Findings Of Fact Petitioners filed separate, although virtually identical, applications with the Department in February, 1983 to construct separate catwalks from their properties, with platforms at the end of each catwalk. The dimensions of each catwalk were to be three feet by 350 feet, and the platform dimensions were to be six feet by twelve feet. This construction was to take place through a marsh and mangrove wetland and tidal creek known as Andrews Creek. Petitioner's properties adjoin and are in the interior of the creek. Intervenor's property is located at the mouth of Andrews Creek where it intersects a canal, and borders that area of the creek through which Petitioners proposed to construct their catwalks and platforms. On March 9, 1983 the Department notified Petitioners that a permit would be required for their project pursuant to Chapters 253 and 403, F.S., that their applications were incomplete, and that approval from the Department of Natural Resources in the form of a "consent of use of state-owned land" might be required. Petitioners provided additional information in support of their application, but were again notified on April 5, 1983 that Department of Natural Resources consent or approval was necessary in order to complete their application file. The Department prepared a permit application appraisal report on June 13, 1983 without the benefit of an on-site inspection for these applications. The appraisal was based upon written materials submitted by Petitioners in their applications. The appraisal recommended approval, noting that a single joint access facility would be preferable to the dual catwalk and platform configuration proposed by Petitioners As a result of this appraisal, the Department notified the Department of Natural Resources on July 1, 1983 that it intended to issue permits to the Petitioners but that it needed a response from the Department of Natural Resources concerning consent of use or approval pursuant to Section 253.77, F.S. Final action on Petitioners' applications could not take place until the Department received a reply from the Department of Natural Resources. Petitioners received a copy of this notice which was sent from the Department to the Department of Natural Resources. Petitioner was again notified on August 29, 1983 that consent or approval from the Department of Natural Resources was required before the Department's approval could be given. The August 29 letter also stated that Petitioners would have to obtain a letter of authorization and affidavit of ownership from any property owner, other than Petitioners themselves, whose property would be crossed by their construction. In response, Petitioners submitted to the Department an approval they received from the local homeowner's association, but this approval was not issued in compliance with the association's by-laws, and was therefore not a valid authorization and consent to the use of whatever interest the association has in Andrews Creek. On December 5, 1933 Petitioners notified the Department that they were amending their applications to eliminate the platforms at the end of their respective catwalks. On or about January 3, 1984 the Department of Natural Resources suggested to the Department that public notice of this project be given due to the type and location of the project. The Department notified Petitioners on January 26, 1984 that since numerous property owners might be affected by their project, a public notice would have to be published. In response to such publication, the Department received letters from other property owners on Andrews Creek which both opposed and supported Petitioners' project. At about the same time, the Department learned that Petitioners had already constructed their catwalks, with one large platform joining the ends of both catwalks. This construction took place despite the lack of either a permit from the Department or consent/approval from the Department of Natural Resources. Petitioners' applications indicate the use of six inch pilings and a portable jet pump with a one inch jet nozzle in the construction of their project. The Department performed a field inspection of the site and issued a permit application appraisal report dated May 3, 1984 which recommended denial of the permit applications while also confirming that the project had already been constructed. Denial was recommended since the dimensions of the actual construction exceeded the project dimensions described in the applications, considerable clearing of mangroves had taken place although the applications stated no such clearing would be required, and the adverse impact on water quality, marine productivity and other environmental factors the two catwalks were found to terminate with a large platform thirty-eight feet long by ten feet wide, with Zembillas' catwalk being 417.5 feet in length and Starzak's being 398 feet long. The combined project has a total square footage of approximately 3700 square feet, with each catwalk exceeding the permit exemption dimensions of 1000 square feet. Andrews Creek has been designated a conservation area and therefore the clearing and resulting damage to the mangrove community resulting from this project is particularly significant. As part of a permitting action in 1972 the State of Florida, through he Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, negotiated with Lindrick Corporation, the developer of the residential area surrounding Andrews Creek, to preserve certain areas from development. The Board of Trustees issued a permit to Lindrick Corporation "to perform certain works in the navigable waters of the State of Florida" which allowed half of Andrews Creek to be filled and which preserved the other half that remains today as a conservation area. The conservation area was to be protected from development. Thereafter, the Lindrick Corporation entered into an agreement with the homeowner's association whereby association approval would be required for development in the conservation area. Petitioners' project, as constructed, shades a larger area than it would have if built in accordance with their applications. Shading of wetlands can reduce dissolved oxygen levels of a wetland and thereby reduce the area's productivity. Although Petitioners offered a laboratory report showing exceedingly high dissolved oxygen levels in Andrews Creek, it appears that the sampling technique used resulted in the aeration of the sample which therefore did not reflect the true level of dissolved oxygen. Intervenor testified that he purchased his property because of the designation of Andrews Creek as a conservation area, and the resulting privacy of such a natural habitat. Petitioners' construction has obstructed Intervenor's view of the water and wetlands area of Andrews Creek, and infringes on this privacy due to the close proximity of Petitioners' platform to Intervenor's property. The catwalk is twelve to fourteen feet from the boundary of Intervenor's property. The portion of Andrews Creek crossed by Petitioners' project is navigable according to testimony presented, and as recognized in 1972 when a dredging permit was issued to the developer, Lindrick Corporation. The portion in question includes the original tidal creek, which is a tributary of the Gulf of Mexico via an excavated channel. Navigability of the creek has been adversely affected by this project. There would be a significant, adverse, cumulative effect on Andrews Creek if other surrounding property owners decided to construct docks similar to Petitioners' since this would involve additional clearing of mangroves, a reduction of dissolved oxygen in the water due to extensive shading, and the further elimination of the creek's navigability. There are eighteen (18) property owners on Andrews Creek, including Petitioners and the Intervenor, and there is a reasonable likelihood that other homeowners will apply for permits to construct similar docks.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is recommended that: Petitioners permit applications be DENIED. Petitioners shall have forty-five (45) days from rendition of the Final Order in this case to remove their dock, consisting of catwalks, a connecting platform and support pilings. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of April, 1985 at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of April, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Stephens, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Nicholas M. Zembillas 2001 Dewey Drive New Port Richey, Florida 33552 Martha Harrell Hall Esquire Post Office Drawer 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 W. L. Starzak 2003 Dewey Drive New Port Richey, Florida 33552 Victoria J. Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner has an option to purchase property located at 301-307 Island Way Boulevard, Island Estate, Clearwater, Florida, on which he proposes to construct ten townhouses. Initially Petitioner asked for two variances. The first variance was for 25.12 feet to allow construction on a lot only 124.88 feet wide. This variance was granted for this nonconforming lot. The second variance, for 13.24 feet to allow construction of the ten townhouse complex 12 feet from the side property line, was denied by the Clearwater Code Adjustment Board. The Board concluded the variance requested did not meet the requirements of Section 45.24 of the Clearwater Land Development Code. Petitioner presented evidence that if the lot had been 150 feet wide they would have had 90 feet to build on without requesting any variance. However, since the lot was nonconforming, in order to have 89 feet on which to place the building, the requested variance would be necessary. Petitioner also presented evidence that the construction of ten townhouses on this lot is necessary for the project to be on a solid economic basis. Subsequent to the denial of this variance by the Development Code Adjustment Board, Petitioner submitted plans, which have been approved by the City of Clearwater, to erect nine townhouses on this property without any variance needed. However, these townhouses would be smaller than would be the ten townhouses initially proposed and would provide a lesser return on the capital invested.
