The Issue The issue in this case is whether a beach house petitioners plan to build in south Walton County was already under construction, within the meaning of Section 161.053(7), Florida Statutes (1981) and Rule 16B-33.04(1), Florida Administrative Code, at the time the current coastal construction control line took effect there.
Findings Of Fact In October of 1982, the petitioners acquired a lot in south Walton County, on the north shore of the Gulf of Mexico. Even before the purchase, Mr. Wiese had been in touch with respondent's personnel, who apprised him of the imminence of the adoption of the new (now current) coastal construction control line, at that time already proposed for Walton County. The former coastal construction control line was considerably seaward of the current line, which became effective on December 29, 1982. Petitioners, who have built some seven houses, drew plans for a house to be built on their Walton County lot one foot landward of the old coastal construction control line. They applied for and obtained the necessary county building permit. They contracted for grading on site, which took place on November 27, 1982. In the course of this work, the landward face of the sand dune was disturbed and petitioners realized that, if they were to build so close to the water, a wall or something like a wall would have to be erected and buttressed to keep the sand dune from migrating under or into their beach house. They determined that the plans were inadequate as drawn. Mr. Wiese nevertheless arranged for one Al Christopher to bring two poles to the site and place one of them upright in the sand. When asked at hearing how long the two poles Mr. Christopher delivered to the site were, Mr. Wiese said he did not know. After Mr. Christopher began, petitioners did not ask him to desist either with bringing pilings to the site or with placing them in the ground. Mr. Christopher evidently did what he was asked to do, before he ever began working with the poles. Before the single pile was placed, batter boards were used to locate the perimeters planned for the building. Batter boards are temporary markers which are removed once the foundation is in place. In constructing piling foundations for beach houses along the gulf coast, in this part of Florida if not elsewhere, the ordinary sequence is to bring all foundation piles to the site before bringing the equipment necessary to install all the piles at once. This makes for efficient use of expensive machinery, and is virtually always done. One of the Wieses' neighbors, fearing that the new coastal construction control line would take effect last fall arranged for a single pile to be driven, but his project was well underway by the time the new coastal construction control line did in fact take effect. As late as March of this year, Mr. Wiese checked with a Texas supplier to see if foundation piles would be available for the project. The plans drawn before the grading of November 27, 1982, called for a foundation of 37 piles, each of which was to be 45 feet long. No horizontal members nor bracing of any kind was contemplated for the foundation. The foundation piles were to be put so close together that it would have been impractical to bring heavy equipment in to do the grading after they were in place. The idea in leveling the ground was to prepare it so a concrete slab could be poured to serve as a parking surface underneath the beach house. Under both the plans originally drawn and the plans under which petitioners now hope to proceed the parking surface itself is not expected to have a structural function, Mr. Wiese's testimony to the contrary notwithstanding. Once petitioners were persuaded that the project needed "reengineering," they diligently sought out expert assistance and new foundation plans were eventually drawn to their satisfaction. Petitioners' efforts took place on a regular, if not a daily basis, but consisted in large part of finding the right people for the "reengineering" job. The plans which petitioners propose to use were stamped with the final engineer's seal on March 3, 1983, more than two months after the current coastal construction control line took effect.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent deny petitioners' beach house project grandfathered status, and apply the coastal construction control line adopted for Walton County on December 29, 1982, in any agency action regarding the project. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 1983, Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 ApA1Achee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of August 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph C. Jacobs, Esquire John C. Pelham, Esquire and Melissa Fletcher Allaman, Esquire ERVIN, VARN, ODOM & KITCHEN Post Office Box 1770 Tallahassee, Florida 32322-1170 Deborah A. Getzoff, Esquire Suite 1003 Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Elton Gissendanner, Director Executive Suite 3900 Commonwealth Building Tallahassee, Florida 32303
Findings Of Fact Because of a 1984 Thanksgiving Day storm which inflicted damage in coastal areas, Barry Manson-Hing, an area engineer employed by the Department, issued emergency coastal construction permits from a temporary office in the Vero Beach Administration Building. On December 3, 1984, Respondent sought an emergency permit to allow him to place sand and sand-filled bags on his coastal property at 3755 Ocean Drive, Vero Beach, Florida. Respondent asked Mr. Manson-Hing if he could use sand from the beach to restore eroded areas. Mr. Manson-Hing said he could not, and told him that sand would have to be obtained from an upland source. Respondent replied that he had an available source of upland sand and would haul it by truck to the beach site. He also mentioned that he would remove an existing pine tree to allow vehicular access. On the next day, December 4, 1984, Mr. Manson-Hing issued an emergency coastal construction permit, #1R-127E, to Respondent. The permit allowed Respondent to place 1,500 cubic yards of sand fill material to restore eroded beach and dune areas at the site, and also permitted him to temporarily place sand-filled bags on filter cloth. In capital letters, the permit warned, "SCRAPING OF THE BEACH IS PROHIBITED." (Dept. Exhibit 4) On December 5, 1984, Lt. Raymond Barker of the Vero Beach Police Department, observed beach scraping activities being conducted on Respondent's coastal property. Respondent was present on the site. Beach sand seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line for Indian River County had been scraped and deposited at the face of the sand dune. The removal of the sand created depressions in the beach area seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line. Lt. Barker ordered Respondent to cease the activity until it could be determined he had the required authorization. Respondent complied with Lt. Barker's order. The scraping of the beach and removal of sand below the coastal construction control line was accomplished without a permit from the Department. On July 17, 1985, the Department entered its "Final Order" assessing Respondent a $500 fine for unauthorized coastal construction activities in violation of Section 161.054, Florida Statutes (1985). Respondent requested a hearing; resulting in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department assess, impose, and collect an administrative fine of $500, to be paid within 30 days of final agency action. DONE AND ORDERED this 20th day of June, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 the 20th day of June, 1986.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent Negele is entitled to a coastal construction control line permit to construct a single- family residence seaward of the coastal construction control line on Anna Maria Island.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Susan Negele (Applicant) owns Lot 10, Block 35, of the First Addition to Anna Maria Beach. Petitioner owns the legal interest in Lots 11 and 12 in the same block. Lot 11 is adjacent to, and landward of, Lot 10, and Lot 12 is adjacent to, and landward of, Lot 11. As platted in 1912, Lot 10 was separated from the Gulf by 360 feet, consisting, from landward to seaward, of two 50-foot lots, an unnamed 10-foot alley, a 100-foot lot, a 50-foot-wide road known as Gulf Boulevard, and about 100 feet of beach (although this feature does not contain a stated distance and the plat map does not indicate the location of the mean or seasonal high water line). According to the plat, running perpendicular to Gulf Boulevard (and the shoreline) are Elm Avenue and another unnamed 10-foot alley. Elm Avenue, which is 50-feet wide, runs along the northwest property line of Lot 10, and the unnamed alley runs along the southeast property line of Lot 10. Today, Lot 10 is the first platted feature landward of the seasonal high water line of the Gulf of Mexico. The record does not reveal whether the platted features seaward of Lot 10 were submerged at the time of the original subdivision or, if not, the process or processes that submerged these three lots, alley, road, and beach. Notwithstanding the clear evidence of the plat map, there is insufficient record evidence on which to base a finding that the mean or seasonal high water line has migrated landward a distance of 360 feet in 88 years. The record is contradictory on the issue of the stability of the beach seaward of Lot 10. On the one hand, as noted below, two rock groins of unknown age on either side of Lot 10 suggest an effort to deter offshore erosion, but the presence of these groins does not support an inference of a diminishing beach. The beach seaward of Lot 10 is included in the Comprehensive Beach Management Plan, which is reserved for beaches that are subject to erosion, but the record does not develop this point adequately. On the other hand, also as noted below, the anecdotal evidence suggests that the beach seaward of Lot 10 has been stable, at least for the past two or three decades. A recent survey, described below, suggests rapid growth in the beach and dune over the past 16 months. Even stronger evidence of the stability of the beach seaward of Lot 10 is its exclusion from the 30-year erosion projection. The record unfortunately does not disclose the proximity of this line to Lot 10, which, if in close proximity, would be important evidence of the condition of a beach and frontal dune system. In sum, the relative stability of the beach in the vicinity of Lot 10 is unclear. However, the exclusion of Lot 10 from the 30-year erosion projection and the anecdotal evidence of stability slightly outweigh the contrary evidence of instability. Applicant's family has owned Lot 10 for 50 years. Originally, they occupied two buildings on Lot 10 that had once served as Coast Guard barracks. At one point, Applicant's father barged the houses up the Manatee River to his father's farm in Palmetto. The record does not reveal whether another building was ever constructed on Lot 10. From an engineering standpoint, Lot 10 is a buildable lot. Applicant seeks the necessary permits to allow residential construction, so as to raise the market value of Lot 10 prior to its sale in order to liquidate this asset following the death of her surviving parent. By application filed with Respondent Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) on June 16, 1997, Applicant requested a coastal construction control line (CCCL) permit to construct a single-family residence on Lot 10. On June 30, 1999, DEP issued a Final Order tentatively granting the permit, but authorizing the construction of a structure with a footprint of only 352 square feet. Finding the allowable footprint insufficient, Applicant challenged the tentative agency action in DOAH Case No. 99-3913. Finding even a 352-square-foot footprint objectionable, Petitioner also challenged the tentative agency action in DOAH Case No. 99-3613. The Administrative Law Judge consolidated the two cases. Agency action in cases of this type is necessarily tentative because it is subject to administrative challenge, which, once resolved, allows final agency action to take place. However, the tentative agency action in this case is tentative in another important respect. DEP has approached the permitting decision in this case through a bifurcated process. DEP has issued a Final Order approving the proposed activity in concept, but has withheld issuing a Notice to Proceed, which is necessary before construction may commence. DEP has withheld issuing the Notice to Proceed until it receives more detailed plans for grading and revegetating the dune and it determines that these plans adequately address the protection of the beach and dune system. As noted below, the bifurcated permitting process defers DEP's examination of detailed grading and revegetation plans until after its issuance of the Final Order. DEP's expert testified that DEP provides a point of entry to challenge final orders, but not notices to proceed. (Tr., p. 174.) The expert testified that DEP would provide