Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: On or about March 6, 1984, petitioner applied for a DER permit to construct a marina on state owned submerged land located in Punta Rassa, Lee County, Florida. The original design requested approval to build slips for 54 boats. This design was later modified to conform to suggested modifications made by DER staff. The modification reduced the size of the marina to 30 boat slips. By an Intent to Issue dated April 24, 1985, petitioner was advised that the DER intended to issue the permit with 17 special conditions. Special Condition Number 1 advised petitioner of the Florida law which states that construction on state sovereignty lands may not be commenced prior to receiving from the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund the required lease, license, easement, or other form of consent authorizing the proposed use. In none of the 17 special conditions, nor in any other portion of the Intent to Issue, was it stated when the permit time would begin to run, or when it would expire. The expiration date of the proposed permit simply was not mentioned. The Intent to Issue did contain a standard "point of entry" notice, advising that a petition for a hearing could be filed and stating that the hearing process was designed to formulate agency action. Having no objection to the DER's Intent to Issue and the conditions thereof, the petitioner determined not to request an administrative hearing with regard to said Intent. On May 17, 1985, the DER issued to petitioner Permit Number 360836415. This permit included 15 general conditions and the same 17 special conditions that were contained in the Intent to Issue. In addition, the permit stated that it would expire on June 1, 1987. The permit was accompanied by a letter. Neither the letter, nor the permit, bore the stamp of the agency clerk or contained language advising petitioner of its right to petition for an administrative hearing or other "point of entry" language. DER never notified petitioner by any document that contained "point of entry" language that the permit time would begin running immediately and would expire on June 1, 1987. In order to obtain a sovereignty land lease from the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, petitioner was required to modify its proposed marina design by reducing the number of boat slips to 14. The Trustees approved the lease on or about July 29, 1986, although the Certification of Board Action attesting the Board's approval of the lease, as well as the sovereignty submerged land lease itself, was not forwarded to the petitioner until March 12, 1987. Due to the modifications required by the Trustees, the petitioner requested DER to modify its permit to reflect the reduction of the project scope. The request represented a minor modification to the permit and was granted by DER by letter dated September 30, 1986. The letter of modification does not suggest that the original expiration date of the permit had been changed. As of June 1, 1987, construction work on the proposed marina had not yet begun. The petitioner's agent relied upon a promulgated rule of the DER and assumed that the permit time would not begin to run on this project until petitioner had obtained consent to use state owned submerged land. DER's Dredge and Fill Application is encompassed in a form which is adopted by reference in Rule 17-1.203(1), Florida Administrative Code. This rule was adopted in 1982 and is still in effect today. A portion of that form, Appendix E, paragraph 3(g), on page 30, states that Where the proposed activity involves the use of state-owned submerged lands, DER shall not issue a permit before approval or consent of use is obtained from DNR, although DER will continue to process the application to the extent possible. (Emphasis supplied.) Except for this rule, DER has no other published instructions to applicants as to when permit times begin to run. Since the effective date of the Warren S. Henderson Wetlands Protection Act (Sections 403.91 - .929, Florida Statutes) in October of 1984, DER has not followed its policy outlined in Form 17-1.203(1), as adopted by rule. This contrary practice is based on DER's interpretation of the Henderson Act's failure to include language which was previously included in Section 253.124, Florida Statutes, to the effect that DER permits do not become effective until all other local, state and federal permits are issued. DER's internal practice that calculates the running of the permit time prior to receiving approval to use state owned submerged land is not the subject of any public notice, memorandum or instructions generally available to the public or permit applicants. DER does not require permittees to provide proof of submerged land consent subsequent to the issuance of the DER permit. Also, DER has no internal mechanism for regularly apprising itself of permits which are soon to expire. DER does process and grant time extensions of permits. Requests for time extensions are made through a simple written request, and DER will generally grant such requests if the subject permit is still valid. If the DER permit has already expired at the time that the request for an extension is made, DER requires a new permit application. In this case, petitioner did not request an extension at any time before June 1, 1987. As noted above, it was the belief of petitioner's agent that the two-year permit term would not begin to run until the required Trustee's consent was secured. It was not until June 23 or 24, 1987, that he learned that DER considered the permit to have expired on June 1, 1987. In July of 1987, petitioner did re-apply for a new permit, but DER had environmental objections to the issuance of a new permit. The petition initiating these proceedings was subsequently filed.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order holding that Permit Number 360836415 does not expire until two years from March 12, 1987, and that appropriate recognition be given to the time which has elapsed due to the pendency of the instant proceeding. Respectfully Submitted and entered this 13th day of January, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of January, 1989. APPENDIX The Proposed findings of fact Submitted by the parties have been carefully considered and are accepted, incorporated and/or Summarized in this Recommended Order, with the following exceptions: Petitioner 7. Rejected as an improper factual finding. Respondent 19. Last three Sentences rejected as contrary to the evidence. 21. Partially rejected due to the existence of Rule 17-1.203(1), Florida Administrative Code. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth G. Oertel, Esquire Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez & Cole, P.A. Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Richard Grosso, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Application No. 76-00493 is for an existing consumptive use permit for five wells located in the Peace River Basin, Polk County on 608.6 acres. The permit seeks a total average annual withdrawal of 7.2 million gallons per day and a maximum daily withdrawal of 14.97 million gallons per day. Ninety-five percent of the water withdrawal will be used for industrial purposes and five percent will be used for irrigation. The Southwest Florida Water Management District's staff recommends issuance of the permit with the following conditions: That the applicant shall install totalizing flow meters of the propeller-driven type on all withdrawal points covered by the application except that well located at Latitude 28 degrees 03' 13", Longitude 81 degrees 47' 54". That the applicant shall record the pumpage from the above meters on a weekly basis and submit a record of that pumpage quarterly to the district beginning January 15, 1977. That the permit shall expire on December 31, 1980
Recommendation It is hereby RECOMMENDED that a consumptive use permit be granted in the amounts applied for in Application No. 76-00493 subject to the conditions set forth in paragraph 2 above. ENTERED this 13th day of October, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHRIS H. BENTLEY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Jay T. Ahern, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District Post Office Box 457 Brooksville, Florida 33512 Coca Cola Company Post Office Box 247 Auburndale, Florida 33823