Findings Of Fact The Subject Property. The property at issue in this proceeding consists of approximately 205 acres of land located in Clay County, Florida. The subject property is known as "Station Pond (Oak Forest Extension)." Station Pond was subdivided into 40 lots by an unrecorded subdivision plat. The lots range in size from approximately three to fifteen or twenty acres. Roads, which are unpaved, surrounding Station Pond, and drainage for Station Pond, are privately owned. The roads and drainage were completed prior to December of 1978. A boundary survey of Station Pond was prepared and contains a surveyor's certification of January 8, 1980. Pre-1985 Subdivision Regulations of Clay County. Prior to September of 1985 Clay County did not require platting of subdivisions such as Station Pond. In September of 1985, Clay County adopted Ordinance 85-68 creating three types of subdivisions and providing for the regulation thereof. An exception to these requirements, however, was included in Ordinance 85-68: subdivisions shown on a certified survey prior to September of 1985 with lots and roads laid out would continue to not be subject to regulation so long as the lots continue to comport with the survey. Government Action Relied Upon Before the Applicant's Sale of the Property. The Applicant was aware that it could develop Station Pond as an unrecorded subdivision in Clay County. The development of Station Pond comes within the exception to Ordinance 85-58. In a letter dated December 15, 1978 the Clay County Director of Planning and Zoning informed the Applicant that Oak Forest Clay County would "issue building permits in accordance with the uses permitted and lot/building requirements for an Agricultural zoned district, and in accordance with all other local ordinance provisions, state statutes, etc., as enclosed." This representation was based upon the conclusion of Clay County that Oak Forest was not subject to Clay County subdivision ordinances. Similar conclusions were reached by the Clay County Health Department in a letter dated September 8, 1978, and by the Clay County Public Works Director in a letter dated December 18, 1978. The Applicant's Detrimental Reliance. The Applicant's predecessor corporation provided dirt roads around part of Station Pond. The roads were constructed prior to December of 1978. The costs of the roads incurred by the Applicant was approximately $15,000.00. Rights That Will Be Destroyed. If the Applicant must comply with the Clay County comprehensive plan it will be required to pave the roads of the subdivision and provide an approximately 3 mile long paved access road. Procedural Requirements. The parties stipulated that the procedural requirements of Vested Rights Review Process of Clay County, adopted by Clay County Ordinance 92-18, as amended, have been met.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondents, David H. Fort and Claudia A. Fort, violated certain statutes and rules of Petitioners, Department of Environmental Protection ("Department") and Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund ("Trustees"), related to the construction of a dock and boathouse and the use of sovereignty submerged lands, as alleged in the Amended Notice of Violation and Orders for Corrective Action ("Amended NOV") and, if so, whether the administrative fines, investigative costs, and corrective actions sought by Petitioners should be imposed against Respondents.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the power and duty to administer and enforce the provisions of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated in Florida Administrative Code Title 62. The Trustees are responsible for state-owned sovereignty submerged lands and ensuring that such lands are managed for the benefit of the citizens of Florida pursuant to Chapter 253, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated in Florida Administrative Code Title 18. The Department performs all staff duties and functions for the Trustees related to the administration of state lands. See § 253.002, Fla. Stat. David and Claudia Fort own property located at 7875 A1A South, St. Augustine, St. Johns County, Florida. The property is located adjacent to the Matanzas River, a part of the Intracoastal Waterway. The Trustees own the lands lying below the mean high water line of the Matanzas River. The Permit and Lease Harbor Engineering (“Harbor”), a marine engineering firm, acted as Respondents' agent in preparing plans and applying for the permit and lease to construct a dock and boathouse at the property. Harbor prepared and submitted to the Department five sketches or drawings showing various layouts, cross sections, and elevations of the proposed dock and boathouse. These drawings were made a part of the permit and became conditions of the permit. The permit drawings show one large covered slip, two smaller covered slips for mooring of jet skis, and a two-level boathouse. Although some of the elevations do not show walls, it is apparent that this was for the purpose of showing interior areas, such as the slips. Although difficult to see, one drawing indicates a doorway on the lower level. The elevations show window openings or "cutouts" in the walls of the boathouse, but do not indicate framed window panes. The drawings do not create a necessary conclusion that the cutouts are intended to be finished with framed window panes. On January 13, 2004, the Department issued Environmental Resource Permit and Sovereign Submerged Lands Authorization No. 55-216127-002-ES ("permit"), which authorized Respondents to construct a dock and boathouse in the Mantanzas River adjacent to Respondents' property. General Condition (a) of the permit states: All activities shall be implemented as set forth in the plans, specifications and performance criteria as approved by this permit. Any deviation from the permitted activity and the conditions for undertaking that activity shall constitute a violation of the permit. On February 24, 2004, the Trustees issued Sovereignty Submerged Lands Lease No. 550034552 ("lease") to Respondents, authorizing the use of sovereignty submerged lands for a 3-slip docking facility and boathouse "as shown and conditioned" in the Department permit, which was incorporated into and made a part of the lease.2/ Paragraph 1 of the lease states that the dock and boathouse are "exclusively to be used for mooring of recreational vessels in conjunction with an upland single-family residence." Paragraph 7 of the lease states in pertinent part: This lease is given to the Lessee to use or occupy the leased premises only for those activities specified herein and as conditioned by the Department of Environmental Protection, Environmental Resource Permit. The Lessee shall not change or add to the approved use of the leased premises as defined herein . . ., shall not change activities in any manner that may have an environmental impact that was not considered in the original authorization . . . without first obtaining . . . the Lessor's written authorization in the form of a modified lease. Paragraph 26 of the lease states that the lessee shall ensure that no "structures whose use is not water-dependant shall be erected or conducted over sovereignty submerged lands without prior written consent from the Lessor." The term "water dependent activity" is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-21.003(71): "Water dependent activity" means an activity which can only be conducted on, in, over, or adjacent to water area because the activity requires direct access to the water body or sovereign submerged lands for transportation, recreation, energy production or transmission, or source of water, and where the use of the water or sovereign submerged lands is an integral part of the activity. The lease was issued for a term of five years. It expired on January 12, 2009. Enforcement History Respondents began construction of the dock and boathouse in February 2004. A Department employee, Michael Savage, inspected the dock and boathouse on June 8, 2004, while construction was in progress. Savage said he was responding to an anonymous complaint about Respondents' dock and boathouse, but Savage did not explain the nature of the complaint. Savage had the permit drawings with him during the inspection. The dock pilings were in place as well as the "shell" of the boathouse. The structure had some cutouts for windows, but no windows with panes were installed. Savage measured the structure. Savage did not see anything during his June 8, 2004, inspection that caused him to believe the structure was not being constructed in compliance with the permit, except that a copy of the permit had not been posted at the site as required by the permit. Savage said he called Respondents, left a voice message, and talked to the builder. The Department's on-line enforcement record for the June 8, 2004, inspection indicates that a call was made and a message was left: "Need to have permit posted/erosion control in place." Savage and another Department employee inspected the dock and boathouse again on July 9, 2004. Savage had the permit drawings with him during this second inspection. Three outside walls were in place and the second level of the boathouse was under construction. No window framing or glass had been installed. An overhang, extending over the northwest corner of the structure, was in place. Savage had some concern about whether the locations of the window cutouts were in compliance with the permit. In all other respects, he thought that the construction was in compliance. The structure shown in the photographs taken on July 9, 2004, looks like a small house. It does not look like a structure intended only to provide shelter to a boat slip. The Department did not communicate with Respondents about the July 9, 2004, inspection. The Department's on-line enforcement record for the July 9, 2004, inspection includes the entry "In compliance." General Condition (j) of the permit requires that within 30 days after completion of construction of the permitted system, the permittee must submit a written statement of completion using an As Built Certification Form ("as-built"). On the as-built, the permittee is required to note and explain any “substantial deviations." Instead of submitting a single as-built following the completion of the dock and boathouse, Respondents submitted three as-builts. David Fort said his purpose was to keep the Department informed about the progress of the project. On September 8, 2004, the Department received the first of Respondent's as-builts. On the as-built form, David Fort indicated that the work was substantially completed. Although Fort did not intend to mislead the Department, the construction was not substantially completed at that time. A substantial amount of work remained to be done. Savage and another Department employee inspected the dock and boathouse on September 14, 2004. Savage had the permit drawings with him for this inspection. The boathouse was not changed much from its appearance in July 2004. It had no windows or doors. Savage believed that the project was in compliance with the permit and later made a note to that effect on a sheet containing three photographs that were taken during the inspection. The Department's on-line enforcement record for the September 14, 2004, inspection indicates that Savage met with the builder and includes the entries "In Compliance" and "Built as Permitted." Matthew Kershner, Compliance Enforcement Manager for the Department, accompanied Savage on one of the inspections of the dock and boathouse. Kershner placed a telephone call to David Fort and said his purpose in calling was to respond to a complaint from a neighbor "about a large dock being constructed." Kershner told Fort that Fort could not "climatize" the boathouse. Kershner did not explain at the final hearing what he meant by the term "climatize," nor did he give any other details about his conversation with Fort. It is reasonable to infer from the evidence, however, that Kershner meant that Fort was not permitted to provide artificial heating and air- conditioning in the boathouse. Fort called Kershner later and asked if he could install fans and Kershner told Fort that fans would be acceptable. It is reasonable to infer from the photographic evidence, alone, that Kershner knew in September 2004 that the apparent plan of construction was to at least partially enclose the boathouse. However, Kershner told Fort that turning the dock into a residence or "enclosing it" was not permitted. The only reasonable meaning to ascribe to a statement that a structure cannot be enclosed is that there must be some permanent, unobstructed way to pass in and out of the structure. A room surrounded by walls, with a door, is an enclosed structure. In November 2004, the first windows were installed in the boathouse. The windows were specially made to withstand severe weather. Respondents paid $120,000.00 for the windows. On January 7, 2005, the Department received the second as-built from Respondents. Hand-written on the form is “windows installed 1-6-05.” Another Department employee, Tracy Schilling, inspected the dock and boathouse in January 2005. Schilling said the inspection was in response to a complaint from a neighbor that the dock was "extremely large" and that it was blocking the neighbor's view. Schilling reviewed the permit drawings before her inspection. The construction was still incomplete. There was framing work underway on the first floor interior of the boathouse. Schilling said it was apparent from the framing that the boathouse would have "separate rooms." Schilling believed that the dock and boathouse were in compliance with the permit. On April 13, 2005, the Department received the third as-built from Respondents. On June 28, 2005, Schilling and another Department employee inspected the dock and boathouse again. Photographs taken during the inspection show windows were installed. Framing was completed in the upstairs portion of the structure, creating two rooms, and interior walls on the first floor were finished. The rooms were at least partially furnished with chairs, tables, and a lamp. During the June 2005 inspection, Schilling observed a fiberglass shower stall, still in its box, on the dock. Schilling believed that the installation of a shower stall would violate the prohibitions in the permit and lease against structures that were not water-dependent. The Department's notes for the June 2005 inspection indicate “Minor Out-of- compliance.” Schilling said she did not consider the windows to be out of compliance because window openings were shown on the permit drawings. On the first sheet of photographs taken during the June 2005 inspection (Respondents' Exhibit 3B), someone has written, "This is sliding over into non-water dependent category - Let's talk." However, the record does not include any explanation of this handwritten comment. Schilling sent a letter to Respondents on August 29, 2005, informing Respondents that an “item” was found to be non- compliant with Condition 26 of Respondents’ permit that prohibits structures whose use is not water-dependent and that such structures must be removed within 30 days. The letter did not identify the structure that was not water-dependent. On September 7, 2005, David Fort called Schilling about the August 28 letter. Schilling told Fort that the “item” referred to in the letter was the shower stall. She told Fort that plumbing and running water were not allowed. Fort told