upon written approval from the Executive Director indicating an extension has been granted. * * * 12. The Executive Director may order removal of the experimental structure as soon as the shoreline along any portion of the area required to be nourished under Special Permit Condition 6 erodes up to or landward of the pre-nourished beach profile indicating a complete loss of the nourished beach material from that location and accretion at another location within the area to be monitored. Petitioner requested an extension of the Permit. On July 10, 1991, Respondent issued a final order denying an extension of the Permit, pursuant to Special Permit Condition 10, and directing the Petitioner to remove the PEP reef pursuant to Special Permit Conditions 3 and 12. An extension of the Permit beyond the two years following installation of the PEP reef, according to Special Permit Condition 10, is based upon three factors: (1) an evaluation by Respondent's staff of monitoring data gathered by Petitioner, (2) statutory regulations existing at the time of the extension request, and (3) the feasibility of the project in concurrence with the beach management plan existing at the time of the extension request. Although Petitioner's monitoring data addressed the question whether the PEP reef was performing its function, it did not address existing statutory regulations or the project's feasibility in concurrence with the current beach management plan. 5/ Petitioner's monitoring data was collected over a two-year period with surveys being performed through March 1990: March 1988 (preconstruction), May 1988 (post-construction), August 1988, December 1988, February 1989, April 1989, July 1989, November 1989, and March 1990. The data was collected along 17 profile stations: seven stations were located within or immediately adjacent to the boundaries of the PEP reef, and five to the north and five to the south of the PEP reef. The data indicated that the PEP reef was an experiment and approved by Respondent as an experiment. As a conclusion, Petitioner indicates that the PEP reef is functioning for the purpose it was designed in that it is providing a benefit to the beach. Respondent disagreed with Petitioner's conclusion. For one, Respondent disagreed with the method of analysis used by Petitioner to analyze the data because Petitioner's analysis failed to filter out seasonal effects. This procedure brought into play the first of the three factors in Special Permit Condition 10 which was used for denial of the Permit extension. Petitioner's monitoring data was utilized and analyzed by Respondent. Using the data gathered, Respondent created profile plots which are cross sectional depictions of the shoreline profiles and which displayed changes to the shoreline occurring during the survey period. Respondent used a shoreline change analysis in determining the PEP reef's effect on the shoreline in its vicinity. The analysis focused on the net change in the shoreline, i.e., the net change in the location of the mean high water line, factoring out the seasonal variations which occur along the coast by comparing profile plots from the same time of year taken during the two-year monitoring period. The shoreline change analysis indicated that in the vicinity of the PEP reef the shoreline showed irregular periods of both accretion and erosion. However, the shoreline did not reflect the typical pattern that was expected with a functioning breakwater. To the contrary, the irregular periods of accretion and erosion and the irregular configuration of the shoreline indicated that factors other than the PEP reef were affecting the shoreline. One such intervening factor was attributed to the large number of existing shoreline structures called groins which are scattered throughout the area. Groins are structures intended to stabilize the shoreline by blocking the down drift movement of sand, thereby altering the natural coastal processes. The monitoring data shows that, in terms of accretion or erosion, the PEP reef produced no recognizable influence on the shoreline in its vicinity. As to the second factor in Special Permit Condition 10, at the time the Permit was granted in 1988, no regulations specifically applicable to experimental structures existed. However, in 1989 a provision specifically addressing the permitting of experimental structures became law. /6 The provision provides that the "intent" of the Florida Legislature is to "encourage the development of new and innovative methods for dealing with the coastal shoreline erosion problem," and that, in authorizing the "construction of pilot projects using alternative coastal shoreline erosion control methods," the Respondent must determine, among other things, that "the proposed project site is properly suited for analysis of the results of the proposed activity." Groins in the PEP reef area alter the natural coastal processes and, therefore, play a significant role in the analysis of the shoreline processes. The effect of the groins affected the Respondent's ability to determine the effectiveness of the experimental structure. As a result, the Respondent was unable to make a determination in accordance with the legislative mandate. As to the third factor in Special Permit Condition 10, Petitioner presented no evidence addressing this factor. Petitioner has failed to show that the experimental structure, the PEP reef, has satisfied Special Permit Condition 10. It has failed to show that the intended purpose of the PEP reef has been accomplished, i.e., that the PEP reef is effective or beneficial. In denying Petitioner's request for an extension of the Permit, Respondent directed removal of the PEP reef pursuant to Special Permit Conditions 3 and 12. Special Permit Condition 3 provides for removal, alteration or adjustment of the PEP reef if it "proves to be undersirable or becomes unnecessary." The construction of the PEP reef consisted of, among other things, the placing of individual reef units end-to-end. To alert boaters to the location of the PEP reef, a buoy was placed at each end of the structure. The stability of the PEP reef is questionable. In 1989 a storm dislodged the individual units. In an effort to prevent sliding, Petitioner attempted to realign the units to their original position and added more weight to the units. Despite Petitioner's efforts to stabilize the structure, the