another point of entry concerning the proposed activity, but only if DEP were to issue another final order, such as for a "major modification" of the project (Tr., p. 174). But nothing in the record suggests that DEP will be issuing another final order following it's receipt of the more detailed grading and revegetation plans, whose approval by DEP is not subject to administrative challenge (absent successful judicial action to force DEP to provide another point of entry). (The record does not reveal whether DEP would provide Applicant with another point of entry if DEP were to disapprove the more detailed plans and decline to issue the Notice to Proceed.) The absence of an agency-recognized point of entry to challenge the detailed plans means that the analysis necessary to make the determinations required by law concerning the impacts of the proposed activities must be limited to the Permit, as it presently exists, and these determinations may not rely upon additional protections that may be supplied by more detailed plans that are not yet in existence. DEP and Applicant settled DOAH Case No. 99-3913 shortly prior to the final hearing. The settlement stipulation incorporates a new site plan showing the proposed residence moved landward so that it is seven feet landward of the vegetation line, but setback only three feet from the northeast property line (adjoining Lot 11) and five feet from the southeast property line (adjoining the alley). DEP approved the settlement on or about March 17, 2000. By letter dated March 22, 2000, DEP's counsel advised Applicant's counsel that DEP would announce at the final hearing that "it intends to issue the [Permit] . . . in accordance with the agreed location in [the revised site plan] and all other applicable conditions of the June 29, 1999, final order and June 30, 1999, letter from [DEP] to Charles Rose." The CCCL permit is dated June 29, 1999, and expires on June 29, 2002. References to the "Permit" shall include the subsequent modifications that resulted in the settlement of DOAH Case No. 99-3913 and the modifications described below. Petitioner objected to all evidence and any express or implied amendment of the pleadings at the final hearing to encompass subsequent Permit modifications, but the Administrative Law Judge overruled these objections. The Permit authorizes Respondent to conduct activities in a location that is seaward of the CCCL, but landward of the 30-year erosion projection and the existing line of construction established by major structures in the immediate area. According to the survey dated October 15, 1998, and architect's plans dated November 12, 1998, the residence to be constructed would be an elevated two-story frame structure, over a concrete pad, with a footprint of 952 square feet. The proposed structure would be similar in size and character to other residences in the area. A registered architect has signed and sealed all relevant construction plans. For the purpose of this recommended order, the seaward side of Lot 10 is its 110-foot side facing the southwest. This southwest property line runs from the west corner to the south corner of Lot 10. The north and east corners mark the 110-foot side of Lot 10 that abuts Lot 11; this is the northeast property line. As already noted, the two 50-foot sides of Lot 10 abut Elm Avenue and the unnamed 10-foot alley. As it exists in the ground, Elm Avenue is a strip of pavement 17 feet wide located in the middle of the 50-foot wide platted right-of-way. At present, the paved portion of Elm Avenue does not extend seaward of the midpoint of Lot 11. Applicant proposes the construction of a shell drive between the Elm Avenue right-of-way and the north corner of Lot 10, but this proposed activity is not the subject of the present case. The road right-of-way immediately adjacent to Lot 10 was occupied by a 60-foot wooden access walkway extending from the end of the road seaward, between the rock groin and the northwest line of Lot 10. However, this walkway was removed in the past couple of years. At present, the rock groin parallel to the northwest line of Lot 10 occupies the center of the road right-of-way, extending from Lot 10's midpoint, which is landward of the seasonal high water line, to a point seaward of mean sea level. Another rock groin runs from the unnamed alley along the southeast line of Lot 10, also from a point just landward of the seasonal high water line, and extends seaward of mean sea level. Running parallel to the two 50-foot lot lines of Lot 10 and perpendicular to the shoreline, these two rock groins may offer some protection from erosion by affecting sand traveling offshore, but do not otherwise directly offer any protection to the beach and dune system. As established by Applicant, landward from the Gulf, relevant natural features are located as follows. Mean sea level, which is 0.00 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), is over 50 feet seaward of the west corner of Lot 10 and over 100 feet seaward of the south corner of Lot 10. Mean high water, which is 1.2 feet NGVD, is 35 feet seaward of the west corner of Lot 10 and about 75 feet seaward the south corner of Lot 10. Seasonal high water, which is 3.63 feet NGVD, is about 10 feet landward of the west corner of Lot 10 and about 25 feet seaward of the south corner of Lot 10. About 15-20 square feet of the relatively low west side of Lot 10 is submerged at seasonal high water. In two respects, Petitioner's survey, which was dated March 25, 2000, establishes that, at least for the past 16 months, the beach and dune system is flourishing, not eroding. First, mean high water is now farther from Lot 10 than it was in late 1998. In the intervening 16 months, the mean high water line has migrated to a point 77 feet seaward of the west corner of Lot 10--a distance of 37 feet in less than one and one- half years. During the same period, the mean high water line has migrated from 75 feet to 102 feet--a distance of 27 feet--seaward of the south corner of Lot 10. Second, the newer survey reveals that the seven-foot contour, which is shown on Applicant's survey as a small area at the midpoint of the southeast lot line, now extends across the southeastern two-thirds of the central portion of the lot. It is difficult to estimate from the surveys, but the area of at least seven-foot elevation appears to be six or seven times larger than it was 16 months ago, although a very small area of eight-foot elevation shown on Applicant's survey appears to have disappeared. Both surveys show that the six-foot contour line roughly bisects Lot 10 diagonally from the north to the south corners. Evidence of beach stability supplied from the March 2000 survey is reinforced by anecdotal testimony that the beach at this location has been stable for at least 20 years. In general, the beach at this location is not as dynamic as beaches found elsewhere in Florida. The CCCL is about 259 feet landward of the north corner of Lot 10 and about 222 feet landward of the east corner of Lot The CCCL is landward of Petitioner's Lots 11 and 12, as well as the next two 50-foot wide lots and nearly the entirety of Gulf Drive (Snapper Street on the plat) adjoining this block. According to Applicant's survey, the seaward toe of the frontal dune runs roughly along the seaward six-foot contour, perhaps 10 feet seaward of this contour at the west corner and a perhaps five feet landward of this contour at the south corner. The vegetation line runs 3-5 feet landward of the surveyed seaward toe of the dune. According to Applicant's survey, the frontal dune continues over the landward half of Lot 10, excluding only a 10-square-foot area at the east corner and extending well across the southeastern line of Lot 11, so as to capture about one-fifth of that lot. However, the surveys do not support an independent determination of the toes of the frontal dune or, thus, its width. DEP's expert testified that the landward toe of the dune is probably landward of the surveyed location. Also, the scale of the surveys did not facilitate analysis of subtle changes in slope, which would be indicative of the toes of a low frontal dune, such as is involved in this case. DEP's expert opined that a maximum elevation of seven or eight feet NGVD meant, at this general location, that the toes would probably be at the five- foot contours. If so, the seaward toe would be about 10-15 feet seaward of its surveyed location, and the landward toe would be at an undetermined location landward of Lot 10. Several dynamic processes underlie the beach and frontal dune system. Perhaps most obviously, plants rooted in a dune capture sand and, thus, add to the size of a dune. The absence of such plants facilitates a reduction in dune size. The stability of a dune is also affected by the slopes of its seaward and landward sides and the size of the grains of sand constituting the dune. When restoring a dune, adherence to historic slopes and elevations enhances the possibility of a successful dune restoration. Deviation from these slopes and elevations raises the risk of failure. The same is true regarding the size and characteristics of the grains of sand used to restore a dune. Another factor important in dune stability, as well as upland protection, is the continuity of the dune. A shorter dune, in terms of its length running parallel to the shoreline, is less stable and obviously offers less landward protection than a longer dune. As originally proposed, Respondent's home would occupy the east corner of Lot 10. The southwest side of the residence (facing the Gulf) would have been about one foot seaward of the vegetation line and only one to two feet landward of the surveyed seaward toe of the frontal dune. The landward side of the residence would have been 10 feet seaward of the northeast side of Lot 10. The proposed home would have been setback 10 feet from the northeast and southeast property lines. Shortly prior to the commencement of the hearing, Applicant modified the proposed plans, and DEP modified the Permit. These changes would relocate the proposed residence so that it was seven feet landward of the vegetation line, but setback only three feet from the northeast line and five feet from the southeast line. Despite its relocation landward from its original proposed location, the entire residence would occupy the frontal dune. More specifically, the residence would sit on the seaward side of the frontal dune. The Permit imposes a number of special conditions upon the construction of Respondent's residence. Consistent with DEP's bifurcation of the permitting process in this case, these special conditions prohibit the commencement of construction until Respondent submits plans and specifications "includ[ing] or reflect[ing] the following:" 1.1 A revised site plan including the distances relative to coastal construction control line to all the authorized structures with dimensions. The revised site plan shall depict the dwelling relocated to within 3 feet of the upland lot line and not exceeding a distance of 244 feet seaward. * * * 1.5 A revised grading plan depicting the restored dune extending across the entire parcel with a minimum crest elevation of +7.0 feet (NGVD). * * * The fill material shall be obtained from a source landward of the control line and shall consist of sand which is similar to that already on the site in both grain size and coloration. This fill material shall be free of construction debris, rocks, or other foreign matter. A sample of the sand shall be provided to the staff representative during the preconstruction conference. All permanent exterior lighting shall be installed and maintained as depicted in approved lighting schematic. No additional exterior lighting is authorized. CAVEAT: Due to potential adverse impacts to the beach and dune system that may result from additional development on the property, the shore-parallel and seaward extent of the permitted structures shall not be increased, nor will any additional major structures be permitted which would exceed the limits established by the permitted construction seaward of the coastal construction control line. The present proposed location of the residence is not landward of a line running 244 feet seaward of the CCCL. Roughly one-third of the proposed residence would be seaward of this line, which is set forth in the Permit. Addressing the obvious conflict between the restriction contained in Permit Paragraph 1.1 prohibiting any structure seaward of a point 244 feet seaward of the CCCL and its approval of the new location for the residence, DEP announced at the hearing a new Permit Paragraph 1.1, which reads: The revised site plan shall depict the dwelling relocated within three feet of the upland lot line and not exceeding a distance of 250 feet seaward of the CCCL on the southwest corner and 255 feet seaward of the CCCL on the northwest corner. (Tr., pp. 119-20.) The revised site plan clarifies that the reference to "three feet" means the three-foot setback on the northeast lot line. The references to the southwest and northwest corners