The Issue Issues presented here concerned the entitlement of Respondent, Russell D. Horn, Sr., to be granted an environmental permit by Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation, to build a boat stall on an existing dock in Putnam County, Florida. The boat stall's dimensions are ten feet wide by twenty feet deep and the construction would be on the St. Johns River.
Findings Of Fact On July 13, 1981, Russell D. Horn, Sr., who has a residence in Putnam County, Florida, bade application to the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, for the necessary permits to construct a boat stall ten feet wide by twenty feet deep at the site of an existing dock. A copy of the application may be found as Respondent Horn's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence. The dock where Horn applied to build the boat slip is found in the St. Johns River, a navigable water body and waters of the State of Florida in Putnam County, Florida. The application form which was executed by Horn required him to indicate the name of adjacent property owners to the property at which the dock site was located, both upland and adjacent to the uplands. See Rule 17- 4.28(11)(c), Florida Administrative Code. To accomplish this task, the applicant utilized a sketch which he had been provided when he purchased his homesite in the area and indicated to the Department that the adjoining landowners were Milton Kilis and Robert Michal. In fact, Robert Michal was not an adjacent landowner. The adjacent landowner, Milton G. Kilis, wrote to advise the Department that he had no objection to the construction of the boat slip. This correspondence was dated September 11, 1981. A copy of that correspondence may be found as Respondent Department's Exhibit No. 3 admitted into evidence. After reviewing the initial application, additional information was requested by a document entitled "Completeness Summary" which was addressed from the Department to the Applicant Horn. A copy of this "Completeness Summary" requesting additional information may be found as Department's Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence. Through this summary, Horn was requested to provide written authorization from the dock owners. It was also requested that Respondent provide an affidavit of ownership of the upland property adjacent to the dock site. Horn received permission to construct from Frank Scussell and William A. Reaves, persons he understood to be the dock owners. See Respondent Horn's Exhibit No. 3 admitted into evidence. Horn misunderstood the question related to ownership of upland property and provided a mortgage deed with its attendant description of his home site property in Putnam County, which is at a different location from that of the upland property adjacent to the dock. A copy of that deed and other matters may be found as Respondent Horn's Exhibit No. 4 admitted into evidence. Department of Environmental Regulation reviewing authorities wrote on the "Completeness Summary" form, Respondent Department's Exhibit No. 1, indicating that the task of seeking written authorization from the dock owners had been achieved and that the affidavit of ownership of upland property owners was satisfactory. In fact, all adjacent property owners had not been notified of the pendency of the application request through the process of Horn's advising the Respondent agency of the names of all adjacent property owners to the uplands and the affidavit of ownership of the upland property owner at the dock site was not filed. During the review process, permission was given by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, for the construction of the boat slip. A copy of this permission, by letter dated August 31, 1981, is Respondent Department's Exhibit No. 2, admitted into evidence. The Department of Environmental Regulation reviewed the permit application and prepared an application appraisal, which may be found as Respondent Department's Exhibit No. 5 admitted into evidence. The findings made by that application appraisal related to application review are found to be accurate. In particular the permit application appraisal indicated that the boat slip would be located at the waterward end of the existing dock structure, which existing dock structure accommodated four boats. The appraisal found that the project was located in South Putnam County in the town of Georgetown on the St. Johns River. The permit appraisal found that the project site would be located in the littoral zone of the river about one hundred feet waterward of the mean high water line. No littoral growth was seen at the depth of the proposed construction. Tapegrass, Mexican waterlily and cattail were present near the shore. Several large hardwood swamp trees were present at the shoreline. The project was found to be located in a Water Class III and adjacent waters were Class III according to the appraisal, no significant immediate or long-term adverse environmental impacts were to be expected to occur due to the completion of the boat slip. Horn was subsequently given a construction permit to add the boat stall to the existing dock. A copy of that permit may be found as Respondent Department's Exhibit No. 6 admitted into evidence. The only specific conditions related to that matter pertain to the necessity for the utilization of turbidity curtains throughout the project for purposes of containing the turbidity that might exceed State water quality standards, The permit was issued on September 22, 1981. After receiving the permit, sometime around October 20, 1981, Horn purchased the necessary lumber to construct the stall and on October 24, 1981, went to the dock site to begin the installation of pilings related to the construction of the boat stall. While placing the pilings on October 24, 1981, an adjoining property owner and Petitioner in this cause, Marshall Wolfe, stood on his dock, that is, Wolfe's dock, and hailed to Horn to stop building. Horn did not know Wolfe before that time and did not know that Wolfe, not Michal, was the adjacent property owner on that side of the dock. On October 28, 1981, Marshall Wolfe and his wife, Ann Wolfe, wrote to the Department in the person of G. Doug Dutton, Subdistrict Manager, and indicated that they were opposed to the issuance of the permit, which is under the number of the permit issued to Respondent, and requested a hearing on the question of the issuance. A copy of that correspondence may be found as Department's Exhibit No. 7 admitted into evidence. On the same date, October 28, 1981, Horn was contacted by the Department of Environmental Regulation and advised of the Wolfe complaint and Horn was told that he would receive a cease and desist order from the Department of Environmental Regulation. On October 30, 1981, Horn returned to the construction site and found four of his neighbors finishing the construction of the stall. In fact, the neighbors did conclude the construction and the boat slip remains in place. A cease and desist letter was mailed on November 2, 1981; however, this letter was not received by Horn immediately. Horn did subsequently learn of the contents of the letter some time in November or December, 1981. A copy of the cease and desist letter may be found as Respondent Department's Exhibit No. 8 admitted into evidence. On December 13, 1981, an attempt was made at the instigation of Department officials for the Petitioners and Respondent Horn to resolve the controversy. This effort was unsuccessful. As a consequence, a formal hearing was necessary in keeping with the request of the Department that the Division of Administrative Hearings conduct a Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, formal hearing. This request had been made on November 12, 1981, and an initial hearings had been scheduled for February 11, 1982, following consultation between the various parties and the Hearing Officer. At the initial hearing session on February 11, 1982, which was to be held in Palatka, Florida, counsel for Department indicated that the upland property was not owned by Horn and that easement rights to that property were unclear. In view of this fact the hearing was continued until the ostensible upland property owner could be notified of the pendency of the issuance of an environmental permit and be allowed to participate. Notification was subsequently provided by an Intent to Issue Statement, a copy of which may be found as Respondent Department's Exhibit No. 9 admitted into evidence. This notification was through the Department at the instigation of the Hearing Officer. The date of notification was February 12, 1982. An order was entered on March 17, 1982, which allowed the intervention of St. Johns Crescent Lakesites, Inc. into the proceedings and that party, in the person of its counsel, Lauren E. Merriam, III, Esquire, participated in the April 15, 1982 hearing. St. Johns Crescent Lakesites, Inc. is the owner of the upland property adjacent to the dock in which Horn had constructed the boat slip. No indication was given that any easement rights were ever granted by that corporation to grant access to the boat slip from the adjacent property. The overall dock area, in terms of square feet, is between 500 and 1000 square feet. Other than the permit application made by Horn, no other permission has been received by the Department to construct the other features of the dock. A further appraisal of the project site subsequent to the September 18, 1981, appraisal has been made. That appraisal was made by the field inspector for the Department. This appraisal by Melvin Rechtor agrees with the project appraisal made by the first field inspector, John Hendricks. The testimony of Melvin Rechtor on environmental impacts of the project are accepted as accurate. Rechtor's testimony established that the project would have an insignificant impact on water quality considerations and would not adversely affect the species or the conservation of fish, marine and wildlife or other natural resources. Rechtor's testimony established that there would be no unreasonable interference with waterward access of adjacent property owners. Rechtor's testimony also established that there would be no navigational hazard nor interference with fishing and swimming by persons using the river.