Recommendation It is recommended that the permit be granted and that the crossing be opened subject to the type of crossing protection equipment agreed on by the parties DONE and ORDERED this 23 day of November, 1976, in Tallahassee Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: John W. Humes, Jr., Attorney Florida East Coast Railway Company One Malaga Street St. Augustine, Florida 32084 Ralph B. Wilson, Attorney St. Lucie County Post Office Box 700 Ft. Pierce, Florida 33450 George L. Waas, Attorney Florida Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Wingfield Development Company (WDC), is a real estate development company located at 390 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1800, Orlando, Florida. In late 1982 or early 1983, WDC began developing a resort project known as Turtleback Beach Club (the project) in Indian River County. When completed, the project will consist of a 256 unit hotel, 68 villas, two swimming pools, a number of cabanas, a reverse-osmosis water plant, and other amenities which will cost approximately $50 million. All structures were designed to be constructed landward of the then existing coastal construction control line (CCCL). The date of establishment of the original CCCL is not of record. From late 1982 or early 1983 until 1987, WDC expended approximately $1.4 million on the project. Among the expenditures were the preparation of extensive cite and design plans, the installation of off-site utilities, and the fabrication and installation of some two hundred pilings and a number of pile caps. All such work was performed landward of the then existing CCCL. On March 5, 1987 respondent, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), reestablished the CCCL in Indian, River County. The new CCCL was more landward than the original CCCL. This resulted in several portions of the project, including all or parts of the villa and hotel, being seaward of the new CCCL. In November 1987 WDC was advised by the Indian River County Building Department to cease construction activities because, after consultation with DNR, it has decided not to make any further inspections. On April 4, 1988 DNR advised WDC by letter that, after making a site review of the project, it had determined that: the foundations for the hotel structure and the cabana located in the southeast portion of the property were `under construction' pursuant to the definition contained in Subsection 16B-33.002(56), Florida Administrative Code, at the time of the reestablishment of the coastal construction control line on March 4, 1987, ... (and that) the remaining five proposed cabana structures located on the south half of the property and shown to be seaward of the new control line, the proposed swimming pools, decks and gazebos, parking areas also shown to be seaward of the new control line and any other proposed landscaping work were not `under construction' pursuant to the definition. The letter added that the: staff shall consider the exemption status for the hotel and the one cabana under construction void if construction activity on these structures remains idle for a period of six months from the date of receipt of this exemption determination and prior to completion of the structures. Finally, the letter required petitioner to submit: a proposed `build out' schedule (that) would entail providing (the) staff with specifics of where (petitioner) expect(s) the overall project to be at ninety (90) day intervals up through completion of the structures located seaward of the coastal construction line. The staff feels that two years should be more than ample time with which to complete that portion of the project located seaward of the coastal construction control line. Progress must be maintained on each structure during each six month interval. Additionally, should your project fall short of any ninety day progress levels to be referenced in your `build out' plan, your project will lose it's (sic) exemption status and all remaining portions of the project, seaward of the control line will require a permit from the (DNR) in accordance with the provisions of Section 161.053, Florida Statutes. Because the letter offered a point of entry to contest the proposed agency action, WDC requested a section 120.57(1) hearing. At the same time, it continued construction on the project. On November 25, 1988 DNR issued further proposed agency action in the form of a letter advising WDC that, based upon a review of WDC's exemption file, the exempt status of the project had been "lost" and that any further construction activity seaward of the CCCL would require a permit from DNR under section 161.053. The receipt of this advice prompted WDC to file a second request for a section 120.57(1) hearing and a petition seeking to invalidate what it perceived to be an illicit rule, or in the alternative, the two rules from