are, respectively, to the southernmost corner, which, when used with respect to Lot 10 in this recommended order, is described as the south corner, and the westernmost corner, which, when used with respect to Lot 10 in this recommended order, is described as the west corner. (For ease of reference at the hearing, counsel, the witnesses, and Administrative Law Judge reoriented Lot 10 by referring to the southwest lot line as the west lot line and treating the Gulf, which is southwest of Lot 10, as though it were due west of Lot 10.) At present, Applicant has submitted no grading plans, which would address the seaward toe of the frontal dune after construction. The landward toe is not on Applicant's property, so Applicant will not be able to change the slope of the landward side of the dune by adding sand to the portion of this dune not contained within Lot 10. As identified to this point, the Permit's requirements for dune restoration are sketchy, reliant upon more detailed grading plans that are not yet in existence. Permit Paragraph 5 adequately specifies the grain size. However, the Permit fails to specify the slopes, leaving this crucial element of the dune to the more detailed grading plans. Under the Permit, Applicant would be required to supply a specified volume of sand to the site. This volume was calculated to be sufficient, based on Applicant's survey, to raise the portion of the dune northwest of the seven-foot contour to an elevation of seven feet NGVD. However, if Petitioner's survey is correct, much less sand will be needed to raise the elevation to seven feet NGVD, so the "excess" sand will widen the dune. This recommended order has credited both surveys, so Applicant's survey provides the relevant details except for the more recent information supplied by Petitioner's survey concerning the locations of the mean high water line and the seven-foot contour. The widening of the dune authorized by the Final Order necessarily changes the dune's profile by extending the seaward toe closer to the shoreline and probably changes the slope of the seaward toe of the dune. Additionally, raising the elevation of the dune in the northeastern portion of Lot 10 will dramatically change its landward profile, given the fact that Applicant cannot add sand to the large portion of the dune landward of Lot 10. The effects of these alterations of the dune profile are entirely unknown to Applicant and DEP. Failing to perform the preliminary tasks of locating the existing dimensions of the dune--in terms of its width (perpendicular to the shoreline) and its length (parallel to the shoreline)-- Applicant and DEP lacked the baseline data upon which they could then analyze the construction and post-construction effects of placing Applicant's residence atop this dune. The present stability of the beach and dune system at Lot 10 does not dispense with the necessity of such analysis in making the determinations required by the relevant law. Additionally, the Permit fails to address the revegetation of the dune, again leaving this issue to more detailed plans not yet in existence. Specifically, Applicant has submitted no plans establishing a replanting scheme with specified species at specified distances, criteria by which to measure the success of the revegetation process (e.g., X percent coverage after one year), and a monitoring and enforcement program. Lastly, although the City of Anna Maria issued a letter approving of the proposed plans when Applicant proposed ten-foot setbacks, the City of Anna Maria has not had a chance to comment upon the proposal of three- and five-foot setbacks. Land use regulations of the City of Anna Maria require greater setbacks than these. As distinguished from its treatment of the dune profile and vegetation, the Permit supplies ample assurances that the proposed activities would be conducted in such a way as not to disturb nesting sea turtles, which, according to the record, infrequently occupy this specific location. Permit provisions, such as those scheduling construction and governing construction and post-construction lighting, adequately address the relatively simple task of protecting this lightly used nesting habitat.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order denying the application for a coastal construction control line permit to construct a residence at the location indicated at the hearing. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 13th day of June, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Office of the General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Adam Mohammadbhoy Harllee Porges Post Office Box 9320 Bradenton, Florida 34205 S.W. Moore Brigham Moore 100 Wallace Avenue, Suite 310 Sarasota, Florida 34237 Francine M. Ffolkes Senior Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-9314
Findings Of Fact The subject property Petitioners, Michael and Janice Rush, are the owners of a single family residence located at 3032 North Atlantic Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida. Such residence lies seaward of the Broward County Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) and is therefore subject to the permitting jurisdiction of respondent, Department of Natural Resources (Department). Section 161.053, Florida Statutes. The first application In April 1991, Petitioners filed a permit application (Permit File No. BO-267) with the Department for permission to renovate their home and construct a swimming pool. That application was found to be incomplete, and by letter of April 17, 1991, the Department notified petitioners of the information required to complete their application. Following receipt and review of the requested information, the Department, by letter of July 26, 1991, advised petitioners that, as proposed, their application to construct a pool and renovate the home would have to be denied. Pertinent to the proposed pool, such letter observed that a portion of the pool would be located seaward of the 30-year erosion projection which is prohibited 1/, the general construction line of major structures would be advanced further seaward, adverse impacts to the beach/dune system during a major storm event could be expected, and cumulative adverse impacts could be expected. Thereafter, by letter of August 14, 1991, the Department was advised that petitioners were submitting new house plans for the subject property, and that the request for leave to construct the pool had been removed from their application. 2/ On December 23, 1991, the Department issued a final order in Permit File No. BO-267 which authorized the petitioners to remodel their home. Such final order observed: . . . The direct and cumulative impacts to the beach and dune system that will be caused by both the seaward location and shore- parallel width of the proposed construction represent the maximum such impacts that are acceptable to the Department. Therefore, future construction on the site seaward of the coastal construction control line shall not extend further seaward of, or increase the shore- parallel coverage occupied by, the proposed structures approved pursuant to this permit. The pool, which petitioners had initially proposed to construct seaward of the home, but subsequently deleted from their plans, constituted a major structure, albeit nonhabitable. Rule 16B-33.002(54)(b), Florida Administrative Code. Petitioners were expressly advised by the Department of their right to request an administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, to contest the provisions of the final order. No such contest was filed. 3/ The pending application On February 20, 1992, petitioners filed a new application (Permit File NO. BO-289) with the Department for permission to construct the swimming pool on their property. As proposed, the pool would be located in the beach-dune system seaward of petitioners' home, as well as seaward of an existing retaining wall on the petitioners' property. The pool would measure 16.0' x 35.7' externally, be constructed of reinforced gunite, and be supported by ten piles. The alignment of the pool would be in the shore parallel direction, rather than the shore normal direction as proposed in the prior application, thereby placing the pool landward of the 30-year erosion projection. By letter of March 8, 1992, the Department advised petitioners that their application was incomplete, and requested additional information. Petitioners submitted the final information necessary to complete their application on July 21, 1992. By letter dated October 7, 1992, received by petitioners' representative on October 13, 1992, the Department issued a public notice as follows: The referenced application for a permit pursuant to Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, has been placed on the agenda of the head of the Department of Natural Resources (Governor and Cabinet). The application will be reviewed by the Cabinet Aides in the Cabinet Meeting Room on the lower level of the Capitol, at 9:00 a.m., October 14, 1992. The application will then be heard by the Governor and Cabinet in Room LL03 of the Capitol, at 9:00 a.m., October 20, 1992. You may attend these meetings if you desire. The recommendation [for denial] shown on the enclosed agenda item has been made to the head of the Department by the Executive Director. This represents an agency determination. . . . The notice, consistent with the provisions of Rule 16B-33.012(8), Florida Administrative Code, further advised that any substantially affected person had the right to request a formal hearing, pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, within 21 days of receipt of the notice, and that "If the decision of the Governor and Cabinet is different from the staff recommendation as noticed . . ., then the applicant or any substantially affected person shall have 21 days from the date of the Governor and Cabinet's announcement of their decision in which to petition the agency for a hearing." The basis for the Department's denial of petitioners' application to construct the swimming pool was stated as follows: The proposed swimming pool is not consistent with Rule 16B-33.005(1), Florida Administrative Code, because it has not been clearly justified by the applicant and less impactive alternatives are available. For example a similar structure could be sited in a less impactive location landward of the single-family dwelling on the southwest corner of the property. The proposed swimming pool is not designed and located pursuant to Rule 16B- 33.005(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, for the protection of the beach/dune system in that the structure is to be sited on the seaward slope of the frontal dune and results in excavation remaining as a permanent feature below natural or existing grade. The proposed swimming pool is not designed and located pursuant to Rule 16B- 33.005(2)(c), Florida Administrative Code, for the protection of adjacent properties, because the rigid pile foundation and slabs will cause localized scour and erosion which may affect adjacent properties. The proposed swimming pool is inconsistent with Paragraph 161.053(5)(b), Florida Statutes, because the structure would extend closer to the line of mean high water than a reasonably continuous and uniform construction line in the immediate contiguous or adjacent area. The proposed swimming pool is inconsistent with Rule 16B-33.007(1), Florida Administrative Code, because the structure is not located a sufficient distance landward of the beach/dune system to permit natural shore line fluctuations and to preserve dune stability and natural recovery following storm-induced erosion. The proposed swimming pool is not designed pursuant to Rule 16B-33.007(2), Florida Administrative Code, to minimize adverse impact to the beach/dune system, because the rigid pile foundation and slabs will increase localized scour and erosion within this area as it interacts with storm waves and surge resulting in a significant adverse impact to the beach/dune system. * * * 8. The proposed project is not designed pursuant to Rule 16B-33.005(7), Florida Administrative Code, because a number of similar structures sited at the same relative location on the seaward face of the dune will result in significant cumulative impact which will threaten the beach/dune system or its recovery potential following a major storm event. The Department, therefore, may not authorize the construction of the pool. On October 13, 1992, petitioners requested that their application be removed from the agenda, and be rescheduled for "a later date to be determined." The rationale for petitioners' request was to afford "an opportunity for the permittee and staff to meet in Tallahassee in early to mid November and reach a design for a pool which can be recommended favorably by staff." By letter of October 14, 1992, the Department granted petitioners' request and the item was removed from the agenda for the Governor and Cabinet meeting of October 20, 1992. Such letter further provided that although the Department was willing to meet with petitioners to discuss the staff concerns about their application, that it "must caution you . . . that at this time I do not anticipate that a swimming pool, as you requested, can be satisfactory [sic] located seaward of your home." Petitioners and the Department were unable to resolve their dispute. Accordingly, petitioners filed a petition on November 2, 1992, to contest the proposed denial of their application. By letter of November 13, 1992, the Department advised petitioners that their request for formal administrative hearing was inadequate, but accorded them 14 days from receipt of such letter to submit an appropriate request. Petitioners timely submitted an appropriate request for hearing on November 30, 1992, and the matter was thereafter referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the assignment of a Hearing Officer to conduct a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. 