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Richard L. Buchanan owns a lot in Franklin County, which lies on the north shore of Apalachicola Bay. Shellfish harvesting is prohibited in the water adjacent to his parcel despite, or perhaps because of, oyster houses having operated in the vicinity for many years. Mr. Buchanan is not an oysterman himself, but he does fish commercially, when he is able. He owns two licensed fishing boats. He goes floundering and also fishes with gill nets. Since he acquired the property 10 or 12 years ago, Mr. Buchanan regularly loaded nets from shore and unloaded fish and nets on shore, until the prop-dredging took place, even though a dock extends out into the Bay from his property. The outboard motor is hard to handle from the dock and it is virtually impossible to load the nets from the dock without fouling them. Until the prop-dredging he could bring his boats all the way in and lay their bows on the shore along the stretch of clean sand 35 to 50 feet wide at the western end of his 145 feet of Bay frontage. There was a sheer drop to a depth, at high water, of about 3.5 feet. The Sadler boy drowned there. Before the prop-dredging disturbed it, the configuration of the bottom that allowed small boats to come all the way into shore at that point had obtained for decades. Leo Nixon Harwell, son of the former owner of petitioner's property, remembered running the Harwells' oyster boat, which drew three feet, right up on the beach. Mr. Harwell, who looked to be in his 50's, testified that there had been deep water next to the shore ever since he was "no yearly boy." The further from shore the deeper it got till you reached Two Mile Channel. Between the sandy beach and the channel there was no vegetation to speak of although there was a marshy swash to the east of the sandy beach. In 1979, when Arman Earl Cloud had to haul his bay shrimper for repairs, he floated it to the beach in back of Mr. Buchanan's house and pulled it up on the beach, using rollers. The bow floated to the water's edge. The boat had a length overall of 25 to 28 feet, a beam of nine feet and drew three to three and a half feet of water. An oyster house sits on the next parcel west of the Buchanan property. The oyster house belongs to a man named Page, and a dock 100 feet long juts out toward Two Mile Channel from the oyster house. It used to be impossible to get an oyster boat in any closer to shore. When John Paul Whitehead was oystering some years back, they used to have to anchor out and transfer the oysters to a skiff to get them to the Page oysterhouse. In fact, when Diane Collins rented the oysterhouse (from Bobby Youngblood) in 1974 or 1975 it was impossible to bring even a flat-bottomed boat in as far as the waterward end of the dock. "On dead low tide all you seen was sand on either side of the dock." According to unrebutted testimony, the Pages changed all this by prop- dredging. (Mr. Page failed to honor the subpoena requiring his attendance at the final hearing.) Prop-dredging involves fixing the bow of a boat by grounding or otherwise, and turning the propeller at speeds high enough to move soils on the bottom. Bay this technique, the Pages dredged great quantities of sand on either side of their dock. Most of the sand stayed suspended in the water only long enough to settle in front of their neighbors' property. This illegal activity was brought to the attention of the marine patrol at the time, whose warning to the Pages to desist went unheeded, and at least one employee of respondent Department of Environmental Regulation was also apprised. The prop- dredging continued for some time, usually at night, and the eventual result was "a muck hill" in front of the Miracle Seafood property abutting the Pages to the west, and a sandbar in front of Mr. Buchanan's property that completely blocks access to his sandy beach. The Pages, with 55 front feet on the Bay, can now accommodate quite a fleet at their dock. One day six to eight boats were docked there. The sandbar in front of Mr. Buchanan's property attributable to the Pages' unpermitted and illegal prop-dredging has by now been there long enough that smooth cord grass (Spartina altiflora), saw grass and maiden cane have taken root. The dredging proposed by petitioner to restore access to his shoreline would disturb some 400 square feet, on which only Spartina altiflora is growing. On about a quarter of the proposed site, there is no vegetation. The Spartina altif lora helps stabilize the shoreline, serves to filter pollutants running off into the Bay and provides a habitat and food for insects, worms, oysters, shrimp and fishes. Dredging would resuspend any heavy metals in the soil, and increase the turbidity of the water, in the immediate vicinity. There is a boat ramp 500 feet from petitioner's property. DER would issue a permit for a marine railway at the site where petitioner hopes to dredge. Apalachicola Bay is classified as Class II waters, and as outstanding Florida waters, being part of an aquatic preserve. There is a clear public interest in permitting a private citizen, who is willing to restore, at his own expense, a part of the coastline disturbed by illegal activity which he responded to the authorities at the time, to the status quo which existed for as long as anybody can remember, before the illegal activity disturbed it. In an undated letter to Mr. Buchanan, James W. MacFarland, Director, Division of State Lands, Department of Natural Resources, advised that Upon the assurance that the environmental effects are acceptable and with the understanding that DER intends to issue the permit, we will request the dredge material severance fees and issue our authorization pursuant to Section 253.77, Florida Statutes, upon the permit receipt. The credible testimony of DER staff was to the effect not that the loss of some 300 square feet of Spartina altif lora would have unacceptable environmental effects, but that the cumulative effect of projects entailing destruction of such grasses would have unacceptable environmental consequences. Respondent's proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law and proposed recommended order have largely been adopted, in substance. To the extent any proposed finding of fact has been rejected, it has been deemed immaterial or unsupported by the weight of the evidence.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner grant respondent's application for a dredging permit on such reasonable conditions, including turbidity curtains, as are necessary adequately to protect the project vicinity. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of August, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 8th day of August, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: E. Gary Early, Esquire Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard L. Buchanan P. O. Box 33 Apalachicola, Florida 32320 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Parties The applicant for permit is Brevard County's Facilities Construction Division (County). The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), formerly the Department of Environmental Regulation and Department of Natural Resources, is the state agency responsible for reviewing the permit application pursuant to Chapters 373 and 403, F.S. Petitioner, Carolyn Martel (Ms. Martel) owns property adjacent to, and north of the county park. She has owned the property for approximately sixteen years and uses it for a vacation home, with the intent to retire there eventually. The Project On October 26, 1992, the county applied for a permit to construct a public fishing pier and dock at its existing recreational facility, Fisherman's Landing Park, in Grant, Florida, at the south end of Brevard County. Fisherman's Landing Park is located on the Indian River in an area known as the Malabar to Sebastian Aquatic Preserve. The park lies between the river and U.S. Highway No. 1, approximately seven miles north of Sebastian, Florida. The park is approximately 7.9 acres, with approximately 2000 feet frontage along the river. The proposed pier/dock is the second phase of the park construction project, funded in part by the Florida Inland Navigation District (FIND), to provide picnic, restroom and emergency docking access for the boating public already using the intercoastal waterway. The only access for boats is from the waterway. No boat ramp exists, nor is one planned for the area. The project site is in Class II waters, and is subject to Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW) criteria which apply in the aquatic preserve pursuant to rule 17-302.700(9)(i), F.A.C.. The pier/dock was originally planned to be much larger, but was reduced in size to comply with suggestions by various reviewing agencies. As now proposed, construction will connect with an existing boardwalk and will run in a northeasterly direction over the water, approximately 209 feet, with a platform at the end in a "T" configuration, 30 feet by 9 feet. Its total length is 220 feet, tip to tip. Various governmental agencies, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Office of Protected Species Management of the Florida DEP were involved in the review. After requested changes were made, the project was approved, with general and special conditions, in permit no. 05-221736-4. Because this is a public project, a state-owned lands lease was not required. Instead, a letter of consent was issued on October 5, 1993. THE PERMIT CRITERIA The public health, safety, or welfare or property of others The project must, and will, comply with state water quality standards. No work will be performed on shore or underwater except for pile driving and some renovation to meet handicapped accessibility standards. Projects such as this do not typically cause excessive turbidity. Any turbidity during the construction phase will subside within 24-48 hours. The water quality in the area, already degraded for years, will not be further degraded by the project. The temporary mooring access will discourage pollution already being caused by boaters using the waterway and illegally disposing of waste and garbage. This was a primary rationale for the FIND funding for the project. The pier will be fully accessible to wheelchairs and will meet all accessibility requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The only evidence of criminal activity in the park has been some minor vandalism and graffiti. County park rangers patrol the park several times a day. The marine patrol is in charge of law enforcement from the water, and the sheriff conducts frequent patrols from along U.S. Highway No. 1. Park hours (daylight only) are posted, along with other park regulations. The conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats The project is within the Brevard County manatee protection zone which requires a slow speed for boats. As a condition of the permit, manatee and seagrass informational and educational signs shall be placed on the structure. Manatees use the area for grazing and will continue to do so. The project will not significantly increase boating activity; it is not considered a very desirable boating area. The project is intended to divert boats already on the waterway and illegally picnicking and disposing of waste and garbage elsewhere. If manatees are observed in the area during construction, construction will have to stop until the manatees leave. East of the site and east of the channel in the river is Grant Farm Island, a bird rookery which includes endangered birds. According to the scale on the vicinity map (County exhibit #12), the island is approximately 1/4 mile from the park. According to competent expert testimony, the birds will not be affected by the project. There are seagrasses at the site, as surveyed by county and state environmental staff, and as a condition of the permit, the surveys must continue and reports must be made to the DEP. Restoration of any areas damaged by boats must be provided by the county. However, little damage is anticipated since boats will be confined to the end of the dock, where the water is 5-6 feet deep. The entire dock will be constructed at a minimum level of 5 feet above mean high water to allow sunlight to continue nourishing the grasses. With the conditions placed in the permit, the seagrasses shall be only minimally affected. Navigation and the flow of water; no harmful erosion or shoaling The project will not affect the flow of water nor will it cause erosion or shoaling, according to the only competent evidence offered on this subject. The end of the dock is over 350 feet from the channel of the intercoastal waterway, far enough to avoid any navigational hazards. There will be lights and reflectors to warn boaters. Fishing or recreational values and marine productivity Long-standing pollution, including pollution from septic tanks has caused this area to be restricted or closed to shellfish harvesting since the 1970's. It is not a highly productive area for commercial fishing. Opportunities for recreational fishing and other recreation is substantially enhanced by the project, particularly for handicapped persons. There is very little existing public access to the Indian River in this portion of Brevard County. The nature of the project: temporary or permanent There is no dispute that the project is permanent. Significant historical and archaeological resources The Grant community in Brevard County is an old Florida riverfront community. The Grant historical house located at the site will not be affected, except that enjoyment and access to the house will be enhanced for boaters who temporarily moor at the dock. The old house has a dock that is no longer accessible. The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed area As provided above, the water quality in the area is already degraded, and the project will not contribute to further degradation, but rather should enhance the quality as an alternative to illegal dumping and disposal. Specific conditions in the permit are intended to maintain the value of functions performed by the existing seagrasses, and adequate monitoring is placed in those conditions to assure their success. The value or function of the public park facility is substantially improved by opening access from the water to boaters, and from the shore to handicapped individuals. Balancing the Criteria and summary of findings Based on competent expert testimony and evidence, the county has provided reasonable assurance that the project is clearly in the public interest. With a degree in biology and a master's degree in public health, Ms. Martel is an articulate and knowledgeable advocate for her own position. However, most of her testimony or evidence regarding the project's impacts on the environment was very general; for example: seagrasses are vital to estuarine ecology; manatees are frequently tragic victims of boaters; Brevard County is home to a wide variety of endangered flora and fauna; and similar well-accepted facts. Some of Ms. Martel's concerns are beyond the scope of this proceeding. The park itself was constructed on public property in 1989. The restroom facilities and septic tank were permitted several years ago as part of that earlier phase of park development. Any run-off or other effects of the parking spaces at the site are also the result of the earlier phase and will not be exacerbated by this project. Ms. Martel's concerns about trespassers or squatters on her property are not issues within the permit criteria addressed above.