which the statements were drawn. WDC contends that DNR's requirement that, once a project is given an exempt status, it must remain under active construction and the owner must submit for DNR's approval a "build out" schedule, is an illicit rule since such a requirement is not contained in DNR's rules. Under state law, as implemented by DNR, no construction activity may take place seaward of a CCCL without a permit from DNR. However, any projects that are under construction at the time of the establishment of the CCCL are exempt from such permitting requirements. Under the current DNR organizational structure, the Division of Beaches and Shores (Division) is charged with the responsibility of administering and enforcing the CCCL regulatory program. The Division's Bureau of Coastal Engineering and Regulation has been assigned the task of performing a site review of all projects for which local building permits have been issued at the time of the establishment of a CCCL. If a project is under construction, as defined in DNR rules, at the time of the establishment of the CCCL, the owner may continue his activities even if the structures are seaward of the CCCL. A determination as to whether a structure is under construction at the time a CCCL is reset does not take into consideration the impacts the structure will have on the beach and dune system. This is because DNR considers such a determination to be regulatory in nature, and such impacts would be irrevelant to that decision. The Division construes its authority as also permitting it to require an exempt project to remain under active construction once it receives an exempt status. It does so on the notion that this insures that the exemption status was obtained in good faith, and the builder intended to go forward with the construction in a timely manner and as originally conceived. It has been DNR's experience that some property owners have engaged in a minimal construction program to circumvent the regulatory process. To prevent this, DNR has imposed a requirement that, if construction activity ceases for a period of six months or more, the exempt status will be lost. A six month time period was used because DNR realized that short, unforeseeable delays of less than six months were not uncommon. This policy has been uniformly applied, without discretion to agency personnel to do otherwise, on all projects classified as exempt. In addition, DNR has required project owners to submit to DNR staff a so-called "build out" schedule containing a construction schedule at ninety day time intervals with a time certain for completion of the project. This requirement, although infrequently used, has been uniformly imposed, when needed, upon all exempt projects, including that of WDC. The agency concedes that there is no specific statutory language authorizing the above requirements. However, it takes the position that these requirements are authorized and sanctioned by chapter 161 as a whole and by rules 16B-33.002(56) and 16B-004(1), which happen to be the rules challenged by WDC. Those rules read as follows: 16B-33.002 Definitions. (56) "Under construction" is the continuous physical activity of placing the foundation or continuation of construction above the foundation of any structure seaward of the established coastal construction or setback line. Under construction does not include application for or obtaining a building permit, a site plan approval or zoning approval from the appropriate local government agency having jurisdiction over the activity, purchasing construction materials, placing such construction materials on the site, clearing or grading the site in anticipation of construction, site surveying, continuation of site work beyond the limits of the foundation including landscape work or construction of nonhabitable major structures or rigid coastal or shore protection structures, or reactivating construction after substantially all construction activity has remained stopped for a period of six months or more. 16B-33.004 Exemptions from Permit Requirements. (1) Any structures under construction prior to the establishment of a coastal construction control line in a particular county are exempt from the provisions of Section 160.053, Florida Statutes, and this Chapter, except as noted in Subsection 161.053(12), Florida Statutes. Respondent acknowledges that there is nothing in rule 16B-33.004(1) that specifically authorizes it to impose the challenged requirements. However, it relies upon that part of the rule which reads "except as noted in Subsection 161.053(12), Florida Statutes" as implicitly authorizing this action. That statute removes the exempt status of a project if there are any subsequent modifications which "require, involve, ,or include any additions to, or repair or modification of the existing foundation of that structure." According to the