4/ The merits of the pending application As heretofore noted in the findings of fact, the Department enunciated seven reasons to support its denial of petitioner's application. The first basis for denial was the Department's assertion that the proposed swimming pool was not consistent with Rule 16B-33.005(1), Florida Administrative Code, "because it has not been clearly justified by the applicant and less impactive alternatives are available." In this regard, it is observed that Rule 16B-33.005(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides: . . . Establishment of a coastal construction control line . . . does not preclude all development of or alteration of coastal property seaward of such lines. However, activities seaward of a coastal construction control line . . . shall be limited and the necessity of such development, construction or alteration shall be stated and clearly justified by the applicant. (Emphasis supplied) The aforesaid rule does not further explain what is contemplated by the requirement that the applicant clearly justify the "necessity" of the proposed development; however, the plain and ordinary meaning of the word can be ascertained by reference to a dictionary. 5/ In this regard, "necessity" is defined to mean "something that cannot be done without." Websters New Twentieth Century Dictionary. It is also defined as "something needed for the existence, effectiveness, or success of something (a requirement)," and "the state or fact of being required or unavoidable." The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Here, the proof fails to demonstrate any "necessity" to construct the swimming pool since it fails to credibly support the conclusion that such construction is required for the effective or reasonable use of petitioners' property or that such construction is essential for the well-being of its occupants.6/ To the contrary, the petitioners' decision to construct the pool is merely a matter of personal preference or convenience. Moreover, the proof fails to demonstrate any "necessity" to construct a pool of the size and configuration proposed (16' x 35.7' with a maximum depth of 8') or of the materials selected (reinforced gunite supported by piles). Indeed, a pool of a different configuration or size could be located elsewhere on the property and the pool could be constructed on a base slab foundation or of vinyl to alleviate the adverse effects of its current design, discussed infra. 7/ As further reasons for denial, the Department concluded that construction of the swimming pool was not consistent with Rule 16B-33.005(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, "for the protection of the beach/dune system in that the structure is to be sited on the seaward slope of the frontal dune and results in excavation remaining as a permanent feature below natural or existing grade"; Rule 16B-33.005(2)(c), Florida Administrative Code, "for the protection of adjacent properties, because the rigid pile foundation and slabs will cause localized scour and erosion which may affect adjacent properties"; Rule 16B- 33.007(1), Florida Administrative Code, "because the structure is not located a sufficient distance landward of the beach/dune system to permit natural shoreline fluctuations and to preserve dune stability and natural recovery following storm-induced erosion"; and Rule 16B-33.007(2), Florida Administrative Code, "to minimize adverse impact to the beach/dune system, because the rigid pile foundation and slabs will increase localized scour and erosion within this area as it interacts with storm waves and surge resulting in a significant adverse impact to the beach/dune system." Pertinent to the aforesaid reasons for denial, Rule 16B-33.005(2), Florida Administrative Code, the "Department Policy Statement on Permits," provides: Seaward of the coastal construction control line . . ., special siting, structural and other design considerations are required: (a) for the protection of the beach-dune system; * * * (c) for the protection of adjacent properties. And, Rule 16B-33.007, Florida Administrative Code, the "Structural and Other Requirements Necessary for Permit Approval," provides: The proposed structure or other activity shall be located a sufficient distance landward of the beach-dune system to permit natural shoreline fluctuations and to preserve the dune stability and natural recovery following storm induced erosion . . . . All structures shall be designed so as to minimize any expected adverse impact on the beach-dune system or adjacent properties and structures and shall be designed consistent with Section 16B-33.005, Florida Administrative Code. Relevant to such rules, the proof demonstrates that the frontal dune on the subject property appears to have been leveled at an elevation of approximately +12.0 feet NGVD, and petitioners' home is located on top of the crest of the frontal dune. The seaward slope of the frontal dune begins at the seaward face of the house and slopes down to the beach. Approximately 12 feet seaward of the house is an existing retaining wall. The proposed pool will be sited immediately seaward of such wall and therefore on the seaward slope of the frontal dune. The proposed pool is a pile supported concrete swimming pool with exterior dimensions of 16.0' shore-normal by 35.7' shore-parallel, and a maximum depth of 8.0'. The foundation is specified to be auger-cast piles, which will penetrate to an elevation of -23.0' NGVD or 3' embedment where a rock layer is encountered. The elevation of the pool is proposed at +13.0' NGVD, with a bottom elevation of +4.0' NGVD. As designed and sited, construction of the pool would destabilize the dune, hinder its function of protecting upland development during a storm event, and adversely affect natural shoreline fluctuation and recovery following storm induced erosion. In this regard, the proof demonstrates that the location of the pool seaward of the existing retaining wall would interrupt the natural continuity of dune formation because sand would accumulate seaward of the pool in a less stable location and would impede the accumulation of sand on adjacent properties. Construction of the pool, as designed and sited, would also induce scour during the course of a storm event impacting the structure. Such storm- induced scour, in addition to erosion, would cause the loss of additional sand at the vicinity of the structure, robbing the beach-dune system of additional sand necessary to protect upland structures, and would also contribute to the potential failure of the structure itself and other upland structures. In this regard, the proof demonstrates that approximately 1,000 cubic yards of sand would be lost on petitioners' section of the beach in the event of a 10-year storm. Additionally, structure-induced scour of 77.5 cubic yards from the ten piles, 120.4 cubic yards from the pool shell, and 15.8 cubic yards from the "end effects" of the pool (the amount of structure-induced scour from the ends of the structure) might reasonably be anticipated in the event of a 10-year storm. If the pool were to be impacted by a higher frequency storm, such as a 20-year or a 100-year storm, scour and erosion would increase. 8/ As an additional basis for denial, the Department concluded that construction of the pool was not consistent with Section 161.053(5)(b), Florida Statutes, "because the structure would extend closer to the line of mean high water than a reasonably continuous and uniform construction line in the immediate contiguous or adjacent area." Here, the proof supports the Department's conclusion. As its final basis for denial, the Department concluded that construction of the pool was not consistent with Rule 16B-33.005(7), Florida Administrative Code, "because a number of similar structures sited at the same relative location on the seaward face of the dune will result in significant cumulative impact which will threaten the beach/dune system or its recovery potential following a major storm event." Pertinent to the aforesaid basis for denial, Rule 16B-33.005(7), Florida Administrative Code, provides: An individual structure or activity may not have an adverse impact on the beach or dune system at a specific site; however, a number of similar structures or activities along the coast may have a significant cumulative impact resulting in the general degradation of the beach or dune system along that segment of shoreline. The Department may not authorize any construction or activity whose cumulative impact will threaten the beach or dune system or its recovery potential following a major storm event . . . . Here, petitioners' project is expected to have significant adverse impacts to the beach-dune system as a consequence of its design and siting. Accordingly, the provisions of Rule 16B-33.005(7), Florida Administrative Code, are not relevant. Moreover, there was no proof concerning any similar structures along the coast, existing or proposed, that would contribute to or intensify the degradation of the beach-dune system occasioned by the proposed project. Accordingly, it cannot be concluded that cumulative impact is a relevant issue in these proceedings. While cumulative impact is not relevant to the pending application, the other reasons advanced by the Department for denial of the application have, as heretofore found, a rational basis in fact. Under such circumstances, petitioners have failed to demonstrate their entitlement to the subject permit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered denying petitioners' application to construct seaward of the CCCL. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 22nd day of November 1993. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 22nd day of November 1993.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Roland Peterson, is the owner of Lots 4, 5 and 6, Block 7, Vilano Beach, in an unincorporated area of St. Johns County, Florida. Vilano Beach lies just eastward of the City of St. Augustine, Florida, and north of St. Augustine Inlet. The three lots are adjacent to each other. By applications dated June 7, 1985 petitioner sought the issuance of three coastal construction control line permits by respondent, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Beaches and Shores (Division), to authorize construction seaward of the coastal construction control line or setback line on Lots 4, 5 and 6. More specifically, petitioner sought approval to construct a beach-side snack bar with associated beach walkover, driveway and attached decks on Lot 4, and single family residences with associated dune walkover; driveway and attached decks on Lots 5 and 6. These applications were assigned Application Numbers SJ 220, SJ 221 and SJ 222 by the Division. They were deemed to be complete on August 6, 1985. After evaluating the three applications, the Division formulated recommendations to deny the requested permits. These recommendations were adopted by the Governor and Cabinet sitting as head of the agency at its November 5, 1985 meeting. Notice of such intended action was previously forwarded to petitioner on October 23, 1985. Said notice prompted the instant proceeding. As grounds for denying the permits the Division concluded that the three projects were located seaward of the seasonal high- water line and were therefore prohibited by a law, the projects lay in an area "highly vulnerable" to a major storm; and the cumulative impact of locating these and other structures further seaward could be expected to adversely impact the beach and dune system of the Vilano Beach area. The parties have stipulated that the Division has properly calculated the seasonal high water line in the questioned area, and that petitioner's three projects lie seaward of that line. The parties have also stipulated that the three projects lie seaward of the frontal dune within the meaning of Subsection 161.053t6)(a)1., Florida Statutes (1985).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that application numbers SJ 220, SJ 221 and SJ 222 filed by Roland Peterson to construct various structures on Lots 4, 5 and 6, Block 7, Vilano Beach in St. Johns County, Florida, be DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of May, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of May, 1986.