PEP reef has experienced continued movement. Furthermore, because of the continued movement, boaters' safety would be compromised in that the buoys would be ineffective in warning them of the location of any units which may be dislodged. Also, the additional weight to the units could cause the individual units to settle, potentially affecting the performance of the PEP reef, and could induce erosional scour around the structure itself. Special Permit Condition 12 provides for removal when "the shoreline along any portion of the area required to be nourished . . . erodes up to or landward of the pre-nourished beach profile indicating a complete loss of the nourished beach material from that location and accretion at another location." The shoreline analysis showed that the shoreline in many portions of the nourished area eroded landward of the pre-nourished beach profile. The mean high water line had positioned landward of its pre-project location. Petitioner has failed to show that the PEP reef does not fall within the conditions of Special Permit Conditions 3 and 12. Federally protected and endangered marine species have attached themselves to and/or now reside in the PEP reef, complicating the removal of the PEP reef. In order not to disturb or disrupt this marine life, Respondent has expressed a desire in relocating the structure to a position further offshore.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Natural Resources 7/ enter a final order DENYING an extension of Permit No. 86-155PB. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 21st day of April 1994. ERROL H. POWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of April 1994.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent Alexander J. Milanick should be required to pay attorney fees and costs in the amount of $4,976.00 to Petitioner Charles Osborne to compensate Petitioner for his defense of an ethics complaint filed with the Florida Commission on Ethics.
Findings Of Fact The Town of Beverly Beach, Florida has a population of about 600 located in Flagler County, Florida. It is about one mile from north to south, and occupies about .4 square miles. It is bounded on the west by the Intracoastal Waterway and on the east by the Atlantic Ocean. U.S. Highway A1A is the main north-south route through the town. Mr. Osborne is an aerospace engineer who served on the Beverly Beach Town Commission from 1997 through March 1999. He was mayor from March 1999 until 2001. He has lived at 2641 Osprey Circle, in Beverly Beach, in a home constructed at that location, since 1995. This residence is closer to the southern boundary of Beverly Beach than to the northern boundary. Dr. Milanick is a dentist who, along with his brother John, and a person named McGee, during times pertinent, owned land immediately north of Beverly Beach. On the property then and currently owned by Dr. Milanick, and east of A1A, is a restaurant named the Shark House. The premises has also been known as Crabby Joe's. In 1995, Dr. Milanick applied to the Town Commission to have his property, and that of his brother, and that of McGee, annexed into the town limits of Beverly Beach. He did this by asking a Mr. Taylor to do what was necessary to cause the annexation to occur. Mr. Taylor thereafter filed a petition with the Town Commission. By Ordinance 95-9-4, the Town Commission, in 1995, assented to the request and it was made effective November 15, 1995. The Ordinance purported to annex the Milanick property into the Town of Beverly Beach and to zone it general commercial. Mr. Osborne was not a member of the Town Commission and was not mayor during this time. The Ordinance, however, was defective in four ways. The Ordinance purported to annex the property into Bunnell, Florida; it was not properly signed by all commissioners; it was not publicly noticed; and it did not provide a legal description of the property. It was not filed with either the Flagler County Clerk of the Court or the Florida Secretary of State. The matter languished until 1997 when Dr. Milanick determined that his property had not in fact been moved within the boundaries of Beverly Beach. Dr. Milanick brought this to the attention of the Town Commission in October 1997. At a Town Commission meeting on December 3, 1997, the Town Attorney stated that he had not had a chance to look into the Milanick and Shark House issue. At a Town Commission meeting on February 4, 1998, Dr. Milanick inquired as to the progress being made on the annexation of his property and was told that the Town Attorney would get with him and discuss the procedure. Subsequently, the Town Attorney, Pat McCormick, suggested that it would be necessary to start the process from the beginning if the land was to be annexed. At a Town Commission meeting on March 4, 1998, Mayor Osborne stated that there was no benefit to the annexation of the Shark House. One member of the Town Commission suggested that they honor past commitments. Dr. Milanick was in attendance at this meeting. At a Town Commission meeting on May 5, 1999, Dr. Milanick and his brother again attended the Town Commission meeting and requested the annexation of their property and discussed the procedure that would be necessary. At a Town Commission meeting on June 2, 1999, a motion was made to go forward with Ordinance 95-9-4 and to amend the official city map and legal description to include the Shark House property. The motion passed but Mayor Osborne vetoed it. During a regular monthly meeting of the Town Commission on July 7, 1999, James Kearn, an attorney retained by Dr. Milanick, who was authorized to act for Dr. Milanick, appeared and requested that the Commission direct the Town Clerk to sign Ordinance 95-9-4 and to forward it to the county and the state in order to determine if the Ordinance was valid. This request was approved by the Town Commission. Mayor Osborne, vetoed the measure. Thereafter, the veto was over-ridden by the Commission. At a Town Commission workshop on July 21, 1999, there was additional discussion regarding the annexation of the Shark House. Mr. Kearn accused Mayor Osborne of discussing the Milanick annexation matter with Sid Crosby, Clerk of the Court of Flagler County. Mayor Osborne denied the charge. The discussion became heated and accusatory and Mayor Osborne threatened to have the sheriff eject Mr. Kearn from the meeting. Subsequent to the