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Protection issue its Final Order approving permit 05-221736-4, with the proposed general and special conditions attached, and with the additional condition stipulated by the parties with regard to prohibiting refreshment or bait and tackle concessions. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 10th day of June, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 10th day of June, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-5566 The following constitute specific rulings on the parties' findings of fact as provided in section 120.59(2), F.S.: Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1.-2. Adopted in substance in paragraph 1. Adopted in substance in paragraph 2. Adopted in substance in paragraph 4. Adopted in paragraph 6; however, the finding with regard to approval for shellfish harvesting is rejected as not supported by competent evidence. Rejected as cumulative or unnecessary. Adopted, as to location, in paragraph 3; otherwise rejected as unsupported by competent evidence. Adopted generally in paragraph 16. Rejected as immaterial; there is no evidence of any impact of this project on wetland areas or on shoreline vegetation. Adopted generally in paragraph 15. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. 12.-13. Adopted generally in paragraph 7. 14.-18. Rejected as unnecessary. 19. Adopted in general in paragraph 16. 20.-29. Rejected as argument or comment on the evidence, rather than findings of fact. 30. Rejected as unnecessary. As found in paragraph 8, the letter of consent was issued. 31.-38. Rejected as argument rather than findings of fact, or irrelevant (as to the septic tank and parking facilities). 39.-40. Rejected as unsupported by competent evidence. 41. Addressed in preliminary statement and in recommendation. 42.-45. Rejected as unnecessary or argument, rather than findings of fact. 46. Rejected generally as unsupported by competent evidence (as to negative affect on navigation). 47.-51. Rejected as argument, or unnecessary. 52.-55. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence (as to negative impacts), and unnecessary (as to Tamy Weingarden's qualifications). Ample competent testimony was presented by the applicant. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unsupported by competent evidence (as to cumulative impacts). Rejected as argument or unnecessary. 59.-60. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence (as to negative impacts and negative balance). 61. Adopted in paragraph 21. COPIES FURNISHED: Carolyn Martel Post Office Box 54872 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73154 Lisa Perlmutter Troner Assistant County Attorney Brevard County Board of County Commissioners 2725 St. Johns Street Melbourne, Florida 32940 John L. Chaves Asst. General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Kenneth Plante, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondents, David H. Fort and Claudia A. Fort, violated certain statutes and rules of Petitioners, Department of Environmental Protection ("Department") and Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund ("Trustees"), related to the construction of a dock and boathouse and the use of sovereignty submerged lands, as alleged in the Amended Notice of Violation and Orders for Corrective Action ("Amended NOV") and, if so, whether the administrative fines, investigative costs, and corrective actions sought by Petitioners should be imposed against Respondents.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the power and duty to administer and enforce the provisions of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated in Florida Administrative Code Title 62. The Trustees are responsible for state-owned sovereignty submerged lands and ensuring that such lands are managed for the benefit of the citizens of Florida pursuant to Chapter 253, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated in Florida Administrative Code Title 18. The Department performs all staff duties and functions for the Trustees related to the administration of state lands. See § 253.002, Fla. Stat. David and Claudia Fort own property located at 7875 A1A South, St. Augustine, St. Johns County, Florida. The property is located adjacent to the Matanzas River, a part of the Intracoastal Waterway. The Trustees own the lands lying below the mean high water line of the Matanzas River. The Permit and Lease Harbor Engineering (“Harbor”), a marine engineering firm, acted as Respondents' agent in preparing plans and applying for the permit and lease to construct a dock and boathouse at the property. Harbor prepared and submitted to the Department five sketches or drawings showing various layouts, cross sections, and elevations of the proposed dock and boathouse. These drawings were made a part of the permit and became conditions of the permit. The permit drawings show one large covered slip, two smaller covered slips for mooring of jet skis, and a two-level boathouse. Although some of the elevations do not show walls, it is apparent that this was for the purpose of showing interior areas, such as the slips. Although difficult to see, one drawing indicates a doorway on the lower level. The elevations show window openings or "cutouts" in the walls of the boathouse, but do not indicate framed window panes. The drawings do not create a necessary conclusion that the cutouts are intended to be finished with framed window panes. On January 13, 2004, the Department issued Environmental Resource Permit and Sovereign Submerged Lands Authorization No. 55-216127-002-ES ("permit"), which authorized Respondents to construct a dock and boathouse in the Mantanzas River adjacent to Respondents' property. General Condition (a) of the permit states: All activities shall be implemented as set forth in the plans, specifications and performance criteria as approved by this permit. Any deviation from the permitted activity and the conditions for undertaking that activity shall constitute a violation of the permit. On February 24, 2004, the Trustees issued Sovereignty Submerged Lands Lease No. 550034552 ("lease") to Respondents, authorizing the use of sovereignty submerged lands for a 3-slip docking facility and boathouse "as shown and conditioned" in the Department permit, which was incorporated into and made a part of the lease.2/ Paragraph 1 of the lease states that the dock and boathouse are "exclusively to be used for mooring of recreational vessels in conjunction with an upland single-family residence." Paragraph 7 of the lease states in pertinent part: This lease is given to the Lessee to use or occupy the leased premises only for those activities specified herein and as conditioned by the Department of Environmental Protection, Environmental Resource Permit. The Lessee shall not change or add to the approved use of the leased premises as defined herein . . ., shall not change activities in any manner that may have an environmental impact that was not considered in the original authorization . . . without first obtaining . . . the Lessor's written authorization in the form of a modified lease. Paragraph 26 of the lease states that the lessee shall ensure that no "structures whose use is not water-dependant shall be erected or conducted over sovereignty submerged lands without prior written consent from the Lessor." The term "water dependent activity" is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-21.003(71): "Water dependent activity" means an activity which can only be conducted on, in, over, or adjacent to water area because the activity requires direct access to the water body or sovereign submerged lands for transportation, recreation, energy production or transmission, or source of water, and where the use of the water or sovereign submerged lands is an integral part of the activity. The lease was issued for a term of five years. It expired on January 12, 2009. Enforcement History Respondents began construction of the dock and boathouse in February 2004. A Department employee, Michael Savage, inspected the dock and boathouse on June 8, 2004, while construction was in progress. Savage said he was responding to an anonymous complaint about Respondents' dock and boathouse, but Savage did not explain the nature of the complaint. Savage had the permit drawings with him during the inspection. The dock pilings were in place as well as the "shell" of the boathouse. The structure had some cutouts for windows, but no windows with panes were installed. Savage measured the structure. Savage did not see anything during his June 8, 2004, inspection that caused him to believe the structure was not being constructed in compliance with the permit, except that a copy of the permit had not been posted at the site as required by the permit. Savage said he called Respondents, left a voice message, and talked to the builder. The Department's on-line enforcement record for the June 8, 2004, inspection indicates that a call was made and a message was left: "Need to have permit posted/erosion control in place." Savage and another Department employee inspected the dock and boathouse again on July 9, 2004. Savage had the permit drawings with him during this second inspection. Three outside walls were in place and the second level of the boathouse was under construction. No window framing or glass had been installed. An overhang, extending over the northwest corner of the structure, was in place. Savage had some concern about whether the locations of the window cutouts were in compliance with the permit. In all other respects, he thought that the construction was in compliance. The structure shown in the photographs taken on July 9, 2004, looks like a small house. It does not look like a structure intended only to provide shelter to a boat slip. The Department did not communicate with Respondents about the July 9, 2004, inspection. The Department's on-line enforcement record for the July 9, 2004, inspection includes the entry "In compliance." General Condition (j) of the permit requires that within 30 days after completion of construction of the permitted system, the permittee must submit a written statement of completion using an As Built Certification Form ("as-built"). On the as-built, the permittee