Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following Findings of Fact: The Respondent, Ocean Dunes Development Corporation, is the developer of a residential condominium known as Ocean Dunes, located in Highland Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida. Count One The first closing on a unit in Ocean Dunes occurred on April 30, 1982. The Respondent controlled the operation of the condominium association from the incorporation of the association up to February 4, 1986, when unit owners other than the developer elected a majority of the members of the board of administration of the condominium association. Pursuant to the Articles of Incorporation of the condominium association, the board of directors is composed of three members. According to the by-laws of the association, unit owners other than the developer are entitled to elect at least one-third of the members of the board when they own fifteen per cent of the units in the condominium. The by-laws further provide that within sixty days after unit owners other than the developer are entitled to elect a member of the board, the association shall call and give not less than thirty days notice of a meeting of the unit owners for this purpose. on July 15, 1982, unit owners other than the developer owned fifteen per cent of the total number of units in the condominium. The first association unit owner meeting after July 15, 1982, occurred in April of 1983. Present at the meeting were several unit owners and Mr. Philip Connor, president of both the association and the developer corporation. According to the association by-laws, a quorum is achieved by a majority of the votes of the entire membership. In April of 1983 there were 48 units in the condominium, 17 units were owned by someone other than the developer. Therefore, the developer's unit votes were absolutely necessary to achieve a quorum. At the beginning of the meeting, Mr. Connor, the president of the developer corporation, stated that he was not authorized to utilize the developer's unit votes through proxy or otherwise. Mr. Connor stated: First item, obviously is to determine whether we have a quorum in order to properly conduct business. I am not voting on behalf of the developing company this evening. Mr. Hubert (the general counsel of the developer) as far as I know we do not have a quorum. Therefore, the meeting is officially adjourned. But, Mr. Connor went on to add: However, I would like to spend some time with you this evening to go over and formulate any questions or problems, et cetra. Unit owners other than the developer did not elect a member of the board of administration of the association until April 17, 1984. Count Two While operating the condominium association, the Respondent used condominium association common funds to pay for certain carpentry expenses in the amount of $1,836. The carpentry expenses were the responsibility of the Respondent as developer. During the initial phases of the investigation of this case by the Department of Business Regulation, the Respondent agreed that the carpentry expenses were the developer's responsibility and reimbursed $1,836 to the association on August 29, 1984. Count Three An "election period" is a mechanism by which the developer, as the owner of units, is excused from the payments of assessments against those units for a certain period of time. See Section 718.116(8)(a)(1), Florida Statutes. During an election period, the developer does not pay assessments on developer-owned units, but instead pays the difference between the common expenses of the association and monies received from other unit owners in the form of assessments during that period of time. In other words, if assessments collected from other unit owners are insufficient to meet common expenses, the developer is required to pay the deficiency. The election period must terminate no later than the first day of the fourth calendar month following the month in which the first closing of a unit in a condominium occurs. See Section 718.116(8)(a)(1), Florida Statutes. The first closing on the first unit in Ocean Dunes Condominium occurred on April 30, 1982. During the election period, the developer periodically funded the association and made available to it funds to pay required bills on a current, "as-due" basis. Thus, the Respondent attempted to satisfy its election period payment requirements on a cash accounting basis. The developer did not perform an election period calculation on the condominium's books and records to determine the difference between expenses incurred during the election period and assessments collected form other unit owners. Mr. Larsen, a certified public accountant and the Petitioner's expert witness, reviewed the condominium's financial records and calculated an election period deficit of $45,077.88. Mr. Larsen arrived at the figure of $45,077.88 by calculating that assessment revenues from non-developer unit owners amounted to $5,393.92 and that common expenses during the period amounted to $50,471.40, the difference being $45,077.88. The $45,077.88 figure arrived at by Larsen was composed in part of unfunded reserves during the election period, certain association bills which were left unpaid during the election period but had balances which came due later and certain prepaid assessments from other unit owners paid in advance, but which would have come due after the expiration of the election period. In arriving at the election period deficit of $45,077.88, Larsen completed a review or compilation of the financial records of the association using generally accepted principles of accounting for a review or compilation of financial statements. Count Four Unit owners other than the developer remitted their assessments on a quarterly basis. In contrast, the Respondent developer provided some funds to the association on a monthly, "as-needed" basis. Typically, when the association funds became inadequate to pay outstanding bills, the developer would contribute its assessments. At the end of each calendar year, the developer calculated an outstanding assessment liability on its inventory units and recognized that liability on the association's books. The Declaration of Condominium at Article 6.2, provided that assessments not paid on a timely basis would bear interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date when due until paid. Although unit owners were paying their assessments on a quarterly basis, neither the Declaration of Condominium nor the by-laws established a date when assessments were due. Count Five The percentage of ownership interest of each individual unit owner in the common elements of Ocean Dunes Condominium is set forth in Exhibit B to the Declaration of Condominium. The percentage of common elements per unit ranged from a minimum of .01959 to a maximum of .02170. The quarterly assessments to unit owners were not based on the percentages of their ownership of the common elements as outlined in the recorded Declaration. Prior to the formal hearing, the Respondent acknowledged that the proper percentages were not being assessed, and adjustments were made for all unit owners' assessments. Count Six A condominium association's annual budget must include a reserve account (unless specifically waived by the association) for capital expenditures and deferred maintenance. The reserve account of the association is set aside for long term items such as roof replacement, building painting and pavement resurfacing. See Section 718.112(2)(f), Florida Statutes. Ocean Dunes Condominium Association established a budgeted annual reserve figure of $6,000 per year (reserves were not waived). On December 31, 1984, the reserve account, if fully funded, would have contained $16,569.86. While in control of the condominium association, the Respondent did not maintain a separate, funded reserve account. Rather, the Respondent showed the reserve account as a liability in its accounting statements. The listing of a reserve account as a liability on a financial statement would not violate, nor be contrary to, generally accepted principles of accounting. The Respondent believed in good faith that it was allowed to carry reserves as liability in the association's financial books. Count Seven The Respondent employed the accounting firm of Coopers and Lybrand to handle the financial books and records of the condominium association. Coopers and Lybrand has offices in both Broward and Palm Beach Counties. Although the Respondent maintained the corporate books and records of the association at the Royal Palm Beach Bank in Palm Beach County, portions of the accounting records were routinely transferred between Coopers and Lybrand's offices in Palm Beach and Broward Counties. Count Eight On February 4, 1986, unit owners other than the developer assumed control of the condominium association. After turnover, the Respondent provided the association with the annual audits performed by the accounting firm of Coopers and Lybrand. The annual audits did not cover the election period and the period early in 1986 which the audit for the year 1985 did not cover. After turnover of counsel of the association, the annual audits were the only review of the association's financial records provided to the association by the developer. After turnover, the association at all times made the corporate books and records available to the developer. Upon turnover, the Respondent offered to the association 9 pages of separate plans and specifications utilized in the construction of the condominium. Although the plans contained the certificate of a surveyor, only one of the nine plans contained a signed affidavit that the plans were authentic.