The Issue The issue in this case is whether the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board denying Petitioner's application for conditional use approval should be sustained.
Findings Of Fact On or about February 16, 1990, the Petitioner filed an application for conditional use approval with the Respondent seeking permission to operate a personal watercraft rental business at a motel and restaurant located at 601 South Gulf View Boulevard on Clearwater Beach. According to the application, the Petitioner proposes to rent two "Hobie cat" catamaran sailboats, and four to ten "wave runners". The Petitioner proposes that the vessels would be escorted westward, north of and parallel to, the marked boat channel in Clearwater Pass, then northwestward to open waters where, according to Petitioner, a "safewatch and service unit of nonpropeller power" would "monitor" customer activities. The subject property is located between South Gulf View Boulevard and Clearwater Pass, west of the Clearwater Pass Bridge, and is comprised of two zoning districts, an upland portion that is zoned CR-28, or Resort Commercial "Twenty-eight", and a beach front portion that is zoned OS/R, or Open Space/Recreation. Clearwater Pass separates Clearwater Beach and Sand Key Islands, and is the only open access between Clearwater Harbor and the Gulf of Mexico. A convenience store is located north of the property, and hotels are located east and west of the property. At the hearing before the Respondent's Planning and Zoning Board on March 13, 1990, the Planning and Development Department recommended denial of the application. In its written report to the Board, the planning staff based its recommendation upon the recommendations of the City's Harbormaster and Marine Advisory Board, which in turn were based upon concerns for safety due to the heavy boat traffic in the Clearwater Pass channel and at jetties along the southern end of Clearwater Beach and the northern end of Sand Key, all of which are located in the vicinity of the subject property. Based upon the testimony of Harbormaster Bill Held, it is found that state and federal approval of markers to mark off a private corridor in Clearwater Pass to accommodate Petitioner's proposed activities would be unlikely. During the hearing before the Board, the Board heard testimony from several persons in opposition to this application based upon concerns regarding the safety of swimmers due to careless operation of similar types of vessels, and strong currents in Clearwater Pass. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Board discussed the application prior to voting. Members of the Board expressed concerns regarding public safety due to the dangerous condition of the area. The Board then voted unanimously to deny the application. Subsequently, the Petitioner timely filed a notice of appeal, resulting in this case. During this final hearing, Ronald Hollins, President of Gulf Fun, Inc., and agent for the Petitioner, testified that his proposed business would operate seven days a week, from sunrise to sunset, or approximately twelve hours daily. Petitioner testified that his personal watercraft rental vessels would be escorted during trips both from the subject property westward to the waters of the Gulf of Mexico and also during return trips, and that a "safety service" boat would monitor the rental vessels while in operation, with the escort boat and the "safety service" boat being in radio contact with a base unit at the motel property. The rental vessels would be prohibited from crossing Clearwater Pass to the south side of the boat channel, and would be limited to an area of operation bounded on the south by Clearwater Pass and on the north by Pier 60 on Clearwater Beach. Petitioner proposes to employ only three or possibly four employees to operate the escort boat, the "safety service" boat, and the base location, to rent the personal watercraft vessels, show a video tape and give a safety booklet to customers, as well as to otherwise supervise the rental vessels during the approximately 84 hours per week that his business would be in operation. Petitoner has never operated a similar business. Based upon the testimony of Richard Howard, captain of a charter boat which regularly goes in and out of Clearwater Pass, it is found that personal watercraft vessels frequently present a hazard to navigation due to the manner in which they are customarily operated. Specifically, personal watercraft operators in Clearwater Pass engage in practices such as towing swimmers on inner tubes, purposely spraying water at boats, and jumping the wakes of boats in the Pass. The activities proposed by Petitioner would exacerbate the insufficient clearance between boats in the channel, boats anchored at the beach, and swimmers, and would, therefore, be inappropriate in Clearwater Pass. The currents in Clearwater Pass are found to be dangerous to boaters on a regular basis, based on the testimony of Arnold Abramson, bridge tender at the Clearwater Pass bridge and Harbormaster Bill Held. A significant number of personal watercraft operators do not demonstrate an understanding of the rules of navigation, or of the currents in the Pass. Based on the testimony of Marine Patrol Office Bill Farias, it is found that the lack of apparent common sense which is frequently demonstrated by personal watercraft operators in Clearwater Pass creates a dangerous condition for others. A common practice is to jump the wake of boats, which results in a loss of control in mid-air. The jetty at the western end of Clearwater Pass obscures vision, making it difficult for incoming boaters to see personal watercraft in the vicinity of the motel, and also making it difficult for personal watercraft operators to see incoming boats. There is another boat rental operation in the area of this subject property, located at the Hilton Hotel, but this existing operation predates the adoption of the Clearwater Land Development Code. The Clearwater Pass bridge had 12,000 drawbridge openings in the past year, and is one of the busiest in Florida.