The Issue The issue is whether to approve an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) modification for the construction of a surface water management system, to be issued to Respondent, Miromar Lakes, LLC (Miromar), which will serve a 29.08-acre single- family residential development known as The Peninsula Phase IV (Phase IV) located in Lee County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Miromar is a Florida limited liability corporation that owns property in the Miromar Lakes community in Lee County on which a development known as Phase IV will be constructed. Miromar is the applicant for the Phase IV permit. The District is a government entity with the power and duty to exercise regulatory jurisdiction over the proposed project pursuant to part IV, chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and title 40E, Florida Administrative Code. In implementing this power and duty, the District has adopted the Applicant's Handbook (AH) to provide standards and guidance to applicants. Alico is a Florida limited liability corporation with its principal place of business in Fort Myers, Florida. It is the owner of property immediately adjacent to and north of Miromar's property. Respondents have stipulated to the facts necessary to establish Alico's standing. The Conceptual Permit This case concerns Miromar's application to modify a conceptual permit issued by the District more than 15 years ago. On June 10, 1999, the District issued ERP Permit No. 36-03568-P, a conceptual approval permit for the development of a large, mixed-use residential development with a golf course, known as Miromar Lakes, that lies east of Interstate 75 (I-75), south of Alico Road, and north of Florida Gulf Coast University. The permit also approved a surface water management system designed to serve a 1481.1-acre mixed-use development within Miromar Lakes. Alico asserts that the permit is so vague in future development details that it is impossible to determine whether Phase IV is consistent with its terms and conditions. However, the 1999 permit was not contested, and any attempt in this proceeding to challenge that permit, or subsequent modifications to the permit that are now final, is untimely. A conceptual permit is available to applicants who wish to have their design concept approved for a master plan or future plan. So long as the future phases are consistent with the conceptual permit and there are no changes to applicable state water quality standards or special basin criteria, the applicant does not need to reapply under the current rules for subsequent phases. Instead, it allows an applicant to take advantage of the rules in effect at the time of the original permit issuance. A conceptual permit typically leaves construction details to future development decisions. As District witness Waterhouse explained, this is "the nature of a conceptual permit." Because the landowner does not know the precise manner in which the property will be developed years down the road, "it doesn't make sense to force the landowner to pretend that they do because it's a pretty good bet that those things are going to change to some extent in the future." By way of example, Waterhouse noted that "[a]s long as it's single family proposed then and it's proposed now, I would characterize that as sufficient detail." It is not surprising, then, that the 1999 permit contains very little detail regarding the existence, location, or development of roads, lots, a stormwater management system, or grading, and that the construction permit for Phase IV has far more detail than the conceptual permit. Even Alico's expert agreed that there is no requirement that a conceptual permit include the details of each subsequent construction phase. A fair inference to draw is that the District intended for the developer to have considerable latitude in developing the large tract of undeveloped land, phase by phase, over the life of the conceptual permit. The 1999 permit has been modified over 60 times since its issuance, and to date, significant portions of Miromar Lakes have been constructed. Except for the current, on-going feud between Miromar and Alico over several recent or pending applications (see Case Nos. 15-1050, 15-3937, and 15-5621), none of these modifications were contested. The Property at Issue Phase IV is a 29.08-acre subdivision within an area of the Miromar Lakes community known as the Peninsula. Located within Basin 6, Phase IV is the last phase of development approved by the conceptual permit for residential development in the Peninsula. All prior Peninsula phases have been permitted and developed, or are in the process of development. Prior phases were permitted based on their consistency with the conceptual permit, and none were challenged by third parties. The area under Miromar's requested permit in the instant case was conceptually authorized for single-family residential development. This is confirmed by language in the 1999 permit, which describes the conceptual proposal for Basin 6 as "includ[ing] 639.7 acres of residential, golf course, and mixed-used [sic] development." Jt. Ex. 3, p. 275. The permit also provides that each of the four sub-basins in Basin 6 should "have a water quality structure that provides treatment for the first one inch of stormwater runoff from the sub-basin . . . and that attenuation for Basin 6 is achieved onsite via the proposed sub-basin lakes and also by an existing 244.2-acre borrow lake." Id. While the 1999 permit establishes standards for flood control elevations, minimum lot elevations, and discharge rates, more specific development guidance is not provided. When the conceptual permit was issued, Basin 6 contained one former mining pit dredged from uplands to be used as a man-made lake for recreational purposes. A second mining pit, later converted to a lake, continued mining operations until 2006. The following year, the District authorized the two borrow lakes to be connected by a series of channels and canals, forming a privately-owned, 660-acre waterbody now known as Lake 5/6. Alico's property includes Lake 5, which makes up the northern portion of Lake 5/6, while Lake 6 to the south, owned by the Miromar Lakes Community Development District, is surrounded by Miromar's development. Alico has an easement over portions of Lake 6 for recreational uses under a Lake Use Agreement. Because the two connected lakes are to be used only for recreation and attenuation purposes, Lake 5/6 is designated as Class III waters and cannot be used for stormwater treatment. It is not classified as an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW) or an Impaired Florida Waterbody. Lake 5/6 discharges over a control weir into an un- channeled slough system known as the Stewart Cypress Slough. The water travels several miles through the slough system, passes several intervening properties that also discharge waters into the slough, and then runs underneath I-75. It eventually reaches the Estero River, an OFW and Impaired Florida Waterbody, which flows into the Estero Bay, an OFW. There is no direct discharge of waters from Lake 5/6 to the Estero River. The evidence shows that the project will not increase the overall discharge rate from the control weir for Lake 5/6. In February 2013, the District approved another Miromar application, known as Phase III, which authorized the third phase of development within the same peninsula where the Phase IV project will be located. That development contains two wet detention structures (Lakes 1 and 3) that will also service the Phase IV project. The Phase III permit was issued using the 1999 rules and regulations and was not contested. The Application The Original Application On November 25, 2014, the District issued its notice of intent to issue Miromar a permit authorizing the construction and operation of a stormwater system serving 29.08 acres of residential development that included multi-family residences, single-family residences, 49 boat slips, and road construction. Phase IV is a very small portion of the 1,481-acre development approved in the conceptual permit. The project is located on Via Salerno Way and Via Cassina Court within Basin 6. Construction was originally proposed in Sub-Basins 1 and 3. There is an approved Master Plan for stormwater management facilities within the project area. The site was previously cleared and filled and no wetlands are located on the site. The original construction in Sub-Basin 1 consisted of a roadway, 22 single-family residential lots, and stormwater conveyance facilities. Also included were shoreline contour shaping, placement of rip-rap on portions of the Lake 5/6 shoreline to enhance stability, enhanced littoral zones, and boat docks. Stormwater within that Sub-Basin flows via sheet flow and interconnected inlets to the existing wet detention area (Lake 1) located in Phase III north of the site. The wet detention area provides the required water quality treatment volume for the project prior to discharge to Lake 5/6. The original proposed construction in Sub-Basin 3 consisted of a roadway, 11 single-family residential lots, and 16 multi-family buildings with associated internal roadway, parking areas, and stormwater treatment, storage, and conveyance facilities. Also included within the original plans were shoreline contour shaping, placement of rip-rap on portions of Lake 5/6 shoreline to enhance stability, enhanced littoral zones, and boat docks. Stormwater runoff within Sub-Basin 3 flows via sheet flow and interconnected inlets to the existing wet detention area (Lake 3) located in Phase III north of the site. The original application included a request to increase the surface area of Lake 3 by approximately 0.1 acre and to construct three dry detention areas within the multi-family development area. The wet and dry detention