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is. RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered: Requiring the Respondent pay to the association $45,077.88 (representing the deficit which existed during the developer election period) no later than 45 days from the date of the Final Order; Requiring that Respondent obtain, and provide to the association, no later than 60 days from the date of the Final Order, a turnover review of the financial records of the association prepared in strict compliance with Section 718.301(4)(c), Florida Statutes, and Rule 7D-23.03, Florida Administrative Code; Requiring that Respondent obtain and deliver to the association no later than 60 days from the date of the Final order, a copy of the construction plans of the condominium with a certificate in affidavit form prepared in strict compliance with Section 318.301(4)(f), Florida Statutes; and Assessing a civil penalty of $5,000. DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of December, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of December, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Karl M. Scheuerman, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Philip R. Connor, Jr., President Ocean Dunes Development Corporation Suite 205 2929 East Commercial Boulevard Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33308 James Kearney, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Thomas A. Bell, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Richard Coats, Director Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner: Addressed in Procedural Background section. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Addressed in Conclusions of Law section. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5 and 9. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 6, 7 and 8. Addressed in Conclusions of Law section. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 10 and 11. Addressed in Conclusions of Law section. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 16. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 17. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 15. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Rejected as misleading as stated, but adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 18. Rejected as misleading as stated, but adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 19, 20 and 21. The last sentence of Paragraph 19 is rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence. Addressed in Conclusions of Law section. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 22. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 23. Addressed in Conclusions of Law section. Addressed in Conclusions of Law section. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 25. Matters note contained therein are rejected as subordinate. Partially adopted in Findings of Fact 25 and 26. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate. Addressed in Conclusions of Law section. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 29. Addressed in Conclusions of Law section. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 32. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Matters not contained therein are rejected as argument and/or subordinate. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 33. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 35. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent: Partially adopted in Findings of Fact 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 Matters not contained therein are rejected as Subordinate and/or a recitation of testimony. Rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence. The first sentence of this paragraph is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. The remainder of the paragraph is adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18. Matters contained in Paragraph 3 which are inconsistent with the Findings of Fact previously mentioned are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence and/or subordinate. Partially adopted in Findings of Fact 19, 20 and 21. Matters not contained therein are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence and/or subordinate. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 22 and 23. Partially adopted in Findings of Fact 24, 25, 26 and 27. Matters not contained therein are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 29. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence and/or a recitation of testimony.
Findings Of Fact The proposed marina project involves the repair and renovation of a marina which has been in existence since the 1920s. The marina is located in Biscayne Bay within the City of Miami Beach, west of Purdy Avenue where it intersects with 13th Street. Currently, the marina is in a state of disrepair. In 1974, Respondent acquired ownership of the marina which was at that time an operating facility. Thereafter, Respondent began formulating plans to renovate and repair the facility. Respondent obtained estimates from construction firms to make repairs to the facility by replacing or reinforcing deteriorated members, piles, decking and other parts. Respondent plans to remove the existing wooden piers and piles consisting of 35,000 square feet of deck surface area and construct in their stead a facility consisting of only 24,560 square feet of deck surface area. The marina as renovated would not exceed its existing boundaries. In fact, the south pier of the marina will be relocated 40 feet northward of its existing location, which would place it 90 feet from the south property line. The proposed project entails construction of three main piers. The south pier is an L-shaped configuration which would extend westward 416 feet by 10 feet and then northward 304 feet by 10 feet. The north pier, also L-shaped, would extend westward 416 feet by 10 feet and then southward 202 feet by 10 feet. The center pier will have a T-shaped configuration. Its dimensions will extend westward 358 feet by 10 feet. The marina will also have a pier extending both northward and southward, 50 feet by 10 feet each from the center line of the pier. Additionally, the project will contain mooring piles along a canal which extends eastward from the northern perimeter of the marina. When completed, the marina will have accommodations for 161 vessels. The present facility, while it was a fully operating marina, accommodated 135 boats, together with over-the-water facilities constructed on a main center pier. Such facilities included a machine shop and major marina repair facilities, neither of which uses is proposed for the new facility. Construction activity for the proposed project involves no dredging or filling. In addition to reducing deck surface area to 24,560 square fete from the 35,000 square feet contained in the old facility, the proposed project also will contain 409 pilings as opposed to 1,037 in the existing facility. Existing wooden pilings will be removed and will be replaced with concrete pilings. Turbidity curtains will be used during the construction phase to reduce any adverse affect on water quality, which, in any event should be minimal. The concrete pilings will be installed by setting them in a steel template and driving them into the earth at the bay bottom with a hammer. In effect, this construction technique punches a hole straight down into the earth and results in minimal displacement of sediments at the bottom. Respondent also proposes to make certain cosmetic repairs to the sea wall at the present marina where there is some deterioration on the upper edges above the mean high water line resulting from corrosion. Such repairs will be made by welding of steel plate and putting a concrete cap over the top of the existing wall. The waters of Biscayne Bay are classified as Class III waters. There are no Class II waters in the vicinity of the proposed project. The testimony and evidence established that the area in and surrounding the marina facility is not productive in terms of benthic or faunal communities. There is virtually no marine vegetation in the area. The marina itself is almost devoid of any seagrasses, with the exception of several springs of Halophila and Caulerpa. The closest existing grass beds are located approximately 700 to 1,000 feet west of the marina's western perimeter. These grass beds, which include turtle grass and manatee grass, have apparently flourished during the period the existing marina was in full operation. Fouling organisms were found attached to pilings and the seawall areas of the marina. The waters inside the marina, and those in the surrounding area are not suitable as a habitat for breeding, nursery or feeding grounds for fish or other marine life. Studies conducted by Respondent's hydrographic expert indicate that tidal flow in the area of the marina will be enhanced by the renovation of the facility, largely due to reduction in the number of pilings, thereby reducing resistance to tidal flow. The evidence also disclosed that construction of the proposed facility will pose no navigational hazard or serious impediment to navigation in the immediate vicinity. The canal along the northern perimeter of the proposed project varies from 105 feet in width. Apparently only noncommercial boats will be docked in the marina and the canal. A marina has existed at the location of the proposed project for over 50 years, and there is no evidence that has ever created navigational problems within the canal or within the immediate area of Biscayne Bay. Petitioners suggest that the marina will "create a navigational hazard, or serious impediment to navigation..." within the meaning of DER's regulations, specifically Chapter 17-4.29(6)(b), Florida Administrative Code, under the theory that the boats to be accommodated in the facility