is required to note and explain any “substantial deviations." Instead of submitting a single as-built following the completion of the dock and boathouse, Respondents submitted three as-builts. David Fort said his purpose was to keep the Department informed about the progress of the project. On September 8, 2004, the Department received the first of Respondent's as-builts. On the as-built form, David Fort indicated that the work was substantially completed. Although Fort did not intend to mislead the Department, the construction was not substantially completed at that time. A substantial amount of work remained to be done. Savage and another Department employee inspected the dock and boathouse on September 14, 2004. Savage had the permit drawings with him for this inspection. The boathouse was not changed much from its appearance in July 2004. It had no windows or doors. Savage believed that the project was in compliance with the permit and later made a note to that effect on a sheet containing three photographs that were taken during the inspection. The Department's on-line enforcement record for the September 14, 2004, inspection indicates that Savage met with the builder and includes the entries "In Compliance" and "Built as Permitted." Matthew Kershner, Compliance Enforcement Manager for the Department, accompanied Savage on one of the inspections of the dock and boathouse. Kershner placed a telephone call to David Fort and said his purpose in calling was to respond to a complaint from a neighbor "about a large dock being constructed." Kershner told Fort that Fort could not "climatize" the boathouse. Kershner did not explain at the final hearing what he meant by the term "climatize," nor did he give any other details about his conversation with Fort. It is reasonable to infer from the evidence, however, that Kershner meant that Fort was not permitted to provide artificial heating and air- conditioning in the boathouse. Fort called Kershner later and asked if he could install fans and Kershner told Fort that fans would be acceptable. It is reasonable to infer from the photographic evidence, alone, that Kershner knew in September 2004 that the apparent plan of construction was to at least partially enclose the boathouse. However, Kershner told Fort that turning the dock into a residence or "enclosing it" was not permitted. The only reasonable meaning to ascribe to a statement that a structure cannot be enclosed is that there must be some permanent, unobstructed way to pass in and out of the structure. A room surrounded by walls, with a door, is an enclosed structure. In November 2004, the first windows were installed in the boathouse. The windows were specially made to withstand severe weather. Respondents paid $120,000.00 for the windows. On January 7, 2005, the Department received the second as-built from Respondents. Hand-written on the form is “windows installed 1-6-05.” Another Department employee, Tracy Schilling, inspected the dock and boathouse in January 2005. Schilling said the inspection was in response to a complaint from a neighbor that the dock was "extremely large" and that it was blocking the neighbor's view. Schilling reviewed the permit drawings before her inspection. The construction was still incomplete. There was framing work underway on the first floor interior of the boathouse. Schilling said it was apparent from the framing that the boathouse would have "separate rooms." Schilling believed that the dock and boathouse were in compliance with the permit. On April 13, 2005, the Department received the third as-built from Respondents. On June 28, 2005, Schilling and another Department employee inspected the dock and boathouse again. Photographs taken during the inspection show windows were installed. Framing was completed in the upstairs portion of the structure, creating two rooms, and interior walls on the first floor were finished. The rooms were at least partially furnished with chairs, tables, and a lamp. During the June 2005 inspection, Schilling observed a fiberglass shower stall, still in its box, on the dock. Schilling believed that the installation of a shower stall would violate the prohibitions in the permit and lease against structures that were not water-dependent. The Department's notes for the June 2005 inspection indicate “Minor Out-of- compliance.” Schilling said she did not consider the windows to be out of compliance because window openings were shown on the permit drawings. On the first sheet of photographs taken during the June 2005 inspection (Respondents' Exhibit 3B), someone has written, "This is sliding over into non-water dependent category - Let's talk." However, the record does not include any explanation of this handwritten comment. Schilling sent a letter to Respondents on August 29, 2005, informing Respondents that an “item” was found to be non- compliant with Condition 26 of Respondents’ permit that prohibits structures whose use is not water-dependent and that such structures must be removed within 30 days. The letter did not identify the structure that was not water-dependent. On September 7, 2005, David Fort called Schilling about the August 28 letter. Schilling told Fort that the “item” referred to in the letter was the shower stall. She told Fort that plumbing and running water were not allowed. Fort told Schilling that he was not going to install the shower. In February or March, 2006, Schilling called David Fort to request permission for Schilling and some Department employees from the Division of State Lands in Tallahassee to inspect the dock and boathouse. Schilling said State Lands employees occasionally make site visits to inspect unusual docks and marinas "that may have issues." She suggested the inspection of Respondents' boathouse because it was the "Taj Mahal of docks." The inspection was conducted by Schilling and three other Department employees. Schilling had a copy of the lease with her. The exterior construction of the boathouse was complete and the interior work was substantially complete. Schilling believed the structure was built in compliance with the permit. Respondents did not submit an as-built to reflect the final construction of the dock and boathouse. The Department's enforcement action arose as a result of Savage's September 3, 2009, inspection of the dock and boathouse. It was during this inspection when Savage first became aware of the enclosed rooms of the boathouse. He observed a children's playroom with carpeting, lighting, an air conditioning unit, cable for television, and shelves. These structures and uses are not water-dependent. Savage observed another room in the boathouse that contained an air conditioner or dehumidifier, refrigerator, kitchen-style cabinetry, glass-paned windows, kitchen-style sink connected to a water supply, television, and a microwave oven. These structures and uses are not water-dependent. Savage observed another room with a water heater and a shower stall. The room also was being used to store cleaning materials and personal property. These structures and uses are not water-dependent. Savaged observed electrical wiring throughout the boathouse. The Department allows electrical wiring only for water-dependent uses, such as an electric boatlift or for emergency lighting. On the dock adjacent to the large mooring slip, Savage observed a sink connected to a water supply, a glass-paned window, and a door that enclosed a lower level room. Savage did not think the sink was "representative of a fish cleaning station." His objection to the sink was that it had more than one basin and did not have a sign identifying it as a fish cleaning station. Also on the dock in the area of the slips, Savage observed music speakers installed on the wall, doors enclosing rooms, and a closet which was being used to store fishing reels and gear. There is a pump stored next to the boat lift in the boat storage area that pumps water out of the Matanzas River into a tank for keeping live bait. Respondents admitted that they had installed structures at the dock and boathouse that were not authorized by the permit. These unauthorized structures are a stairway and ramp to the beach, a floating platform on pilings with a metal gangway, and an "overhang" (that portion of the upper level deck on the north side of the boathouse that extends 1.5 feet beyond the outer wall of the lower level). The Department incurred $1,874.00 in investigative costs for investigation and enforcement activities associated with Respondents' dock and boathouse. Respondents did not dispute these costs. They are reasonable costs. Detrimental Reliance Respondents claim that they relied on the Department's representations following the Department's inspections of the construction and would not have installed the doors, windows, or other features in the structure if the Department had told Respondents that these structures were not authorized by the permit. The permit drawings indicate a boathouse with areas that would be semi-enclosed. However, the permit and lease limit this boathouse to a structure for the mooring and protection for boats. The boathouse is not supposed to serve as a residence or a clubhouse. It was unreasonable for Respondents to believe that the permit authorized enclosed rooms and amenities typical of an upland residence with many features that are not water-dependent. Respondents presented no evidence to show that similar boathouses have been authorized by Department permit. David Fort's actions showed that he had a complete disregard for the warnings and instructions that he received from the Department. He was told that he could not "climatize" the boathouse. He was told that he could not enclose the boathouse. He was told that he could not install the shower stall. He was told that he could not install plumbing or running water. He was told that he could not use the dock and boathouse for activities that were not water-dependent. Yet he did all of these things anyway. He built certain structures, such as the floating dock and gangway, which he knew were not authorized by the permit. It is in this context of Fort's apparent intent to do whatever he wanted with the boathouse, no matter what the Department said, that Fort's claims of detrimental reliance must be considered. The more persuasive evidence does not show that Respondents relied to their detriment on any representation by a Department employee, except for the installation of fans. David Fort asked a direct question about whether he could install fans, before the fans were installed, and was told by the Department that he could install fans. All of the other structures that are the subject of this case were installed without a prior discussion with the Department or are contrary to instructions given by the Department. Respondents point out several times that certain structures were in place before a Department inspection, facts which Respondents believe support their arguments about the structures being in compliance with the permit, because the Department saw the structures but did not object to them. Although these facts are relevant to the determination of whether the structures were, in fact and in law, in compliance with the permit, they undermine Respondents' claim of reliance. Respondents' claim of reliance is not based on any affirmative acts of the Department, but on the Department's silence. The Department's silence caused Respondents to believe that the Department would not take enforcement action, but the evidence does not show that Respondents relied on the Department's silence to construct or install any of the disputed structures.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioners issue Final Orders that impose the administrative fines and order the corrective actions set forth in the Amended Notice of Violation and Orders for Corrective Action, dated June 1, 2010, with the modifications stated above. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of September, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of September, 2010.