areas provide the required water quality treatment for the project prior to discharge to Lake 5/6. The Revised Project After the case was referred to DOAH, by letter dated June 8, 2015, Miromar's project engineer provided the District with proposed changes to the site plan, to be used at the final hearing then scheduled to begin on June 24, 2015, which include the replacement of 16 multi-family buildings and driveways on Via Cassina Court with 23 single-family residential lots; removal of the 16 multi-family boat docks located at the southern end of Via Cassina Court; reducing the number of boat docks to 45 single-family docks; relocation of the three dry detention areas shown on the proposed site plan; and clarification of the lot grading cross-section to ensure that stormwater runoff from the development will be directed to the stormwater management system and not Lake 5/6. Updated plans, drawings, and specifications, and new water quality calculations accompanied the letter and were intended to replace original Exhibits 2.0 and 2.3 of the permit. See Jt. Ex. JA-1, pp. 244- 257. The changes resulted in a continuance of the final hearing and Alico's filing of an Amended Petition. By amendment at final hearing, Miromar removed the 45 single-family docks. The June 8 letter states that the changes will not increase pollution or reduce the efficiency of the stormwater management system. Miromar acknowledges that some of these changes were to resolve concerns raised by Alico. Miromar now seeks approval of the Phase IV permit, incorporating the changes proposed by the June 8 letter and those agreed to at the final hearing. Because there was no requirement to provide a site- specific nutrient loading analysis when the 1999 permit was issued -- this analysis was not yet formally developed -- the District did not require, and Miromar did not submit, such an analysis with its application. Under the conceptual permit, Miromar was required to provide treatment for one inch of stormwater runoff in Basin 6. Relying on this condition, Miromar applied that treatment to the Phase IV permit. This results in the treatment of 7.09 acre- feet of stormwater for the basin. After the construction shown in the permit, the stormwater management system will treat 9.21 acre-feet, or more than is required under the 1999 permit. The District established that new flood routing calculations for the project were not necessary because Miromar has set elevations for the water control structures in Lakes 1 and 3 at the same level as the road elevations, and the project connects to an existing surface water treatment system. This provides reasonable assurance that the project will not cause flooding despite having no calculations from the applicant. Alico's Objections Although couched in different terms, Alico's concerns can be generally summarized as follows. First, it contends the application should be treated as a major modification of the conceptual permit and that Miromar must satisfy current rules and regulations, and not those in effect in 1999. Second, it contends both the original and revised applications are inconsistent with the conceptual permit and must be treated as a new design, subject to all current rules and regulations. Third, even though Miromar agreed at hearing to revise its permit to address certain errors/deficiencies identified by Alico's experts, Alico contends no revisions can be made at this stage of the proceeding, and that a new application must be filed with the District and the review process started anew. Is the Application a Major or Minor Modification? If the modification is minor, Miromar is required only to satisfy applicable rules for issuance of a permit when the conceptual permit was issued. Rule 62-330.315 and AH section 6.2.1 provide guidance in resolving this issue. Rule 62-330.315(2)(g) defines a minor modification as one "that do[es] not substantially alter the permit authorization, increase permitted off-site discharge, increase the environmental impact of the project, decrease required retention, decrease required detention, decrease required flood control elevations, or decrease pollution removal efficiency." The rule also provides that the "factors that will be considered in determining whether a change is minor are described in section 6.2.1 of Volume I [of the Applicant's Handbook]." Section 6.2.1(d) lists a series of 14 factors to be considered in determining whether a modification will cause more than minor changes under rule 62-330.315(2). None of the factors is dispositive alone, and the presence of any single one of the factors does not necessarily mean that a modification is major. All 14 factors are considered together in determining whether a modification is major. Using the factors set forth in rule 62-330.315(2), in conjunction with section 6.2.1, the District reviewed the application to determine whether it was a minor modification. Based on these criteria, the District determined that the application qualified as a minor modification of a conceptual permit and that it satisfied applicable rules for issuance of a permit for this subsequent phase of the project. Alico contends that the initial review by a District staffer was only cursory and was in no way a meaningful assessment. Even if this is true, subsequent reviews by District staff, including witness Waterhouse, who supervises the ERP Bureau, was a signatory on the 1999 permit, and has reviewed thousands of ERP applications, confirmed that the application, as revised on June 8 and at final hearing, meets the criteria for a minor modification. The testimony of District witnesses Waterhouse and Waters has been accepted as being the most credible on this issue. In its review of the original application, the District considered the inclusion of boat docks as the only aspect of the application that made the project a major modification. In all other respects, the District determined that the modification would not cause more than minor changes. With the removal of the boat docks, the District concluded that the application did not substantially alter the design of the activities or the conditions of the conceptual approval permit. Alico's expert, who has never performed a similar consistency analysis on any project, testified that several of the 14 factors in section 6.2.1(d) might be affected. But he opined with certitude that factor 2 is implicated by the Phase IV permit. Factor 2 comes into play when there is an "[i]ncrease in proposed impervious and semi-impervious surfaces more than 10 percent or 0.5 acres, whichever is less, unless the activities were permitted with stormwater treatment and flood attenuation capability sufficient to meet the permitting requirements for the proposed modification." By citing only one factor, the expert implicitly conceded that the other 13 factors are not present, thus weighing towards a finding of consistency. Alico's expert focused only on the first part of factor 2 by calculating the impervious area of the project, as he did not believe the conceptual permit approved a master stormwater management system capable of sufficiently meeting the treatment and attenuation requirements for the Phase IV project. However, the more persuasive evidence is that the Master Plan in the 1999 permit is capable of meeting the treatment and attenuation requirements for the project. Therefore, factor 2 is not implicated by the Phase IV permit. Even if the factor were present, it would be insufficient to outweigh the other 13 factors and render the project a major modification of the 1999 permit. The preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that the District may consider as minor the revised application. Consistency with the Conceptual Permit A consistency analysis is conducted under two related rules. First, rule 62-330.315 identifies when a subsequent permit is either a major or minor modification of a prior conceptual permit. As found in the previous section of this Recommended Order, the modification is minor. Second, rule 62- 330.056 provides a rebuttable presumption that subsequent consistent development phases are likely to meet the applicable rules and regulations if the factors listed in subsections (7)(a) through (7)(d) are met. The primary factors for consistency comparison are identified in subsection (7)(a) as "the size, location and extent of the activities proposed, the type and nature of the activities, percent imperviousness, allowable discharge and points of discharge, location and extent of wetland and other surface water impacts, mitigation plans implemented or proposed, control elevations, extent of stormwater reuse, detention and retention volumes, and the extent of flood elevations." Subsections (7)(b) and (c) provide that in order to have consistency, there can be no changes to state water quality standards, in this case the standards for Lake 5/6, or special basin criteria. There is no evidence that applicable state water quality standards or special basin criteria have changed. Finally, subsection (7)(d) requires that there can be no substantive changes to the site characteristics. Except