will result in a general increase in boating traffic in north Biscayne Bay, and would, in addition, adversely affect the public's "navigation" of automobiles across numerous draw bridges whose spans will often be raised to accommodate boat traffic. It does not appear that chapters 253, 258.165 or 403, Florida Statutes, afford DER the authority to consider such factors in determining whether to issue a water quality permit. Even assuming that as a matter of law DER may consider such factors, the evidence presented by Petitioners on this point was vague and speculative. In its Proposed Order of Issuance, DER imposed seven permit conditions which, when combined with the design of the project and the facts set forth above, constitute "reasonable assurance" that the proposed project will not adversely affect water quality. These conditions include the following: Turbidity shall be monitored once daily during periods of water related construction activities at mid-depth 100 ft. upcurrent and 100 ft. down-current of the work area by a person(s) (project monitor) designed by the permittee. Adequate controls are taken during construction so turbidity levels beyond 100 ft. of the construction area in Biscayne Bay do not exceed 50 J.T.U. A pumpout station shall be installed and maintained for the removal of sewage and wastes from the vessels using this facility. No liveaboard vessels shall be docked at this facility unless said vessel has either a Coast Guard approved Marine Sanitation Device or a direct sewage pumpout connection is provided at the liveaboard slip. There shall be no positive drainage of stormwater runoff from the marina parking lot to Biscayne Bay. Fuel storage tanks shall be constructed of non-corrosive materials and located on the upland portion of the site. The fuel storage tanks shall be pressure tested at least once yearly to ensure that they are not leaking. Test reports shall be submitted to DER and the Dade County Environmental Resources Management. Floating oil booms and sorbent materials or equivalent equipment shall be available on site at all times in order to contain and clean up any oil or fuel spills. All marina employees shall be trained in the deployment and usage of the above spill cleanup equipment. The equipment above shall be subject to inspection by all regulatory agencies. At the conclusion of the hearing, it was stipulated among the parties that Petitioner, Izaak Walton League of America, Mangrove chapter, has standing to maintain this action pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. With respect to Save Our Bay, the evidence disclosed that it is an unincorporated association which was formed for the purpose of preserving the waters of Biscayne Bay for safe navigational use, swimming and fishing, and to enhance the beauty of sunset Island and the venetian Isles, while at the same time protecting the area from the effects of pollution. Members of Save Our Bay own property in the vicinity of the proposed project, and use the waters in that area for swimming, boating and fishing. Their use of the natural resources of Biscayne Bay could be affected by construction of the proposed project. Walton, Save Our Bay and Respondent Turchin have submitted proposed findings of fact in this proceeding. To the extent that such findings of fact are not adopted in this Recommended Order, they have been specifically rejected as being either irrelevant to the issues in this cause, or as not having been supported by the evidence.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Florida Clearwater Beach Hotel, Inc., is the owner of Lots 1-5 and 49-52 at 490 North Gulfview Boulevard, Clearwater Beach, Florida. Lots 1-5 are located on the southwest corner of Baymont Street and Gulfview Boulevard and front directly on Clearwater Beach. They measure approximately one hundred feet in depth and one hundred forty-one feet at their widest point. Lots 49-52 lie immediately across the street from Lots 1-5 and are approximately one hundred feet south of Baymont Street. They form a square and measure one hundred feet on each side. Petitioner purchased the property in question in 1978. Prior to that time the two parcels of land enjoyed common ownership and a common development pattern for at least forty years. A twenty-two room facility presently sits on Lots 1-5 and is rented out as ten units. Lots 49-52 are used as a parking lot for the tenants and guests of the facility. The property is presently zoned CTF-28 (High Density Commercial Tourist Facilities), which provides for a complete range of motel/hotel developments. The major emphasis of the district is tourist oriented with a permitted maximum density of forty-two hotel or motel units per acre. Petitioner wishes to destroy the existing structure and replace it with a new rectangular-shaped facility containing approximately twenty-two motel or hotel units. Because of the need to comply with flood ordinances, it must be built on pilings or piers. The proposed new structure will consist of four living levels over grade level parking. Petitioner's property measures less than two hundred feet in depth; therefore, the maximum height of its proposed facility cannot exceed forty feet under existing zoning requirements. Other property owners whose lots exceed two hundred feet in depth may construct buildings not to exceed eighty feet in height. Under present plans, the proposed hotel will have a forty-four foot height, which will require a four-foot variance. Petitioner contends that the hotel cannot be built with smaller dimensions. It also contends that a vista or side setback on the northwest corner of the building is required since present plans call for a small portion of the building to project into the vista area. This is due to the north property line running at an angle to the south property line and the proposed building being rectangular in shape. This variance will be contingent upon the City vacating a right-of-way adjacent to Baymont Street, thereby giving Petitioner an additional twenty feet in which to build its new facility. The City opposes the application on the ground that all criteria necessary to grant a variance have not been met. It specifically points out that the problems encountered by Petitioner are not unique to Petitioner alone, but are hardships common to all area owners.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Consolidated Environmental Resource Permit No. 50-0147856-003-EI and State-owned Submerged Lands Lease No. 500022746 for a commercial addition to the multi-family residential dock, known as the Buccaneer Condominium Marina, should be issued as proposed in the December 27, 2017, proposed agency action issued by the Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) in its own capacity and in its capacity as staff to the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (“BTIITF”). Unless individually identified, the DEP and the BTIITF will be collectively referred to as “the DEP.”
Findings Of Fact Based upon the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, the stipulations of the parties, and the evidentiary record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Parties Great American is a foreign for-profit corporation doing business in the State of Florida. Great American owns the 144 Property. The 144 Property is located immediately north of, and adjacent to, the Buccaneer Condominium, and shares a riparian line (the “riparian line”) extending waterward from the line separating the upland properties. The location of the riparian line between the Buccaneer Condominium and the 144 Property is as depicted on the proposed ERP and SSL Authorization, and is not in dispute. The 144 Property has 92 feet of shoreline on Lake Worth, and includes the small residential 144 Dock. The 144 Property is used annually by the family of Great American’s principal shareholders. When not being utilized by family members, Great American leases the 144 Property to various individuals. As a rule, all persons using the 144 Property moor vessels at the 144 Dock, which are generally in the 50- to 60-foot range, but which can be up to 80 feet in length. The Buccaneer Condominium is a Florida condominium association established pursuant to and governed by chapter 718, Florida Statutes, and subject to the Declaration of Condominium recorded within the public records of Palm Beach County, Florida (the “Declaration”). The Buccaneer Condominium is a mixed-use condominium facility located at 142 Lake Drive, West Palm Beach, Florida, and is a waterfront riparian owner. The Buccaneer Condominium offers, as an amenity of its 18 condominium units, the 18-slip Buccaneer Condominium Dock that is a common element of the Buccaneer Condominium. The Buccaneer Condominium unit owners each own an undivided interest in the common elements of the condominium, and, therefore, an undivided interest in the Buccaneer Dock. The Buccaneer Condominium designates and licenses a dock space to each condominium owner, and each owner has the irrevocable and exclusive right to use of a dock space. Section 718.111(3) establishes that the Buccaneer Condominium has the non-exclusive right to file suit on behalf of the members of the Association relative to claims which involve common elements, while reserving the statutory and common law right for unit owners to bring any action without participation by the Buccaneer Condominium. Mr. Sharfi is the President of the Buccaneer Condominium and is authorized to act on its behalf pursuant to the Declaration and associated corporate bylaws. Mr. Sharfi is a member of the Buccaneer Condominium by virtue of his ownership of multiple condominium units, along with the irrevocable and exclusive right to use Buccaneer Dock spaces associated with his