The Issue All Three Cases Whether the Petitioners have standing to bring their respective challenges pursuant to Section 120.56(4), Florida Statutes? Case No. 10-5348RU Whether either or both Original Specific Condition 1 and the Department ECL Position constitute a rule? Case Nos. 10-6205 and 10-8197 Whether Specific Condition 5 constitutes a rule? Attorney's Fees Whether an order should be entered against the Department for costs and attorney's fees under Section 120.595(4), Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact The Draft Permit The Draft Permit (and its revisions) authorizes the County "to construct the work outlined in the activity description and activity location of this permit and shown on the approved permit drawings, plans and other documents attached hereto." Joint Exhibit, Vol. III, Tab 9, page 3 of 26. The "activity description" and the "activity location" are detailed on the first page of the Draft Permit. See Joint Exhibit, Vol. III, Tab 9 (first page of 26). The drawings, plans and other documents attached to the Draft Permit are contained under Tab 10 of Volume III of the Joint Exhibit. The Parties Petitioner Guidry is co-trustee of the Guidry Living Trust (the "Guidry Living Trust"). He has independent authority to protect, conserve, sell, lease, encumber or otherwise dispose of trust assets. Those assets include a condominium unit in the Oceania Condominium. The condominium unit owned by the Guidry Living Trust includes an undivided interest held with all other unit owners in the common property at the Oceania Condominium. The common property includes real property that fronts the Gulf of Mexico located at 720 Gulf Shore Drive in the City of Destin, Florida. The real property has the MHWL of the Gulf of Mexico as its southern boundary. Petitioner Oceania is a condominium association established pursuant to Florida's Condominium Act, Chapter 718, Florida Statutes. It does not own any real property. Mr. Guidry testified that he is authorized in his capacity as president of the Association to initiate and pursue this administrative proceeding on its behalf. No documents were entered in evidence reflecting that Oceania's Board of Directors approved the filing of the petition. The owners of condominium units at the Oceania Condominium, including the Guidry Trust, comprise the membership of Oceania. The unit owners all own undivided shares in the Oceania Condominium common property including the real estate that extends at its southern boundary to the MHWL of the Gulf of Mexico. The owners did not vote on whether to file the petition in Case No. 10-05348RU. Petitioners David and Rebecca Sherry are leaseholders of real property where they reside. Located at 554 Coral Court, Number 511, Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32548, the property is in an area in Okaloosa County on Santa Rosa Island that is known as Okaloosa Island. The property leased by the Sherrys is not within the Western Destin Project. Petitioner John Donovan is a leaseholder of real property located at 909 Santa Rosa Boulevard, Numbers 131-132, El Matador Condominium, Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32548, in the same area as the Sherry's residence. Petitioner MACLA II, Ltd., is a Texas Limited Partnership. Louise Brooker is its president. It owns real property which fronts the Gulf of Mexico located at 620 Gulf Shore Drive, Destin, Florida. The southern boundary of the property is the MHWL of the Gulf of Mexico. The MACLA property is located adjacent to the shoreline that is the subject of the Western Destin Project. The Betty Price Hughes Qualified Vacation Residence Trust (the "Hughes Trust") owns real property at 612 Gulf Shore Drive. Its southern boundary is deeded the MHWL of the Gulf of Mexico. The property is located adjacent to the shoreline subject to the Western Destin Project. Petitioner H. Joseph Hughes is a trustee of the Hughes Trust. Petitioner Kershaw Manufacturing Company, Inc., an Alabama corporation, is the owner of real property located at 634 Gulf Shore Drive, Destin, Florida. Its southern boundary the property is the MHWL of the Gulf of Mexico. The property is located adjacent to the shoreline subject to the Western Destin Project. Royce Kershaw is the president of the Kershaw Manufacturing Company. He testified that as president of the company, he has the authority to act on behalf of the company and has the power to bind the corporate entity. 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 Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund is responsible for stewardship of its public trust properties under Chapter 253, Florida Statutes. Included among those properties is the sovereignty submerged lands along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico. The ECL and the MHWL In the context of the Beach and Shore Preservation Act, the MHWL and the ECL were discussed by the Florida Supreme Court in Walton County v. Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc., 998 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 2008) (the "Walton County Supreme Court Case"): Pursuant to section 161.141, when a local government applies for funding for beach restoration, a survey of the shoreline is conducted to determine the MHWL for the area. Once established, any additions to the upland property landward of the MHWL that result from the restoration project remain the property of the upland owner subject to all governmental regulations, including a public easement for traditional uses of the beach. § 161.141. After the MHWL is established, section 161.161(3) provides that the Board must determine the area to be protected by the project and locate an ECL. In locating the ECL, the Board "is guided by the existing line of mean high water, bearing in mind the requirements of proper engineering in the beach restoration project, the extent to which erosion or avulsion has occurred, and the need to protect existing ownership of as much upland as is reasonably possible." § 161.161(5). Pursuant to section 161.191(1), this ECL becomes the new fixed property boundary between public lands and upland property after the ECL is recorded. And, under section 161.191(2), once the ECL has been established, the common law no longer operates "to increase or decrease the proportions of any upland property lying landward of such line, either by accretion or erosion or by any other natural or artificial process." Walton County, at 1108. The Pre-project MHWL in This Case and the ECL The Pre-project MHWL called for by Original Specific Condition 1 was never established. No evidence was introduced as to where the Pre-project MHWL would have been located had it been set and in particular, where it would have been located in relation to an ECL. Rod Maddox is a long-time surveyor with the Department's Division of State Land in the Bureau of Survey & Mapping. See P-244. Mr. Maddox testified about his experience with pre-project MHWLs and where they are located in relation to ECLs. Familiar with the term "pre-project mean high water line," Mr. Maddox defined it as the mean high water line prior to the placement of fill used in a beach restoration project. See id. at 29. He testified that pre-project MHWLs have been required in the many beach restoration cases with which he is familiar. He testified further that when it comes to location, there is no difference between a pre-project MHWL and an ECL. The denominations may be different but Mr. Maddox testified "as to how . . . established, I see them as one and the same." Id. at 30. Original Special Condition 1: the Pre-project MHWL On December 31, 2009, the Department issued the NOI. Attached to it was the Draft Permit. The Draft Permit contained the following paragraph as Special Condition 1: Prior to construction of the beach restoration project, the Permittee must record in the official records of Okaloosa County a Certificate, approved by the Department, which describes all upland properties (including their owners of record) along the entire shoreline of the permitted project, with an attached completed survey of the pre-project Mean High Water Line ("Mean High Water Line Survey") conducted along the entire permitted project shoreline length. The Mean High Water Line Survey must have been completed in a manner complying with Chapter 177, Florida Statutes, as determined by the Department. No construction work pursuant to this joint coastal permit shall commence until the Certificate and attached Mean High Water Line Survey have been approved and archived by the Department's Bureau of Survey and Mapping, and the Department has received proof of recording of such documents (see Specific Condition No. 4.c.). The approved Certificate and attached Mean High Water Line survey shall be attached to, and kept as part of this joint coastal permit and authorization to use sovereign submerged lands. If in the future the Permittee seeks reimbursement from the State for costs expended to undertake (construct) the permitted project, then, prior to, and as a condition of receipt of any authorized and approved reimbursement, the Board of Trustees will establish an ECL consistent with the provisions of Chapter 161, Florida Statutes. The Permittee shall be required to record such a line in the Okaloosa County official records. Joint Exhibit, Vol. III, No. 9. The Oceania Petitioners, as landowners within the Project area, challenged the issuance of the Draft Permit on January 14, 2010. See Case No. 10-0516. Among the bases for the challenge was that the Department lacked authority to implement Original Special Condition 1 and, in particular, its requirement that the County record a completed survey of the pre-project MHWL in lieu of the establishment of an ECL. On July 26, 2010, the Department revised the Draft Permit to eliminate from the Project the common property owned by the unit owners of the Oceania Condominium. The change was supported by a letter from Michael Trudnak, P.E., of Taylor Engineering, Inc., on behalf of the County which stated: "On behalf of Okaloosa County, Taylor Engineering submits this request to modify the project area and Draft Joint Coastal Permit for the Western Destin Beach Restoration Project [file nos. excluded]. The applicant has decided to remove the Oceania Condominium property from the beach fill placement area." Joint Exhibit, Vol. III, Tab 15, Exhibit A. The revised project, as described in permit drawings enclosed with Mr. Trudnak's letter includes two reaches: Reach 1 extends from the east jetty of East Pass to approximately 600 ft east of FDEP reference monument R-22 (R22.6) and Reach 2 extends from approximately 200 ft east of R-23 (R-23.2) to R-25.5. The Oceania Condominium property is in the gap between the two beaches. Additionally, the letter requested that the Department modify Specific Condition 1 of the Draft Permit to reflect the modified project area so that the MHWL Survey requirement of Specific Condition 1 would exclude the Oceania Condominium property. In accord with the request, Special Condition 1 was amended to add the following language: "With respect to the shoreline seaward of the Oceania Owner's [sic] Association, Inc., members' common elements property, neither a pre-project Mean High Water Line survey, nor a Certificate with a description of the pre-project Mean High Water Line shall be recorded in conjunction with this coastal permit." Joint Exhibit, Vol. III, Tab 15, the First Revised Draft Permit, Page 5 of 26. On August 4, 2010, as the Department neared the end of its case in the third day of the hearing, it announced that the Revised Draft Permit would "be revised [again, this time] to require the establishment of an ECL under the applicable statute." Tr. 621. The draft permit, accordingly, was revised for a second time (the "Second Revised Draft Permit"). The Department carried out the second revision in a notice filed at the Division of Administrative Hearings on August 18, 2010 (the August 18, 2010, Notice). The August 18, 2010, Notice contains two changes to the First Revised Draft Joint Permit. The first change deletes the existing language in Original Specific Condition 1 (the language challenged in Case No. 10-5348RU) in its entirety. It substitutes the following language: Prior to construction of the beach restoration project, the Board of Trustees will establish an Erosion Control Line along the shoreline of the beach restoration project. The Erosion Control Line shall be established consistent with the provisions of ss. 161.141-161.211, Florida Statutes. An Erosion Control Line shall not be established in conjunction with this joint coastal permit with respect to the shoreline seaward of the Oceania Owner's [sic] Association, Inc. members' common elements property. In lieu of conducting a survey, the Board of Trustees may accept and approve a survey as initiated, conducted, and submitted by Okaloosa County if said survey is made in conformity with the appropriate principles set forth in