Schilling that he was not going to install the shower. In February or March, 2006, Schilling called David Fort to request permission for Schilling and some Department employees from the Division of State Lands in Tallahassee to inspect the dock and boathouse. Schilling said State Lands employees occasionally make site visits to inspect unusual docks and marinas "that may have issues." She suggested the inspection of Respondents' boathouse because it was the "Taj Mahal of docks." The inspection was conducted by Schilling and three other Department employees. Schilling had a copy of the lease with her. The exterior construction of the boathouse was complete and the interior work was substantially complete. Schilling believed the structure was built in compliance with the permit. Respondents did not submit an as-built to reflect the final construction of the dock and boathouse. The Department's enforcement action arose as a result of Savage's September 3, 2009, inspection of the dock and boathouse. It was during this inspection when Savage first became aware of the enclosed rooms of the boathouse. He observed a children's playroom with carpeting, lighting, an air conditioning unit, cable for television, and shelves. These structures and uses are not water-dependent. Savage observed another room in the boathouse that contained an air conditioner or dehumidifier, refrigerator, kitchen-style cabinetry, glass-paned windows, kitchen-style sink connected to a water supply, television, and a microwave oven. These structures and uses are not water-dependent. Savage observed another room with a water heater and a shower stall. The room also was being used to store cleaning materials and personal property. These structures and uses are not water-dependent. Savaged observed electrical wiring throughout the boathouse. The Department allows electrical wiring only for water-dependent uses, such as an electric boatlift or for emergency lighting. On the dock adjacent to the large mooring slip, Savage observed a sink connected to a water supply, a glass-paned window, and a door that enclosed a lower level room. Savage did not think the sink was "representative of a fish cleaning station." His objection to the sink was that it had more than one basin and did not have a sign identifying it as a fish cleaning station. Also on the dock in the area of the slips, Savage observed music speakers installed on the wall, doors enclosing rooms, and a closet which was being used to store fishing reels and gear. There is a pump stored next to the boat lift in the boat storage area that pumps water out of the Matanzas River into a tank for keeping live bait. Respondents admitted that they had installed structures at the dock and boathouse that were not authorized by the permit. These unauthorized structures are a stairway and ramp to the beach, a floating platform on pilings with a metal gangway, and an "overhang" (that portion of the upper level deck on the north side of the boathouse that extends 1.5 feet beyond the outer wall of the lower level). The Department incurred $1,874.00 in investigative costs for investigation and enforcement activities associated with Respondents' dock and boathouse. Respondents did not dispute these costs. They are reasonable costs. Detrimental Reliance Respondents claim that they relied on the Department's representations following the Department's inspections of the construction and would not have installed the doors, windows, or other features in the structure if the Department had told Respondents that these structures were not authorized by the permit. The permit drawings indicate a boathouse with areas that would be semi-enclosed. However, the permit and lease limit this boathouse to a structure for the mooring and protection for boats. The boathouse is not supposed to serve as a residence or a clubhouse. It was unreasonable for Respondents to believe that the permit authorized enclosed rooms and amenities typical of an upland residence with many features that are not water-dependent. Respondents presented no evidence to show that similar boathouses have been authorized by Department permit. David Fort's actions showed that he had a complete disregard for the warnings and instructions that he received from the Department. He was told that he could not "climatize" the boathouse. He was told that he could not enclose the boathouse. He was told that he could not install the shower stall. He was told that he could not install plumbing or running water. He was told that he could not use the dock and boathouse for activities that were not water-dependent. Yet he did all of these things anyway. He built certain structures, such as the floating dock and gangway, which he knew were not authorized by the permit. It is in this context of Fort's apparent intent to do whatever he wanted with the boathouse, no matter what the Department said, that Fort's claims of detrimental reliance must be considered. The more persuasive evidence does not show that Respondents relied to their detriment on any representation by a Department employee, except for the installation of fans. David Fort asked a direct question about whether he could install fans, before the fans were installed, and was told by the Department that he could install fans. All of the other structures that are the subject of this case were installed without a prior discussion with the Department or are contrary to instructions given by the Department. Respondents point out several times that certain structures were in place before a Department inspection, facts which Respondents believe support their arguments about the structures being in compliance with the permit, because the Department saw the structures but did not object to them. Although these facts are relevant to the determination of whether the structures were, in fact and in law, in compliance with the permit, they undermine Respondents' claim of reliance. Respondents' claim of reliance is not based on any affirmative acts of the Department, but on the Department's silence. The Department's silence caused Respondents to believe that the Department would not take enforcement action, but the evidence does not show that Respondents relied on the Department's silence to construct or install any of the disputed structures.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioners issue Final Orders that impose the administrative fines and order the corrective actions set forth in the Amended Notice of Violation and Orders for Corrective Action, dated June 1, 2010, with the modifications stated above. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of September, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of September, 2010.
The Issue Whether the Appellant, Edward M. Mitchell, has demonstrated that development rights in certain real property he owns have vested against the provisions of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan?
Findings Of Fact The Property at Issue. On or about September 23, 1980, Mr. Mitchell entered into an agreement to purchase 6.141 acres of property (hereinafter referred to as the "Property"), located just north of Interstate 10, on the east side of North Meridian Road, Leon County, Florida. The Property was to be purchased from Textron Petroleum Products, Inc. The following "additional provision" was included in the agreement entered into for the purchase of the Property: Buyer to have 30 days from date hereof within which to obtain such permits as he deems necessary. If Buyer cannot obtain the same, he shall give written notice thereof within said time limit and the contract shall be null and void. If such written notice is not given within such period, this contingency shall be deemed waived. In 1980, the Property was zoned C-1, neighborhood commercial. Under C- 1 zoning, neighborhood commercial, up to 69,000 square feet of commercial space could be placed on the Property based upon a restriction of 85% impervious surface. Mr. Mitchell wanted to insure that he could obtain the permits necessary to develop the Property consistent with C-1 zoning before he purchased the Property. On or about November 3, 1980, the real estate broker involved in the purchase of the Property, sent a letter to Bob Speidel of Environmental Services of Leon County. In the letter Leon County was informed of the pending sale of the Property and the contingency of "Mr. Mitchell being able to obtain a permit to develop the tract by clearing the land, constructing a retention pond and filling the remaining land to a usable elevation." On or about November 7, 1980, an Application for Permit for Clearing and Development was filed on behalf of Mr. Mitchell. This permit was the only permit required in 1980 to develop the Property. The evidence failed to prove, however, that it was the only permit required to develop the Property immediately before the adoption of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. On or about November 14, 1980, a Clearing and Development Permit, number 1113 (hereinafter referred to as "Permit 1113"), was issued on the Property by the Leon County Department of Public Works, Division of Environmental Services. Permit 1113 specifically provided that Mr. Mitchell was authorized by the permit "to make changes in this land proposed to be subdivided, developed or changed in use by grading, excavating, removal, alteration or destruction of the natural top soil, as hereinafter located and described." The specific use Mr. Mitchell planned to put the Property to and the manner of developing the Property were not specified in Permit 1113 or the application therefore. On or about December 23, 1980, Mr. Mitchell purchased the Property for $44,211.92. Mr. Mitchell would not have purchased the Property for the price paid if it had not been zoned C-1 or if he had not obtained Permit 1113 or a similar permit. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that Mr. Mitchell informed Leon County prior to his purchase of the Property what specific use the Property would be put to or that Leon County ever approved any specific type of development of the Property. Development of the Property. Sometime between 1980 and 1985, Mr. Mitchell cleared the Property. In June, 1985, Mr. Mitchell applied with the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation for a General Permit for New Stormwater Discharge Facility Construction. In October, 1985, the permit was approved. When the Property was cleared some of trees were removed which should not have been removed. Therefore, in July, 1985, Mr. Mitchell agreed to replant trees on the Property. In August, 1985, Mr. Mitchell was issued a Tree Removal Permit for the trees that had already been removed. Mr. Mitchell brought fill (approximately five feet) onto the Property and did substantial grading of the Property. The elevation of the Property was increased from 108 feet to 112-113 feet. Storm water drainage was designed and installed on the Property. The storm water pond was built to accommodate 65,000 to 70,000 square feet of construction. Leon County was aware of this fact. In order to maximize use of the Property a Leon County employee informed Mr. Mitchell that he could place the retention pond on an abutting parcel of property. Consequently, Mr. Mitchell purchased an adjoining parcel of real estate. Mr. Mitchell has not obtained a storm water permit, a building permit or site plan review or approval for the Property. Mr. Mitchell has worked closely with officials of Leon County before and after his purchase of the Property. Mr. Mitchell retained an engineer to prepare a site plan for the Property. The site plan was prepared consistent with C-1, neighborhood commercial zoning, 85% impervious surface and off-site retention. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that Leon County was made aware of the site plan. Mr. Mitchell would not have done the site work or purchased the abutting parcel of property except for the C-1, neighborhood commercial zoning of the Property and the issuance of Permit 1113. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that Mr. Mitchell informed Leon County after his purchase of the Property what specific use the Property would be put to or that Leon County ever approved any specific type of development of the Property. Change in Position or Obligations and Expenses Incurred by Mr. Mitchell. Mr. Mitchell spent $44,211.92 to purchase the Property based upon the zoning on the Property and the issuance of Permit 1113. The work performed on the Property after it was purchased by Mr. Mitchell was performed primarily by Mitchell Brothers, Inc., a company owned by Mr. Mitchell. The "value" of the work performed by Mr. Mitchell was in excess of $250,000.00. The evidence failed to prove what the actual cost of the work performed was to Mr. Mitchell. Mr. Mitchell acquired the abutting parcel of property in reliance on the zoning on the Property, Permit 1113 and a suggestion of an official of Leon County. The abutting property costs several thousand dollars. The evidence failed to prove, however, that the suggestion of the Leon County official concerning the purchase of the abutting property constituted a representation of Leon County that the Property could be developed in a particular manner. It was merely a solution offered to a problem of Mr. Mitchell which Mr. Mitchell was free to reject or accept. The suggestion also only confirmed that the Property could be developed under the current zoning. Development of the Property under the 2010 Plan. Under the 2010 Comprehensive Plan, the Property is located in an area designated as "lake protection." Only minor commercial uses would be permitted in such an area. Under the 2010 Comprehensive Plan, the Property may be developed with a maximum of 20,000 square feet of retail (non-office) space. Additionally, one dwelling unit per two acres of property could also be used for residential purposes. Therefore, the Property could be developed by building three residences on the Property in addition to the 20,000 square feet of retail space. Only approximately one-third of the site work that has been performed on the Property would be needed to develop only 20,000 square feet of commercial space on the Property and the purchase of the abutting property would not have necessary. Procedure. On or about November 2, 1990, Edward M. Mitchell filed an Application for Vested Rights Determination (hereinafter referred to as the "Application"), with Leon County. By letter dated January 2, 1991, Mr. Mitchell was informed that his Application was incomplete. By letter dated January 18, 1991, Mr. Mitchell provided the additional information requested. By letter dated January 25, 1991, Mr. Mitchell was informed that Leon County intended to deny his Application. Mr. Mitchell requested a hearing before the Staff Committee of Leon County by letter dated January 30, 1991. On February 11, 1991, a hearing was held to consider the Application before the Staff Committee. By letter dated February 13, 1991, Mark Gumula, Director of Planning of the Tallahassee-Leon County Planning Department informed Mr. Mitchell that the Application had been denied. On February 22, 1991, a Notice of Appeal was filed by Mr. Mitchell appealing the decision to deny the Application. By letter dated March 1, 1991, the Division of Administrative Hearings was requested to provide a Hearing Officer to review this matter. By agreement of the parties, the undersigned allowed the parties to supplement the record in this matter on May 24, 1991.