Division director, it construes that language as authorizing it to make a determination as to whether the project owner has made any substantial changes in the nature of the project or if construction has been continuous. Respondent also relies upon rule 16B-33.002(56) which defines the term "under construction" as being "the continuous physical activity of placing the foundation or contination of construction above the foundation of any structure seaward of the established coastal construction control or setback line." The Division interprets this language to mean that construction must be continuous and without a cessation of activities of more than six months. This rule language is bottomed on subsection 161.053(9) which reads in pertinent part that "the provisions of this section do not apply to ... structures existing or under construction prior to the establishment of a coastal construction control line as provided herein; provided such structures may not be materially altered except as provided in subsection (5)." Finally, the agency relies upon subsection 161.053(1)(a) which sets forth the legislative intent behind the establishment of CCCLs. Among other things, the purpose of a CCCL is to protect, the beaches and dunes from imprudent construction which can "provide inadequate protection to upland structures." In the words ,of the Division director, DNR interprets this language to mean that it has the authority to "go back and look at projects once they are declared exempt, and to make sure that they remain exempt under the statute." The DNR documents which grant exemptions do not contain any reference to requirements that there be continuous construction on the project and that a build out schedule be submitted thereafter. Even so, DNR contends it is merely granting a "conditional" exemption conditioned on the project owner maintaining active and continuous construction. It posits further that, without such authority, its regulatory program would be rendered ineffective. However, the Division director conceded that, even without the imposition of these requirements, DNR still has authority to regulate all structures which are constructed seaward of the CCCL and to prohibit any material changes to an existing or partially completed structure. Petitioner intends to complete its project, but contends it cannot do so at the pace required in DNR's build out schedule. Also, WDC points out that it is unable to secure permanent financing for the project since lender's are uncertain if DNR will approve the build out schedule and allow construction to go forward or instead precipitously halt the construction. There have been no construction activities on the project since November 1988.
The Issue Whether there should be a closing of a public-at-grade rail/highway crossing and removal of roadway in the vicinity of seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company's Crossing Number 622963-n and whether there should be improvements on Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company Crossing Number 622964-v, Mile Post 825.15.
Findings Of Fact The Town of Davenport applied for a closing of a public-at-grade rail/highway crossing and roadway removal at the railroad crossing on North Boulevard in the Town of Davenport. Abandonment of the street was conditioned upon the improvement of Magnolia Street from Highway 17-92 on the east and running west to State Road 547. A public hearing was requested by the applicant. The following stipulation was entered into: "The Town of Davenport made application to close a crossing within the incorporated limits after the City officially closed a street in the Town of Davenport known as North Boulevard. The portion of the street that was officially closed by the City and abandoned includes a railroad crossing known as the Seaboard Coast Line railroad tracks. As a result of the closing other routes must he used by vehicles including the crossing on Magnolia Street in the Town of Davenport. Improvements have been made to the Magnolia Street crossing by the railroad. The Respondent, Florida Department of Transportation, agreed to assist in the installation of Type 3, Class 4, municipal design active signalization devices which consist of side mounted flashing lights, bells, and gates on the Magnolia Street crossing. The Town of Davenport agreed to furnish ten (10) percent of the monies necessary to install said signalization when the crossing comes within the program. The Town of Davenport has also agreed to share in a 50/50 basis the maintenance cost with the Seaboard Coast Line Railioad Company which would amount to approximately $400 a year. Consistent with this agreement the Respondent Florida Department of Transportation agrees that there is no need for the existing crossing and a permit for the closing is agreed to be granted for the closing on North Boulevard."