units. Mr. Sharfi owns Commercial Unit A, which was purchased from Great American in January 2017. The rights granted to Commercial Unit A to use Buccaneer Condominium property and common elements are established in section 5.2.3 of the Declaration. Pursuant to Article VIII, section 8.3 of the Declaration: To the extent permitted by law, any and all riparian rights to add additional dock spaces is hereby reserved, granted and assigned to Unit A and the Owner thereof . . . . Without limiting the foregoing, the Owner of commercial Unit A shall have the right, power, and authority, to the extent permitted by law, to construct any additional dock spaces in the waterway contiguous to the Condominium property . . . provided, however, the use thereof shall be deemed to be and have been designated and assigned perpetually and exclusively to and as an appurtenance to Commercial Unit A. The Buccaneer Condominium and Commercial Unit A are joint applicants for the Permit at issue, with the Buccaneer Condominium being included as an applicant due to its status as an upland riparian owner and current SSLL lessee. DEP is an agency of the State of Florida pursuant to section 20.255, Florida Statutes. The DEP is the permitting authority in this proceeding and issued the proposed Permit. The BTIITF is a collegial body established pursuant to Article IV, section 4(f) of the Florida Constitution, whose existence is reaffirmed by section 253.001, Florida Statutes. The BTIITF holds title to the sovereignty submerged lands within the State in trust for the use and benefit of the public pursuant to Article X, section 11 of the Florida Constitution. The DEP performs staff duties and functions on behalf of the BTIITF related to the review of applications for authorization to use sovereignty submerged lands necessary for an activity regulated under part IV of chapter 373 for which the DEP has permitting responsibility. § 253.002(1), Fla. Stat. The DEP has been delegated the authority to take final agency action, without any action by the BTIITF, on applications for authorization to use sovereignty submerged lands for any activity for which the DEP has permitting responsibility. § 253.002(2), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-21.0051(2). The Buccaneer Condominium Dock The Buccaneer Condominium Dock was constructed in 1958, prior to regulatory rules being in place, and is, therefore, a grandfathered structure. From a regulatory perspective, it is a “private residential multi-family dock or pier” as defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-21.003(47), exclusively serving the 18-unit Buccaneer Condominium. Petitioner has not challenged the legality of the existing lease or prior leases for the Buccaneer Condominium Dock. The Buccaneer Condominium Dock consists of 18 dock spaces, nine of which face north in the direction of the 144 Dock, and nine of which face south. There is no use of the Buccaneer Condominium Dock by the public. The Buccaneer Dock extends 162 feet from the seawall. The Buccaneer Dock includes a fueling facility at its seaward end. The Proposed Commercial Unit A Dock The proposed Commercial Unit A Dock would be constructed from the end of the Buccaneer Condominium Dock. It is proposed to consist of 12 slips in a double-loaded fashion, with six slips facing north (in the direction of the 144 Dock) and six slips facing south, and two short-term or transient T-head mooring positions for fueling for a total of 14 commercial slips over 2,370 square feet. The T-head will accommodate a fueling station, replacing the current fueling platform at the end of the Buccaneer Condominium Dock. The Commercial Unit A Dock will be approximately 140 feet in length, resulting in a combined structure of 302 feet from the bulkhead westerly towards the Singer Island Channel. The westernmost boundary of the proposed SSLL extends 20 feet beyond the T-head to allow for vessels to tie up at the fueling station. The SSLL will, according to the Permit drawings, extend 324.5 feet into Lake Worth and the Singer Island Channel. The total preempted area for the modified SSLL will be 49,800 square feet. The Commercial Unit A Dock will be open to the general public for use on a first-come, first-served basis to serve the restaurant in Commercial Unit A. Adverse Affects on Navigation/Navigational Hazard The Environmental Resource Permit Applicant’s Handbook (“A.H.”),z Vol. I, provides criteria to be considered in conjunction with the standards established in section 373.414, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-330.301, for issuance of an ERP.1/ Section 10.2.3.3 of the A.H. establishes that the DEP is to evaluate and consider the current navigation uses of the surface water in determining whether to issue an ERP. Singer Island Channel The Singer Island Channel runs in a north/south direction and is the navigational channel closest to the Buccaneer Condominium Dock and proposed Commercial Unit A Dock, the 144 Dock, Great American’s Sailfish Marina to the south, and the Cannonsport Marina to the north. The east side of the Singer Island Channel is generally defined by the waterward ends of the docks and marinas in the area, while the western side is defined by the Peanut Island shoal. The Singer Island Channel is widely used, but is not to be confused with the Intracoastal Waterway (“ICW”), which is the main navigational thoroughfare for commercial and recreational vessels in the area, and which runs to the west of nearby Peanut Island. The eastern edge of the proposed SSLL extension will become a part of what is an essentially straight line from the Sailfish Marina docks to the Cannonsport Marina docks. There will be approximately 97 feet of open water between the northwestern corner of the proposed SSLL to the closest point on an imaginary straight line drawn from the nearest Singer Island Channel markers located to the north and south of the proposed SSLL. The visible edge of the Singer Island Channel is, at a minimum, an additional 15 feet west of that imaginary line. Thus, a preponderance of the evidence establishes that the “pinch point” between the SSLL and the navigable edge of the Singer Island Channel is, at its narrowest, 112 feet in width. A preponderance of the evidence establishes that 97 feet of open water is sufficient to allow vessels of the size that frequent the area to easily maneuver if they were to pass at the Singer Island Channel’s narrowest point. Given that there is a minimum of 15 feet of additional open-water space to the visible edge of the Singer Island Channel, there will be no adverse impact to the navigation of the vessels transiting the Singer Island Channel. The finding that the space between the Commercial Unit A Dock SSLL and the edge of the Singer Island Channel is sufficient to allow unimpeded navigation is substantiated by the clearance deemed sufficient to allow for safe navigation beneath the nearby Blue Heron Bridge. The Blue Heron Bridge is north of the proposed Buccaneer Commercial Dock on the ICW. The ICW is the primary channel for commercial, recreational (sport fishermen, yachts, and pleasure craft) and Coast Guard vessels. The passage beneath the bridge is flanked by fixed dolphins or guardrails. The clearance under the bridge is 90 feet, which is sufficient for two vessels to pass in the federally-maintained channel. Petitioner argued that the Blue Heron Bridge is not an appropriate comparator for an evaluation of impediments or hazards to navigation, since the passage beneath the bridge is not in an environment comparable to what would be expected in the vicinity of the proposed Commercial Unit A Dock, i.e. with vessels tying up at the periphery of the channel for fueling, and with vessels maneuvering into and out of nearby slips. The evidence to that effect was disputed, and in any event was not persuasive. The fact that vessels are able to maneuver and pass one another without incident in a space of 90 feet is persuasive evidence that they will be able to do so in a space of 97 feet in width, and even more persuasive that they will be able to do so in a space of 112 feet in width. Recreational vessels often pull up onto the Peanut Island shoal that extends to the north and east from Peanut Island. The shoal has areas that are above water at low tide, and is apparently a popular spot for small-craft boaters to pull up and anchor. The evidence suggests that boaters more commonly pull onto the shoal closer to the northwest corner of the channel, near the Cannonsport Marina, or off to the west of Peanut Island well away from the proposed Commercial Unit A Dock, though there is nothing to prevent boats from pulling onto the shoal in the vicinity of the proposed Commercial Unit A Dock. However, it is illegal to anchor in or block a marked navigational channel, as is the Singer Island Channel, and any vessels doing so would be required to move by the Marine Patrol or the Coast Guard. Finally, an argument was made that vessels standing off while waiting to fuel at the proposed Commercial Unit A Dock would create an impediment to navigation. It was established by a preponderance of the competent, substantial, and credible evidence that there is sufficient space to stand off without interfering with traffic in the Singer Island Channel, particularly in the open water area to the north of the proposed Commercial Unit A Dock, but also to the significantly wider and more open areas to the south of the proposed Commercial Unit A Dock. Furthermore, the area around the proposed Commercial Unit A Dock is in a less congested area than the fueling facility at the center dock of the adjacent Sailfish Marina which, as depicted on Respondent’s Exhibit 20, is flanked by sizable docks. There was no evidence that the Sailfish Marina has been a cause of navigational impediments as a result of vessels standing off for fuel. Based on the record as a whole, including evidence of the existing commercial docks in the area, current channel width, and boating traffic and use patterns in the area, a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that neither the 112-foot width of open water from the northwest corner of the proposed Commercial Unit A Dock to the edge of the Singer Island Channel at its closest point, nor the 97-foot width as measured to the imaginary channel marker line, creates a condition that is reasonably expected to significantly impede navigability or create a navigational hazard. 