Findings Of Fact The Subject Property. During 1973, Mode, Inc., applied for and obtained approval of Planned Unit Development (hereinafter referred to as "PUD") zoning for approximately 620 acres of real property known as Ridaught Landing located on County Road 209 in Clay County. In December of 1986, Mode, Inc., sold approximately 470 acres of Ridaught Landing to Village of Fireside, Inc. This 470 acre parcel (hereinafter referred to as the "Property"), is the subject of this proceeding. Purchase money financing and construction financing for the purchase and development of the Property was provided by Barnett Bank of Jacksonville, N.A. (hereinafter referred to as "Barnett"). In November of 1988 Barnett assigned its interest in the Property to the Petitioner simultaneously with the closing of financing by the Petitioner on the Property to Villages of Fireside, Inc. Villages of Fireside, Inc., subsequently defaulted on its indebtedness to the Petitioner and in April, 1992, the Petitioner accepted a Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure for the Property. Development of the Property; Government Action Relied Upon by the Petitioner. In November of 1985, the PUD was amended. As a condition of the amendment, Clay County required that 212 acres of uplands and associated wetlands be dedicated to a homeowner's association associated with the Property. The 212 acres were to be used as preservation area and for the construction of nature walks, gazebos and recreational areas. In January of 1988 Villages of Fireside, Inc., applied for approval of a further amendment to the PUD. Among other things, approval of a separate entrance to the Property was requested. The amendment was approved. As a result of the January, 1988 amendment, the PUD properties are to be developed as two separate subdivisions, known as Ridaught Landing and the Villages of Fireside. Development of the Villages of Fireside subdivision was approved for up to 400 single-family dwelling units within the residential portion, (b) 16 acres of recreational and private services uses, including a day-care center and a private park, and (c) the 212 acre preservation area. Villages of Fireside, Inc., submitted a plat to Clay County for the Villages of Fireside subdivision Unit One in 1988. The final plat for Unit One was approved March 22, 1988. Clay County required that the entrance to Unit One be constructed with an 80 foot right of way to accommodate the development of the entire project as approved by the PUD, as amended. The Petitioner's Detrimental Reliance. In reliance upon Clay County's approval of the PUD and amendments thereto and approval of the final plat of Unit One Villages of Fireside, Inc.: Constructed master infrastructure improvements (water and sewer systems, master roads and an oversized drainage facility) for the project at a cost of approximately $706,427.00. These improvements were made between February and October of 1988. Constructed entry features for the project at a cost of approximately $21,465.00. These improvements were made between December of 1988 and June of 1989. Constructed a nature walk through the 212 acre preservation area at a cost of approximately $97,593.00. These improvements were made between November of 1988 and January of 1989. Upon the assignment of Barnett's interest in the Property to the Petitioner in November of 1988, financing by the Petitioner for the Property to Villages of Fireside, Inc., closed. The Petitioner, therefore, refinanced construction of improvements made by Villages of Fireside, Inc., in reliance on Clay County's approval of the PUD, with amendments, and the final plat for Unit One. The Petitioner refinanced the project in reliance upon Clay County's approval of the PUD, with amendments, and the final plat for Unit One. The Petitioner considered the PUD zoning to be true and correct at the time of refinancing and the Petitioner's loan officer believed that the Property was approved for development of at least 400 single-family residential units at the time of refinancing. In reliance on Clay County's actions, proceeds were distributed by the Petitioner for construction of the nature walk through the 212 acre preservation area. The Petitioner also released the 212 acre preservation area from the lien of its mortgage on the Property so that it could be conveyed to the homeowner's association as common area. This release was made in reliance on Clay County's actions. Rights That Will Be Destroyed. Development of the Property will impact County Road 220. Pursuant to the Clay County 2001 Comprehensive Plan, there is insufficient capacity on the portion of County Road 220 that will be impacted by development of the Property to accommodate traffic projected to be generated by the Property as approved. If the Petitioner must comply with the Clay County 2001 Comprehensive Plan it will be required to delay completion of the project until County Road 220 is improved. Such a delay will have a substantial adverse financial impact upon the Petitioner. Procedural Requirements. The parties stipulated that the procedural requirements of Vested Rights Review Process of Clay County, adopted by Clay County Ordinance 92-18, as amended, have been met.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent Crestwood Lakes Associates provided reasonable assurance that a modification to a conceptual surface water management permit complies with the permit criteria contained in statutes and rules.
Findings Of Fact Background This case involves a 900-acre parcel in the Loxahatchee Slough, west of the Florida Turnpike in Palm Beach County (County). Although the property occupies part of a slough, all of the wetlands in this case are isolated wetlands. Respondent Crestwood Lakes Associates (Applicant) owns the south 503 acres, Petitioner owns the north 287 acres, and the Village of Royal Palm Beach (Village) owns the remaining 115 acres, which abut the southwest boundary of the north parcel. The acreages do not total 900 acres because the numbers are approximate. The 900-acre parcel is generally bounded on the south by Okeechobee Boulevard and the north and east by the M-1 canal. The west boundary of the south part of the parcel adjoins a residential development known as Loxahatchee Groves, and the 115-acre parcel adjoins a County-owned preserve of at least 600 acres. Applicant’s land is undeveloped except for some landclearing. Petitioner’s land is partly developed, mostly in the south next to the boundary with Applicant’s land. The Village's 115 acres are a preserve, divided equally between wetlands and uplands. On February 11, 1988, Respondent South Florida Water Management District (District) issued surface water management (SWM) permit No. 50-00618-S-02 to Royal Palm Homes, Inc. for conceptual approval of a SWM system serving a residential development on the 900-acre parcel (1988 Permit). References to the Original Developer shall include Royal Palm Homes, Inc., its agents, lenders, and assigns, except for Petitioner and Applicant. The permitted development, which was known as the Royal Palm Homes PUD, comprises single-family and multifamily residences, wetland preserve areas, two 18-hole golf courses, and a park area. On August 3, 1994, Applicant filed SWM application number 940803-6 to modify the 1988 Permit to show the change in ownership and obtain conceptual approval of a modification to the permitted SWM system. The application was not complete when the new Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) rules replaced the old Management and Storage of Surface Water (MSSW) permit rules. On May 24, 1996, the District transmitted the staff report, which proposed the issuance of a permit modification. On June 13, 1996, the District approved the issuance of the proposed permit modification. On the same date, Petitioner filed its petition challenging the proposed agency action. Permits The first relevant SWM permit for the 900-acre parcel involved a larger parcel that includes the 900-acre parcel. On September 14, 1978, the District issued a two-page permit authorizing the “construction of a water management system serving 2073 acres of residential lands by waterways discharging into canal C-51.” This 1978 permit, which is identified as number 50-00618-S, contains a special condition calling for a minimum finished floor elevation of 18.0 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). The next permit is the 1988 Permit, which is a substantial modification to the 1978 permit. The 1988 Permit covers only the previously described 900 acres and, as modified, currently remains in effect. The 1988 Permit requires the preservation of two large wetlands in the north parcel, just north of the 115-acre preserve; one wetland is about 30 acres and the other is about ten acres. The 1988 Permit requires the preservation of no other wetlands in the north parcel, but, in addition to the wetlands in the 115-acre preserve, the 1988 Permit requires the preservation of several much smaller wetlands in the south parcel. The staff report for the 1988 Permit divides into three basins the drainage area for the 900-acre parcel: a north basin of 98.9 acres, a central basin of 525.7 acres, and a south basin of 270.8 acres. The staff report states that basin runoff will pass through a system of inlets and culverts into a series of interconnected lakes, from which, through control structures, the runoff will pass into the M-1 canal and eventually into the C-51 canal. The staff report notes that the control elevations will be 17.25 feet NGVD for the north basin, 17.55 feet NGVD for the central basin, and 17.75 feet NGVD for the south basin. Under the discussion of environmental impacts, the staff report observes that the 1978 permit proposed for protection only 30 acres of wetlands among the 281 acres of isolated wetlands on the site. The staff report notes that “extensive” melaleuca invasion has taken place since the 1978 permit and only 160 acres of wetlands remain in “relatively good” condition, with much of this subject to melaleuca encroachment. Due to the “extensive seed source” and “seasonal drying of the wetlands,” the staff report predicts eventual melaleuca dominance of the “entire site.” The staff report asserts that the proposed development plan includes the protection of about 100 acres of the “best quality wetlands,” plus eight acres of wetlands created in conjunction with the golf courses and 15 acres of wetlands created as littoral zones in conjunction with the lakes to be constructed. The staff report calls a program “to eradicate all melaleuca from the site” “[t]he major environmental feature” of the proposed development plan. But this major environmental feature of the 1988 Permit is presently in jeopardy. One major component of the present case is that, following the conveyances of the three parcels by the Original Developer, the District has evidently concluded that no one is responsible to perform certain obligations under the 1988 Permit and no remedies are available for the nonperformance of these obligations. It appears that these conclusions are largely driven by the vagueness of the plan to eradicate the melaleuca. This plan is called the "Melaleuca Eradication Plan." The Melaleuca Eradication Plan is incorporated into the 1988 Permit. The Melaleuca Eradication Plan, which is dated December 11, 1987, recounts that the Original Developer and regulatory bodies agreed that the melaleuca should be “eradicated and a program for this should be developed and included as a part of the permit application.” The plan states that the eradication plan will cover the entire 900- acre site with the Original Developer performing the “initial . . . program” on the entire site, including the 115-acre preserve to be deeded to the Village. The Melaleuca Eradication Plan calls for the Original Developer to create a bonded authority to conduct the “ten-year melaleuca eradication program.” The program is phased to coincide with the projected 10-year buildout of the 3000-unit parcel. The Melaleuca Eradication Plan describes in detail the three phases of the program and exactly how the Original Developer will proceed to remove the melaleuca and restore wetlands by planting native wetland species in disturbed areas. The plan promises a yearly inspection followed by hand-removal of any seedlings discovered on the site. This last phase will terminate ten years after commencement of the first phase. A “Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program” is also incorporated into the 1988 Permit. The Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program, which is dated December 8, 1987, states that Dr. Dwight Goforth performed a wetlands survey of the 900-acre site in 1985 and divided wetlands into three categories based on their quality. The Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance promises the preservation of 112.71 acres of wetlands comprising 98.81 acres of “large wetlands totally preserved” and nine wetlands totaling 13.9 acres that will be “partially preserved.” Also, the program will create golf course wetlands of 6.93 acres and littoral-zone wetlands around the lakes of 15 acres. Thus, the program summarizes, the “total wetland acreage preserved, enhanced and created will [be] 134.64 acres.” The Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program describes a three-year monitoring program using transects to assist in the vegetative mapping of the site. The program also promises semiannual observations of birds, small rodents, and larger mammals using the wetlands and adjacent preserved uplands, as well as semiannual sampling for fish, macroinvertebrates, and amphibians. The Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program outlines a plan to remove melaleuca and control algae buildup in the lakes. The program promises to contain algae through the use of “biological controls” and, when needed, hand-raking. The program also assures that the Original Developer will use a “conservative fertilization program” for the golf course and landscaped areas to reduce eutrophication in the created lakes. On February 18, 1988, the District issued its conceptual approval of the 1988 Permit. Among the special conditions of the 1988 Permit are Special Condition 15, which requires wetland monitoring and maintenance in accordance with the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program, and Special Condition 16, which requires melaleuca removal in accordance with the Melaleuca Eradication Plan. Also, Special Condition 17 requires low berms around protected or created wetlands, including littoral zones, to protect against sheetflow runoff from the golf course or other areas of intense development. The references in the preceding paragraphs to the responsibilities of the "Original Developer" imply greater clarity than is present in the Melaleuca Eradication Plan or Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program. The passive voice predominates in both these documents, so it is sometimes difficult to determine on whom a particular responsibility falls. The Melaleuca Eradication Plan states clearly that "[the Original Developer] will conduct the initial melaleuca eradication on the entire site including the dedicated park area [i.e., the 115 acres]." The next sentence of the plan contemplates the conveyance of the 115 acres to the County. But, after these clear provisions, the Melaleuca Eradication Plan lapses into the passive voice almost invariably. The next two sentences read, "A bonded authority will be created to conduct the ten-year melaleuca eradication program" and "The eradication program will be carried out through a bonded agreement with the [Original] Developer to remove the melaleuca . . .." Alluding to the several phases of melaleuca eradication, the plan states only "[t]he eradication program will be completed in stages " Only two other sentences establishing responsibility for melaleuca eradication identify the responsible party. The end of the plan states that the "bonded authority responsible for initial eradication clearance will likewise provide a yearly inspection." One of the final sentences of the plan adds: "the bonding authority's crew will hand remove entire seedlings found on site." The Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program is similar except that it does not once name the entity responsible for the monitoring and maintenance duties or hiring the firm or individual to conduct the actual work. The two special conditions incorporating these two documents likewise are in the passive voice, implying only that the responsibility belongs to the Original Developer. Given the vagueness of the melaleuca-eradication and wetlands-maintenance documents, it is not surprising that they fail entirely to address the issue whether these responsibilities run with the land, remain the responsibility of the Original Developer, or, for the eradication of melaleuca, remain the duty of the "bonded authority," if the Original Developer ever created such an entity, which appears highly doubtful. The documents likewise do not disclose the penalties for noncompliance. On June 16, 1988, the District issued a modification to the 1988 Permit for the construction and operation of a 110.9-acre residential development in Phase I, which occupies the central basin. On October 1, 1988, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps) issued the Original Developer a permit to destroy 164 acres of wetlands on the 900-acre parcel. Special conditions of the 1988 Army Corps permit require the preservation of "115 acres of high quality wetlands," the creation of 18 acres of wetlands and 15 acres of littoral shelf, and the implementation of a "Melaleuca Eradication Program," which is the same program as is incorporated in the 1988 Permit. The 1988 Army Corps permit contains an attachment dated October 24, 1987. This attachment identifies the protected wetlands as the two large wetlands in the north parcel totaling about 40 acres, 58 acres in the 115-acre preserve, and 53.5 acres in the south parcel. The 1988 Army Corps permit protects several wetlands in the south parcel, including wetland numbers 14 (3.04 acres), 16 (1.6 acres), 23 (0.53 acres), 30 (2.6 acres), 44 (0.8 acres), 29 (1.08 acres), and 46 (3.0 acres). These wetlands, which total 12.65 acres, are seven of the nine wetlands partially preserved in the 1988 Permit, although some of the acreages vary from those preserved in the 1988 Permit. Unlike the District's permits (except for the subject proposed permit modification), the 1988 Army Corps permit addresses conveyances by the developer. The 1988 Army Corps permit states: "If you sell the property associated with this permit, you must obtain the signature of the new owner in the space provided and forward a copy of the permit to this office to validate the transfer of this authorization." Below the signature line of the 1988 Army Corps permit is language stating: When the structures or work authorized by this permit are still in existence at the time the property is transferred, the terms and conditions of this permit will continue to be binding on the new owner(s) of the property. To validate the transfer of this permit and the associated liabilities associated with compliance with its terms and conditions, have the transferee sign and date below. On March 1, 1989, the Original Developer conveyed the 115-acre preserve to the Village, which later leased the preserve to the County. The Original Developer had not eradicated the melaleuca at the time of the conveyance, nor has anyone since done so. On August 17, 1990, water elevations in the wetlands in Phase I reached 19.4 feet NGVD, washing out construction pads, roads, and in-ground utilities. On September 7, 1990, the District issued a stop-work request because the SWM system was not working as required. On September 28, 1990, the District approved interim measures to preserve the wetland hydroperiod and allow for wetland overflow. These measures include berming the residential areas in Phase I/Plat I adjacent to wetlands. On June 13, 1991, the District approved additional modifications to the 1988 Permit and the construction and operations permit for Phase I and issued a conceptual approval for works in the north and central basins. The revisions to the conceptual approval include adding two control structures to the north wetland that connect to the water management system in the north basin and adding a berm around the smaller of the two preserved wetlands in the north parcel. The construction approval was for a perimeter berm along the south wetland and park areas. On June 24, 1992, the District issued a staff report recommending issuance of another modification of the 1988 Permit for the conceptual approval of a SWM system to serve the 900-acre parcel and approval of construction and operation of a SWM system to isolate and control the existing onsite wetlands and revise the control structure for the central basin. The staff report explains that this modification proposes berming the wetlands to the 100-year, three-day peak elevation. The staff report notes that the wetlands basin consists of 295.18 acres of wetlands, including 155.85 acres of “wetlands/uplands.” The staff report notes that the north basin contains 107.41 acres of “good quality wet prairie wetlands” with “minimal” melaleuca encroachment. The staff report restates that the purpose of the modification is to berm all of the wetlands and uplands not planned for development. Special Condition 19 requires the Original Developer to dedicate as conservation and common areas in deed restrictions the “wetland preservation/mitigation areas, upland buffer zones, and/or upland preservation areas," so that these areas are the “perpetual responsibility” of a named property owners’ association. Special Condition 22 states that “a wetland monitoring and maintenance program” and “a melaleuca eradication program” “shall be implemented,” but the condition does not expressly state by whom. Special Condition 22 requires that the work implementing these programs conform to these “approved environmental programs as outlined in the [1988 Permit].” Special Condition 25 provides that, on submittal of an application for construction approval in the south basin (Phase II), the "permittee shall submit a detailed wetland construction mitigation, monitoring and maintenance plan.” In evaluating the plan for approval, the District shall apply the “environmental criteria in effect at the time of construction permit application.” Although the approval of the District is not attached to the staff report, the District approved the June 24, 1992, staff report and proposed permit. The 1992 permit modification did not address the issue of who was responsible for melaleuca eradication after the sale of the property. On November 10, 1993, the staff report accompanying another request for a permit modification restates the special conditions of earlier permit modifications. Special Condition 23 restates the requirement that a melaleuca eradication program “shall be implemented,” again not stating by whom. Special Condition 23 now requires the completion of the melaleuca eradication program by February 25, 1994. The omission of a referenced exhibit to the permit from the exhibit filed in this case prevents a determination that this is the same as the Melaleuca Eradication Plan incorporated in the 1988 Permit and restated in the 1992 modification, although it probably is. In any event, Special Condition 23 concludes in another sentence lacking a stated or implied subject: “Maintenance of the preserved wetlands and berm planting areas shall be conducted in perpetuity to ensure that the conservation areas are maintained free from exotic vegetation (Brazilian pepper, Australian pine and melaleuca) . . ..” Although the record does not contain the written approval of the District to the staff report, the District approved the staff report dated November 10, 1993. On November 12, 1993, the Original Developer conveyed by special warranty deed the north to Petitioner. The deed is subject only to "easements, declarations, restrictions and reservations of record . . .." The record does not provide recording information for the deed. The Original Developer probably conveyed the south parcel to Applicant in the same fashion and at the same approximate time. Almost five months later, on March 29, 1994, the Army Corps issued another permit for the 900-acre parcel. Although the Original Developer had conveyed at least the north parcel, the Army Corps issued the 1994 permit to the Original Developer. The 1994 Army Corps permit authorizes the destruction of 158 acres. The general conditions governing transfers are the same as those in the 1988 Army Corps permit. The special conditions of the 1994 Army Corps permit require the permittee to preserve and enhance only 110 acres of high quality wetlands, instead of preserving 115 acres of such wetlands, as was required in the 1988 Army Corps permit. The 1994 Army Corps permit drops the requirement of creating eight acres of wetlands and 15 acres of littoral zone, as was required in the 1988 Army Corps permit, but requires the preservation of what appears to be the 39.5-acre preserve that is proposed by Applicant in the subject permit modification, as described below. Special Condition 3 of the 1994 Army Corps permit adds that all preserved areas "will be maintained in perpetuity free of Melaleuca. The permittee agrees to develop a bonded Melaleuca eradication program for the entire 906 acres. Copies of the bonded agreement will be provided to this office for approval before development can commence." The next permit activity affecting the 900-acre parcel is the subject application filed by Applicant on August 3, 1994, for its 503-acre parcel. On May 24, 1996, the District issued a staff report for conceptual approval of a SWM system proposed by Applicant for its 503-acre parcel. On June 13, 1996, the District issued an addendum to the staff report that contains another special condition that is not especially relevant to this case. In the background section, the staff report mentions the flooding of Phase I of the north parcel and states that the District had “assumed the adjacent wetlands would flow away from the development.” The staff report outlines the modifications implemented to eliminate the