for the conceptual permit, there is no requirement that the District compare the Phase IV permit with any other permit. The District views the location and the land use type of the project as the two most important criteria for determining consistency. As required by the rule, the District also compares the environmental impacts of the modification to the conceptual permit, control elevations, and discharge rates. The District credibly determined there is no inconsistency. While some site characteristics in Basin 6 have obviously changed over the last 16 years, the District's review found no substantive changes that would affect whether the design concepts approved in the conceptual approval permit can continue to be reasonably expected to meet the conditions for authorizing construction of future phases. The District credibly determined that the activities in Phase IV, as revised, were similar to or less intensive than those authorized in the conceptual approval permit and may actually provide a net benefit to Lake 5/6. Alico contends that a meaningful consistency analysis was not conducted by the District staffer who reviewed the original application. But subsequent reviews by witnesses Waterhouse and Waters confirmed that Phase IV, as revised, is consistent with the conceptual permit based upon the rule and AH criteria. Besides the District's review, Miromar's expert testified that Phase IV is consistent in land use as a single- family residential development. He also testified that the Phase IV permit was consistent with the 1999 permit in size and location; it maintained the same allowable rate of stormwater discharge; and it maintained required flood control elevations. He further testified that the Phase IV permit did not change the mitigation plans, permitted stormwater reuse, flood routings, or storm stages provided by the 1999 permit. This testimony has been credited in resolving the issue. The preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that the Phase IV land uses are the same as contemplated in the conceptual permit and the already-approved prior phases of Miromar Lakes, and the new permit is consistent with the conceptual permit. Therefore, Miromar is entitled to a rebuttable presumption that it meets the applicable rules and standards in place when the 1999 permit was issued. Alico failed to rebut this presumption. Revisions and Amendments at the Final Hearing During the final hearing, Alico's experts identified several errors and/or deficiencies in the design of Miromar's project, described below, that should be addressed before a permit can be issued. Miromar agrees with some of these concerns and asks that they be addressed through revisions incorporated into its permit. The District also concurs with these changes. The record shows that they are appropriate, minor in nature, and do not change the character of the permit. There is no evidence that Alico is prejudiced by allowing these revisions. Alico's expert testified that the Phase IV permit does not provide sufficient information regarding the soils on the Phase IV site. At hearing, Miromar agreed that any unsuitable soils discovered during construction would be excavated and removed and correctly disposed of in a landfill or other uplands. This is the common method of dealing with soils in Lee County, where it is not unusual to find unsuitable soils during construction. A special condition to this effect should be included in the final permit to ensure clarity. Through a series of treatment ponds, Miromar proposes to treat nearly all stormwater that falls on-site prior to its discharge to off-site properties. Alico's expert testified that the lot grading detail drawings inaccurately reflect the elevations of certain portions of the lots and can result in runoff from some lots being routed to Lake 5/6, instead of Lakes 1 and 3. Miromar agrees with this concern and represented that the intent of the June 8 letter is that drainage for all lots, except for the portion of lots within the 20-foot Lake Maintenance Easement (LME), which surrounds the project on three sides, be directed to the front of the lots toward the street, and then to the treatment ponds. Water that falls naturally within the LME will be treated by attenuation in Lake 5/6 prior to off-site discharge. Miromar also agrees to submit new Tabular Lot Grading Revisions and a new Typical Lot Grading Detail and to update its June 8 plans to reflect proposed lot grading elevations consistent with the lot detail. Alico's expert acknowledged that roof gutters are an additional solution, and they should be installed on all roofs in order to direct runoff to the front yards and then to the stormwater system. Finally, to ensure proper lot drainage, Miromar agrees that the secondary drainage pipes to convey runoff from roofs, gutters, and grassed areas will have a minimum size of six inches. The District agrees that these changes will improve water quality and ensure that all stormwater is properly captured and directed into the stormwater system. A special condition requiring these revisions should be included in the final permit to ensure clarity. Alico's expert also testified that the plans should include a requirement that Miromar follow best management practices (BMPs) for the replacement of a control structure in Lake 3, which serves as a stormwater treatment pond. General Condition 3 already addresses this issue by requiring Miromar to use BMPs that prevent adverse impacts to the water resources and adjacent lands. In addition, the June 8 letter provides plans for BMPs for work at the site, including Lake 3. Although the District found that reasonable assurances were provided by General Condition 3 and the June 8 letter, to ensure clarity, a special condition should be included in the final permit that requires the use of BMPs for all construction, including the replacement of an old boat ramp and the control structure in Lake 3. Miromar and the District agree that this revision is appropriate. Alico's expert opined that control structures CS-1 (Lake 1) and WQS-1.3 (Lake 3), which have a circular bleeder orifice with a four-inch diameter, should be limited to a bleeder orifice of 3.7 inches in diameter. Although the District found reasonable assurances existed with four-inch bleeder orifices, Special Condition 3 should be modified to reflect a 3.7-inch bleeder for these control structures. This will ensure that before being discharged, the water leaving the two control structures receives the appropriate amount of water quality treatment. Both Miromar and the District agree that this revision is appropriate. With the removal of all docks and an old boat ramp, Special Conditions 2, 10, 11, and 13 through 17 require modification, or deletion if necessary, to eliminate obsolete language relating to the docks and ramp and to add language to provide that construction and operation of the docks shown on the plans, specifications, and drawings are not authorized. Miromar and the District agree to these revisions. Other Concerns Alico's expert contended that under current District rules, Miromar is required to provide stormwater treatment equal to the greater of (a) one inch multiplied by the total project acreage, and (b) 2.5 inches multiplied by the project's impervious area. However, Alico did not pursue this issue in its PRO, probably because its expert agrees that the current design of the project meets District rule criteria for one inch of water quality treatment. Alico's expert also contends that Miromar is required to provide an additional 50 percent of stormwater treatment above the one-inch requirement. This is contrary to the conceptual permit, which does not require additional stormwater treatment. Also, the requirement does not apply when there is no direct discharge of stormwater into an OFW. Even so, Miromar voluntarily agreed to increase the stormwater treatment capacity for Phase IV, which results in excess treatment in Basin 6 greater than 50 percent above the treatment required for the Phase IV area. Alico argues that the additional treatment is illusory, as it relies on additional treatment from an adjoining phase, and not Phase IV. Even if this is true, Alico's expert admits that the current one inch treatment meets the requirements of the rule for issuance of a permit. Alico's expert contended that the Phase IV permit allows the bulkhead to be developed on more than 40 percent of total shorelines, in contravention of AH section 5.4.2, Volume II, which restricts a bulkhead to no more than 40 percent of the lake perimeter. However, Miromar's expert established that the Phase IV hardened shorelines would comprise less than 40 percent of the total shoreline in the Phase IV area and therefore comply with this requirement. His testimony was not credibly refuted. Even though there is no direct discharge from the project into the Estero River or Estero Bay, and the project will not result in higher discharge rates from the overall system outfall from Lake 5/6, based on water samples taken in August 2015, Alico's expert opined that the project will cause a