action of the Town Commission of July 7, 1999, the Town Clerk, Douglas Courtney, took Ordinance 95-9-4 to Syd Crosby, Clerk of the Court for Flagler County. In a memorandum dated July 26, 1999, Mr. Courtney reported to the Town Commission that Mr. Crosby would not file Ordinance 95-9-4 because it was defective. One of the defects cited was that the instrument purported to annex the land into the City of Bunnell, Florida. No creditable evidence was adduced which indicated that Mayor Osborne visited Syd Crosby for the purpose of preventing the recording of the annexation of Dr. Milanick's property. Mr. Crosby concluded from the beginning that Ordinance 95-9-4 was not recordable. Mayor Osborne suggested some solutions which would permit the annexation, including, re-submission of a proper application. Over a period of time some "glitch" bills were considered which would annex the land. However, none passed. Mr. Kearn attended the Town Commission meeting on February 2, 2000, and the minutes of the meeting noted that he was accompanied by "a person taking notes." Following this meeting, in a February 16, 2000, letter to Dennis Knox Bayer, Town Attorney, Mr. Kearn claimed that Mayor Osborne had a personal vendetta against Dr. Milanick, and that he was exercising dictatorial efforts to prevent citizens to speak at town meetings. He further demanded that ". . . all Town officials, including you as their representative, refrain from saying things that are simply and blatantly false, which only serve to incite Mr. Milanick." At a town meeting on March 1, 2000, Mr. Kearn complained about the annexation not being on the agenda and Mayor Osborne stated that a request for inclusion on the agenda had not been made in writing. Mr. Kearn was permitted to speak for three minutes, he spoke for three minutes, and immediately thereafter Mayor Osborne adjourned the meeting. On or about April 25, 2000, Dr. Milanick and his brother John, filed suit against the Town of Beverly Beach and Mayor Osborne personally, in the Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit in and for Flagler County. The suit alleged that the Town of Beverly Beach and Mayor Osborne violated the civil rights of the Milanicks. The suit alleged that Mayor Osborne had a vendetta against Dr. Milanick and should be held personally liable to Dr. Milanick. The Circuit Court dismissed the civil rights count against Mayor Osborne and the town, and this dismissal was affirmed by the Fifth District Court of Appeal. The Circuit Court also dismissed the mandamus action, finding that the 30- day limitations' period for filing a petition for a writ of certiorari applied and that a prima facie case for mandamus had not been established. The Fifth District Court of Appeal, on October 19, 2001, remanded that count to the Circuit Court with directions to grant the petition for mandamus, but upheld the dismissal of the civil rights counts. On January 23, 2003, the Circuit Court entered its Alternative Writ of Mandamus. The Writ incorporated the allegations of Plaintiff's Complaint by reference and ordered that the Defendants take whatever steps necessary to sign and record Ordinance 95-9-4. When this occurred, Mr. Osborne was no longer an elected official of Beverly Beach. The Circuit Court complaint filed by Dr. Milanick recited that the recording of the ordinance did not occur because Mayor Osborne conferred with the Clerk of the Court to block recording of the ordinance. The adoption of the matters recited in the complaint as true, by the appellate court, does not make them proven facts because no evidence was taken in the case. The complaint, moreover, alleges actions, such as being tyrannical and peevish, which could not in any event constitute a violation of a person's civil rights. The complaint does not allege that Mr. Osborne took any action, as mayor, because he wished to obtain a personal advantage and does not allege that the annexation of Dr. Milanick's real property would affect Mr. Osborne's real property in terms of value or otherwise. As of the date of the hearing, Dr. Milanick's property had not been annexed into the corporate limits of Beverly Beach. Mr. Osborne, while serving as mayor, was not helpful in causing the annexation to occur and it is apparent that his relations with Mr. Kearn were not amicable. Mr. Osborne, while serving as mayor was irascible, intimidating, and controlling. Mr. Osborne believed that the annexation would bring no benefit to Beverly Beach and believed it would, "change the town's character." Mr. Osborne gained nothing directly or personally by preventing, or making difficult, the annexation of Dr. Milanick's land. As an elected official, he was permitted to advance his own ideas with regard to what he believed would be best for Beverly Beach and for himself as a citizen and property owner of Beverly Beach. He could act in this regard so long as he did not secure a special privilege, benefit, or exemption for himself, as opposed to a general benefit. A letter signed by Mr. Kearn dated July 18, 2003, accompanied by an affidavit signed by Dr. Milanick, requested that the Commission conduct an investigation into the activities of Mr. Osborne during the period when he was the mayor of Beverly Beach. For reasons which become apparent hereafter, this letter, which had the words "Via Airborne Overnight Mail" stamped on its face, will be hereinafter referred to as the "Airborne" letter. The following statements were contained in the "Airborne" letter: Specifically, while Mayor, Charles Osborne simply refused to sign and record the ordinance duly adopted by the Town, which annexed land into the Town as a general commercial, simply because he personally did not want anymore general commercial land in the Town, which could jeopardize his personal investment in the Town. He also met with the former Clerk of Court for Flagler County, Mr. Syd Crosby, to persuade the Clerk to not record anything regarding the annexation of such land, in order to prevent the completion of the annexation. He thus plainly put his purely personal concerns, ahead of his duties as mayor, and fiduciary duty to the citizens of Beverly Beach. The mayor still refused to oblige the Town's request, or to honor the duly adopted resolution, for his own personal reasons, irrespective of his duties as mayor to the citizens of Beverly Beach.... Even worse, he met with the former