flooding; these modifications include connecting the M-1 canal, through inlets, with several wetlands located in the north and central basins. According to the staff report, Petitioner’s north parcel, which totals 287.34 acres, includes the Phase I/Plat 1 area, north basin, and part of central basin south of Phase I. Describing Applicant’s proposal, the staff report states that a preserve of 39.5 acres will be located in the northwest corner of the south parcel, adjoining the east boundary of the 115-acre parcel. The staff report states that the 39.5-acre preserve will sheetflow through cuts in the berm to wetlands in the 115-acre preserve. The 115-acre preserve is connected to the SWM system permitted on November 10, 1993, to eliminate flooding from these wetlands, whose control elevation is 19 feet NGVD. The staff report describes the south parcel as “dominated by flatwood habitat,” within which are stands of Australian pine and other exotic plant species that have recently been spreading across the site. The onsite wetlands are 4.93 acres of wet prairies, 18.4 acres of pond cypress strands, 1.56 acres of isolated marsh, 3.5 acres of cypress mixed with pine flatwood, and 163.91 acres of melaleuca. The staff report finds that only the 4.93 acres of wet prairies and 18.4 acres of cypress are in good condition, but melaleuca has become established in many of the wet prairies. The 1.56 acres of freshwater marshes and 163.91 acres of melaleuca are in poor condition. The 3.5 acres of cypress mixed with pine flatwoods are in fair condition. As for listed species, the staff report mentions only the possibility that herons might forage onsite during periods of standing water. Summarizing the impact of the proposed project on wetlands preservation, the staff report endorses the hydrologic reconnection of the 39.5-acre wetland/upland site with the 115-acre wetland. The staff report notes that water levels in the 115-acre preserve, which has been bermed to 21 feet NGVD, have stabilized at 19 feet NGVD. The staff report asserts that the “proposed wetland impacts (183.54 acres) were previously permitted under the conceptual permit application” for the original 1988 Permit. The staff report adds that this modification is to “change a portion of the original mitigation requirements . . . and includes impacts to a 6.78 acre wetland area that was previously permitted to be preserved.” But the staff report does not recommend the preservation of this wetland “[d]ue to the reduced hydrology and proximity to the proposed upland development” and the mitigation and compensation provided by the 39.5-acre preservation area. The staff report states that 8.76 acres of the 39.5- acre preserve are wetlands, and the remainder are uplands. As for the 8.76 acres of wetlands, the staff report lists 0.67 acres of mixed cypress and pine flatwoods, 4.93 acres of wet prairies, and 3.16 acres of cypress. Applicant would also restore 4.95 acres of pine flatwoods. As for the 183.54 acres of wetlands to be destroyed, the staff report lists 2.83 acres of mixed cypress and pine flatwoods in fair condition, 15.24 acres of cypress in fair condition, 1.56 acres of freshwater marshes in poor condition, and 163.91 acres of melaleuca in poor condition. Addressing the mitigation and monitoring elements of the current proposal, the staff report states that the modification would eliminate the creation of 15 acres of littoral wetlands around SWM lakes and 7.99 acres of marshes in golf courses in return for the creation of the 39.5-acre preservation area. The staff report assures that Applicant will perpetually manage and maintain the 115-acre preserve. Conceding that the 1988 Permit also required long-term maintenance of the 115-acre parcel, the staff report notes that the initial eradication effort was never completed. The staff report mentions an “access agreement” giving Applicant the authority to enter the 115-acre preserve for mitigation and monitoring, but “anticipat[es]” that Applicant will submit an application for another permit modification, on behalf of the two governmental entities, so that Applicant can “assume future maintenance responsibilities for this area.” As is clarified by the maintenance and monitoring plan, which is part of the proposed permit, Applicant's expectation is that the County and Village, not Applicant, will assume future maintenance responsibilities for the 115-acre preserve. The staff report concludes that the District should issue the permit subject to various conditions. Special Condition 1 is that the minimum building floor elevation is 20 feet NGVD. Special Condition 16 requires the implementation of a wetland mitigation program and requires Applicant to create 4.95 acres of marsh; restore 3.16 acres of cypress, 4.93 acres of marsh, and 0.67 acres of mixed forest; and protect 25.79 acres of uplands. Special Condition 17 sets performance criteria for the mitigation areas in terms of percentage and length of survival of vegetation. Special Condition 17 supplies completion dates for monitoring reports. Special Condition 21 addresses listed species. Noting that listed species have been seen onsite or the site contains suitable habitat for such species, Special Condition 21 requires Applicant to coordinate with the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission or the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service for guidance, recommendations, or permits to avoid impacts to such species. The monitoring and maintenance plan does not address direct and contingent liabilities for maintenance and generally is a poor candidate for enforcement. In addition to the vagueness of the passive voice, the plan is, at times, simply unreadable, as, for example, when it concludes boldly, but enigmatically: The site as a whole is evolving hydrologic trends which permits successional seres development toward communities with shorter hydroperiods and ultimately, toward more upland transitional and/or exotic species dominance of historically wetland habitats. Long-term prospectives infer that successional deflection has become a severe detriment for natural environmental control to alter the present scenario. Active management coupled with graduated balanced in hydrologic restoration and created habitat elements will become the processes engineered to obtain an infusion of probabilities fashioned to inscribe a regenerative adaptation to the present site condition while fostering in situ processes, to optimize derived functions, for the maintenance of both habitat and wildlife over the long-term existence of the Preserve. (Sic.) Water Quality Impacts Petitioner does not contend in its proposed recommended order that the proposed project fails to meet applicable requirements regarding water quality. Applicant has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed permit modification would not violate State water quality standards. Flooding Petitioner contends in its proposed recommended order that the proposed permit modification would not meet applicable requirements regarding water quantity and flooding. However, Applicant has provided reasonable assurance that the project would not violate these requirements. There are several aspects to a SWM system. Undeveloped land stores and conveys rainfall through soil and surface storage. An artificial SWM system alters the undeveloped land’s storage capacity by the addition of a storage and drainage system, such as, in this case, conveying water through the soil into storm drains and then to lakes to store surface runoff prior to release, through an outfall structure, into a receiving body of water--in this case, the M-1 canal. The SWM system hastens the conveyance of stormwater runoff offsite. The control elevation of a SWM system is the height at which water in the lakes will flow through the outfall structure into the receiving body of water. Except during the dry season, the control elevation tends to establish not only the water level of the SWM lakes, but also of the nearby water table. The hastening of drainage offsite with the establishment of control elevations produce the drawdown effect of SWM systems. As to flooding, the basic underlying dispute between Petitioner and Respondents is whether to use the pre- or post- development depth to water table. In determining whether an applicant has provided reasonable assurance as to the impact of a proposed development on wetlands, one would project the effect of any post-development drawdown on the wetlands themselves and their functions and inhabitants. It would be illogical not to do the same in determining whether an applicant has provided reasonable assurance as to the impact of a proposed development on flooding. Pre-development, the average depth to water table on Applicant’s property is as little as two feet. Post- development, the average depth to water table on Applicant’s property will be five feet, which is the difference between the control elevation of 14 feet NGVD and ground elevation of 19 feet NGVD. Petitioner’s evidence concerning flooding is flawed because its expert witness based his calculations on an average depth to water table of two feet on Applicant’s property. He did not adjust for the considerable drawdown effect of the SWM system. The District table allows for no more than four feet between the water table and ground, so there is an added margin of safety in the ensuing flooding calculations. Another important factor in the flooding calculations is the soil type in terms of permeability. The District properly characterized the prevailing soils as flatwoods, and the soils onsite are in the category of “good drainage.” Applicant’s suggestion that flooding calculations use the post-development soils is rejected. Post-development depths to water table are used because they can be calculated to predict post-development conditions accurately. Applicant produced no proof that it would replace such massive amounts of soil from the site with more permeable soils so as to justify reclassifying the soil type. The District's flooding calculations probably overstate the risk of flooding in the three-day, 100-year design storm because they ignore lake bank storage, which is the additional amount of water that a lake can store in its sloped banks above the typical water elevation. The District could have relied on the effect of lake bank storage for additional assurance that the proposed project will not result in flooding. The proposed project contains a large number of long, narrow lakes, which will thus have a relatively high percentage of lake banks to lake area. Additionally, the District has raised the minimum floor elevation at this site by two feet over 18 years. Whatever other effects may follow from this trend, the higher floor elevation offers additional protection to onsite improvements. The flooding of Petitioner’s property seven years ago understandably is a matter of concern to Petitioner. Applicant proposes to change the configuration of drainage basins, but the District has adequately addressed the drainage issue, and this is not the first time in the 20-year permitting history of this property that the District has approved a reconfiguration of basins. Also, in the 1988 Permit, the District incorrectly projected the direction of runoff under certain conditions. However, the flooding was partly due to inadequate road- drainage facilities. Following the flooding, the Original Developer enlarged these features and bermed the flooding wetlands, so as to eliminate the flooding of developed areas due to design storm events. On balance, Applicant has proved that the proposed permit modification would not adversely affect flooding or water quantity. Environmental Impacts A. Wetlands Petitioner contends in its proposed recommended order that the proposed permit modification would not meet applicable requirements regarding environmental impacts to wetlands. Applicant has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed work would not violate these requirements. There are two major deficiencies in the District's analysis of wetland impacts and mitigation or compensation. First, the proposed permit modification includes mitigation or compensation in the form of melaleuca removal. But prior permits have already required the same work, no one has ever done the work, and the District does not know if these permit requirements are still enforceable. Second, the proposed permit modification ignores 13.9 acres of preserved wetlands in the 1988 Permit, allowing their destruction without mitigation or compensation. The permitting process requires the District to balance the impacts of development and mitigation or compensation on the natural resources under the District's jurisdiction. Balancing these impacts in issuing the 1988 Permit, the District required the complete eradication of melaleuca in return for permitting the residential, institutional, and recreational development proposed by the Original Developer. District staff, not the Original Developer or Petitioner, called the Melaleuca Eradication Plan “the major environmental feature” of the development plan approved by the 1988 Permit. The major environmental feature of the 1988 