The Issue The issue in this appeal is whether the decision of the City Planning and Zoning Board granting Clearwater Parasail, Inc., a conditional use permit to rent four personal water craft at its business at Clearwater Pass is sustained by the evidence.
Findings Of Fact The Appellant, Aqua Wave Rental, Inc., is a lessee operating a personal water craft rental business on the Holiday Inn Sunspree property in the City of Clearwater, Clearwater Beach, just west of and immediately adjacent to the new Clearwater Pass Bridge. Personal water craft, also known as jet skis and wave runners, are designed for use by a single operator or by an operator and one passenger; they are propelled by water jets. Although small, personal water craft are capable of achieving high speeds. Currently, they can go 50 to 60 miles per hour; new models are coming out that will be able to go 95 miles per hour. Operators of these craft prefer to operate at high speeds, and many operators jump the wakes of other boats or engage in other unsafe maneuvers. Eighty percent of the 156 citations and 74 warnings to operators of water craft in Pinellas County between April 1 and December 31, 1997, were given to operators of personal water craft. Although making up only 9.3% of all water craft registered in the State of Florida in 1997, personal water craft were involved in 36.1% of all reported water craft accidents. Of 754 injuries from water craft accidents reported in 1997, 367 involved personal water craft. The Applicant/Respondent, Clearwater Parasail, Inc., is a leaseholder on the real property located at 619 Gulfview Boulevard in the City of Clearwater, Clearwater Beach. The owner of the property is William M. Shephard, Trustee for Shephard Family Trust. The property is zoned CR28 and is improved with a motel called Shephard's Resort and associated uses. It is approximately 300 yards west of the Appellant's business. Clearwater Pass separates Clearwater Beach from Sand Key and connects the Intracoastal Waterway with the Gulf of Mexico. Besides Shephard's and the Holiday Inn Sunspree, there also is an Econo Lodge and two condominium complexes between Clearwater Parasail and Aqua Wave Rental along the south shore of the Pass. Generally, the area has mixed land use comprised of hotel/motel, recreational uses such as boat rental businesses, bars/nightclubs, and multifamily residential condominiums. On April 14, 1998, Clearwater Parasail filed an application for a conditional use permit to rent four personal water craft and one flats fishing boat at its business at Clearwater Pass. When Robert Pothoff, the owner/operator of Aqua Wave Rental, Inc., became aware of the application, he approached the City's Harbormaster, William Held, because it had been Pothoff's understanding from prior dealings with Held that no additional personal water craft rental operations would be allowed in Clearwater Pass due to boat congestion and safety considerations. On his own volition, the Harbormaster convened a meeting of the City of Clearwater Marine Advisory Board (the MAB) to consider the application. Although the Harbormaster's job description does not include advising planning staff or boards regarding land use issues, Held prepared a memorandum outlining the reasons he, as Harbormaster, was recommending denial. A copy of the minutes of the MAB meeting at which it voted to recommend denial was attached to the Harbormaster's memorandum. The Clearwater Parasail application was placed on the agenda of the Planning and Zoning Board's meeting scheduled for May 19, 1998. When the Harbormaster learned of the hearing date, he requested a continuance because neither he nor any of his staff could be available for the hearing. The Staff Report to the Board recommended a continuance in order that further information could be developed. Before the May 19, 1998, hearing, Pothoff asked the Harbormaster as to the status of the application. The Harbormaster informed Pothoff that he was requesting a continuance. Thinking that there would be a continuance, Pothoff decided not to attend the hearing on May 19, 1998. At the hearing on May 19, 1998, the Applicant opposed the requested continuance, and it was denied by the Board. During the Board hearing, the Applicant's attorney argued that safety considerations were not relevant to the Board's consideration of the application. The Assistant City Attorney advising the Board stated that, while safety was not a specific criterion for approval of a conditional use, it could be a relevant consideration under general criteria concerning the general welfare of the community. One Board member testified at the final hearing and confirmed that he considered boating congestion and safety issues. While the mental thought processes of each Board member cannot be ascertained from the record, the Harbormaster's memorandum, with MAB minutes attached, was in evidence before the Board, and it seems apparent that the Board considered boating congestion and safety issues. By a unanimous vote of 7-0, the Board approved the conditional use application, subject to the following conditions: Hours of jet ski operation are limited to 9:00 a.m. to dusk, seven days per week; the flats boat may be out after dusk and before 9:00 a.m.: Jet skiers will be required to honor the No Wake Zone and will idle through the No Wake Zone to access either the beach or the Gulf of Mexico; There will be one boat or one jet ski available to act as a chase boat, respond to emergencies, or offer assistance to troubled jet skiers; With regard to experience requirements, the business operator will comply with all current state laws that regulate this industry; Buoys shall be placed to identify the jet ski starting area and designate the route jet skis may travel between open water and the beach; and The operation is limited to four (4) jet skis and one (1) flats boat. The appeal from the Board's decision does not contest the approval of the flats fishing boat, but only appeals the approval as relates to the four personal water craft. Aside from the issue of boating congestion and safety in Clearwater Pass, the evidence clearly sustains the Board's decision that personal water craft rental is a compatible use in the surrounding area and that the proposed conditional use will not impose an excessive burden or have a substantial negative impact on surrounding or adjacent uses or on community facilities or services. A marked channel traverses Clearwater Pass, which has a strong current when the tide is flowing. Several years ago, the channel was moved towards the middle of the Pass, away from the south shore of the Pass, to relieve congestion along the south shore. There also is a "no-wake zone" in the channel. At Clearwater Parasail’s request, the Harbormaster expanded the "no wake zone" 350 yards to the west so that the "no-wake zone" now extends past Clearwater Parasail’s business. Boating congestion and safety concerns in the Pass are greatest on weekends in the area of Shephard's Resort. The complex includes Shephard's Backyard Tiki Bar and Nightclub, which extends up to the shore. Many Shephard's patrons and other boaters anchor in the Pass off the shore in front of Shephard's and wade in. The consumption of alcoholic beverages figures prominently in the activities that take place in and around Shephard's. Meanwhile, residents and patrons of other establishments along the Pass in the vicinity also use the Pass for boating, wading and swimming. The Applicant's business location is to the west of Shephard's Backyard Tiki Bar and Nightclub on the other side of a rock jetty. Under its plan of operation, the Applicant will use a chase boat to guide its renters into the Clearwater Pass through water marked with buoys for that purpose; once in the Pass, renters will be guided to the west into the Gulf. The chase boat will remain in the water to offer assistance and guidance as necessary. As planned, the Applicant's operation will not add significantly to the congestion directly in front of Shephard's. The City's Harbormaster believes that personal water craft are dangerous by nature and that Clearwater Pass is too congested with water crafts of all types on weekends (especially in front of Shephard's). As a result, from a boating safety standpoint, he would prefer no personal water craft rental businesses in or near Clearwater Pass at all, regardless of safety precautions, and he recommended denial of any conditional use permit for additional personal water craft rental businesses in the Pass. The Harbormaster did not direct his comments specifically to the Clearwater Parasail proposal. He did, however, state that Clearwater Parasail has not been a safety problem, and he had no reason to believe that the Applicant would not operate his personal water craft business in the same safe manner that he operates his parasail business. Pinellas County Deputy Sheriff David Littlejohn, who patrols the Clearwater Pass area for the County, testified to the nature of boating activity on Clearwater Pass and about the congestion of water craft in front of Shephard's on weekends. However, Deputy Littlejohn stated that he could not say whether the Applicant's four personal water craft would have an adverse impact on Clearwater Pass during the weekend. He conceded that most of the congestion was directly in front of Shephard's, not to the west on the other side of the rock jetty, where the Applicant will operate its personal water craft rental business. Florida Marine Patrol Officer Terry L. Noll had not been in Clearwater Pass for approximately the past three years. He also believes that personal water craft are dangerous. However, his primary concern is that the operators of personal water craft, whether owners or renters, are safe and well- trained. Robert Pothoff's testimony confirmed that Clearwater