Clerk of Circuit Court of Flagler County, Mr. Syd Crosby, to attempt to persuade Mr. Crosby to not record any ordinance presented by the Town, annexing the Milanicks' property. Mayor Osborne repeatedly ignored and defied the will of the Town to complete the annexation, to pursue his own personal agenda, i.e., stopping annexation of land as general commercial. The "Airborne" letter then parroted items that indicated that the Circuit Court had found to be true, as follows: Additionally, Mr. Osborne simply does not allow anyone to speak with whom he disagrees, or to address matter that he does not want addressed. Mayor Osborne has... refused to put the Milanicks' matters or requests on the Town Council agenda; taken action regarding the Milanicks' properties, without any notice to the Milanicks, or without knowledge by the Milanicks that such action was being taken against their property, as required by the Town's own law; refused to allow the Milanicks to speak to matters that affect their personal and property interests, once the Town Council had opened discussion regarding the annexation and zoning of the Milanicks' properties; blatantly and willfully misrepresented the Milanicks' positions, actions, and statements at Town meetings, beyond the scope of the privilege normally attendant to a politician's statements at such meeting, in order to defeat the Milanicks' requests, and to harm the Milanicks; refused to honor Ordinances passed by previous Town councils, as detailed above; refused to follow through with completing the annexation approved by previous council members of the Town; worked to undercut the recording of the completion of the signing of the ordinance, and the recording of the ordinance, to complete the annexation, all as detailed above. The matters in paragraph 25, are misleading because they indicate that the Circuit Court found these items to be true when in fact no evidentiary proceedings with regard to these items occurred in the Circuit Court. Moreover, the Complaint alleged several matters which Dr. Milanick either knew to be untrue, or should have known that it was untrue. Specifically, the Complaint alleged that Mayor Osborne "did not want anymore general commercial land in the Town, which could jeopardize his personal investment in the Town." This allegation implies that he was acting for some personal and specific reason financial reason, as opposed to a general opposition to development. This allegation, had it been true, would have been actionable pursuant to Section 112.313(6) The Complaint also alleged that Mayor Osborne met with Syd Crosby in order to prevent the annexation of the Milanicks' property. This allegation, coupled with the allegation as to a financial interest, bolsters the asserted improper purpose. Based on this Complaint, the Executive Director of the Commission issued a Determination of Investigative Jurisdiction and Order to Investigate, which was filed with the Commission on September 26, 2003, and assigned Complaint Number 03-091. Investigator Travis Wade of the Commission was directed to conduct a preliminary investigation into whether or not there was probable cause to believe a violation of Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, had occurred. That section reads as follows: (6) Misuse of public position.--No public officer, employee of an agency, or local government attorney shall corruptly use or attempt to use his or her official position or any property or resource which may be within his or her trust, or perform his or her official duties, to secure a special privilege, benefit, or exemption for himself, herself, or others. This section shall not be construed to conflict with s. 104.31. Mr. Osborne learned of the Determination of Investigative Jurisdiction and Order to Investigate and thereafter retained Robert J. Riggio, of the firm of Riggio & Mitchell, P.A., located in Daytona Beach, as his attorney. Mr. Riggio worked on the case from October 24, 2003, until September 29, 2004. He charged $150 per hour, which is below the customary charge in the Daytona Beach area, and the hourly rate therefore, is reasonable. He expended 33 hours which is reasonable. He expended $180 in costs. These expenditures totaled $4,976 which was billed to Mr. Osborne. He paid the bill. On April 6, 2004, a second letter dated July 18, 2003, was sent to the Commission by Mr. Kearn by facsimile. This will be referred to as the "Fax" letter. This was precipitated by a request to Mr. Kearn from Investigator Wade that he provide a copy of the original letter. The "Fax" letter differed from the "Airborne" letter. In the second paragraph of the "Fax" letter the following sentence appears: "Specifically, while Mayor, Charles Osborne simply refused to sign and record the ordinance duly adopted by the Town, which annexed land just north of Mr. Osborne's manufactured home . . . ." And in the fourth paragraph of the "Fax" letter, the following sentence appears: "The Mayor objected, because it would serve to annex land as general commercial, just north of his own manufactured home." It further stated that his motivation was ". . . stopping land as commercial near him." Mr. Kearn testified under oath that when Investigator Wade was discussing the case with him, that he, Mr. Kearn, realized the "Fax" letter was a draft that had been sent to Investigator Wade in error. Mr. Kearn said that the "Fax" letter was a draft that had subsequently been edited by Dr. Milanick who knew, July 18, 2003, that Mr. Osborne did not live in a manufactured home located immediately south of the property which was sought to be annexed. Mr. Kearn said that it the "Airborne" letter was supposed to be the operative document. He said that he realized that the "Fax" letter was being used by Investigator Wade when he was talking to him on the telephone on June 8, 2004, and that he advised Investigator Wade of the error. He testified that he made it perfectly clear to Investigator Wade that the "Airborne" letter was the operative document. Investigator Wade's Report of Investigation, however, recites that during the telephone interview of Mr. Kearn, that Mr. Kearn advised him that Mr. Osborne resided in a mobile home community immediately south of the Milanick property, while he served as mayor and that Mr. Osborne's interest in stopping the annexation was to use his position for his personal benefit. At the