Permit clearly justified significant development impacts on natural resources. To justify additional development impacts on natural resources, the District now proposes to count again another developer’s promise to eradicate the melaleuca. The District claims that the term of the original melaleuca protection plan was only ten years, not perpetual as is presently proposed. However, the District's claim ignores Special Condition 23 in the 1993 permit modification. This condition set a deadline of February 25, 1994, for the eradication of melaleuca and made perpetual the requirement that one or more of the potentially responsible parties--the Original Developer, Petitioner, Applicant, the bonded authority, the property owners' association, or transferees-- maintain the wetlands free of melaleuca and other exotics. Unfortunately, this “major environmental feature” of the 1988 Permit, as well as subsequent permit modifications, was so poorly drafted as to leave potentially responsible parties unsure of their legal obligations. The District tacitly suggests that it cannot enforce the obligations imposed by the 1988 Permits and later modifications for the eradication of melaleuca. But there is presently no reason for the District to resort again to permitting without first reviewing carefully its enforcement options. The District should first determine whether anyone will voluntarily assume these obligations. As a business consideration, Petitioner may choose to eradicate the melaleuca from the north parcel and 115-acre preserve to prevent Applicant from providing this service and claiming that it should receive compensation credit against additional environmental impacts permitted by a modification of the 1988 Permit. Maybe the County or Village has already budgeted funds for this work. If no party offers to perform the necessary work, the District must next determine its legal rights and the legal obligations of these parties. Depending on the results of this research, the District may need to consider litigation and the cessation of the issuance of construction and operation permits on the 900-acre parcel or either the north or south parcel. At this point, the District should discuss joint litigation or permit revocation with the Army Corps, whose 1994 permit requires the permittee to develop a bonded melaleuca-eradication program and apparently imposes on the permittee the responsibility to maintain all preserved areas free of melaleuca. Only after having exhausted these options may the District legitimately conclude that melaleuca eradication on any part of the 900 acres represents fair compensation for the development impacts on jurisdictional natural resources. The second major problem as to wetlands impacts concerns the calculation of wetlands acreages to be destroyed by the proposed permit. The 1988 Permit expressly incorporates the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program. This program, as an operative part of the 1988 Permit, represents that the developer will “partially preserve. . .” nine wetlands totaling 13.9 acres. The partial preservation of wetlands does not mean that a five-acre wetland will remain a five-acre wetland, except that its function will be impaired. Partial preservation means that, for instance, two acres of a five- acre wetland will be preserved. It is impossible for the District to have required mitigation to offset the destruction of these 13.9 acres of wetlands because the District denies that the 1988 Permit required the partial preservation of these nine wetlands. As noted below, neither the District nor Applicant can identify all of the wetlands that make up the 13.9 acres. Rather than account for these wetlands that were to have been partially preserved, the District instead contends that this undertaking by the Original Developer was ineffective or nonbinding because it was overriden by contrary statements in the staff report. Not so. The specific provisions delineating the preserved wetlands area in the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program, which was prepared by the Original Developer, override more general statements contained in the staff report accompanying the permit. There is not necessarily a conflict between the staff report and the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program. The staff report states that the plan “includes the protection of approximately 100 acres of the best quality wetlands,” together with the creation of eight acres of golf course wetlands and 15 acres of lake littoral zones. The plan “includes” these wetlands among those preserved or created; the word suggests that the list is not exhaustive, but only illustrative. Alternatively, if the list were exhaustive, the preservation of “approximately” 100 acres reasonably encompasses the 112.71 acres of partially or totally preserved wetlands cited in the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program. More to the point, on October 26, 1987, Donald Wisdom, the engineer handling the 1988 Permit, prepared a memorandum for the file stating that the total acreage of wetlands to be preserved or created was 134.45. This figure represents an insignificant deviation of 0.19 acres from the total listed in the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program, which was dated six weeks later, on December 8, 1987. In the October 26 memorandum, Mr. Wisdom describes the preserved wetlands as 111.46 acres of A- and B-quality wetlands. This is 1.25 acres less than the acreage in the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program. These small discrepancies were eliminated by November 18, 1987, when Mr. Wisdom wrote a memorandum noting that the program called for the total preservation of 98.81 acres and partial preservation of 13.9 acres. Adding the created wetlands, the new total for preserved or created wetlands was 134.64 acres. A month later, a District employee wrote a memorandum to the file, expressing his “main concern” that the proposed development would protect only 99 acres of wetlands. It is unclear why the employee mentioned only the 98.81 acres slated for preservation. Perhaps he was confused or mistaken. But the misgivings of a single employee do not constitute the rejection by the District of a developer's proposal to preserve nearly 14 acres of high-quality wetlands. The staff report for the 1988 Permit notes that the 900-acre site contained about 281 acres of wetlands. If the 1988 Permit required the preservation, as an entire wetland or part of a larger wetland, of 112 acres of wetlands, then the 1988 Permit allowed the destruction of 169 acres, which is consistent with the 164 and 158 acres allowed to be destroyed by the 1988 and 1994 Army Corps permits. However, by the 1996 permit modification, the staff report refers, without explanation or justification, to the permitted destruction of 183.54 acres of wetlands--evidently adding the 13.9 acres to the 169 acres previously permitted to be destroyed. Tab 13 of the Wisdom bluebook identifies the nine wetlands constituting the 13.9 acres, which are entirely in Applicant's south parcel. Except for three, all of these wetlands were characterized as A-quality, meaning that they are in good to excellent condition and “have not been stressed significantly from the biological viewpoint.” B-quality wetlands are in disturbed condition and “are in various stages of biological stress caused primarily by a lowered water table and/or melaleuca invasion.” C-quality wetlands are highly disturbed and “are substantially degraded biologically.” The 13.9 acres of wetlands comprise wetland numbers 23 (0.5 acres), 46 (0.4 acres), 44 (0.6 acres), 37 (0.4 acres), 29 (1.1 acres), 20 [sometimes misreported as 21] (3.9 acres), 30 (2.6 acres), 16 (1.5 acres), and 14 (2.9 acres). Wetland numbers 46 and 29 are B-quality, and wetland number 20 is C-quality. The wetlands shown in District Exhibit 4 and Applicant Exhibit 3 inaccurately portray the wetlands constituting the missing 13.9 acres. A internal memorandum to the file notwithstanding, the District predicated the 1988 Permit in part on the preservation of 112.71 acres of functioning wetlands, including the 13.9 acres that the District now disclaims. The mitigation and compensation required of Applicant in the present case ignored the destruction of these wetlands. The District's analysis of mitigation and compensation in this case was fatally flawed by these two deficiencies. But more deficiencies exist in the District's analysis of wetland impacts. The District relied on faulty data in reviewing Applicant's request for a permit modification. Undercounting the extent of wetlands by at least 21 acres and their condition by an indeterminable amount, Applicant presented to the District a materially inaccurate picture of the wetland resources on the south parcel. Despite disclaimers to the contrary, the District relied on this inaccurate data in reviewing Applicant's request for a permit modification. There are possible problems with 39.5-acre preserve offered by Applicant. This parcel contains less than nine acres of wetlands, including two wetlands that Applicant may already be required to preserve under the 1994 Army Corps permit. At the same time, Applicant's proposal may include the destruction of a third wetland that is to be preserved under the 1994 Army Corps permit. The best rendering in the record of the 1994 Army Corps permit may be Applicant Exhibit 4, which shows eight large wetland areas to be “preserved/enhanced/created.” Two of these are the 10- and 30-acre wetlands on Petitioner’s property, which were preserved in the 1988 Permit. Three of the eight wetlands are in the 115-acre preserve; these were also preserved in the 1988 Permit. The remaining three wetlands to be preserved, enhanced, or created under the 1994 Army Corps permit are in the north end of Applicant’s property. It is difficult to estimate acreage given the scale of the drawing, but the two westerly wetlands are about 4-5 acres each and the easterly wetland is 3-3.5 acres. Subtracting the total preserved acreage of 110 from the acreage identified in the preceding paragraph, the total acreage of these remaining three wetlands is about 12. The two westerly wetlands are in the 39.5-acre preserve that Applicant offers as mitigation in the present case. According to Applicant Exhibit 6, the easterly wetland, or at least the most valuable part of it--the center--is slated for destruction if the District grants the subject permit modification. The proposed destruction of the third wetland is a matter of greater interest to the Army Corps than to the District, but the offer to preserve the other two wetlands really does not provide anything in return for the permitted development impacts because these two wetlands are already preserved under the 1994 Army Corps permit. As the District and Applicant contend, golf course marshes and littoral zones are typically of little environmental importance. Although the 1988 Permit addresses some of these problems, although without supplying any performance standards, golf courses themselves are often conduits of fertilizers and pesticides into the groundwater and nearby surface water. The District and Applicant justifiably question the value of the golf courses approved in the 1988 Permit as wildlife corridors. It is unclear what wildlife would use the corridor, which is surrounded by residential development and bounded by Okeechobee Boulevard. Other factors also militate in favor of Applicant's proposal. But, as the record presently stands, there is no way to find that Applicant has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed development and related mitigation and compensation, as described in the subject permit modification, meet the applicable criteria. The District substantially undervalued the environmental impacts of the proposed modification while substantially overvaluing the environmental impacts of Applicant's proposed contributions in the form of mitigation and compensation. To find adequate assurance as to wetland impacts in these circumstances, where the District did not perform an informed balancing of various impacts in a large-scale development, would permit the District to transform the unavoidably imprecise task of balancing wetland impacts into an act of pure, unreviewable discretion. Listed Species The only relevant listed species onsite is the gopher tortoise, which is a species of special concern. Gopher tortoises use the site to an undetermined extent. Applicant's suggestion that someone brought the tortoises to the site is rejected as improbable. However, due to the resolution of the wetlands issue, it is unnecessary to determine whether Applicant provided reasonable assurance as to the value of functions provided to wildlife and listed species by wetlands. Procedural Issues A. Standing Petitioner has standing due most obviously to flooding considerations. Additionally, the SWM system permitted in 1988 is for the entire 900-acre parcel, of which Petitioner’s parcel is a part. Applicability of ERP Rules The proposed permit modification would substantially affect water resources. The proposed permit modification would substantially