Parasail will operate its personal water craft rental business similar to the manner in which he operates Aqua Wave Rental. Like Clearwater Parasail, Aqua Wave Rental operates from a bar/hotel area (although it is not as busy as Shephard's.) For the safety of his renters and other boaters using the Pass, Pothoff prohibits his renters from operating in front of Shephard's. Since Aqua Wave Rental is located to the east of Shephard's, Pothoff tries to direct his renters to the east under the Clearwater Pass Bridge into the Intracoastal Waterway. Apparently not fully cognizant of the Applicant's plan of operation, it was Pothoff's incorrect assumption that the Applicant's renters would not be able to similarly avoid operating in front of Shephard's. The Applicant will have to comply with all state and local laws and regulations governing the rental and operation of personal water craft in Clearwater Pass. These now include prohibitions against wake jumping and operation by persons under the age of 14. While not currently the law, it is anticipated that renters of personal water craft soon will have to be trained in the safe operation of these craft and certified as competent before renting. Regardless of the state of the law, the Applicant plans to offer a boating safety course to its renters. The owner/operator of Clearwater Parasail, Cliff Conaster, is the holder of a 100-ton captain's license and is qualified to offer this instruction. It is found that the evidence before the Board and presented at final hearing sustains the Board's decision that personal water craft rental as proposed at this location is a compatible use in the area surrounding the proposed location and will not impose an excessive burden or have a substantial negative impact on surrounding or adjacent uses or on community facilities or services. It also is found that the evidence before the Board and presented at final hearing sustains the Board's decision that personal water craft rental as proposed at this location is consistent with the community welfare and will not detract from the public’s convenience at this location. In 1990, the Planning and Zoning Board denied a previous application for conditional use approval for a personal water craft rental business at the same location. The applicant in that case appealed, and the Final Order in Shepard et al. v. City of Clearwater, DOAH Case No. 90-2152, sustained the decision of the Board. There, however, the applicant had no experience in running a marine rental business. In addition, the applicant wanted to rent up to ten personal water craft, plus a catamaran sailboat. Also, the applicant failed to establish that safe ingress and egress would be accomplished or that the operation would be sufficiently staffed to ensure safe operations. Those factors sharply contrast with the facts of this case.
The Issue The issues in these cases are whether the Respondent, Roy Palmer, is entitled to a Noticed General Environmental Resource Permit, under Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-341, and a Consent of Use under Florida Administrative Code Chapter 18-21.
Findings Of Fact Procedural History On or about February 13, 1995, the Respondent, Roy Palmer (Palmer), applied for a wetland resource permit to construct a 395-foot boat dock for use at his single-family residence at property he owned on Sarasota Bay, an Outstanding Florida Water. As proposed, this dock was to originate from the northern part of Palmer's property and have a terminal platform with two boat moorings and two boat lifts. On September 1, 1995, the Department of Environmental Protection (the Department or DEP) gave notice of intent to issue a permit for a shorter (370-foot) dock originating from the southern part of the Palmer property. The Petitioners filed a petition for administrative hearing challenging the intended action. DEP referred the petition to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH), where it was assigned DOAH Case No. 95-5311. On or about December 11, 1995, Palmer applied for a noticed general environmental resource permit (ERP) permit for his dock under new DEP rules went into effect on October 3, 1995. This proposal was for the 370-foot dock originating from the southern part of the Palmer property. On or about January 10, 1996, DEP acknowledged receipt of the noticed general ERP (No. 582819483) and informed Palmer that it appeared to meet the requirements of the new rule. DEP also gave notice of intent to grant Palmer's application for consent of use of sovereign submerged lands necessary to construct the dock. (The record is not clear when the application for consent of use was filed.) The Petitioners filed a petition for administrative hearing challenging agency action regarding both the noticed general ERP and the consent of use. DEP also referred this petition to DOAH, where it was assigned DOAH Case No. 96-0736. Palmer withdrew the original permit application and moved to dismiss DOAH Case No. 95-5311. In July, 1996, Palmer applied for a noticed general ERP to build a still shorter (232-foot) dock originating from the southern part of the Palmer property (Permit No. 292583). Apparently, no notice of the application was published or required to be published. It is not clear whether the Petitioners "filed a written request for notification of any pending applications affecting the particular area in which the proposed activity is to occur." Palmer's second noticed general ERP (No. 292583) was amended on or about August 19, 1996, to eliminate one boat mooring and one boat lift. DEP took no action on Palmer's second application for a noticed general ERP No. 292583. On September 23, 1996, Palmer filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition for Administrative Proceeding in DOAH Case No. 96-0736 because he had withdrawn the previous application for a noticed general ERP for a 370-foot dock (No. 582819483) and was proceeding only on the second noticed general ERP (No. 292583) for the 232foot dock. Palmer's intent was to dismiss only the portion of his prior application regarding the noticed general permit, but not the consent of use. On October 28, 1996, the Petitioners filed a petition for administrative hearing challenging noticed general ERP No. 292583 for the 232-foot dock. This petition alleged that the Petitioners filed a written objection to noticed general ERP No. on September 16, 1996, which requested a written response, and that no response of any kind was received until the Petitioners inquired and were told that DEP did not intend to respond to either the noticed general ERP (No. 292583) or the Petitioners' objection. Proposed Dock at Issue The proposal at issue is for a 227-foot access pier and 20 foot by 5 foot terminal platform with only one boat mooring and one boat lift. The length, location, and design of Palmer's proposed dock was changed in an attempt to satisfy the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP or the Department) and Palmer's neighbors. Palmer's task in this regard was difficult in part because a longer dock with a terminus in deeper water could have less impact on seagrasses (the major environmental concern) but would have a greater impact on the neighbors' views of Sarasota Bay (the major infringement of riparian rights concern.) In the final version, Palmer tried to balance these conflicting concerns. As proposed, neither the terminal platform, boat lift, nor mooring location occurs over submerged grassbeds, coral communities or wetlands. Starting at the mean high water line, the first 75 feet of the access pier for the proposed dock will traverse essentially no sea grasses. In the next 75 feet to 150 feet of the access pier, there will be approximately 80% vegetative cover consisting primarily of the seagrass halodule wrightii. Between 150 feet and 200 feet, there will be approximately 20% vegetative cover consisting of the seagrasses halodule wrightii and thalassia testudinum. Between 200 feet and 232 feet, seagrasses consisted primarily of thalassia testudinum, except that the terminal platform is located in an area of essentially bare sand. Starting at 80 feet from the mean high water line, the access pier for the proposed dock will ramp up to 5 feet above mean high water for the next 20 linear feet and continue at that elevation for the next 112 feet to reduce shading of the seagrasses. Then it will descend stairs for the next 5 linear feet, until it is 3.5 feet above mean high water, and will continue at that elevation for 10 more feet to where it joins the 20 foot by 5 foot terminal platform. In this way, wherever it traverses seagrasses, the access walkway portion of the pier will be elevated 5 feet above mean high water. The access walkway will be only 4 feet wide and will have half-inch wide gaps between its deck boards to allow sunlight through and further reduce shading of the seagrasses. The access walkway also will have handrails that are maintained in such a manner as to prevent use of the access walkways for boat mooring or access. As proposed, the terminal platform and boat lift occurs in a location with minimum depth of 2.2 feet below the mean low water level. There is some water 1.7 feet deep in the vicinity of the terminal platform, but the structure can be used without traversing the shallow water. The structure is designed so that boat mooring and navigational access will be in water at least 2 feet deep. Including access pier and terminal platform, the total area of Palmer's proposed dock over sovereign, submerged land would be 1,008 square feet. There will be no wet bars or living quarters over wetlands or surface waters or on the pier, and there will be no structures enclosed by walls or doors. There will be no fish cleaning facilities, boat repair facilities or equipment, or fueling facilities on the proposed