Recommendation Grant permit for closing. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of May, 1977, in Tallahassee Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Carlton Building Room 530 Tallahassee, Florida 32394 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of May, 1977. COPIES FURNISHED: James T. Joiner, Esquire Post Office Box 761 Winter Haven, Florida 33880 Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Eugene Buzard, Esquire Seaboard Coast Line Railroad 500 Water Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Findings Of Fact The Notice of Hearing was entered into evidence and said notice was amended to reflect that the distance of an existing crossing north of the proposed crossing was 2,208' + north rather than 1,500' + north. The application was also changed to reflect that the proposed roadway was to extend the limits of a right of way to 120' instead of 100'. The change would place the mile post at a slightly different location. Upon examination of the area and taking testimony from the three attorneys involved in this hearing, it is the findings of this Hearing Officer that the change in location and the change in the proposed roadway is not of sufficient consequence that the hearing should have been postponed and re- noticed. Inasmuch as the parties directly involved were present, the owners of the railroad were represented, the owners of the Petitioner corporation were represented, there were representatives from the County and from the Florida Department of Transportation. A re-notice with the minor changes in location and in the width of the right of way would have been sent to the same representatives. The Notice of Hearing met the requirements of notice of public hearing. Petitioner Suntree Development Corporation is proposing to construct a connector road between Wickham Road and U.S. 1 approximately 2,208' south of an existing two-lane signalized (warning bells, lights, and gates) road crossing on Pineda Avenue in south Brevard County, Florida. The proposed road is to be four-laned with 120 foot right of way including a 20 foot medium strip. The road would be an access between U.S. 1 and the Suntree Community, a new community on approximately 2,800 acres of land which is predicted to have approximately 35,000 to 40,000 people after total development which is estimated to be completed within a 15 year period. The road would be a limited access with acceleration and deacceleration lines on U.S. 1 with an estimated total anticipated average daily traffic of from 23,000 to 60,000 trips per day. The proposed crossing involves a Type IV cantilevered signalization with bells, flashing lights and gates to be activated by trains. Cost of signalization and maintenance is to be borne by the Suntree Development Corporation. Petitioner is the primary owner of all the lands involved, but does not own all of the right of way needed to construct the crossing. Building is presently limited to a country club, sewage treatment plants, about a mile of roadway and two single family homes under construction and plans for the construction of some forty homes within the next few months. The proposed crossing was approved by the Brevard County Commission with the understanding that the crossing at Pineda Avenue would not be closed. The Florida East Coast Railway track in this area is a single track with 18 through freight trains a day which travel about 60 m.p.h. at the proposed crossing location. Two local freights move at unscheduled times across the railroad tracks. The tracks in the vicinity of the proposed crossing is nearly straight. The Florida East Coast Railway Company owns the right of way over the tracks and opposes the opening of another crossing in such close proximity to the crossing at Pineda Avenue, at this time. Storage capacity or storage area is the area in which cars can stand while awaiting clearance to proceed. The proposed road will contain 1,800' of storage area with 850' on the Wickham Road side and 950' on the U.S. 1 side. Using the average daily traffic figure when the community is developed, as calculated by Petitioner, U.S. 1 would be blocked in 3.28 minutes. Using the average daily traffic figures when the community is developed, as calculated by the Florida Department of Transportation, U.S. 1 would be blocked in 1.27 minutes. The Florida Department of Transportation recommends that an overpass be constructed rather than the at-grade crossing. The Hearing Officer further finds: The Pineda Avenue crossing can serve the vehicular traffic demand at present; Petitioner's plans for development, if realized, will demand another railroad cross- ing to serve the community; The proposed at-grade crossing is in such close proximity to U.S. 1 that it would be hazardous to vehicular traffic on U.S. 1 and the proposed Suntree entry road when the community is developed.