144 Property The existing Buccaneer Condominium Dock is 162 feet in length, with a fueling facility at its waterward end. As with the proposed Commercial Unit A Dock fueling platform, an additional 20 feet should be calculated from the end of the dock to account for vessels tying up to fuel. There was no evidence that the existing Buccaneer Condominium Dock impeded access to the 144 Dock by persons affiliated with Petitioner or by the more frequent renters of the 144 Property. The evidence was convincing that the Buccaneer Condominium Dock does not create a condition that is reasonably expected to significantly impede navigability or create a navigational hazard. The proposed Commercial Unit A Dock is designed to extend 140 feet from the end of the Buccaneer Condominium Dock. The proposed Commercial Unit A Dock complies with the 25-foot setback requirement from the 144 Property riparian line as required by rule 18-21.004(3)(d). The area to the north of the 144 Dock is wide open, with more than enough space to maneuver any vessel that currently uses the 144 Dock. Furthermore, the space available for maneuvering in the waters south of the 144 dock will not be appreciably more restricted than the restriction posed by the Buccaneer Condominium Dock, and will be no more restricted than the space for maneuvering between docks at the Sailfish Marina or the Cannonade Marina. Mr. Fleming agreed that there is no adverse navigational condition, vis-à-vis the 144 Dock, resulting from the Buccaneer Condominium Dock. His concern with navigation was based on his assumption that the Commercial Unit A Dock would increase vessel traffic in the area, blocking the fairway to the south of the 144 Dock and increasing the possibility of a collision. That concern can only have merit if it is assumed that the operators of vessels in the area are completely unfamiliar with common maritime rules of right-of-way and maneuvering. The area around the Commercial Unit A Dock will remain less congested than nearby facilities. It is simply implausible, and unsupported by competent, substantial evidence, that the proposed Commercial Unit A Dock will adversely affect navigation to or from the 144 Dock. Petitioner holds a self-certification from the DEP which acknowledges Petitioner’s qualification for an exemption for a residential dock of up to 1,000 square feet at the 144 Property. Such docks are exempt by statute and rule. § 403.813(1)(b), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code Rule 62- 330.051(5)(b). Despite the fact that Petitioner is allowed to construct an exempt dock extending from the 144 Property into the waterway, there was no persuasive evidence as to when, or if, the dock would be built, or that the dock, if constructed, would result in the proposed Commercial Unit A Dock being found to adversely affect navigation or create a navigational hazard. A preponderance of the evidence establishes that the proposed Commercial Unit A Dock will not adversely affect or impede navigability, or create a navigational hazard for vessels ingressing and egressing the 144 Dock. In addition to the lack of credible evidence that the Commercial Unit A Dock will adversely affect or impede navigation, the evidence is equally unpersuasive that riparian rights incident to the 144 Property will be impaired. There was no evidence, other than speculation and conjecture, regarding the currently non-existent future 144 Dock, that suggest that Petitioner’s riparian interests would be impaired to any appreciably greater degree than they would be as a result of the current 162-foot Buccaneer Condominium Dock and the additional 20+/- feet for vessels tying up to fuel. In addition, the Commercial Unit A Dock is subject to the 25-foot setback required by rule. A preponderance of the evidence establishes that the proposed Commercial Unit A Dock will not unreasonably infringe upon Petitioner’s riparian rights. Commercial Unit A Dock as an Extension of the Buccaneer Condominium Dock The DEP established the propriety of having the Buccaneer Condominium Association as a co-applicant with Commercial Unit A since it is the holder of the existing lease and an upland riparian interest. See, e.g., Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-21.004(1)(c) and (d). Rule 18-21.004(4)(b)2., which establishes a ratio “of no more than forty square feet of sovereignty submerged land for each linear foot of the applicant’s common riparian shoreline . . . to square feet of multi-family residential dock [the “40:1 rule”]” applies only to private multi-family residential docking facilities. The Buccaneer Condominium Dock is a grandfathered dock based on its existence and configuration prior to the promulgation of the 40:1 rule. There is no proposed extension or material alteration of the Buccaneer Condominium Dock.2/ The 40:1 rule does not apply to the Commercial Unit A Dock because the rule applies only to private residential multi- family docks, and does not apply to commercial slips. Thus, the DEP did not apply the 40:1 rule to the proposed Commercial Unit A Dock. The combined preempted area encompassed by the modified SSLL will not exceed 50,000 square feet, or result in a facility of more than 50 slips. The Buccaneer Condominium Dock, as a grandfathered structure, does not require an exception to the 40:1 rule. There was no persuasive evidence that the Buccaneer Condominium Dock and the Commercial Unit A Dock are part of a common plan of development designed to operate as a single dock for the Buccaneer Condominium. The Buccaneer Condominium Dock will be materially unchanged in use and configuration, and will remain dedicated to the owners of Buccaneer Condominium units. The Commercial Unit A Dock will be a first-come, first-served commercial dock for the primary purpose of allowing transient dockage for patrons of the restaurant on Commercial Unit A.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order approving the Consolidated Environmental Resource Permit and Recommended Intent to Grant State-owned Submerged Lands Authorization, Permit No. 50- 0147856-003-EI to the Applicants, the Buccaneer Commercial Unit A, care of Benjamin Sharfi, Trustee of the Benjamin Sharfi Trust 2002, and the Buccaneer Condominium Association of Palm Beach Shores, Inc., subject to the general and specific conditions set forth therein. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of January, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY 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 10th day of January, 2019.
Findings Of Fact Based on the undisputed facts included in pleadings filed in this proceeding and on the documentary evidence attached to the Association's Renewed Motion to Dismiss, the following findings of fact are made: On or about April 16, 1999, Ms. Thornhill filed a complaint with the Department of Housing and Urban Development, in which she accused the Association of housing discrimination on the basis of handicap and coercion. The complaint was apparently based on the Association's attempts to make Ms. Thornhill remove a set of steps leading from the terrace of her apartment. In June 1999, the Association filed a civil lawsuit against Ms. Thornhill in the Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, styled Admiral Farragut Condominium Association v. Maria Thornhill, Case No. 99-15567 CA 22. On or about September 21, 1999, Ms. Thornhill, through her attorney, filed Defendant, Maria Thornhill's Answer to Complaint. Included in the answer was a Counterclaim filed by Ms. Thornhill, through her attorney, against the Association, in which she sought injunctive relief and damages against the Association pursuant to Section 760.35(1) and (2), Florida Statutes. 1/ She asserted in the Counterclaim that she had filed a discrimination complaint against the Association with the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which had been referred to the Commission and that this complaint was still pending before the Commission. Ms. Thornhill alleged in the Counterclaim that the Association had engaged in housing discrimination against her on the basis of her handicap because it had refused to accommodate her disability by giving her permission to retain the steps she had installed leading from the terrace of her apartment. Ms. Thornhill also alleged that the Association had "authorized or acquiesced in a series of actions intended as harassment and retribution" against Ms. Thornhill for having filed a housing discrimination complaint. The factual and legal bases on which Ms. Thornhill requests relief in the Petition for Relief filed with the Commission and in the Counterclaim filed in circuit court are virtually identical.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the administrative complaint filed by Maria T. Thornhill to enforce rights granted by the Florida Fair Housing Act, Sections 760.30 through 760.37, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of November, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 7th day of November, 2000.