ss. 161.141-161.211. Department of Environmental Protection's and Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund's Notice of Revisions to the Proposed Joint Coastal Construction Permit, page 3 of 4. The second change is made with respect to Specific Condition No. 4(c) of the First Revised Draft Permit, one of a list of items to be submitted to the Department for approval prior to the commencement of construction and the issuance of a Notice to Proceed by the Department. The existing language is deleted in its entirety and the following language is substituted: Written documentation that the Erosion Control Line required by Special Condition Number 1 has been filed in the public records of Okaloosa County. Id. The Department ECL Position Chapter 161: Beach and Shore Preservation Chapter 161, Florida Statutes, governs "Beach and Shore Preservation." "Parts I and II of this chapter may be known and cited as the 'Beach and Shore Preservation Act.'" § 161.011, Fla. Stat. Part I governs "Regulation of Construction, Reconstruction, and Other Physical Activity." Sections 161.011 through 161.241 comprise Part I. The Department developed its position on ECLs claimed by Petitioners to be an Unadopted Rule by considering Part I, in particular Sections 161.088 (which declares the public policy to properly manage and protect Florida's beaches) through 161.211. At some point in 2009, the Department saw a distinction related to ECLs in Sections 161.088-161.211 between beach restoration projects where state funding was used for construction and projects where no state funds were used. The former seemed to require ECLs, the latter not. Several statutory provisions were viewed as particularly relevant. For example, Section 161.141, Florida Statutes, declares that it is the public policy of the state "to cause to be fixed and determined, pursuant to beach restoration . . . projects, the boundary line between sovereignty lands . . . and the upland properties adjacent thereto " The section that mainly governs ECLs is Section 161.161. It provides the procedure for approval of projects for the restoration and maintenance of critically eroded beaches, subject to a beach management plan which is funded, in part, by the state. With regard to ECLs, the statute provides: Once a project [for the restoration and maintenance of a critically eroded beach] is determined to be undertaken, a survey of all or part of the shoreline within the jurisdiction of the local government in which the beach is located shall be conducted in order to establish the area of beach to be protected by the project and locate an erosion control line. * * * Upon completion of the survey depicting the area of the beach erosion control project and the proposed location of the erosion control line, the board of trustees shall give notice of the survey and the date on which the board of trustees will hold a public hearing for purpose of receiving evidence on the merits of the proposed erosion control line and, if approval is granted, of locating and establishing such requested erosion control line in order that any persons who have an interest in the location of such requested erosion control line can be present at such hearing to submit their views concerning the precise location of the proposed erosion control line. * * * The board of trustees shall approve or disapprove the erosion control line for a beach restoration project. In locating said line, the board of trustees shall be guided by the existing line of mean high water, bearing in mind the requirements of proper engineering in the beach restoration project, the extent to which the erosion or avulsion has occurred, and the need to protect existing ownership of as much upland as is reasonably possible. § 161.161, Fla. Stat. Development of the Department's Position on ECLs Prior to 2009, the Department's established ECLs for beach restoration projects whether the project's construction was supported by state funding or not. There was an exception: when the property landward of the MHWL was owned by the state. In such a case, the Department saw no need to set an ECL since both the sovereignty lands and the adjacent uplands property are owned by the state. This position held at least through January 15, 2009, when the Department held a workshop and hearing pursuant to Section 161.161, Florida Statutes, in Okaloosa County to establish an ECL for the Western Destin Project. The hearing officer who conducted the ECL hearing was West Gregory, Department Assistant General Counsel. While consideration of where the ECL should be established for the Western Destin Project was underway, there were ongoing discussions by e-mail and in briefings of whether the statute required an ECL. The discussion was prompted when Mr. Gregory, as Department Assistant General Counsel, drafted a memorandum (the "Draft Memorandum") to Michael Barnett, Chief of the Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems (the Bureau) to be sent through Paden Woodruff, an Environmental Administrator. The memorandum related to another beach restoration project in Okaloosa County: a project involving Eglin Air Force Base. The Draft Memorandum shows a date of January "XX", 2009, and is stamped "DRAFT." P-119. It presents the question "Should . . . [the Department] require the United States Air Force (USAF) to establish an erosion control line (ECL) for the beach restoration project located on Eglin AFB?" Id. The Draft Memorandum provides a brief answer: "No, . . . because the beach . . . is not critically eroded." Id. The memorandum recognizes the public policy of the state to fix the boundary between public and private lands for beach restoration projects in Section 161.141, Florida Statutes, and a requirement that the Board of Trustees "must establish the line of mean high water prior to the commencement of a beach restoration project," id., leading to the suggestion that each and every beach restoration project must establish an ECL. The Draft Memorandum, however, construes Section 161.141, Florida Statutes, with Section 161.161, Florida Statutes, and draws support from an Attorney General Opinion and the Walton County Florida Supreme Court case to conclude that it is only when a project is undertaken with state funding that an ECL must be established. In the case of the Eglin AFB beach restoration projects, the Draft Memorandum concludes: Id. This determination not to establish an ECL on the Eglin AFB beach restoration project would not preclude the USAF from obtaining a JCP permit. Rather, it precludes the USAF from receiving state funding assistance. The Draft Memorandum was not sent to the intended recipients. It was submitted to two other lawyers in the Department. Mr. Gregory did not receive comments from them. Although no comments were made to Mr. Gregory after the draft of the memorandum was sent to other members of the legal staff, the subject remained under discussion in the Department in early 2009. Sometime in early 2009, based on a legal analysis of Department attorneys, the Department took the position that an ECL is required to be set when state funds are used for the construction of a project. The converse of this position, that an ECL is not required to be set when no state funds are involved, is the statement alleged to be an unadopted rule. Two permits were issued that did not require an ECL: one for the Eglin AFB beach restoration project in March of 2009, and another that was an emergency permit for Holiday Isle. As with Specific Condition 1 in the Western Destin Project, the determination to not require an ECL was because of the lack of state funding. As Mr. Barnett testified about the two permits, there "is no State cost share for construction . . . [and] that's the reason [the Department] didn't require establishment of an ECL." Tr. 1279. Mr. Gregory's Draft Memorandum was never finalized. The Department issued three permits or draft permits (including for the Western Destin Project) with specific conditions that required pre-project MHWLs and that did not require ECLs. Otherwise, the Department has not committed the Department ECL Position to writing. Nonetheless, the Department ECL Position was stated in a deposition taken in this case on July 26, 2010. On July 26, 2010, the deposition of Janet Llewellyn, the Director of Water Resources Management was taken by Petitioners. Director Llewellyn is "responsible ultimately for all the projects that are processed and actions taken out of [the] division." P-223 at 10. These include permits issued by the Bureau and in particular, the Draft Permit, First Revised Draft Permit and the Second Draft Permit for the Project. When asked about the Department's statement that an ECL is not required when there is not state funding, Ms. Llewellyn preferred to rephrase the Department position as to when an ECL is required rather than when it is not required. She then testified that an ECL is required when there is "state funding involved through [the Department's] funding program." Id. at 13. Ms. Llewellyn was unable to pinpoint the moment the Department reached such a position other than: [t]he question came up sometime in the last year or two -- I couldn't tell you when -- about what the statute actually required in terms of when it was proper to set an erosion control line or required. And our attorneys did a legal analysis, again, of the statute, and that was their legal opinion of what the statute required. Tr. 14. Whatever the date that such a position was precisely firmed up, Ms. Llewellyn was able to testify on July 26, 2010, "that if state funding is going to a project, than an ECL needs to be set. That's what the statute requires." Id. This statement was based on the opinions of Department attorneys prior to their use in connection with the issuance of beach restoration permits in Okaloosa County. The Department has not initiated rule-making with respect to its ECL Position. Whether rule-making would be initiated was not known by the Bureau Chief on August 24, 2010, during his testimony in the final hearing. Change of Position The Department modified its position on ECLs that it appeared to have at the time of Ms. Llewellyn's deposition on August 4, 2010. As detailed above, it announced that an ECL would be required for the Western Destin Project, after all. The modification was formalized with the filing of the Second Revised Draft Permit on August 18, 2010. Specific Condition 5 Before the challenged language in Specific Condition 5 was added by the First Revised Draft Permit, the Department had relied on General Condition 6 to give notice to permittees that the permit did not allow trespass: This permit does not convey to the Permittee or create in the Permittee any property right, or any interest in real property, nor does it authorize any entrance upon or activities on property which is not owned or controlled by the Permittee. The issuance of the permit does not convey any vested rights or any exclusive privileges. Joint Ex. 9. Based on the petitions in the Permit Challenge Cases, the Department proposed in the First Revised Draft Permit to add to Specific Condition 5 the language that is underscored in the following: The Permittee is advised that no work shall be performed on private upland property until and unless the required authorizations are obtained. Sufficient authorizations shall included: (1) written evidence of ownership of any property which will be used in carrying out the project; (2) authorization for such use from the property owner which upland of mean high-water; (3) construction and management easements from upland property owners; or (4) a judgment from a court of competent jurisdiction which reflects that such authorization, in whole or in part, is not required. The Permittee is also advised to schedule the pre-construction conference at least a week prior to the intended commencement date. At least seven (7) days in advance of a pre-construction conference, the Permittee shall provide the written authorizations for the portion of the project for which construction is about to commence, as required above, written notification, advising the participants (listed above) of the agreed-upon date, time and location of the meeting, and also provide a meeting agenda and a teleconference number. Joint Exhibit, Volume III, Tab 15, the First Revised Draft Permit, Page 7 of 26. There was no evidence that the language added to Specific Condition 5 by the First Revised Draft Permit had been in any other permits or that the Department intended to use the language in any other beach restoration permits. Other than whatever might be gleaned from the Draft Permit, itself (and its revisions), there was no evidence offered that the property of any of the petitioners, in fact, would be used in the Western Destin Beach Project.