hearing, Investigator Wade stated under oath that Mr. Kearn advised him during their telephone conversation that Mr. Osborne resided in a mobile home community immediately south of the Milanick property while he was serving as mayor. Investigator Wade stated that the issue of whether or not Mr. Osborne lived in the immediate vicinity of the Milanick property was the key element in his investigation because if that were true, stopping the annexation could be a personal benefit to Mr. Osborne. Mr. Wade was a disinterested and credible investigator and witness and his testimony is taken as true and accurate. Mr. Osborne did not live in either a manufactured or mobile home. The type of home he lived in is irrelevant. What is relevant is that Mr. Osborne did not live adjacent to, or in the vicinity of, the Milanick property. In fact, Mr. Osborne did not live near the north side of town. He lived closer to the south side of town and it is unlikely that the annexation of the Milanick property would have an economic effect on Mr. Osborne's property. Mr. Kearn was aware of Mr. Osborne's resident address because he had him served with a civil suit at his residence in 2000. Mr. Kearn knew that Mr. Osborne did not live in a mobile home community, or in a manufactured home near the Milanick property, or anywhere near it. Nevertheless, he asserted that to be true when he talked to Investigator Wade. Mr. Kearn is the attorney and agent of Dr. Milanick. Mr. Kearn is, therefore, the alter ego of Dr. Milanick so that the actions of Mr. Kearn, are the actions of Dr. Milanick. The Commission, found in their Public Report, dated September 8, 2004, that Mr. Osborne's opposition to the annexation was not connected to any desire to secure a benefit for himself. The Commission dismissed the Milanick complaint on a finding of "no probable cause."
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Ethics enter an order requiring Dr. Milanick to pay Mr. Osborne $4,976.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of July, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of July, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Kaye Starling, Agency Clerk Commission on Ethics 3600 Maclay Boulevard, South, Suite 201 Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 James J. Kearn, Esquire James J. Kearn, P.A. 138 Live Oak Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32114-4912 Gary S. Edinger, Esquire 305 Northeast First Street Gainesville, Florida 32601 Martin A. Pedata, Esquire Martin Pedata, P.A. 505 East New York Avenue, Suite 8 DeLand, Florida 32724 Robert J. Riggio, Esquire Riggio & Mitchell, P.A. 400 South Palmetto Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Bonnie J. Williams, Executive Director Commission on Ethics 3600 Maclay Boulevard, South, Suite 201 Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Phillip C. Claypool, General Counsel Commission on Ethics 3600 Maclay Boulevard, South, Suite 201 Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Virlindia Doss, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to the parties' joint stipulation entered herein, the following relevant facts are found. On or about December 22, 1977, the Florida East Coast Railway Company filed an application to close the railroad crossing located at 125th Avenue, Goulds (Metro Dade County) Mile Post 386 + 3300'. In the area of the proposed crossing, the railway has scheduled triweekly service including the transportation of hazardous materials and work trains which also includes extra trains as the situation dictates. 128th Avenue, in the area of the subject crossing, extends from U.S. 1 north to Southwest 232nd Street, a distance of approximately 650 feet. This is an angular crossing of railroad which tends to reduce driver visibility. Traffic counts on this roadway indicate less than 700 cars a day use the road, with the heaviest usage occurring from 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. and 60 vehicles per minute pass over the crossing. The crossing at Southeast 232nd Street provides a right angle crossing about the same distance from the joint intersection of 128th Avenue and 232nd Street. Based on the development of 128th Avenue and a relatively short alternative route, the parties (the Railway and the County) viewed the level of safety as being increased if this crossing wore closed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the application to close the at-grade railroad crossing at 128th Avenue, Goulds, Florida (Milepost 386 + 3300') be GRANTED. RECOMMENDED this 5th day of June, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of June, 1979.
Findings Of Fact Nannette K. Scoggins is the owner of the real property located at 5622 Gulf Drive, Holmes Beach, Florida in Manatee County. Nannette K. Scoggins' property, the petitioner's property, 5624 Gulf Drive, and the other adjacent property, 5620 Gulf Drive, are zoned as "A-1 Hotel-Motel" under the City of Holmes Beach Zoning Ordinance. On November 13, 1983, Mrs. Scoggins submitted to DNR an application for a permit for construction seaward of the coastal construction control line (control line). The proposed project, known as Jansea Place, would consist of two multifamily dwellings, four units to a building, divided by a swimming pool. A portion of the most seaward building would extend a maximum of 57 feet seaward of the control line. By letter dated July 11, 1984, DNR notified petitioner that the department was considering the permit application. The petitioner responded by letter dated July 18, 1984, objecting to any construction seaward of the control line. On October 1, 1984, petitioner received notification that DNR intended to recommend approval of the permit. The permit was scheduled for a vote by the Governor and Cabinet on October 16, 1984. The staff of DNR recommended approval of the permit. By telegram dated October 15, 1984, the petitioner requested an administrative hearing, and on October 22, 1984, petitioner filed a petition for a formal administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The application for permit No. ME-89 is a complete application for permit to construct seaward of the coastal construction control line. On October 5, 1983, the Superintendent of Public Works of the City of Holmes Beach certified that this project does not violate any ordinance of the City of Holmes Beach. The plans for