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant factual findings. Respondent is a certified general contractor and has been issued license number CG CA03134. During November of 1978, Respondent, doing business through the entity of Creative Home Design, Inc., entered into a contract with Dr. Stephen Silverstein to construct a residence in Boca Raton, Florida, for the sum of $180,000. Respondent received from Dr. Silverstein a total of $140,500 for the construction he performed on the Silverstein residence. (Stipulation by the parties) Additionally, Dr. Silvertstein paid certain liens which were filed with regard to the construction performed by Respondent on his residence, to wit: P.N.A. Drywall: $5,260.00 (Petitioner's Exhibit 2) Pentagon Diversified: $3,801.34 (Petitioner's Exhibit 3) American Lumber: $8,217.50 (Petitioner's Exhibit 4) Lone Star Industries, (Petitioner's Exhibits 7 and 8) Inc. $1,293.50 Mack Industries: $4,604.29 (Petitioner's Exhibits 9 and 10) Smith and DeShield: $ 600.00 (Petitioner's Exhibit 11) Certain contractors furnishing labor and materials for the Silverstein residence based on contracts entered into by wit: Respondent also filed liens, to A. A. Marini Septic Tanks, Inc.: (Petitioner's Exhibit 21) $1,700.00 Delano Pools, Inc.: (Petitioner's Exhibit 20) $4,539.00 William D. Adeimy, Inc.: 3/ (Petitioner's Exhibit 16) $3,183.75 Climate Control Services: (Petitioner's Exhibit 17) $1,882.50 Ballavia Construction (Petitioner's Exhibit Company: 24) $5,446.00 Temperature Control: (Petitioner's Exhibit 18) $ 678.00 J. Griffin Painting: (Petitioner's Exhibit 23) $3,795.00 Central Systems, Inc.: $1,018.80 (Petitioner's Exhibit 19) Dr. Silverstein also entered into another contract for the sale of the residence being built by the Respondent whereby Dr. Silverstein agreed to sell the residence to Respondent's son, Joseph Roberts, for the sum of $210,000. (TR pages 5-6) On February 15, 1980, a notice of code violation was issued by the building official for Palm Beach County, Florida stating that the pool which was installed at the Silverstein residence was not completely enclosed by a fence or dense hedge as required by Section 500.14F of the Palm Beach Zoning Code. Respondent has failed to correct that violation. Respondent completed the Silverstein residence to a degree of completion where it could be occupied and he could move into the residence with his family. Thereafter, Dr. Silverstein eventually filed suit and was awarded a judgment evicting Respondent from the residence. (Petitioner's Exhibit 12) Respondent's son, Joseph, failed to consummate the agreement to purchase the residence. Respondent and his family vacated the Silverstein residence and, in the process, removed certain fixtures attached to the residence including carpeting, appliances, door knobs, air conditioning and air handlers, the sprinkler system, light fixtures, vanities, a whirlpool tub, washer, dryer, air conditioning vents, bidet, sprinkling pump timer, and a drop-in range. (TR pages 23-28, 128- 130, and 98-100) Dr. Silverstein filed a claim of loss with his insurance company and was paid a settlement for the loss, which included the certain charges for reinstallation and the reconnection of the various fixtures which had been removed for a total sum of $24,252.02. (Petitioner's Exhibit 13, TR 25-28) The Respondent's Position Respondent contended that he was authorized to occupy the Silverstein residence and this contention is not really in dispute herein. However, it later became necessary for Dr. Silverstein to evict the Respondent and his family from the residence when it became apparent that his son, Joseph Roberts, would not consummate the agreement to purchase the residence of Dr. Silverstein. Respondent admits to taking the fixtures and other items referred to hereinabove. Respondent was without authority to do so. Respondent contends that the various liens which were referred to hereinabove were not valid inasmuch as more than one year had elapsed during the time the work was performed and no claim of lien had been filed within that one- year period. Thus, Respondent contends the claims of lien were defective. Respondent offered no proof of payment of the various claims of lien. Additionally, Respondent states that several of the contractors did not perform work and therefore there were no amounts due and owing those companies. Specifically, Respondent contends that Marini Septic Tank did not install the septic tank but a former affiliate did and that there was an attempt to bill him twice. Additionally, Respondent contends that he paid Ballavia Construction Company for the amount claimed in cash, however he had no receipts or other documentary evidence to substantiate that transaction. As relates to the claim of Griffin Painting, Respondent contends that he paid all amounts due and owing them save $660.00. Respondent failed to introduce evidence to corroborate his claim in that regard and it is therefore rejected. Finally, Respondent furnished releases of liens and an invoice of the claim referred to hereinabove from Climate Control Services, Inc. indicating that they were paid in full. Documentary evidence received and testimony introduced herein substantiates Respondent's position and it is found that he, in fact, paid Climate Control Services, Inc. in full for the services they rendered. (Respondent's Exhibits, 4, 6, and 10) As noted hereinabove, it is found that the Respondent paid the amount due and owing William D. Adeimy, Inc., and a release of lien from that entity was received herein. (Respondent's Exhibit 3)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's certified general contractor's license number CG CA03134 be revoked. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of May, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 24th day of May, 1985.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Town of Beverly Beach's Comprehensive Plan Amendment 03-1, initially adopted by Ordinance 2003-ORD-6 and amended by Ordinance 2004-ORD-6, is "in compliance," as required by Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes (2004).
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state land planning agency and has authority to administer and enforce the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes (2004). One of the Department's duties under the Act is to review proposed amendments to local government comprehensive plans to determine whether the amendments are in compliance with the Act. The Town of Beverly Beach is a small municipality in Flagler County, Florida, and has the duty and authority to adopt a local government comprehensive plan pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (2004), and to amend the plan from time to time. In June 2002, the Town proposed to amend its Future Land Use Map (FLUM) to change some of the land uses within the 37-acre Shelter Cove Planned Unit Development (PUD). The Shelter Cove PUD was the subject of an earlier lawsuit in the circuit court for Flagler County brought by the owners and developers of the property after the Town denied their PUD application. In 2002, the court entered judgment against the Town and ordered the Town to approve the PUD application. In its order, the court included a statement that the Shelter Cove PUD was consistent with the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of the plan amendment proposed in June 2002 was to re-designate 14.25 acres from Conservation/Spoil Area to Low Density Residential, 0.75 acres of Conservation/Spoil Area to Medium Density Residential, and 8.25 acres of Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. The proposed amendment was transmitted to the Department for compliance review. In its July 2003 ORC Report, the Department set forth four objections to the proposed amendment: 1) increased density in a Coastal High Hazard Area; 2) no traffic impact analysis regarding emergency evacuation; 3) inadequate potable water and sanitary sewer services; and 4) unsuitability for development because of saltwater marsh and potential use by threatened and endangered animal species. The Town made changes to the proposed amendment to address the Department's objections and adopted Plan Amendment 03-1 on October 6, 2003. One significant change made by the Town was to reduce the size of the land affected by the amendment from 23.25 acres to 14.5 acres. The stated purpose of the revised amendment was to deal exclusively with the spoil areas within the Shelter Cove PUD; to convert them from Conservation to Low Density Residential. The Department was not satisfied with the changes made by the Town and on November 17, 2003, it issued a Statement of Intent To Find The Comprehensive Plan Amendment Not In Compliance. This statement did not reassert the four objections of the ORC Report, but identified only two reasons for its determination that Plan Amendment 03-1 was not in compliance: 1) increased density in a Coastal High Hazard Area that would increase evacuation clearance times and 2) inadequate sanitary sewer facilities based on the denial of the utility's permit renewal by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). The Department recommended remedial actions that would bring Plan Amendment 03-1 into compliance. Thereafter, the Department and Town entered into a compliance agreement to identify remedial actions by the Town that would bring the plan amendment into compliance. Pursuant to the agreement, the Town adopted remedial measures in Ordinance 2004-ORD-6 (the Remedial Ordinance) that caused the Department to determine that the plan amendment was in compliance. The Remedial Ordinance (with additions and deletions as indicated in the ordinance) states in pertinent part: Limiting Density on the 14.5-acre amendment site & Hurricane Evacuation Plan