The Issue Whether an at-grade crossing in the vicinity of Southwest 5th Avenue and 2,625 feet north of Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company Mile Foot 731 in Williston should be opened.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, City of Williston, applied for a permit to construct an at-grade railroad crossing 2,625 feet north of Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company Mile Post SR-731 and Southwest Fifth Avenue, if extended, in the City of Williston for the purpose of providing access from an undeveloped but intended residential area of the City. There are two (2) Public at-grade crossings in the area. One is located 1,360 feet north of proposed crossing at Southwest First Avenue and one is located 625 feet south of the proposed crossing at Southwest Seventh Avenue. The subject railroad track is a lead track used for providing service to railroad custoners located north of proposed crossing in the City of Williston. Approximately six (6) train movements occur each week and the maximum speed is 25 miles per hour. There is a heavy stand of trees in the Southwest quadrant of the proposed crossing. Southwest First Avenue runs east and west to the south of the existing Williston High School and north of an elementary school and, although there have been discussions as to whether the street should be abandoned if the proposed road Southwest Fifth Avenue is opened, no official action has been taken. There has been no detailed planning by the City as to the following: Where the Southwest Fifth Avenue as proposed should connect to Southeast Fifth Avenue across the proposed railroad crossing; The cost of construction and maintenance of the crossing and the cost of warning devices that might be required at the crossing and the financing of same; What the estimated traffic count would be across the proposed crossing from the hospital that is in the vicinity and from the schools in the vicinity; Whether the railroad company would grant an easement for the crossing across the railroad property; and Whether a road could or should be built paralleling the railroad and connecting with an existing crossing. Is is the further finding of the Hearing Officer: There has been insufficient planning on the part of the Petitioner City of Williston as to the use or hazards in the proposed crossing; There are insufficient fact available to the Hearing Officer to make a determination as to the necessity or the safety of the proposed crossing; and The Florida Department of Transportation recommended that it proposed crossing was opened, the maximum protection should be a minimum of flashing lights, ringing bells, proper signing and pavement markings. No other recommendations were made.
The Issue Whether there should be an opening of a public at-grade rail/highway crossing by new roadway construction at the intersection of Berryhill Road and Seaboard Coast Line Railroad SYA 877-1610' South, Pasco County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact An application for an opening of a public at-grade rail/ highway crossing by new roadway construction was submitted by Robert K. Reese of Pasco County, County Commission District IV, Florida. The crossing location is in the municipality of Holiday. The local popular name of the street or roadway is Berryhill Roadway. The crossing is across the tracks of the Seaboard Coast Line railroad. The railroad mile post distance and direction is SYA 877-1610' south. The crossing would serve a subdivision known as Forest Hills East. The only entrance into the Forest Hills East Subdivision is a crossing by way of Elizabeth Avenue. This crossing is unsignalized and requires vehicular traffic to cross two spur line railroad tracks. There is a third possible entrance into the subdivision through a crossing known as Tumbleweeds but this entrance is undeveloped and is not now being utilized. The Forest Hills East Subdivision projects 250 single family dwellings in the development. There are no current plans to build condominium or apartment structures. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad previously approved water and sewer crossings underneath the railroad tracks at the Berryhill proposed crossing. There are deceleration and acceleration lanes and paving on the state road S-595 which leads up to the subdivision. There is an estimated three trains per week which would utilize the crossing and there is an unobstructed field of view from the center of the railroad track 1500 feet to the south and 700 feet to the north. On the proposed crossing proceeding in the western direction there is am available visibility of 89 feet south and 120 feet north with a train proceeding at 15 miles per hour. After public hearing in 1974 involving this same proposed crossing in which Dreher Construction Company, the developer of the subdivision, was the applicant, the Respondent, Department of Transportation, directed an issuance of the permit finding need but the issuance of the permit was conditioned upon the installation and maintenance of automatically operated signals consisting of flashing lights and ringing bells at the proposed crossing as the required safety measure. No permit was granted. The roadway has been built and access to the subdivision across the tracks is now complete except for signalization. Because of no signalization the entrance is now blocked for ingress or egress although at least two new homes have been constructed in the subdivision. The cost of the installation of the signalization which had been recommended by the Respondent, Department of Transportation, in 1974 and is still recommended, is between $30,000 and $40,000 with additional maintenance costs. The cost of the signalization of wooden cross bucks, stop signs and speed bumps with minimal maintenance costs is obviously much less although no evidence was submitted as to