the proposed project are signed and sealed by an architect registered in the State of Florida, and the submitted plans comply with the design standards established in Rule 16B-33.07, Florida Administrative Code to resist adequately the natural forces associated with a 100-year return interval storm event. The plans, specifications, drawings and other information submitted to DNR with the application for permit to construct seaward of the coastal construction control line are complete and accurate, and meet the requirements of DNR for that purpose. Under the provisions of Rule 16B-33, Florida Administrative Code, the application was determined to be complete on August 6, 1984. The proposed construction is located landward of an existing vertical concrete bulkhead. The seawall was built jointly by the Scoggins and Mr. McLean, who owns the property immediately to the south of the Scoggins' property. The seawall was built after the hurricane of 1972 because the existing dune system had been destroyed. Since that time, the mean high water line has continued to encroach landward to the point where it is now east of the wall. However, the seawall is not necessary for the protection of the proposed building. Although the seawall would fail under the direct impact of a major hurricane, the proposed building is adequately designed to withstand the impact erosion, the wave loads, the winds, and the water forces associated with a major hurricane. The necessity and justification for the project's location in relation to the control line is stated in the application, and petitioner has not challenged the necessity or justification. The City of Holmes Beach Zoning Ordinance requires that the buildings be separated by a minimum of 30 feet. Since the proposed buildings are separated by 30 feet, the proposed seaward building is located as far landward as possible without violating the zoning ordinance. Erosion and structural damage occurred as a result of Hurricane Agnes in 1972 and the "No Name" storm in 1982 in the area between 1,000 feet south of the Scoggins' property and 500 feet north of the Scoggins' property. Although the beach was fairly stable from 1974 to 1979, the beach began to erode in 1980. When the seawall was built in 1974, the dune line was even with the seawall. However, as can be seen from a comparison of the photographs taken in June of 1979 with those taken in early 1985, the beach has eroded since June of 1979 and the dune line is now several feet landward of the seawall. The DNR recommendation for approval of the Scoggin's permit application was based upon historical erosion data for the period between 1940 and 1974, which was the most recent data available that could be used to review the project. Mr. Clark stated that the application was recommended for approval based on the design of the proposed building and its alignment with existing structures built seaward of the control line. The proposed project is located landward of a line of existing structures. Although the adjacent properties have been affected by erosion, there was no evidence presented to show that the existing structures located seaward of the control line have been unduly affected by erosion. In 1974, when the seawall was being constructed, the worker building the seawall dug up part of the petitioner's property and destroyed the sea oats he had planted. However, the proposed project has a driveway encircling the building which would provide vehicular access to the seawall if necessary. The proposed project will partially obstruct petitioner's view to the southwest. However, there was no evidence presented that petitioner's property or the other adjacent property, would be adversely affected in any other way by the proposed project. There was no evidence presented that the proposed project would be affected by, or have an effect on, beach or coastal erosion. The proposed project would have no effect on the beach dune system.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is recommended that DNR issue Permit Number ME-89 to Nannette K. Scoggins. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of June, 1985, in Tallahassee Leon County Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of June, 1985.
The Issue Do Driscoll Properties and/or Harbor Course Club, Inc., Respondents, have vested rights to complete the project at issue, a golf driving range? (Case Nos. 84-2868VR and 84-3805VR) If Respondents do not have vested rights, did the application to clear land for the golf driving range comply with the provisions of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, and in particular with the comprehensive plan and land development regulations for the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern? (Case No. 84-2868VR). Is the Department of Community Affairs estopped, or otherwise equitably barred, from preventing the completion of this project? (Case Nos. 84-2868VR and 84-3805VR) Did Driscoll Properties or Harbor Course Club, Inc., violate the provisions of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes? (Case No. 84-3805VR) Did Monroe County violate Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, by issuing a land clearing permit prior to transmitting the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners Resolution 091-1984 to the Department of Community Affairs, the South Florida Regional Planning Council and the Developer? (Case No. 84-3805VR) If there is a violation of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, what is the proper remedy? (Case No. 84-3805VR)