discharge of excess nutrients into an OFW. The evidence shows, however, that these water samples were taken after heavy rains when the expert observed water flowing upstream from the slough into Lake 5/6, rather than downstream. The expert also admitted he had done no testing, analysis, or modeling demonstrating that any pollutant would even reach the Estero River. He failed to take a baseline sample of water quality for any nutrients for which the slough, Estero River, or Estero Bay may be impaired, and he conceded that it was possible that there was no net discharge from Lake 5/6 into the slough during the time of his testing. There is insufficient evidence to sustain this allegation. Other alleged deficiencies or errors in the application, as revised, that are not addressed in this Recommended Order have been considered and found to be without merit. ERP and Public Interest Criteria The criteria the District uses when reviewing an ERP application are contained in the AH and rules 62-330.301 and 62-330.302. In addition, an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that a proposed project is not contrary to the public interest. § 373.414, Fla. Stat.; AH § 10.2.3. Alico failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Miromar has not provided reasonable assurance that the activities authorized by the ERP comply with all applicable ERP permitting criteria. Alico failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Miromar has not provided reasonable assurance that the proposed project is not contrary to the public interest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order approving Miromar's application, as revised, for a permit modification, subject to the following additional conditions: That the plans, drawings, and specifications submitted with the June 8 letter that appear in Joint Exhibit JA-1, pages 244-53, be used as Exhibit 2.0 of the permit. That the water quality calculations submitted with the June 8 letter that appear in Joint Exhibit JA-1, pages 254-57, be used as Exhibit 2.3 of the permit. That Special Conditions 2, 10, 11, and 13 through 17 be revised or eliminated to remove obsolete language relating to the removal of the boat docks and boat ramp. That Special Condition 10 be revised to require that all construction, including the removal of the boat ramp and replacement of Control Structure No. 3, be conducted using BMPs. That a new special condition be added to reflect that the construction and operation of docks will not be authorized by the permit. That a new special condition be added with new Tabular Lot Grading Revisions and a revised Typical Lot Grading Detail and address the following: the project shall be constructed to ensure that stormwater from the project, except stormwater from within the LME, is routed to the stormwater treatment system prior to discharge to Lake 5/6; the lot grading on all lots shall be in accordance with the revised lot grading to reflect the high point of the lots located adjacent to the LME to ensure that runoff from the lots is directed to Lakes 1 and 3; that the revised lot grading require the installation of six-inch secondary drainage pipes; and that roof gutters be installed on all roofs to ensure that runoff from the residential lots is directed to the stormwater treatment system. That a new special condition be added to address unsuitable soils encountered during construction and to ensure that they are removed and disposed of in an appropriate manner. That Special Condition 3, relating to discharge facilities, be revised to reflect that a 3.7-inch circular orifice will be installed in Sub-Basins 1 and 3, rather than a four-inch orifice shown in the existing plans. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of January, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER 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 27th day of January, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Peter Antonacci, Executive Director South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-3007 (eServed) Kevin S. Hennessy, Esquire Lewis Longman & Walker, P.A. Suite 620 101 Riverfront Boulevard Bradenton, Florida 34205-8841 (eServed) Brian J. Accardo, General Counsel South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-3007 (eServed) Keith L. Williams, Esquire South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-3007 (eServed) Martin L. Steinberg, Esquire Hogan Lovells US, LLP Suite 2700 600 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131-3085 (eServed) Timothy J. Perry, Esquire Oertel, Fernandez, Bryant & Atkinson, P.A. Post Office Box 1110 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1110 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Respondent, Cargill, a Delaware corporation authorized to do business in Florida which owned and operated a phosphate mine near Fort Meade, located in Polk County Florida. Petitioner, Gloria Elder, owns residential property adjoining the Fort Meade Mine on which she maintains an individual water well for domestic and other purposes. The Respondent, District, has the responsibility for regulating the consumption and conservation of ground and surface water within its jurisdictional limits, including the well in question. For a period prior to December, 1990, Cargill had been operating under consumptive use permit No. 202297.04, issued by the District, which provided for average daily withdrawals of 12.0 MGD from wells on its property. In addition to the 12.0 MGD, Cargill also was utilizing an additional 3.3 MGD for mine pit and surficial aquifer dewatering activities which did not have to be reflected in the permit but which were lawful uses. In December, 1990, Cargill submitted its application to renew the existing water use permit with a modification including the 3.3 MGD previously being used but not officially permitted. No additional water would be drawn from the permitted wells as the newly applied for 15.3 MGD was the total of the 12 MGD and 3.3 MGD previously permitted and lawfully used. After reviewing the additional information requested of Cargill pertaining to this application, the District published its Notice of Proposed Agency Action for approval of the permit. The proposed permit authorizes withdrawal of the amount requested in the application, 15.3 MGD, the exact same amount actually withdrawn under the prior permit. As a part of the proposed permit the District imposed two special conditions. These conditions, 12 and 13, require Cargill to conduct its dewatering activities no closer than 1,500 feet to any property boundary, wetlands, or water body that will not be mined or, in the alternative, to mitigate pursuant to conditions 12 and 13 any activities conducted within the 1,500 foot setback. There are no reasonable alternatives to Cargill's request. The mining process in use here utilizes a water wash of gravel-size phosphate ore particles out of accompanying sand and clay. The water used for this purpose is recycled and returned to the washer for reuse. The resulting phosphate ore mix, matrix, is transported with water in slurry form to the refining plant. This system in the standard for phosphate mining in the United States. Once at the plant, the slurry is passed through an amine flotation process where the sand and phosphates are separated. This process requires clean water with a constant Ph balance and temperature which can be retrieved only from deep wells. Even though the permit applied for here calls for an average daily withdrawal of 15.3 MGD, typically the Cargill operation requires about 10.08 MGD from deep wells. This is a relatively standard figure within the industry. Approximately 92 percent of the water used at the site in issue is recycled. However, recycled water is not an acceptable substitute for deep well water because it contains matters which interfere with the ability of the chemical reagents utilized in the process to react with the phosphate rock. Therefore, the quantity sought is necessary and will support a reasonable, complete mining operation at the site. The Cargill operation is accompanied by a strenuous reclamation operation. Land previously mined near the Petitioner's property has been reclaimed, contoured, re-grassed and re-vegetated. This project was completed in 1990. No evidence was introduced showing that Cargill's operation had any adverse effect on the Elders' well. Water samples were taken from that well at the Petitioner's request in May, 1991 in conjunction with the investigation into a previous, unrelated complaint. These samples were submitted to an independent laboratory for analysis which clearly demonstrated that the minerals and other compounds in the water from the Petitioner's well were in amounts well below the detection level for each. Only the iron level appeared elevated, and this might be the result of deterioration of the 18 year old black iron pipe casing in the well. Another possible explanation is the fact that iron is a common compound in that part of the state. In any case, the installation of a water softener would remove the iron, and there is no indication the water would have any unacceptable ecological or environmental impacts in the area either on or off the site. No other residents in the area have complained of water quality problems. Petitioner claims not only that Cargill's operation would demean her water quality but also that its withdrawal will cause a draw down in the water level in her well. This second matter was tested by the District using the McDonald-Haurbaugh MODFLOW model which is well recognized and accepted within the groundwater community. The model was applied to the surficial, intermediate, and upper Floridan aquifers and indicated the draw down at the property boundary would be less than one foot in the surficial aquifer and less than four feet in the intermediate aquifer. The model also showed the draw down at the Petitioner's well would be less than three feet, which is well within the five foot criteria for issuance of a consumptive use permit under the appropriate District rules. This evidence was not contradicted by any evidence of record by Petitioner. All indications are that the water use proposed is both reasonable and beneficial, is consistent with the public interest, and will not interfere with any existing legal use of water.