actual cost. The present applicant for the Berryhill crossing, the Pasco County Commission, District IV, represented by its Transportation-chairman Robert K. Reese requests that the permit for the proposed Berryhill crossing be granted without the requirement that electronic signalization be required. A need was cited for an additional crossing to serve the residents of the subdivision in addition to normal travel. Additional needs were cited by the fire department and hospital emergency vehicles. It was noted that many of the residents are retirees and that at times the one existing crossing is blocked by trains across the track. The applicant states that it is unwilling to expend county monies for the recommended electronic signalization. The developer of the subdivision is unwilling to install and maintain the electronic signalization. A large number of the residents of the subdivision want the proposed crossing opened immediately and at the hearing indicated that they felt that the roadside flashing lights were unnecessary and that they thought the cross buck and stop signs were all that is necessary. From a personal viewing of the Forest Hills East Subdivision and the crossing available to the residents therein, together with the evidence submitted, the testimony of parties who have substantial interest in the proposed crossing and after listening to the oral arguments of counsels at the hearing and the briefs submitted thereafter, the Hearing Officer further finds: There is an undisputed need for a crossing in addition to the present crossing to serve the subdivision. The present crossing is less safe than the proposed railroad crossing would be although both crossings are needed to serve the subdivision. The normal number of trains trafficking at the proposed Berryhill crossing is three times a week with a maximum scheduled speed of the train at 20 miles per hour. The crossing is needed and signalization of wooden cross arms and stop signs and speed zones would serve the public interest adequately although manual flagging of the train and the installation of flashing lights and ringing bells might be required at a future time. The need to the subdivision and the residents therein would be better served by opening the proposed Berryhill crossing inasmuch as it would give two entrances into the subdivision.
Recommendation Grant the permit for a period of one (1) year with wooden cross arms, a stop sign and traffic bumps as signalization and safety measures. Reevaluate after one year from date hereof. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of September, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: H. James Parker, Esquire Delzer, Edwards, Martin, Coulter & Parker Post Office Box 279 Port Richey, Florida 33568 Jeffrey H. Savlov, Esquire Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Eugene R. Buzard, Esquire Seaboard Coast Lime Railroad 500 Water Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 =================================================================
The Issue Whether permits for two public at-grade railroad crossings should be granted.
Findings Of Fact By application the Agrico Chemical Company seeks permits to open two public at-grade railroad crossings by constructing a spur track between the Seaboard Coastline Railroad and Agrico Railroad beginning 1,868 feet south of Seaboard Coastline Mile Post SVC 851 at Agrock, Florida. The application involves opening two public at-grade rail highway crossings by new rail line construction. The local popular name of the road is Fort Green Road and Payne Creek Road. Two tracks were constructed less than two years ago so that the Seaboard Coastline Railroad could come off their main line and come into Agrico and pick up loaded or unloaded cars for transportation to the south, north and west. Agrico now desires to construct a track which more directly ties into what they term their Payne Creek trackage to the southeast. The new crossings would come straight across the Seaboard Coastline mainline into the Fort Green trackage. Agrico would have to spend less time on Seaboard Coastline trackage and the plan is to erect electric signal crossings whereas there are no electric signal crossings in the area at the present time. Such signalization would render the crossings less hazardous. The Petitioner Agrico will pay for the signalization at both crossings. Signalization consists of bells and signal lights. The Seaboard Coastline Railroad will maintain the crossings and signalization at the expense of the Petitioner Agrico. There are twelve trains per day. The Respondent Seaboard Coastline Railroad was not represented at the hearing, but a letter was introduced stating that "Seaboard Coastline will indicate no objections to these crossings when the appropriate public hearing is scheduled". The Respondent Department of Transportation reviewed the subject application and expressed the desire of the district railroad committee that Agrico Chemical Company pay for the installation of flashing lights and that the installation would conform to the manual on uniform traffic control devices pertaining to signalized railroad crossings. It also stated that in the interest of good safety practices, no buildings should be constructed or plantings made that would prevent good sight distance at the crossing. Additionally, the Respondent Department of Transportation suggested that the railroad crossings be maintained by "other than the Department of Transportation". The Hearing Officer further finds: The application for new railroad trackage is in the interest of the Petitioner Agrico Chemical Company and is in the interest of the public using the two railroad crossings. Signalization as planned will increase the safety of vehicular traffic.
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.
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.