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated to the following findings of fact which are incorporated herein: The owner of record of the subject property is Driscoll Properties, a Florida general partnership, 522 Gables International Plaza, 2655 LeJeune Road, Coral Gables, Florida 33134, and the property is located in Section 5, Township 59 South, Range 41 East, North Key Largo, Monroe County, Florida, within a subdivision known as Harbor Course South, Section One. Driscoll Properties, and Harbor Course Club, Inc., submitted to Monroe County an Application for Land Clearing, Permit No. C-14919, for the subject property in order to build a golf driving range. The application was dated March 18, 1983, and received by the County on or about March 24, 1983. Monroe County Application for Land Clearing, Permit No. C-14919 was denied by William Russell, Assistant Director, Monroe County Planning, Building and Zoning on May 20, 1983. The denial of Permit Application for Land Clearing No. C-14919 was appealed by Harbor Course Club, Inc., to the Monroe County Board of Adjustment. The Board of Adjustment denied the appeal on December 14, 1983, by Resolution (of) Administrative Appeal 8-83. The Monroe County Board of Adjustment Resolution No. 8-83, denying the Application for Land Clearing, Permit No. C-14919, was appealed by Harbor Course Club, Inc., to the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners. The Monroe County Board of County Commissioners reversed the decision of the Monroe County Board of Adjustment by adopting Resolution No. 091-1984 on March 23, 1984. The Monroe County Zoning Department was responsible for issuing and rendering Monroe County Board of County Commissioners Resolution 091-1984. On April 25, 1984, Harbor Course Club, Inc., or a person acting on its behalf, applied to and obtained from Monroe County Building and Zoning Department ministerial land clearing permit No. C-14919, which was authorized by Resolution 091-1984. Harbor Course Club, Inc., or an authorized agent, employee or representative, received a letter dated June 12, 1984, enclosing Resolution No. 091-1984 and the minutes from the hearing described in No. 6 above. Harbor Course Club, Inc., or an authorized agent, employee or representative arranged for clearing of the subject property. Land clearing activity on the subject property began on April 30, 1984. Land clearing activity on the subject property was conducted on May 2, 3, 7, 8 and 10, 1984. Land clearing on the subject property was continued on July 19, 20 and 24, 1984, and completed August 2, 1984. At the times in question, the Petitioners maintained an office in Monroe County. At the times in question, Bob Dennis was an environmental specialist in the Petitioners' Monroe County office. The Key Largo woodrat is listed as an endangered species by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service pursuant to 50 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 17, Section 17.11(h). The Key Largo woodrat is listed as an endangered species by the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission pursuant to Rule 39-27.03(27). The following findings of fact are made based on the evidence submitted at the hearing, after considering the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses who testified: The subject property consists of approximately 3.6 acres. Harbor Course Club, Inc., seeks to have the subject property developed into a golf driving range for the use of its members. Harbor Course Club, Inc., is a private membership golf club located within the Ocean Reef Development on North Key Largo. Ocean Reef is a residential development with three eighteen hole golf courses consisting of approximately 4000 acres, half of which is developed and half of which has been dedicated to wilderness. The subject property as well as the entire Ocean Reef Development is part of an Area of Critical State Concern previously designated on July 1, 1979 under Section 380.0552, Florida Statutes, and subject to Chapters 27F-B and 27F- 9, Florida Administrative Code. Monroe County has developed a comprehensive plan pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, which provides for certain standards and criteria for the issuance of development permits, such as the one applied for in this instance. As it relates to this case, the comprehensive plan is known as the Monroe County Coastal Zone Protection and Conservation Element. Prior to its clearing, the subject property was a high quality, mature tropical hardwood hammock with a closed canopy approximately thirty feet in height, and represented a unique genealogy not found elsewhere in North America outside of the Everglades. There were also several "protected" or "threatened" tree species on the site such as the paradise tree, red berry stopper and thatched palm, and approximately five active Key Largo woodrat nests. The clearing that has taken place has substantially destroyed the tropical hardwood canopy and removed most of the top soil from the area. One strip of hammock remains at the border of the property as well as several tree clumps, but the strip and clumps are too small and narrow to serve as a habitat. Therefore, the area's use as a habitat for woodrats has been destroyed and their nests can no longer be found on site. Trees such as the torchwood which were previously found on the site and which serve as host plants for endangered or threatened species, such as the Schaus swallowtail butterfly, have also been destroyed. This finding is based on the testimony of Mark Robertson, Dr. Art Weiner who was accepted as an expert in biology and Florida Keys ecology, and Numi Goodyear, an expert in zoology and Keys mammalian. The subject property was not selectively cleared, but rather was indiscriminately cleared. This has had a scouring effect on the soil. The evidence does not establish that fill material has been deposited on site. A survey of trees and vegetation on the subject property was submitted by the applicants, but this was not a complete or adequate survey of vegetation on the site. The applicants had no adequate protective plan for the endangered or threatened species, such as the woodrat, and trees on the subject property. Although it was established through the testimony of Melvin R. "Chick" Harbert, who was recognized as an expert in golf facility components, that a golf practice area is an integral part of Professional Golfer's Association approved courses, and that such areas allow golfers to warm up, practice and receive golfing lessons, it has not been established by competent substantial evidence that driving ranges, such as the one applied for in this case, are customarily associated with golf courses such as the ones in Ocean Reef. There is no evidence that professional golf tournaments have, or will be, held at these courses, or that the owners of the courses intend to seek P.G.A. sanctioning of a tournament at their facility. Additionally, Harbert admitted that not every golf course requires a driving range. Finally, Harbert's involvement with the Ocean Reef Development as a professional golf instructor diminishes his credibility as a witness. Even if it had been found that driving ranges