Future Land Use Element: contains policies controlling the density and intensity of development (both residential and non- residential) in the Town of Beverly Beach. Policy A.1.1.9 The Low Density Residential (LDR) land use (up to 5 dwelling units/acre) shall be applied to 14.5 acres of upland spoil sites in the Shelter Cove development as shown in Exhibit A, not to exceed a total gross density of 28 residential units. In addition to the provisions described in Policy 1.1.4, the following provisions shall apply to the Shelter Cove Development: Residential land use for the Shelter Cove Planned Unit Development(PUD)shall be limited to a maximum of 115 dwelling units. The Town of Beverly Beach shall not issue a permit or certificate of occupancy until the Building Official certifies the required public facilities and services will be provided consistent with Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code (see Policy A.1.1.1). * * * Policy A.1.1.10 No later than December 2005, Beverly Beach shall revise its comprehensive plan to update the goals, objectives and policies and future land use map series and transmit such revisions to the Department of Community Affairs. The updated plan shall reflect changes to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, since the plan went into effect in 1991. This revision shall be based on a planning period through Year 2015, with current and forecasted conditions and satisfy data and analysis requirements. * * * Revise policies under Objective D.2.1, Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan regarding the provision of potable water and sanitary sewer Public Infrastructure/Facilities Element: refers to the protection of water quality by specific policies that require deficiencies in wastewater treatment facilities be corrected in accordance with DEP requirements. Objective D.2.1 By December 31, 1992 December 31, 2005, the Town shall require that existing deficiencies in the wastewater treatment package plants owned by Surfside Utilities operated by Ocean City Utilities be corrected in accordance with FDER Department of Environmental Protection [DEP] requirements. Policy D.2.1.1 As the Town does not own the wastewater treatment plants nor has operational control over the same, the Town shall formalize a coordination committee to include the owner/operator of Surfside Utilities Ocean City Utilities, the members of the Town Commission, members of the Flagler County Board of County Commissioners or their appointee, members of the City of Flagler Beach Commission or their appointee, and FDER the Department of Environmental Protection [DEP] and any other identified stakeholder in the Town. Policy D.2.1.2 The Town shall use the coordination committee to address the deficiencies in the wastewater plants, to set priorities for upgrading and replacing components of the plants, and to request FDER the Department of Environmental Protection [DEP]to increase and enforce their regulations requiring periodic monitoring and maintenance of package treatment plants. Policy D.1.2.3 The Town shall use the coordination committee to investigate the feasibility of assuming operational responsibility of the wastewater treatment system by another entity. Applying the five dwelling units per acre density allowed in the Low Density Residential category to 14.5 acres would generate 72.5 units. However, as indicated above, the Remedial Ordinance also restricted the total allowable dwelling units in the 14.5 acres to 28 units. The 28 units coincide with the site plan for the Shelter Cove PUD that was the subject of the circuit court judgment. The site plan called for 28 single- family lots in the former spoil areas. Charles Osbourne, Bernard Knight, and Mary Jo Knight were residents of the Town of Beverly Beach when the Town adopted Plan Amendment 03-1. They intervened against the Town in the original proceedings initiated by the Department. Following the Department's determination that the plan amendment had been brought into compliance by the Remedial Ordinance, they filed an Amended Petition to Intervene and were realigned as the Petitioners. On some date between the filing of their original petition in this case and the date of the final hearing, Petitioners Bernard Knight and Mary Jo Knight moved out of Beverly Beach. They are no longer residents of the Town. In their Amended Petition to Intervene, the Petitioners assert that the Remedial Ordinance did not resolve all the problems originally identified by the Department's ORC Report, and Plan Amendment 03-1 is still not in compliance. The Petitioners' objections to the amendment fall into three categories: insufficient and inaccurate data and analysis, insufficient legal description for the lands affected by the plan amendment, and inadequate wastewater services available for the increased density resulting from the amendment. These three categories will be used to organize the findings of fact that follow. Data and Analysis/Maps The Petitioners assert that the maps used for Plan Amendment 03-1 and the Remedial Amendment are not the official maps currently contained in the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan. They contend the unofficial maps contained errors that caused some of the area designated as Conservation/Saltwater Marsh to be included in the 14.5 acres re-designated Low Density Residential. At the hearing, the Petitioners also attempted to show that maps used by the Town with Plan Amendment 03-1 were not consistent with the Beverly Beach FLUM with regard to the depiction of saltwater marsh areas outside the 14.5 acres affected by the plan amendment. Whether such discrepancies exist is not a relevant inquiry for determining whether Plan Amendment 03-1 is in compliance. A 1997 report regarding threatened and endangered animal species, prepared by Lotspeich and Associates for the developer of the Shelter Cove PUD, includes a statement that there are 10.3 acres of spoil on the 37-acre PUD site. That figure is inconsistent with the Town's claim that the lands affected by Plan Amendment 03-1 consist of 14.5 acres of spoil. Lindsay Haga, a regional planner with the Northeast Florida Regional Planning Council (Council), made the determination that there are 14.5 acres of spoil area. Because the Town does not have a professional planning staff, the Council was providing planning services to the Town under contract. Ms. Haga worked on Plan Amendment 03-1 on behalf of the Town. Ms. Haga obtained a mapping of the land uses within the Shelter Cove PUD from information maintained by the St. Johns River Water Management District (District). The land use categories are based on the Future Land Use Classification Categorization System, and were applied by the District using aerial photography. Using professional software called "ArcView," Ms. Haga derived the size of the various land uses mapped within the Shelter Cove PUD by the District. The software calculated the size of the spoil areas as 14.5 acres. According to Ms. Haga, planners use this method "100 percent" of the time to delineate land uses on future land use maps. Ms. Haga was called as a witness by the Petitioners and by Beverly Beach and testified at length on direct and cross-examination on how she determined the size of the spoil areas. Nevertheless, some ambiguity remains as to whether the size and position of the spoil areas designated in the official Town FLUM are the same as their size and position as delineated by Ms. Haga for Plan Amendment 03-1 using information from the St Johns River Water Management District. The Town and the Department seem to suggest in their joint post-hearing submittal that the size and position of the spoil areas on the FLUM can be "cleaned up" or re-drawn using more site-specific information presented at the final hearing. The implication is that, if the Town's FLUM delineated less than 14.5 acres as Conservation/Spoil Area, but better data is presented at the hearing to show that the spoil areas actually cover 14.5 acres, the FLUM delineation can be ignored or treated as if did cover 14.5 acres. The redrawing of land uses as they are depicted on an adopted FLUM is arguably beyond the authority granted to the Department in Chapter 163. That issue need not be decided on this record, however, because the more credible and persuasive evidence shows there were no material changes to the size and position of the spoil areas in Plan Amendment 03-1, and no saltwater marsh was re-designated as Low Density Residential. Data and Analysis/Topographic Information The Petitioners assert that topographic data used by the Town was flawed and did not accurately reflect that much of the Shelter Cove PUD is within the 100-year floodplain. For example, the June 2002 Transmittal Packet sent to the Department included a statement that, "According to FEMA the 100 year floodplain is confined to the saltwater marsh areas located adjacent to the Intracoastal Waterway." At the hearing, the Town admitted that some of topographic information was inaccurate and described it as a "scrivener's error." The parties stipulated to the introduction into evidence of topographic information that indicates a portion of the 14.5 acres affected by Plan Amendment 03-1 lies within the 100-year floodplain. The Petitioners have not shown how the inclusion of inaccurate topographic in the data and analysis causes Plan Amendment 03-1 to be not in compliance; or, put another way, the Petitioners have not shown how the accurate topographic information proves Plan Amendment 03-1 will be inconsistent with the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan or applicable state laws and regulations. The Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan does not prohibit Low Density Residential uses