The Issue The issue is whether the Department of Environmental Protection should approve Petitioner’s application for a coastal construction control line permit.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts2 Petitioner, Beach Group Investments, LLC (Beach Group), is a limited liability corporation under Florida law. Its address is 14001 63rd Way North, Clearwater, Florida 33760. On December 19, 2005, Coastal Technology Corporation (Coastal Tech) on behalf of Beach Group submitted to the Department an application for a CCCL permit pursuant to Chapter 161, Florida Statutes, to construct 17 luxury townhome units in two four-story buildings, a pool, a dune walk-over, and ancillary parking and driveway areas (hereafter “the Project”). The Department designated the application as File No. SL-224. The property on which the Project is proposed (hereafter “the Property”) is located between the Department's reference monuments R-34 and R-35, in St. Lucie County. The Property’s address is 222 South Ocean Drive, Fort Pierce, Florida. The Property is located seaward of the CCCL line established in accordance with Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 62B-33. On April 21, 2006, the application was determined to be complete. By letter dated June 5, 2006, the Department notified Beach Group that the Project appeared to be located seaward of the 30-year erosion projection of the seasonal high water line (SHWL), and that in accordance with Section 161.053(6), Florida Statutes, the staff could not recommend approval of the Project since major structures are seaward of the estimated erosion projection. By letter dated July 7, 2006, and subsequent submittals, Beach Group requested a waiver of the 90-day time period for processing completed applications pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, until October 31, 2006. On August 30, 2006, Beach Group submitted a certified engineering analysis of the 30-year erosion projection of the SHWL for the Department's consideration pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B-33.024(1). Beach Group's analysis determined that the proposed major structures associated with the Project were located landward, not seaward, of the 30-year erosion projection. The Department also performed its own 30-year erosion projection of the SHWL, and determined that the proposed major structures were located seaward, not landward, of the 30-year erosion projection. The Department asserts that the proposed structures are located between 87 feet and 68 feet seaward of the Department's determination of the 30-year erosion projection. The Department disagreed with Beach Group's analysis because the analysis appeared to be inconsistent with Section 161.053(6), Florida Statutes, Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B-33.024, and the Department's own analysis. The Property is located just south of the Fort Pierce Inlet, and landward of a federally maintained beach restoration project that had approximately 14 years of life remaining under the existing Congressional authorization when the permit was submitted to the Department. By proposed Final Order dated November 1, 2006, the Department provided to Beach Group notice of its intent to deny the permit application. The proposed Final Order was received by Beach Group on November 8, 2006. Beach Group's petition for hearing was timely filed with the Department. Since the Department proposes to deny Beach Group's CCCL permit application, its substantial interests are clearly at issue, and it has standing to maintain this proceeding. On December 11, 2006, the Department issued an environmental resource permit for the Project. The Department denied Beach Group’s permit application because the Project extends seaward of the 30-year erosion projection calculated by the Department and because the Project’s impacts to the beach-dune system had not been minimized. The permit was not denied on the basis of the existence, or absence, of a line of continuous construction in the vicinity of the Project. The 30-year Erosion Projection (1) Background Fort Pierce Inlet (hereafter “the inlet”) was constructed by the Army Corps of Engineers in the 1920’s. The channel of the inlet is protected by two jetties that extend several hundred feet into the Atlantic Ocean. The jetties act as a barrier to the littoral transfer of sand from the north to south that would otherwise occur along the beach in the vicinity of the Property. The jetties cause accretion on the beach to the north of the inlet and erosion of the beach to the south of the inlet. The inlet channel beyond the jetties also restricts the littoral transfer of sand in the area. The deepening and widening of the channel in 1995 likely contributed to the increased erosion observed south of the inlet in recent years. The beach to the south of the inlet, including that portion on the Property, is designated as a “critically eroded beach” by the Department. The inlet is the primary cause of the erosion. Congress first authorized beach nourishment south of the inlet in 1965. That authorization expired in 1986. Congress “reauthorized” beach nourishment south of the inlet in 1996. That authorization expires in 2021, but St. Lucie County has requested that the authorization be extended for “another 50 years.” The first “major” beach nourishment south of the inlet occurred in 1971. Subsequent “major” nourishments occurred in 1980, 1999, 2003, 2004, and 2005. Another “major” nourishment is planned for 2007. There was a “moderate” nourishment of the beach in 1995, which included the placement of geotextile groins on the beach just to the north of the Property. “Small” nourishments occurred in 1973, 1978, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1997, and 1998. Cumulatively, the nourishments that occurred between the “major” nourishments in 1980 and 1999 involved approximately 419,000 cubic yards of sand, which is more than the volume involved in several of the “major” nourishments. Beach nourishment south of the inlet has been an ongoing effort since it started in 1971. The more persuasive evidence establishes that the nourishment project that is authorized through 2021 is a continuation of the project started in 1971 rather than a separate and distinct project. Various erosion control efforts have been used south of the inlet in conjunction with the beach nourishment efforts. For example, geotextile groins (which are essentially massive sandbags) have been installed and removed on several occasions since the mid-1990’s in order to “temporarily stabilize the shoreline until such measures could be taken to design, permit and construct a long-term solution”; concrete rubble and other riprap has been placed on the beach over the years (without a permit from the Department) to protect upland structures from erosion; and a "spur jetty" was constructed on the south jetty in an effort to reduce erosion south of the inlet. These efforts have not slowed the pace of the erosion or minimized the need for beach nourishment south of the inlet. Indeed, the need for and frequency of “major” nourishments south of the inlet have increased in recent years. Beach erosion south of the inlet will continue to be a serious problem so long as the inlet exists and the jetties remain in place. There is no reason to expect that the inlet or the jetties will be removed in the foreseeable future and, as a result, beach nourishment south of the inlet will continue to be necessary. The Department has recognized the need for continuing nourishment of the beach south of the inlet, as reflected in both the Strategic Beach Management Plan for the St. Lucie Beaches and the Ft. Pierce Inlet Management Study Implementation Plan. Those plans acknowledge the long-term need for continued nourishment of the beach at a rate of at least “130,000 cubic yards on an average annual basis.” The plans do not, however, guarantee that future beach nourishment in the area will occur at that, or any, rate. (2) Rule Methodology Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B-33.024 contains the methodology for determining the 30-year erosion projection, which is the projected location of the SHWL 30 years after the date of the permit application under review. Where, as here, the beach at issue is subject to an ongoing beach nourishment project, the methodology requires consideration of “pre-project” conditions -- i.e., the conditions that existed before the beach nourishment efforts started -- because those conditions are used to project how the beach will migrate landward in the periods over the next 30 years when there may not be any beach nourishment activity. The coastal engineering experts presented by the parties -- Michael Walther for Beach Group and Emmett Foster for the Department -- used essentially the same methodology to determine the location of the 30-year erosion projection. However, the variables that they used in each step of the methodology differed. Step 1: Locate the Pre-Project MHWL The first step in determining the 30-year erosion projection is to locate the pre-project MHWL. If a pre-project erosion control line (ECL)3 has been established in the area, it is to be used as the starting-point for the determination of the 30-year erosion projection. Otherwise a pre-project survey of the MHWL is to be used as the starting-point. Mr. Walther used a 1997 ECL as the starting point for his analysis. Mr. Foster used a March 2002 survey of the MHWL as the starting point for his analysis because he did not consider the 1997 ECL to be an appropriate pre-project ECL. The March 2002 survey of the MHWL is not itself an appropriate starting point for the analysis. The survey is not a “pre-project” survey, no matter how the project is defined; the survey occurred more than 30 years after the nourishments started in 1971, and three years after the first “major” nourishment pursuant to the Congressional reauthorization of the project. Moreover, as discussed below, there is an appropriate pre-project ECL in the area. There are two lines that might be considered to be a pre-project ECL in this case -- (1) the ECL established in 1997, and (2) the South Beach High Tide Line (SBHTL) established in 1968. The 1997 ECL was established based upon a survey of the MHWL performed on May 5, 1997. The survey occurred two years after a “moderate” beach nourishment and the placement of the geotextile groins on the beach. There was also a “small” nourishment in 1997, but the record does not reflect whether that nourishment occurred before or after the survey. The SBHTL was established based upon a survey of the MHWL between 1966 and 1968, prior to the initial nourishment of the beach south of the inlet. It is approximately 65 feet landward of the 1997 ECL. The SBHTL is the functional equivalent of an ECL, and it roughly corresponds to the “best fit line” for the March 2002 survey used by Mr. Foster as the starting point for his determination of the 30-year erosion projection in this case. The Department contends that the 1997 ECL is not based upon a “pre-project” survey of the MHWL because the applicable beach restoration project south of the inlet began in the 1970’s and has been ongoing since that time. Beach Group contends that the applicable project is the current one that is authorized through 2021, and that the 1997 survey preceded the start of the nourishments authorized by that project. The Department has used the 1997 ECL as the starting- point for determining the 30-year erosion projection in several prior permits in the vicinity of the Project,4 and in an April 9, 1999, memorandum discussing the 30-year erosion projection in the vicinity of monuments R-35 and R-36, Mr. Foster stated that “the ECL represents the pre-project [MHWL].” Mr. Foster no longer considers the 1997 ECL to be the appropriate pre-project MHWL for purposes of determining the 30- year erosion projection south of the inlet. He testified that had he been aware of “the complete background” of the 1997 ECL and the extent of the nourishments in the 1980’s and 1990’s, he would have brought the issue to the Department’s attention so that the Department could consider whether the 1997 ECL or “an earlier prenourishment line” was the appropriate pre-project MHWL. Although it is a close question, the more persuasive evidence presented at the final hearing establishes that the 1997 ECL is not an appropriate pre-project MHWL because the applicable “project” includes the beach nourishment efforts started in 1971 that have continued through the present, even though those efforts were intermittent at times. Thus, the appropriate starting point for determining the location of the 30-year erosion projection is the SBHTL, not the 1997 ECL used by Mr. Walther or the March 2002 MHWL survey used by Mr. Foster. Step 2: Locate the Pre-Project SHWL The second step in determining the 30-year erosion projection is to determine the location of the pre-project SHWL. Mr. Walther located the pre-project SHWL 26.4 feet landward of the 1997 ECL. That is the surveyed distance between the MHWL and SHWL in June 2005. Mr. Foster located the pre-project SHWL at the most landward location that the SHWL was surveyed in March 2002. The line is between 50 and 75 feet5 landward of the “best fine” line used by Mr. Foster as the pre-project MHWL, and it is as much as 25 feet landward of the