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore recommended that WUP Permit No. 202297.05 be renewed as modified to reflect approval of 15.3 MGD average daily withdrawal. Jurisdiction will remain with the Hearing Officer for the limited purpose of evaluating the propriety of an assessment of attorney's fees and costs against the Petitioner and the amount thereof. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of April, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of April, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph N. Baron, Esquire 3375-A U.S. Highway 98 South Lakeland, Florida 33803 Rory C. Ryan, Esquire 200 South Orange Avenue Suite 2600 Post office Box 1526 Orlando, Florida 32801 Martin D. Hernandez, Esquire Richard Tschantz, Esquire 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609 Peter G. Hubbell Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899
The Issue Whether the finger pier portion of Respondent Raab's dock creates a navigational hazard. The resolution of that issue will determine whether the dock qualifies for an exemption from an environmental resource permit under Rule 40E-4.051(3)(b), Florida Administrative Code, and Section 403.813, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact DEP has the authority to regulate the construction of docks in jurisdictional wetlands and other waters of the State of Florida and on state submerged lands under Chapters 253, 373, and 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 62-330 (which adopts Chapter 40E-4) and 18-21, Florida Administrative Code. The Association is a residential community located in Sewall's Point, Martin County, Florida. All lots within the community abut navigable channels which provide ingress and egress to the ICW. These channels converge so that there is only one channel that connects to the ICW. Most of the residents of the community have large vessels that routinely navigate the channels within the community. At the time of the formal hearing, many of the vessels owned by residents of the community had drafts of four feet and at least two had drafts of five feet. In 1997, Mr. Raab purchased a residence in the Association that is located very close to where the channel meets the ICW. Because of that location, practically all residents of the Association have to pass in front of Mr. Raab's property when going into or returning from the ICW. The property at issue is located at 22 Simara Street, Sewalls Point, Martin County, Florida. The dock at issue in this proceeding is subject to DEP's regulatory authority. When Mr. Raab purchased this property in 1997, there was an existing marginal dock parallel to the bulk-head. Mr. Raab subsequently sought and received approval from DEP to demolish the existing marginal dock and replace it with a virtually identical structure. The existence and configuration of the marginal dock is not at issue in this proceeding. Mr. Raab thereafter sought to modify his approved marginal dock by adding a finger pier which extended into the channel 36 feet so he could dock his vessel perpendicular to the bulkhead. Mr. Raab's plan also called for the construction of two pilings 12 feet from the end of the finger pier. Mr. Raab had, as of the time of the formal hearing, re-constructed the marginal dock and had constructed the finger pier. 3/ The two additional pilings had not been constructed at the time of the formal hearing. After reviewing the modified project, DEP determined that the project was exempt from the need for an environmental resource permit under Rule 40E-4.051(3)(b), Florida Administrative Code, and Section 403.813, Florida Statutes. DEP also authorized Mr. Raab to use state-owned submerged lands if necessary. The Association thereafter timely challenged DEP's determination that the finger pier portion of the project (and the two additional pilings) did not require an environmental resource permit. There was a conflict in the evidence as to the functional width of the channel in front of Mr. Raab's property. 4/ Mr. Holly testified on behalf of the Association that the functional width of the channel was 83 feet. Mr. Lidberg, testifying on behalf of Mr. Raab, testified that the functional width was 101 feet. This conflict is resolved by finding that the functional width of the channel in front of the Raab property is 101 feet. 5/ The prevailing winds in the area in front of Mr. Raabb's dock blow into the dock. The depth of the water in the channels is influenced by tides. The principal reason Mr. Raab wants the finger pier is so that he can moor his boat with the bow to the prevailing winds in times of high winds. At the time of the formal hearing, Mr. Raab owned a vessel with an overall length of 44 feet. There was a conflict in the evidence as to whether Mr. Raab's finger pier and the two pilings that have been authorized, but not constructed, constitute a hazard to navigation. 6/ Based on the totality of the evidence, it is found that these structures do not create a navigational hazard. 7/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that DEP enter a final order dismissing the Association's challenge to the determination that Mr. Raab's project qualifies for an exemption from an environmental resource permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of March, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of March, 2000.
The Issue Whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 61D-4.002 constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the owner and holder of a pari-mutuel permit that authorizes it to conduct quarterhorse racing at Hialeah Park, in Miami-Dade County. Petitioner is subject to chapter 550, Florida Statutes and the administrative rules promulgated thereunder in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 61D. The Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering is the state agency charged with regulating pari-mutuel wagering, pursuant to chapter 550, Florida Statutes, and the administrative rules promulgated thereunder in chapter 61D. Petitioner applied for the issuance of a summer jai alai permit pursuant to the Statute. Pursuant to the Statute, in a county in which there are five or more pari-mutuel permitholders, if one permitholder in the county has the lowest total pool for two consecutive years, the permitholder can convert its permit to a summer jai alai permit. Further, if the qualifying permitholder elects not to convert its permit, a new summer jai alai permit is made available in that county. There are more than five pari-mutuel permits issued in Miami-Dade County. Petitioner had the lowest pool among all permitholders in Miami-Dade County for fiscal years 2010/2011 and 2011/2012. Therefore, pursuant to the Statute, Petitioner had the right to convert its permit to a summer jai alai permit. Petitioner declined to do so, and instead applied for the issuance of the summer jai alai permit made available pursuant to the Statute as a result of its election not to convert. The Department maintained that no permit was available to be issued. However, the First District Court of Appeal3/ and Third District Court of Appeal4/ have both ruled that a summer jai alai permit is available to be issued for 2012 (Permit). Thereafter, the Division denied Petitioner's application for the Permit, applying the Rule and determining that issuance of the Permit to Petitioner would not preserve and protect the pari-mutuel revenues of the State, and that Petitioner does not reflect a prospective permitholder that would enjoy potential profitability from the issuance of the Permit. On November 11, 2014, Petitioner filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing giving rise to the instant proceeding. In the Petition, Petitioner also contended that even if the rule is valid, the Department erred in its application of the Rule to deny the Permit.5/ In 1996, the Department undertook the rule promulgation process as outlined in chapter 120 to adopt rule 61D-4.002 for "Evaluating a Permit Application for a Pari-Mutuel Facility." The Rule identifies sections 550.0251(4), 550.054(8)(b), and 550.1815(5), Florida Statutes, as rulemaking authority. The Rule identifies sections 550.0251, 550.054, 550.0951, 550.155, and 550.1815, Florida Statutes, as the specific law to be implemented. Part (1)(a) of the Rule provides that the Department shall consider whether the applicant is potentially profitable. Part (1)(b) of the Rule requires the Department to consider whether the applicant would preserve and protect the pari-mutuel revenues of the state. Parts (1)(c) and (d) of the Rule require the Department to consider the holdings, transactions, and investments of the applicant and whether there exists any judgment or current litigation against the applicant. At hearing, counsel for the Department advised that the Department has previously applied the Rule to the Statute on at least two occasions, when West Flagler Associates applied for summer jai alai permits pursuant to the Statute.