dock. No overboard discharges of trash, human, or animal waste, or fuel will occur from the dock. The only dredging or filling associated with construction of Palmer's proposed dock will be the minimum dredge and fill required for installation of the actual pilings for the pier, terminal platform, and boat lift. Altogether, less than 30 square feet of bay bottom will be disturbed during construction and displaced to accommodate the pilings. Palmer's noticed general ERP is subject to the general conditions set out in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 341.427. Among those conditions is the requirement that Palmer implement best management practices for erosion, turbidity, and other pollution control to prevent violation of state water quality standards. The pilings will be jetted, not driven, into place to minimize disturbance of the bay bottom and temporary increases in turbidity. Turbidity barriers will be installed and maintained in a functional condition at each piling until construction is completed and soils are stabilized and vegetation has been established. Used properly, turbidity barriers have proved effective in containing temporary turbidity from dock construction. Based on the expert testimony, it is found that the construction of Palmer's proposed dock will not significantly impact seagrasses. The Petitioners presented expert testimony on seagrasses, but their expert testified only generally based on studies showing that shading negatively impacts seagrasses. He had no prior knowledge of the Palmer dock design, seagrass coverage, or the depth of the water. When apprised of some information concerning Palmer's proposed dock, he admitted that the studies involved far more severe shading conditions than would be caused by the proposed dock. He could not testify that the Palmer dock design would harm seagrasses, with the exception of those actually removed by the installation of the pilings. Accidental boat propeller dredging in using a dock can be a secondary impact on seagrasses from dock construction. But while a dock could perhaps attract a few boats, the dock's presence also might cause boaters to steer clear of the dock or reduce speed in the vicinity of the dock, which could result in a net reduction in the risk of damage to seagrasses from accidental prop dredging. Petitioners Dr. Franklin Pfeiffenberger, James Castoro, and Winifred Castoro jointly own a dock to the south of the Palmer property. This dock, which was built in the 1930's, projects 190 feet into Sarasota Bay and traverses seagrasses. Unlike the proposed Palmer dock, the Pfeiffenberger dock is not elevated, and it terminates in seagrasses. The seagrasses under the Pfeiffenberger dock are the same types as those located in the Palmer dock alignment--a combination of halodule wrightii and thalassia testudinum. The dock has been rebuilt a number of times over the years. Upon physical inspection, apparently healthy and growing seagrasses were found underneath the Pfeiffenberger dock. The proposed dock will not harm wildlife, including manatees (the only endangered species in the area, animal or plant). Manatees use Sarasota Bay in general, but the east side of the bay, where the Palmer property is located, is not a high use area. It is shallow and would not be considered "select" habitat for manatees. The proposed dock would not have any detrimental effect on manatee travel patterns; they could easily swim around the dock. Manatees eat seagrasses and other aquatic vegetation, but the proposed dock will not have significant adverse impact on those resources. Finally, while a dock could perhaps attract a few boats, the dock's presence also might cause boaters to steer clear of the dock or reduce speed in the vicinity of the dock, which could result in a net reduction in the risk of injury to manatees in the area from boat collisions and prop scarring. Except for temporary turbidity during construction, no other water quality parameters will be violated as a result of the construction of Palmer's proposed dock. Palmer's proposed dock and its use will not significantly impede navigability in Sarasota Bay. The bay is approximately 18,000 feet wide at that point, and it is approximately 4,800 feet from Palmer's property to the Intracoastal Waterway. Since the water is shallow near shore in the vicinity of the Palmer property, relatively few boats frequent the area. Those that do are generally smaller boats. These boats easily could navigate so as to avoid the dock; very small boats, such as canoes and kayaks, might even be able to carefully pass under the elevated portion of the dock. Palmer's proposed dock also would not be a serious impediment to other recreational uses of Sarasota Bay in the area. The water is too shallow for swimming. Fishing could improve because the dock could attract baitfish. People could continue to wade-fish by walking around or even under the proposed dock. Palmer's proposed dock is aesthetically consistent with the area in which it is located. All the Petitioners have some sort of man-made structure projecting out into Sarasota Bay from their property. As already mentioned, Dr. Pfeiffenberger and the Castoros have a 190-foot dock projecting straight out into Sarasota Bay. Within the past five years, Dr. Pfeiffenberger has installed a bench to sit on at the end of the dock. To the north of the Palmer property, property owned by Mr. and Mrs. Cabaniss has a yacht basin formed by a sea wall that projects roughly perpendicular to the shoreline out into the bay. Immediately north of the Cabaniss property, there is a boat house on the Goldman property where it abuts the yacht basin. The Goldmans' boat house is approximately 20 feet in length and 10 feet in height from ground level. Immediately south of the Palmer property, Ms. Stenhouse has a small dock (which appears to be located over seagrasses.) As a result, the viewsheds of Palmer and the Petitioners already contain many docks and man- made structures. In addition, the Ringling Causeway and bridge can be seen from all of these properties. Palmer's proposed dock will appear in some views from the Petitioners' properties. Generally, the closer the neighbor, the more will be seen of Palmer's proposed dock. Some of the Petitioners will only be able to see the proposed dock if they go out to the westerly edge of their properties on the bay. While the proposed dock will appear in and alter these views, it will not eliminate any Petitioner's view of Sarasota Bay. Even the closest neighbors will have some unobstructed views around the proposed dock. It also will be possible to see over and under the proposed dock, similar to the way in which many of the Petitioners now enjoy their views. There are tall pine and palm trees on the Cabaniss property between their house and their view of the bay. Most of the other properties in the vicinity appear to have similar viewsheds. Ms. Stenhouse has a large stand of mangroves of the western edge of her property; they cover approximately 60 percent of the panorama from her house, but they are trimmed up so she can see through them. While some people would prefer not to have the Palmer dock there, other people might view the availability of single- family residential docks to be an asset to the properties in the neighborhood. Based on expert testimony, it cannot be found that property values in the area would go down as a result of Palmer's proposed dock. Palmer's proposed dock does little if anything to further the idealistic goals and objectives of the City of Sarasota Comprehensive Plan and the Sarasota Bay Management Plan to restore and expand seagrasses in Sarasota Bay in that the proposed dock will eliminate some seagrasses. However, only approximately 30 square feet of seagrasses will be lost. Otherwise, the proposed dock is consistent with other goals and objectives of the City of Sarasota Comprehensive Plan and the Sarasota Bay Management Plan in that the dock has been aligned and planned so as to minimize impacts on seagrasses while balancing the neighbors' desire to minimize the impact on their views of Sarasota Bay. Palmer's Riparian Rights Palmer and his wife received a Warranty Deed, dated August 27, 1993, from James Kirk, II, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Marie Ferguson. The deed describes Lots 27 and 28 of the Indian Beach subdivision in Sarasota, Florida, with a western boundary "along the shores of Sarasota Bay." Palmer attached this deed to his applications. Since at least November 1992, the mean high water line of Sarasota Bay has been west of a seawall on the Palmer property. The evidence was clear that the seawall has been there since at least 1944 and that Palmer has not filled the area to the west of the seawall or built any structure that influences its existence. The evidence was not clear as to the creation and history of upland to the west of the seawall. From aerial photographs, it appears that at least some upland has existed to the west of the seawall at least from time to time for at least the last 30 years. For reasons no witness could explain, the Palmers also received a Warranty Deed from Kirk, dated September 3, 1993, purporting to convey title only up to the seawall on the Palmer property. Likewise for reasons no witness could explain, a land surveyor named Lawrence R. Weber prepared a boundary survey based on the description in the September 3, 1993, Warranty Deed. Also for reasons no witness could explain, the Palmers received a Quit Claim Deed from Kirk, dated October 20, 1993. This instrument quitclaimed to the Palmers "all of the Grantor's property to the mean high water line of Sarasota Bay, including riparian rights." Except for the mysterious September 3, 1993, Warranty Deed from Kirk, all deeds in the chain of title back to at least 1944 reflect an intention to convey riparian rights. A deed given by Helen and Frederick Delaute to Cecilia and Harold Wilkins, dated April 19, 1944, described the westerly boundary of the property as running northerly along the shores of Sarasota Bay and specifically referenced riparian rights. (This deed attached a survey showing the still-existing seawall.) The next deed in the chain of title was from the widowed Cecilia S. Wilkins to Edward and Laura Williams dated December 27, 1954. The metes and bounds description again referenced the westerly boundary as running along the shores of Sarasota Bay and specifically referenced foreshore accretions and riparian rights. The next deed in the chain of title was from Edward and Laura Williams to Aidan and Wilma E. Dewey dated June 30, 1958. This deed again defined the westerly boundaries of the property as the shores of Sarasota Bay and specifically referenced foreshore accretions and riparian rights. The next deed in the chain of title was from Aidan and Wilma Dewey to Edward and Marie Ferguson dated August 23, 1967. This deed again defined the westerly boundary of the property as the shores of Sarasota Bay and specifically referenced foreshore accretions and riparian rights.