are customarily associated with golf courses such as the ones in this case, the testimony of Charles C. Gardner, a partner in Driscoll Properties, and Charles Pattison, Director of Planning, Building and Zoning for Monroe County, establishes that a golf driving range was not shown or located on the subject property on the Master Development Plan Map for the Ocean Reef Development filed with the County in June, 1977. Further, other than the permit from which the appeal in this case was taken, there are no records, maps, authorizations or permits on file with the County which allow or indicate a driving range on the subject property. Therefore, the applicants had no interest in the development of a driving range at this location prior to its designation as an Area of Critical State Concern. To the contrary, Gardner specifically testified that the desire to locate a driving range on the subject property did not arise until 1982 or 1983. Although Permit No. C-14914 was transmitted to Petitioner's Keys Office on May 14, 1984, Monroe County Resolution No. 091-1984 and the development order authorizing issuance of the permit for land clearing were not transmitted to Petitioner until June 21, 1984. On August 3, 1984, Petitioner filed its appeal with the Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission of Resolution No. 091-1984. Bob Dennis, Petitioner's environmental specialist, attended the March 23, 1984 meeting of the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners when Resolution 091-1984 was adopted. He did not participate in the meeting, but simply observed the meeting as part of his normal job duties.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that a Final Order be issued denying Respondents Harbor Course Club, Inc. and Driscoll Properties' application for a land clearing permit. Since the clearing has already taken place, there are no changes in the development proposal that would make it eligible for a permit, and it is therefore also recommended that further development permits for the site in question comply with final action to be taken in Case No. 84-3805VR. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of February, 1986, at Tallahassee Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of February, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 84-2868VR Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Facts: Adopted in Findings of Fact 1 and 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Adopted in Findings of Fact 2 and 23. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 1, but otherwise rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 19, but otherwise rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 6-12. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 27, but otherwise rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 26 and 27 but otherwise rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 22, but otherwise rejected as not based on competent, substantial evidence. Adopted in Findings of Fact 16, 17 and 22. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 19-20. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 22, but otherwise rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 5, but otherwise rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 29. Rejected since this is actually a conclusion of law. 28-30. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 28. Rejected since in part this is a conclusion of lawn and is otherwise irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9, but otherwise rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 28, but otherwise rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 11-13. Adopted in Findings of Fact 22, 23. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 22, but otherwise rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 42-45. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rulings on Respondents Driscoll Properties, Walter Driscoll and Harbor Course Club, Inc., Proposed Findings of Fact which have been adopted by Respondent Monroe County: 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 2-3. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 27, but otherwise rejected as not based on competent, substantial evidence. Rejected as not based on competent, substantial evidence, and otherwise irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Rejected in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Rejected as not based on competent, substantial evidence, and otherwise irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 11-13. Adopted in part and rejected in part in Finding of Fact 24. Rejected in Finding of Fact 25. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 6. Rejected in Findings of Fact 22-25. Adopted in Findings of Fact 8, 28. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 18 but otherwise rejected in Finding of Fact 23. 23-24. Adopted in Findings of Fact 15, 29. 25. Rejected as irrelevant. 26-27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 28. 28-29. Rejected as not based on competent, substantial evidence and otherwise irrelevant. 30-33. Rejected as not a proper proposed Finding of Fact since this is simply Respondents' summary of rulings and testimony at final hearing. The testimony of Mark Robertson and the deposition of Sandra Hersh has been accepted and considered to the extent they reflect the personal observations, experiences and records of said witnesses. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Graham Governor The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Bill Gunter Insurance Commissioner The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Jim Smith Attorney General The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable George Firestone Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Ralph Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Glenn W. Robertson, Secretary Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Office of the Governor Room 415 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Susan Vernon, Esquire 310 Fleming Street Key West, Florida 33040 Larry A. Stumpf, Esquire Suite 1000 777 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 Sarah E. Nall, Esquire C. Laurence Keesey, Esquire Ross Burnaman, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2571 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32301