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the owner and developer of the Plaza Venetia Marina, located in Biscayne Bay in Dade County, Florida, immediately north of the Venetian Causeway. The marina is constructed on submerged lands leased from the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund. On May 4, 1976, DER issued Permit No. 13-30-0364-6E to Respondent. That permit authorized the construction of two concrete marina docks, one "T" shaped and 255 feet long, and the other "J" shaped and 500 feet long. The project site is north of the Venetian Causeway on the western edge of Biscayne Bay, Section 31, Township 53 North, Range 42 East, Dade County, Florida. On August 18, 1977, DER issued Permit No. 13-30-3984 to Respondent. That permit authorized the construction of a 700 foot long "J" shaped pier with 24 finger piers and associated mooring pilings, and the construction of a 280 foot long "T" shaped pier. This permit authorized construction to be undertaken directly north of the docks authorized by Permit No. 13-30-0364-6E described above. On August 18, 1977, Respondent applied to DER's West Palm Beach office for a permit to construct the center pier of the Plaza Venetia Marina. On October 27, 1977, DER issued Permit No. 13-30-0740-6E to Respondent. This permit, which is the only one of the three permits at issue herein, authorized construction of a boat tie-up and fueling facility for a public marina. This facility represented a final phase of a master plan which includes the two other marinas with tie-up accommodations authorized by Permit Nos. 13-30-0364-6E and 13-30-3984. The drawings which accompanied the permit application carried the designation "FUEL" on the large platform at the end of the center pier of the marina. The cover letter from Respondent's authorized agent explained that " . . . the fueling area has been made sufficiently large so as to isolate the fuel pumps." No specific mention was made in the application or supporting materials of any building to be constructed on the central pier, and none of the permit drawings initially filed with DER depict any such building. DER employees who processed the permit, however, knew at some time during the processing of the permit application that some sort of structure would likely be constructed on the platform at the end of the center pier, although the plans did not disclose such a building, and the agency made no inquiries about, nor requested any additional information from Respondent concerning the type of structure contemplated. At the time of the issuance of Permit No. 13-30-0740-6E Respondent did not know the exact nature, size, or height of any structure that it might wish to build on the central platform. At the time, Respondent had only a conceptual idea of a structure that might accommodate the uses it contemplated for the platform. The words "fueling station" appear on the platform at the end of the center pier in one of the drawings attached to Permit No. 13-30-0740-6E. That drawing was not initially filed with the original permit application, but was provided during the permitting process by Respondent prior to issuance of the permit. Permit No. 13-30-0740-6E was issued to Respondent on October 27, 1977, pursuant to the authority granted DER under Chapters 253 and 403, Florida Statutes. Nowhere in the permit is there any reference to Section 258.165, Florida Statutes. The permit, by its expressed terms, authorized the following: To construct a boat tie-up and fueling facilities [sic] for a public marina. The facility will extend approximately 390 feet into Biscayne Bay from the bulkhead line. The dock will provide tie-up spaces for 20 boats and six fuel slips, and will contain floating oil collars in case of oil or gasoline spillage. This facility represents the final phase of a master plan which includes two other marinas with tie-up facilities . . . On January 11, 1979, some approximately fourteen months after issuance of the permit for the center pier, Respondent sent a letter to DER's West Palm Beach office which read as follows: Enclosed please find a copy of a letter as sent to the Army Corps, re: the service facility you and I discussed for the already approved fuel dock (State No. 13-30-0740-6E) for the Plaza Venetia Marina. I also enclose copy of the plans. Please review as quickly as possible since we intend to start construction on the marina within 30 to 45 days. (Emphasis added.) Enclosed with the January 11, 1979, letter to DER was a copy of a January 11, 1979, letter to the Army Corps of Engineers which read as follows: Recently I reviewed with [a Corps representative] the placement of a small service accommodation facility on the already approved fuel dock for the Plaza Venetia Marina . . . I left a set of plans with [the Corps] at the Corps office in Miami Beach. The facility is in close keeping with the permitted use of the marina. It will occupy less than half the already approved area of the fueling facility. It will be constructed on an already permitted facility. Included are a small bait and tackle shop; convenience store; captains' office; observation area and required bathrooms. The discharge from the bathrooms will flow directly into the main County sewer disposal system and will utilize a sewer pump-out facility located on the fuel dock. * * * After carefully reviewing my existing permit, the limited nature of the facility described, and its sole purpose of servicing the already permitted marina, please advise me if any modifications are required. I look forward to hearing from you as quickly as possible on this matter since construction of the marina is projected to begin within the next 30 to 45 days. A copy of the floor plan of the proposed building was attached to the January 11, 1979, letter received by DER. This floor plan indicates areas to be included in the building for bait and tackle facilities, a food store, storage areas, restroom facilities, and a marina office. Also shown on the floor plan is a storage area for electric carts to be used in servicing vessels utilizing the marina facility. The record in this cause establishes that Respondent never intended its January 11, 1979, letter to DER to be a request for a permit modification or an application for a new permit. Instead, the letter was intended only as a request for DER review of and comments on the proposed structure to be built at the end of the central pier. DER representatives in its West Palm Beach office forwarded the letter to the Tallahassee office of DER. DER never responded either orally or in writing to Respondent's communication of January 11, 1979, enclosing the building plan. On June 19, 1979, DER had opened its file No. 13-9916 in its standard form dredge and fill permitting section in Tallahassee in response to a letter received from Respondent requesting the addition of some dolphin pilings along the bulkhead at the Plaza Venetia Marina. The request from Respondent was treated as standard form application because the scope of the entire marina project exceeded short-form criteria. After receiving this request from Respondent, DER sent a completeness summary to Respondent within 30 days of receipt of the application requesting that Respondent provide approval from the Department of Natural Resources for the use of sovereignty submerged lands. Through various correspondence, this application was expanded to include several additional modifications to the overall marina, including reconfiguration of the fuel dock, addition of finger piers, reconfiguration of the "T" docks, and addition of a 12-foot boardwalk. Finally, the application was modified so that it constituted an application to consolidate the three existing permits. On January 29, 1980, Respondent submitted the last item of information required by the completeness summary except for DNR approval for use of sovereignty submerged lands. The aforementioned letter of January 11, 1979, from Respondent, which included the building floor plan, was apparently placed in DER file No. 13-9916 