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order issuing Noticed General Environmental Resource Permit (No. 292583) and Consent of Use (No. 582819483) to Roy Palmer. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of September, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Filson, Esquire Filson and Penge, P.A. 2727 South Tamiami Trail, Suite 2 Sarasota, Florida 34239 Thomas I. Mayton, Esquire T. Andrew Zodrow, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 David M. Levin, Esquire Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen & Ginsburg Post Office Box 4195 Sarasota, Florida 34237 Alexandra St. Paul, Esquire The Riverview Center 1111 3rd Avenue, West Suite 350 Bradenton, Florida 34205 Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Office of General Counsel 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 F. Perry Odom, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Office of General Counsel 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact On or about July 9, 1987 an application for conditional use approval to allow off-premises sale of beer and wine (2APS) was filed on behalf of Petitioner for property located at 2030 Gulf to Bay Boulevard in Clearwater, Florida. The property is zoned general commercial (CG). A public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Board was held on August 4, 1987. At that hearing, the Petitioner's representative was not allowed to give rebuttal testimony, although the Board's by-laws do allow the applicant to rebut testimony in opposition to the application, and rebuttal is, in fact, usually allowed. The Petitioner's representative did not specifically request an opportunity to rebut the opponent's testimony, but assumed he would be given an opportunity to speak before the Board voted. The Planning and Zoning Board voted 3-2 to deny conditional use approval for this application. A timely appeal was taken by Petitioner on August 18, 1987. With this application, Petitioner seeks approval to sell beer and wine at a 7-11 convenience store. By subsequent application and approval of the Planning and Zoning Board on September 1, 1987 Petitioner has been granted a conditional use for 1APS, package sale of beer only. However, this 1APS application and approval is not at issue in this case. The parties stipulated that the property in question is within five hundred feet of a church and several residences.
The Issue Whether petitioners have timely availed themselves of a clear point of entry into administrative proceedings on Mr. and Mrs. Rankin's application for a permit to build a dock and, if so, whether the permit application should be granted?
Findings Of Fact On April 12, 1982, Frederick W. Rankin applied for a dredge and fill permit to construct a dock six feet wide and 300 feet long in the waters of Bayou Chico in Escambia County, Florida. Paralleling the dock on either side of the outboard end, two rows of mooring pilings 19.5 feet distance from the dock were proposed in the application. On April 20, 1983, Mark N. Snowdon, an employee of the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) inspected the site, and, in an official DER permit application appraisal dated April 23, 1982, reported: Two large support vessels (crew boats) are moored at a small pier immediately east of the site. A commercial marina facility i[s] located directly across the bayou (north) from the project site. Bayou Chico is approximately 0.25 mile wide at this point. DER Exhibit No. 4. Between the crew boats' dock (Gulfwater Marine) and the site proposed for the Rankins' dock is the mouth of a small embayment (the bayouette). The Holzbauers own a house and lot, separated from the Rankins' lot by a parcel less than 75 feet wide, that fronts on the bayouette. PERMIT ISSUES DER issued a permit on June 9, 1982, and work began on the Rankins' dock on June 12, 1982. On the same day, Mr. Holzbauer inquired of the men putting in pilings whether DER had issued a permit for the work, then telephoned DER and asked DER's Mr. Fancher the same question. Mr. Fancher told Mr. Holzbauer that a permit had been issued, which was the first Mr. Holzbauer was told of issuance of the permit. As far as the evidence revealed, no notice of intent to issue preceded issuance of the permit. On June 26, 1982, the Holzbauers received a letter from W. Richard Fancher on behalf of DER, dated June 24, 1982, in which he stated: It is my understanding that, until recently, you had no knowledge of this private dock project. If this is correct, you may consider this formal notice of the activity. Should you object to this permit, including any and all of the conditions contained therein, you may file an appropriate petition for administrative hearing. This petition must be filed within 14 days of the receipt of this letter. Further, the petition must conform to the requirements of Part III, Chapter 17-1 and Section 28-5.201, Florida Administrative Code (copies enclosed). The petition must be filed with the Office of General Counsel, Department of Environmental Regulation, Twin Towers Office Building, 2600 Blair Stone Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32301. If no petition is filed within the prescribed time, you will be deemed to have waived your right to request an administrative hearing on this matter. DER Exhibit No. 1. A copy of Mr. Fancher's letter to the Holzbauers was also sent to Mr. Rankin. On July 8, 1982, a letter from the Holzbauers to Ms. Tschinkel reached DER's Office of the Secretary, protesting issuance of the permit and alleging that the dock did not conform to permit conditions. 1/ This letter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings, whose Director entered an order, sua sponte, on July 28, 1982, that "[t]his matter is dismissed without prejudice." No. 82-1947. An amended petition dated August 4, 1982, reached DER's Office of the Secretary on August 9, 1982, and the Division of Administrative Hearings on August 20, 1982. No. 82-2314. NO PERMIT RELIANCE The dock has been continued to completion, at a cost of $11,000.00. As built, the dock veers out from shore at a more easterly angle than the permit purported to allow. Whereas the permit contemplated construction at an angle several degrees west of north, the dock has in fact been built at an angle about 15 degrees east of north. One result is that the end is some 90 feet east of the point contemplated by the permit. Although a DER employee testified that this deviation was "within reason," it is clearly a significant departure from what the permit putatively allowed. The Rankins only own 86 feet of bayou frontage. The mouth of the bayouette is no more than 110 feet across. The mooring pilings, moreover, have been set in two rows parallel to the dock not 19.5 feet on either side, but 40 feet from the west side of the dock and 30 feet from the east side. If any of the landowners on the bayouette (with one exception) tried to build a pier perpendicular to their shore line extending even half the length of the Rankins' dock, it would intersect the Rankins' dock. NAVIGATION While the dock does not seal off the bayouette, it makes access considerably more difficult, especially for Mr. Holzbauer who sails in and out in his 14 foot boat. The dock juts out from the point at the western edge of the entrance into the bayouette at such an angle that it comes within 70 feet of the eastern edge of the entrance into the bayouette. Petitioner's Exhibit No. The crew boats moored to the east of the Rankins' dock have overall lengths ranging from 65 to 85 feet and there were three of them moored at Gulfwater Marine last summer. When the crew boats are docked, the distance between the westernmost one and the most inboard mooring piling next to the Rankins' dock is 81.5 to 103 feet. Where traffic from Bayou Chico to Pensacola Bay passes under a bridge, the channel is only 80 feet wide and the crew boats sometimes hit the bridge. The greatest problem the Rankins' dock has caused the crew boats is making docking more difficult. It is not always easy to turn an 85 foot boat around in the wind. The root of the problem, according to Mr. Kingry, who owns the crew boats, is that a patch of slightly deeper water in this generally shoaled area has been cut or blocked by the Rankins' dock. Sooner or later, Mr. Kingry predicted, a crew boat will "wipe out" the Rankins' mooring pilings.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Regulation deny the application for a dredge and fill permit for a dock located and aligned as this dock is. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 27th day of April, 1983.