in the 100-year floodplain. Data and Analysis/Clustering The Petitioners contend that the data and analysis was flawed because it included a reference to the possibility of clustering dwelling units to avoid adverse impacts to areas unsuitable for development, but the Town has no regulations that allow for or address clustering. Neither the Amended Petition to Intervene nor the evidence presented by the Petitioners makes clear how this alleged error causes Plan Amendment 03-1 to be not in compliance. Any alleged error must relate to the 14.5 acres affected by the amendment. The Petitioners did not show that clustering of dwelling units is planned or necessary on the 14.5 acres. Data and Analysis/Scrub Jays The Petitioners contend that the data and analysis is insufficient because it fails to describe and account for the current use of the site by the Florida scrub jay, a bird listed as threatened by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The Town and Department stipulated that scrub jays have been seen on the property. Charles Osbourne and Gail Duggins, a birdwatcher, testified that they have seen scrub jays in the Shelter Cove PUD area on several occasions. They marked Petitioners' Exhibit 15 to indicate eight specific sites within the PUD where they had observed scrub jays. None of the marked sites are located on the 14.5 acres affected by Plan Amendment 03-1. Lotspeich and Associates conducted a scrub jay survey on the 37-acre Shelter Cove PUD in 1997. They observed no scrub jays on the 14.5 acres that will be affected by Plan Amendment 03-1. In the written report of the survey, Lotspeich and Associates concluded that, "no jays reside on-site nor did any birds react as though they were defending territory which extended onto the property." Following a second survey in 2002, Lotspeich and Associates reached the same conclusion that the property "is unlikely to support a resident Florida scrub jay population." The observations of scrub jays made by Mr. Osbourne and Ms. Duggins do not contradict the conclusions of the Lotspeich and Associates reports. Mr. Osbourne and Ms. Duggins did not offer an opinion (and no foundation was laid for their competence to offer such an opinion) that scrub jays reside on the 14.5 acres affected by Plan Amendment 03-1. The Department's ORC Report stated that the originally-proposed amendment was not consistent with Policy E 1.4.3 of the Town's comprehensive plan which calls for the Town to obtain information from appropriate agencies concerning the known locations of listed plant and animal species. The Department recommended in the ORC Report that the Town conduct a survey for gopher tortoises and other listed species. The Department's objection about listed species, however, was not included its subsequent Statement of Intent to Find The Comprehensive Plan Amendment Not in Compliance. The Town had available to it, as part of the data and analysis to support Plan Amendment 03-1 and the Remedial Amendment, the Lotspeich and Associates reports prepared for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The reports convey the results of Lotspeich and Associates' surveys of the Shelter Cove PUD property for gopher tortoises, scrub jays and other listed species. It is likely to be the best information available since it is a site-specific, scientific study. The Petitioners did not show that better data were available or that the Lotspeich and Associates reports are flawed. In fact, the Lotspeich and Associates reports were exhibits offered by the Petitioners. Policy E.1.4.3 of the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan directs the Town to adopt land development regulations that provide protections for known listed species. Land development regulations are the usual and appropriate tools for applying specific protective measures to specific development proposals. No regulations have yet been adopted by the Town to protect listed species. Listed species are not left unprotected from development activities in the Town, however, since there are both state and federal laws to protect listed species and their habitats. Data and Analysis/Beach Access The Petitioners contend that the data and analysis was insufficient because it indicated that there are five locations in the Town where the public can gain access to the beach, but the Petitioners allege there are only two public beach walkovers that qualify under the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan. The beach access issue relates to the Town's recreational level of service standard adopted in the Recreation and Open Space Element of the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan. Policy F.1.1.1 specifies that the adopted level of service standard is "Five publicly-owned beach access facilities." The Petitioners apparently believe that the easements acquired by the Town that provide for public beach access across private property do not qualify as publicly-owned beach access facilities as contemplated by the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan. The term "publicly-owned beach access facilities" is not defined in the Recreation and Open Space Element, but one can find a statement at page F-2 that, "Access points and parking areas are support facilities for public owned beaches." Therefore, the Town considers an access point, without any man- made structures, to be a "facility." Furthermore, the comprehensive plan, itself, includes a map that depicts the location of the five public beach access points. It must be assumed that these access points met the Town's intent and meaning. By raising the issue of whether the data and analysis for Plan Amendment 03-1 is accurate in referring to the existence of five public beach access points, the Petitioners are collaterally attacking the existing comprehensive plan. Stephen Emmett, the mayor of Beverly Beach, stated that the five public beach access points depicted in the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan, as well as a new sixth beach access point, are currently maintained by the Town. Description of the Land Affected The Petitioners alleged in their Amended Petition to Intervene that the Town did not have an adequate legal description for the lands affected by the plan amendment. The issue was not raised in the Petitioners' Pre-Hearing Statement. When the Department objected to the Petitioners' presentation of evidence on this issue because it was not raised in their Pre- Hearing Statement, the Petitioners voluntarily withdrew the issue. Sanitary Sewer Services The Petitioners contend that sanitary sewer services are not adequate for the increased residential density that would result from Plan Amendment 03-1. The Beverly Beach Wastewater Treatment Facility is operated by Ocean City Utilities. Ocean City's application to renew the permit for the facility was denied by DEP in September 2003 because the facility was not in compliance with several DEP regulations. As a result of the denial of Ocean City's permit renewal application, DEP would not allow new customers to connect to the Beverly Beach Wastewater Treatment Facility, including the Shelter Cove PUD. DEP subsequently approved the connection of the Shelter Cove PUD wastewater collection system to the Beverly Beach Wastewater Treatment Facility. Permitting problems associated with the treatment plant was one reason for the Department's objection to the originally proposed plan amendment and the Department's subsequent determination that Plan Amendment 03-1 was not in compliance. No evidence was presented to show that Ocean City Utilities has corrected the deficiencies in the wastewater treatment plant or has obtained a renewal permit from DEP. Nevertheless, the Department determined that Plan Amendment 03-1 is in compliance based on the changes to the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan called for in the compliance agreement and adopted in the Remedial Ordinance. Objective D.2.1 of the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan was amended to require that existing deficiencies in the wastewater treatment plant be corrected by December 31, 2005. Policies D.2.1.1, D.2.1.2, D.2.1.3 were amended to re-constitute and re-energize a coordination committee to address the deficiencies in the wastewater plant and the feasibility of giving operational responsibility to another entity (such as Flagler County). In addition, the Remedial Ordinance amended Policy A.1.19 of the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan to prohibit the Town from issuing a permit or certificate of occupancy for the Shelter Cove PUD "until the Building Official certifies the required public facilities and services will be provided consistent with Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code." No dispute was raised about the available capacity of the Beverly Beach Wastewater Treatment Facility to serve the Shelter Cove PUD.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the Town of Beverly Beach Plan Amendment 03-1, and Remedial Ordinance 2004-ORD-6, are "in compliance" as defined in Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes (2004). DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August, 2005, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of August, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Shaw P. Stiller, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Sidney F. Ansbacher, Esquire Upchurch, Bailey and Upchurch, P.A. Post Office Box 3007 St. Augustine, Florida 32085-3007 Robert J. Riggio, Esquire Riggio & Mitchell, P.A. 400 South Palmetto Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Thaddeus Cohen, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Heidi Hughes, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