relating to Respondent's requested permit modification. Although the floor plan is contained in this file, the record in this cause clearly establishes that neither Respondent nor DER treated either the January 11, 1979, letter or the enclosed plan as a request for modification of Permit No. 13-30-0740-6E. DER file No. 13-9916 sat dormant for almost three years awaiting DNR consent for the use of state-owned lands. By letter dated July 10, 1981, DER requested Respondent to indicate whether it wished to pursue the permit modification application further since it had been 1,085 days since DER had notified Respondent of the necessity to furnish notification from DNR concerning further use of state sovereignty submerged lands. By letter dated July 15, 1981, Respondent withdrew its permit modification application. On April 20, 1979, the City of Miami issued a valid building permit for the marina fueling station. Respondent notified DER in July, 1979, that it was beginning construction of the marina. Construction of the central pier began on July 16, 1979, and ended on June 11, 1980. Construction of the fueling platform began on February 28, 1981, with erection of the fueling station walls beginning sometime after April 1, 1981. Subsequent to the commencement of construction DER representatives inspected the building site on several occasions. Respondent was not made aware in advance of when these inspections would occur since they were scheduled at the sole discretion of DER. DER first learned of the actual construction of the marina fueling station after receipt of a citizen complaint on December 1, 1981. Upon inspection of the site by DER personnel on December 2, 1981, it was discovered that the building on the fuel dock was partially complete with finish work and the placement of some interior and exterior walls remaining to be accomplished. DER served a warning notice on Respondent on December 7, 1981, advising Respondent of an alleged violation of its existing permit. A second warning letter was sent to Respondent on January 26, 1982, followed by the issuance of the Notice of Violation by DER. DER incurred costs and expenses of $405.40 in investigating the alleged violation. The structures authorized by Permit Nos. 13-30-0364-6E, 13-30-3984, and 13-30-0740-6E ("the structures") have been constructed by Respondent. The structures are located within the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve ("the Preserve") established by Section 258.165, Florida Statutes. Biscayne Bay at the site of the structures is a navigable water of the State of Florida. A building with a floor area of approximately 3,800 square feet and a roof area of 5,292 square feet has been constructed at a cost of approximately $500,000 on the platform at the end of the center pier of the marina. The net area of the platform contains about 9,640 square feet. It has been stipulated by the parties that construction of the building on the center pier will not result in significant adverse water quality or biological impacts which were not contemplated when the above-referenced permits were issued for the marina. The building as presently constructed has provisions for the following uses: a waiting area for water-borne transportation, a bait and tackle shop and marine supply store, an electric cart parking and recharging station, and an attendant's room with cash register and equipment for the fuel pumps. All of these uses are customarily associated with the operation of marina facilities. The building as constructed differs in several minor respects from the one shown on the plans submitted to DER in the January 11, 1979, letter from Respondent. What had been shown on those plans as outdoor seating has been enclosed, walls and proposed uses have been relocated within the building, and the entire building has been moved back on the fuel dock. It is concluded, however, that these changes are of such a minor nature as to not constitute a material departure from the plans furnished to DER in January of 1979. As-built plans for the building have never been provided by Respondent to DER. At the time of Respondent's application for the permit for the center pier, DER rules required that a permit applicant provide cross-sectional drawings of proposed structures to be built in conjunction with docking facilities such as those proposed by Respondent. Drawings attached to the permit application show two cross sections through the center pier, but neither of these cross sections depict a building to be constructed on the pier. Respondent did not submit cross-sectional drawings for the building at the time of its application, and none had been submitted to DER as of the date of final hearing in this cause. However, DER at no time requested such cross-sectional drawings, despite the fact that those agency representatives processing Respondent's permit application assumed from the outset that some structure would and could be built by Respondent on the platform attached to the central dock under the terms of the October 27, 1977, permit. The estimated cost for removal of the building at the end of the central pier is $150,000-$200,000.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, dismissing the Notice of Violation. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of June, 1983, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM E. WILLIAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of June, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul R. Ezatoff, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Clifford A. Shulman, Esquire and Thomas K. Equels, Esquire Brickell Concours 1401 Brickell Avenue, PH-1 Miami, Florida 33131 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lee Rohe, Esquire Assistant Department Attorney Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Elton Gissendanner, Director Department of Natural Resources Executive Suite 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32303 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, Petitioner, v. CASE NO. 82-1640 FLORIDA EAST COAST PROPERTIES, INC., Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact The Florida Department of Transportation is seeking to initiate a project to widen a portion of Gulf Boulevard (State Road 699) on Treasure Island, Pinellas County, Florida. In connection with the project, DOT filed an application for "complex source permit" with DER prior to April, 1976. The Petitioners filed a petition and request for public hearing in connection with that application on April 19, 1976. The matter was forwarded to the office of the Division of Administrative Hearings for further proceedings. DER thereafter attempted to withdraw its complex source permit rule. DOT withdrew its application for permit, and by order entered September 30, 1977, a Hearing Officer of the Division dismissed the case. The effort to repeal the complex source permit rule was later determined to be invalid, DOT re-applied for a permit, and Petitioners renewed their request for a hearing by petition dated April 18, 1978. Proceedings were thereafter conducted before the Division of Administrative Hearings, and a recommended order was entered on December 6, 1978. On December 6, 1976, DOT filed an application for dredge and fill permit with DER respecting the same road-widening project. The permit was issued by the Southwest District Office of DER, which is located in Tampa. Notice of the pendency of the dredge and fill permit application was published in a local newspaper of general distribution. No direct notice, however, was given to the Petitioners. The Petitioners directed an inquiry as to the existence of outstanding permit applications in connection with the project by letter dated October 18, 1977. The Department responded advising the Petitioners as follows: Dredge and fill permits for the installation of culverts have been applied for in our Southwest District Office. The permits are currently pending and the application files. . . are available for inspection daily. Despite the fact that the permit had actually been issued nearly seven months earlier, DER did not advise the Petitioners that the permit had been issued, but only that it was pending. Petitioners apparently made no further inquiry respecting the dredge and fill permit until they learned, in connection with proceedings being conducted respecting the complex source permit application, that the dredge and fill permit had been issued. The Petitioners promptly thereafter initiated this proceeding. A copy of the petition in this proceeding was forwarded to counsel for the Department of Transportation by the Petitioners. At a pre-hearing conference conducted in the complex source permit proceeding, counsel for DOT indicated that it may participate in this proceeding. Counsel for DER discussed this proceeding with counsel for DOT and was advised that DOT would not become a party to this proceeding. DOT has not appeared as a party to this proceeding. No evidence was offered to establish whether DOT has taken any action to complete the work authorized by the dredge and fill permit that was issued.