increase the adverse effect on water resources. Requirement to Delineate Wetlands Due to the resolution of the wetlands issue, it is unnecessary to determine whether Applicant met applicable requirements concerning the delineation of wetlands. Improper Purpose Petitioner did not challenge the proposed permit modification for an improper purpose. Relevant Provisions of Basis of Review The District revised its Basis of Review after the adoption of ERP rules. Although the order concludes that the District should have applied the ERP rules, and thus the ERP Basis of Review, the order shall discuss both versions of the Basis of Review because the District ignored numerous provisions of both documents in approving Applicant's request for a permit modification. Section 4.6 MSSW Basis of Review requires the District to consider "actual impact" to the site by "considering the existing natural system as altered by the proposed project[,]" including "positive and negative environmental impacts." Section 4.6 requires the District to "balance" these impacts "to achieve a reasonable degree of protection for significant environmental features consistent with the overall protection of the water resources of the District." The proposed permit modification fails to comply with several provisions of Appendix 7 of the MSSW Basis of Review, such as Sections 4.2 requiring a detailed description of the isolated wetlands to be destroyed; 5.1.1(d) favoring the protection of isolated wetlands over their destruction, mitigation, and compensation, which are considered "only when there are no feasible project design alternatives"; and 5.1.6 prohibiting the alteration of water tables so as to affect adversely isolated wetlands. The proposed permit modification also violates various provisions of the ERP Basis of Review. Section 4.0 of the ERP Basis of Review sets the goal of permitting to be "no net loss in wetland . . . functions." Sections 4.2 and following generally require balancing. Section 4.2.1 predicates District approval on a showing that the SWM system does not cause a "net adverse impact on wetland functions . . . which is not offset by mitigation." The ERP provisions first require that the District "explore" with an applicant the minimization of impacts prior to considering mitigation. Section 4.2.2.4(c) specifically imposes monitoring requirements for SWM systems that "could have the effect of altering water levels in wetlands." Sections 4.3.2.2 and following discuss mitigation ratios under the ERP Basis of Review. If the District can explicate a policy to count as mitigation wetlands acreage already preserved under Army Corps permits, the ratios in this case might warrant further consideration, assuming Applicant resubmits an application for permit modification. But it would be premature to consider the ratios on the present record for several reasons. The District has not proved such a policy. If such a policy counts such wetland acreage, on the theory that the District protects function and the Army Corps protects merely the wetland, the record is insufficiently developed as to the functions of the wetlands proposed for protection, as well as the functions of the 13.9 acres of wetlands proposed for destruction. Also, the District has not sufficiently explored project minimization, as is now required under the ERP Basis of Review.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the District enter a final order denying Applicant's request for a permit modification. ENTERED in Tallahassee, Florida, on June 13, 1997. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on June 13, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Jeffrey D. Kneen John F. Mariani J. Barry Curtain Levy Kneen 1400 Centrepark Boulevard, Suite 1000 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Ronald K. Kolins Thomas A. Sheehan, III Moyle Flanigan Post Office Box 3888 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 John J. Fumero Marcy I. LaHart Office of Counsel South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Samuel E. Poole, III Executive Director Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416
Findings Of Fact Applicant-Respondent Atwater owns a residence fronting on Lake Minnehaha with access to the lake. He proposes to construct a dock from his property extending into the lake a distance of approximately 100 feet until adequate depth of water is found where his boat can be launched and retrieved. The boat house proposed for construction at the end of the dock will be roofed, but of open construction. Lake Minnehaha is a meandered lake. Accordingly the lake bottom below the mean high water line is sovereign land under the jurisdiction of the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (IITF). Numerous docks, some with enclosed boat houses, exist at various places around the perimeter of the lake. One such dock and boat house fronts on property just west of Atwater's property. Kling's property is adjacent and eastward of Atwater's property. Kling has a boat dock (but no boat house) extending from his property into the lake. Photographs showing views from applicant's and Kling's property are labeled to indicate that Kling's property is west of Atwater's; however, the conflict in direction is not material to the determination of the issues here involved. These photos further show that Petitioner's view of the lake from his house in the direction of the structure proposed by Atwater is materially blocked by trees and vegetation. The structure proposed by Atwater will commence 20 feet inside the easterly boundary of his property at the shoreline and extend into the lake. The proposed open boat house at the end of the dock will extend 12 feet toward Kling's extended property line, leaving the dock and boat house within the lakeward extension of Atwater's property line. With an open boat house the interference with a view of the lake will be minimal. Construction of the dock and boat house will not create any source of pollution and will not degrade the quality of the water of Lake Minnehaha.
Findings Of Fact ARCJ Land Investments, Inc. was issued a permit by DER to maintenance dredge 1320 cubic yards of bottom material waterward of mean high water (MHW) in a semi-circular area approximately 450 feet long and 40 to 100 feet wide, and to construct approximately 1650 square feet of along shore dock. The dredged depths will be 2.4 feet at mean low water (MLW) on the east side of the drainage ditch along the west portion of the project sloping to a 6.6 feet MLW on the east end of the project area. The dredged depth viII slope from 2.4 feet to 3.4 feet MLW from the west side of the drainage ditch along the west portion of the project area. (Exhibit 5). Petitioner is the record owner of the area to be dredged and of the upland spoil site disposal area. The waters involved are Class III waters. The dock to be constructed along the shoreline is some 235 feet long and 4 feet wide with a 20 foot by 30 foot platform on the easternmost end. Dredging will start at the face of the dock and the area will be dredged to a maximum depth of 4.5 feet MUD at the end nearest to the Intracoastal Waterway (ICW) and 2.4 feet MLW at the shallowest part alongside the dock. The depth will increase from the dock towards the ICW on a 3 to 1 slope. The dredging will provide access to the dock from the ICW with channels at both ends of the mangrove island located between the proposed dock and the ICW. No shoreline mangroves or black rush will be removed or destroyed by dredging or dock construction. Dredging will be accomplished by hydraulic dredge. Spoil will be pumped to a self-contained upland-like disposal site to prevent return to waters of the stage. Respondent will use a "mud cat" hydraulic dredge which provides better control of the suction head and which creates little turbidity. Turbidity control devices will be utilized to contain turbidity to the immediate project site both at the dredge site and at the spoil site overflow. Neither the dredging nor tee deck construction will cause long or short term water quality degradation. The 3 to 1 slope provided will improve tidal flushing of the area and deter siltatlon. The proposed dredge area is ecologically a low productive area comprising less than 0.7 acres on which only one 10-foot diameter marine grass patch was observed. The balance of the area to be dredged is primarily sugar sand with two depressions between the mangrove island and the shore in which silt and clay sediments have settled. Bottom grab samples showed that for the most part the macro benthic infauna is primarily a detritus feeding worm community. No specimens of commercial species of bivalve clams were collected or observed. No quantitative measurements of the biomass of the benthic organisms in the dredged area were taken, however, from the evidence presented, it is an area of low productivity. Oysters were observed attached to the mangrove roots on the lee side of the mangrove island, but few were observed on the side adjacent to the ICW. No oyster beds were observed in the area to be dredged. Small fish observed in the area to be dredged consisted of bay anchovies, sand brim and mullet. Since very few bottom grasses grow in the project area, no sanctuary for juvenile fishes here exists. Under these conditions few fish would be expected to inhabit this area and the evidence presented confirms this conclusion. While removal of the dredged material will perforce remove those benthic organisms living n this soil layer, little other change will result and recolonization of the area will soon take place. Installation of the piers will provide facilities suitable for shellfish to attach thereto and this, in turn, will attract additional species of fish. As a result, no discernible reduction in the productivity of the area will ensue from the proposed project. Manatees are frequently seen in Hatchett Creek which opens to the ICW across the channel from the proposed site. No evidence was presented that manatees frequent the project area. To the contrary, the evidence presented is that there is now insufficient depth at the project site for the manatees. Furthermore, the paucity of grasses for feeding makes the area an unlikely one in which manatees would congregate. Construction of the proposed dock will not attract additional manatees to the area nor will it materially increase the boat traffic in the ICW or increase the risk of collision between boats and manatees. Several witnesses testified that the proposed project would be contrary to the City of Venice's Comprehensive Plan; however, the excerpts from the Plan which were read into evidence failed to establish the objectives of this Plan differ from the objectives of Chapter 253, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 17-3 and 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. No facilities are proposed for installation on the dock which would make it suitable for commercial vessels. No electricity, water or sewage facilities are being offered and no accommodations are being provided to attract other than small transient boats to bring customers to Respondent's restaurant. Although this project was opposed by the City Council, the testimony of those witnesses presented at the hearing shows that a great number of people living in Venice support the project and believe that it wild help the area, benefit downtown business and assist the healing public. Some witnesses opposed the project because they opposed any damage to the ecology, however slight, and regardless of the public benefit to be derived from the project. Others opposed the project on the basis that additional facilities would introduce additional people to the area, and thereby reduce those residents' opportunity to live in an uncrowded area. In Public Notice issued jointly by DER and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers advising interested parties of the dredge and fill permit here involved, the notice provided that the comment period ends April 4, 1980. However, on 28 March 1980 ARCJ Land Investments, Inc. was issued a permit for this project. Thereafter, petitioner on 5 May 1980 was notified that the permit had been issued and that the issuance of the permit could be appealed within 15 days of notification. That appeal by Petitioner led to the same hearing that would have resulted had the objections of the Petitioner been received before the issuance of the permit. Rule 17-4.28(11)(d) , Florida Administrative Code, provides generally that every application for a permit shall be approved or denied within ninety days after receipt of the original application. This 90-day period would have passed before the time for comment given in the joint Public Notice. Respondent was required to issue or deny the permit before the time noticed for comment passed. Thereafter, when Petitioner's objections were received, construction under the permit was stayed pending this administrative hearing and the issuance of a final order by DER. The parties stipulated that if an official in the City Zoning Department were called, he would testify that construction of the dock would violate the City Zoning Ordinance.