surveyed location of the SHWL in some areas. Mr. Foster used “an average [of] 50 feet” as the MHWL- to-SHWL distance in his analysis of several prior permits in the vicinity of the Project.6 Mr. Foster testified that the distance between the MHWL and SHWL in this area varies “from the 20s in the immediate post-nourishment situations . . . all the way up to 70-some feet” and that the “the averages gravitate towards 40 feet.” Consistent with that testimony, the distance between the surveyed locations of the MHWL and SHWL depicted on Department Exhibit 6 is approximately 40 feet, on average. The MHWL-to-SHWL distance calculated by Mr. Walther is not a reasonable projection of the pre-project distance because it was based upon survey data taken immediately after a “major” beach nourishment when the shoreline was unnaturally steep and, hence, not representative of “pre-project” conditions. The SHWL located by Mr. Foster is also not a reasonable projection of the pre-project SHWL because it was based upon a March 2002 survey (which is clearly not "pre- project"); because it used the most landward surveyed location of the SHWL rather than a “best fit” line or an average of the distances between the surveyed MHWL and SHWL; and because it runs across areas of well-established dune vegetation. In sum, the MHWL-to-SHWL distance calculated by Mr. Walther (26.4 feet) is too low, whereas the distance resulting from Mr. Foster's siting of the SHWL based on the March 2002 survey (50 to 75 feet) is too high. Those distances are essentially endpoints of the range observed in this area, as described by Mr. Foster. A more reasonable estimate of the pre-project MHWL-to- SHWL distance is approximately 40 feet. See Findings 51 and 52. Thus, the pre-project SHWL is located 40 feet landward of and parallel to the SBHTL. That line is not depicted on any of the exhibits, but on Petitioner’s Exhibit 37, it roughly corresponds to a straight line between the points where the red- dashed line intersects the Property’s north and south boundaries. Step 3: Calculate the Erosion Rate The third step in determining the 30-year erosion projection is to calculate an erosion rate. The erosion rate used by Mr. Foster was -7 feet per year (ft/yr). That rate was calculated based upon an average of the shoreline change data for monument R-35 for the period from 1949 to 1967. The rate would have been higher had Mr. Foster averaged the rates for the nearby monuments.7 The erosion rate used by Mr. Walther was -4.9 ft/yr. That rate was calculated based upon an average of the shoreline change data for monuments R-34 to R-39 over the period of 1930 to 1968. An erosion rate of -7 ft/yr south of the inlet was referenced in permit applications submitted by Mr. Walter’s firm, Coastal Tech, for several shore protection structures south of the inlet; was used by Mr. Foster in his review of several prior CCCL permit applications south of the inlet; and was included in reports on the inlet prepared by the Army Corps of Engineers over the years. An erosion rate of -3.3 ft/yr was used and accepted by the Department in its review of another permit application in the general vicinity of the project.8 That erosion rate was based upon data from the period of 1972 to 1994, which is after the beach nourishment started south of the inlet. It is not entirely clear why Mr. Foster chose to use a data set starting in 1949, particularly since his report stated that the “1928-30 survey already shows significant erosion occurring south of the inlet.” His testimony did not adequately explain the choice of that data set. The use of a longer data set is typically more appropriate when calculating a historical rate. In this case, however, the use of the shorter period of 1949-68 is reasonable because the 1930-49 erosion rate was considerably lower than the 1949-68 rate,9 which has the effect of skewing the erosion rate calculated for the longer period of 1930-68. The higher erosion rate calculated by Mr. Foster also better takes into account the increased frequency of the nourishments in recent years as well as the continued need for shore stabilization in the area. In sum, the higher erosion rate of -7 ft/yr calculated by Mr. Foster using the 1949-68 data set better reflects the historical post-inlet, pre-nourishment erosion rate than does the lower erosion rate calculated by Mr. Walther. Step 4: Determine the Remaining Project Life The fourth step in determining the 30-year erosion projection is to determine the “remaining project life” of the “existing” beach nourishment project. It was stipulated that there are 14 years remaining until the currently authorized federal beach restoration project expires. It is reasonable to expect that beach nourishment south of the inlet will continue well beyond the expiration of the current federal project, but there were no other funded and permitted projects in place at the time Beach Group’s permit application was filed. Potential future beach nourishment projects are not considered “existing” under the rule methodology in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B-33.024 unless they are funded and permitted at the time the application at issue is filed. Mr. Walther used the 14-year remaining life of the existing federal project in his calculation of the 30-year erosion projection, as did Mr. Foster. The “remaining project life” applicable to this case is 14 years, notwithstanding the likelihood of continued beach nourishment in the area beyond the expiration of the existing project. Step 5: Calculate the 30-year Erosion Projection The final step in determining the location of the 30- year erosion projection is a calculation using the variables determined in the previous steps. The calculation is as follows: first, the remaining project life determined in step four is subtracted from 30; then, that result is multiplied by the erosion rate determined in step three to get a distance; and, finally, the SHWL is moved that distance landward of its pre-project location determined in step two. Subtracting the remaining project of 14 years from 30 equals 16 years. Multiplying 16 years by the erosion rate of -7 ft/yr equals 112 feet, which means that the 30-year erosion line is located 112 feet landward of the pre-project SHWL (or 152 feet landward of the SBHTL). That line is not depicted on any of the exhibits, but it roughly corresponds to a straight line than runs across the Property parallel to the SBHTL just landward of the “conc. pad” and “existing conc. Pile caps (typ)” shown on Petitioner’s Exhibit 37. The line is 25 to 30 feet seaward of Mr. Foster’s 30-year erosion projection depicted on that exhibit. (3) Ultimate Finding Regarding the Location of the Proposed Structures in Relation to the 30-year Erosion Projection The Project includes major structures seaward of the 30-year erosion projection, as determined above. Impacts of the Project on the Beach-Dune System The Project includes 17 luxury town home units in two four-story buildings, a pool and spa, landscaping, and an elevated dune walkover. The units will range from 2,700 to 4,400 square feet of living space and are projected to be offered for sale in the $1.5 to $2.5 million range. Beach Group’s principal, Harold Seltzer, testified that the Project is sited as far landward as possible to allow for the development of all 17 units while still complying with the local setback and height restrictions; that the Project’s financial viability depends upon it being developed as proposed; and that the Project cannot be redesigned and remain financially viable. The CCCL permit application included a letter from the City of Ft. Pierce confirming that the Project is consistent with the applicable local development codes. Mr. Seltzer testified that the Project’s local development approvals expired in September 2006 because the CCCL permit had not been issued, and that Beach Group is having to go back through the local permitting process. The seaward extent of the Project is the 1978 CCCL, which is approximately 250 feet seaward of the current CCCL. The buildings on the adjacent properties are also located on the 1978 CCCL. The Project does not extend further seaward than the nearby development, including the structures authorized by the Department in File Nos. SL-162 and SL-173.10 The seaward boundary of the Property is the SBHTL. That line is approximately 295 feet landward of the MHWL established in June 2005, and as noted above, it is approximately 65 feet landward of the ECL established in 1997. The adjacent properties are developed with multi-story residential buildings. There is a densely vegetated dune feature in front of the building to the south of the Property. There is some vegetation, but no discernable dune in front of the building to the north of the Property. The Property as a whole is sparsely vegetated, but there are areas of “prolific vegetation” on the Property. The seaward extent of the vegetation on the Property roughly corresponds to the location of the 1978 CCCL. There are several mature sea grape clusters in the vicinity of that line. The beach in front of the Property is devoid of vegetation. It has a steep slope immediately landward of the water line; a wide (approximately 270 feet) expanse of relatively flat beach; and a gently sloping dune feature that starts just landward of the Property’s seaward boundary, crests approximately 30 feet farther landward, and then gradually slopes downward across the Property all of the way to State Road A1A. The dune feature on the Property is the frontal dune. It is the first mound sand located landward of the beach that has sufficient vegetation, height, continuity, and configuration to offer protective value. The crest of the frontal dune is seaward of the vegetation line on the Property, and ranges in height from +9.7 to +12.2 feet NAVD.11 The seaward toe of the dune is shown on the topographic survey for the Property at elevations ranging from +7.27 to +7.85 feet NAVD. Similar elevations occur on the landward side of the dune crest, just landward of the 1978 CCCL. The vegetation on the Property extends landward of the 1978 CCCL and landward of the line shown on the topographic survey of the Property as the “approximate location of sparse grass and ground cover.” The landward extent of the vegetation does not in and of itself define the landward extent of the dune; changes in the slope of the ground must also be considered. The more persuasive evidence establishes that the landward toe of the frontal dune is landward of the 1978 CCCL, but not as far landward as suggested by Department witness Tony McNeal.12 The landward toe of the dune on the Property is best defined by the elevations landward of the dune crest similar to the elevations shown for the seaward toe of the dune. The Project extends into the frontal dune on the Property, and it will requires minor excavation of the frontal dune, primarily in the area of the proposed pool. All aspects of the project, except for the proposed dune walkover, will be landward of the crest of the frontal dune and the mature sea grape clusters located on the dune. There will be no net excavation on the Property as a result of the Project. The sand excavated for the pool will be placed on-site, and additional beach-compatible sand will be used as fill for the site. Overall, the Project will result in the net placement of approximately 66 cubic yards of sand on the Property. The proposed structures will be elevated on piles, which will allow the beach-dune system to fluctuate under the structures during storm events. The finished floor elevation of the proposed structures is approximately +8 feet NAVD, which is slightly higher than the elevations associated with the toes of the frontal dune. The Project will not destabilize the frontal dune, even though it will encroach into the dune. The impacts of the Project on the beach-dune system will be mitigated by the placement of additional sand into the beach-dune system, as described above. The Project’s impacts will be further mitigated by the enhancements to the frontal dune described in the permit application. Mr. Walther testified that the frontal dune on the Property could “very easily” be enhanced to be of comparable height and magnitude of the dunes on the adjacent properties. The permit application proposes enhancements to the frontal dune as part of the Site Landscaping Plan for the Project. The proposed enhancements include increasing the crest of the dune to a height of +15 feet NAVD, and extensive planting of the dune with sea grapes, beach morning glories, and sea oats. The plantings would extend from the 1978 CCCL to the seaward toe of the existing frontal dune. The dune enhancements proposed in the permit application should be included as a specific condition of the CCCL permit for the Project, if it is approved.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order denying Beach Group’s application for a CCCL permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of April, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 19th day of April, 2007.