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at the evidentiary hearing on the Department's Motion, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: In October of 1995, Petitioners, who desired to construct a single-family, concrete dock in the Hillsboro Canal (in Broward County, Florida) for their 171-foot yacht and to perform dredging adjacent to the dock (Project), filed with the Department a Joint Application for Environmental Resource Permit/Authorization to Use State Owned Submerged Lands/Federal Dredge and Fill Permit (Application). In the Application, Petitioners indicated that their mailing address was: c/o Flynn Enterprises 676 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 4000 Chicago, IL 60611 Flynn Enterprises, Inc., is a business owned by Petitioner Donald Flynn. The Application listed "Jeff Adair, Project Manager" of "Keith and Schnars, P.A., 6500 N. Andrews Avenue, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309," as the "agent authorized to secure permit" for Petitioners. The application form that Petitioners used to submit their Application contained the following signature page: By signing this application form, I am applying, or I am applying on behalf of the applicant, for the permit and any proprietary authorizations identified above, according to the supporting data and other incidental information filed with this application. I am familiar with the information contained in this application and represent that such information is true, complete and accurate. I understand this is an application and not a permit, and that work prior to approval is a violation. I understand that this application and any permit issued or proprietary authorization issued pursuant thereto, does not relieve me of any obligation for obtaining any other required federal, state, water management district or local permit prior to commencement of construction. I agree, or I agree on behalf of my corporation, to operate and maintain the permitted system unless the permitting agency authorizes transfer of the permit to a responsible operation entity. I understand that knowingly making any false statement or representation in this application is a violation of Section 373.430, F.S. and 18 U.S.C. Section 1001. Typed/Printed Name of Applicant (if no Agent is used) or Agent (if one is so authorized below) Signature of Applicant/Agent Date (Corporate Title if applicable) AN AGENT MAY SIGN ABOVE ONLY IF THE APPLICANT COMPLETES THE FOLLOWING: I hereby designate and authorize the agent listed above to act on my behalf, or on behalf of my corporation, as the agent in the processing of this application for the permit and/or proprietary authorization indicated above; and to furnish, on request, supple- mental information in support of the appli- cation. In addition, I authorize the above- listed agent to bind me, or my corporation, to perform any requirement which may be necessary to procure the permit or authorization indicated above. I understand that knowingly making any false statement or representation in this application is a violation of Section 373.430. F.S. and 18 U.S.C. Section 1001. Typed/Printed Name of Applicant Signature of Applicant Date (Corporate Title if applicable) Please note: The applicant's original signature (not a copy) is required above. PERSON AUTHORIZING ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY MUST COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING: I either own the property described in this application or I have legal authority to allow access to the property, and I consent, after receiving prior notification, to any site visit on the property by agents or personnel from the Department of Environ- mental Protection, the Water Management District and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers necessary for the review and inspection of the proposed project specified in this application. I authorize these agents or personnel to enter the property as many times as may be necessary to make such review and inspection. Further , I agree to provide entry to the project site for such agents or personnel to monitor permitted work if a permit is granted. Typed/Printed Name Signature Date (Corporate Title if applicable) The name "Jeff Adair" appears on the "Name of Applicant (if no Agent is used) or Agent (if one is so authorized below)" line under the first paragraph on the signature page of Petitioners' Application; however, neither Adair's signature, nor any other signature, appears on the signature line under this paragraph. Petitioner Donald Flynn's signature appears on the signature lines under the second (agent designation and authorization) and third (access to property) paragraphs on the page. By letter dated November 17, 1995, the Department informed Petitioners of the following: Preliminary evaluation of your project leads staff to the conclusion that the project as proposed cannot be recommended for approval. While this is not final agency action or notice of intent, it does represent the staff review of your application based on consider- able experience in permitting matters. We are sending you this letter at this stage of the processing to allow you to assess fully the further commitment of financial resources for design dependent on permit issuance. . . . In summary, please revise plans to: (1) reduce the amount of dredging; (2) reduce impacts to natural resources; (3) reduce the size of the dock; (4) reduce encroachment on navigational channel; (5) reduce encroachment on adjacent properties; and (6) after minimization, offer mitigation plans that would address the loss of seagrass in the vicinity (watershed or basin) of the project site. Your application is currently "incomplete" and Final Agency Action will not occur until a reasonable amount of time is allowed for the submittal of a revised plan. A completeness summary has been sent under separate cover, addressing the items that are still outstanding. Staff will continue to process your application in the normal manner; however, I suggest you contact Tim Rach of this office . . . to discuss these possible alternatives regarding your project. The Department's November 17, 1995, letter was addressed to Petitioners "c/o Jeff Adair, Project Manager, Keith and Schnars, P.A., 6500 North Andrews Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309-2132," as were subsequent requests for additional information made by the Department and other correspondence from the Department concerning the Project. Adair responded to the Department's requests for additional information and otherwise corresponded and communicated with the Department on behalf of Petitioners. In July of 1996, Adair participated in a telephone conference call during which the Department advised him that, if the Application was not withdrawn, it would be denied. On August 13, 1996, Adair sent the following letter to the Department concerning the Project: Pursuant to our recent discussions pertaining to the proposed mitigation plan and final review and processing of the Flynn Dock application, we have been advised via Mr. Flynn's attorney not to withdraw the application. Therefore, we await the Department's final decision relative to the permittability of this project. As you have indicated, we are anticipating the Depart- ment's response toward the end of this month. In making your decision, we strongly urge you to consider the merits or our innovative and "no risk" mitigation plan. We believe our mitigation plan more than compensates for proposed impacts and provides substantial net benefits to the environment and the research community. In particular, information obtained from our proposed research effort would not only benefit our project, but would also facilitate scientific analysis and review of similar applications and issues. As always, please do not hesitate to call should you have any questions or concerns. On August 19, 1996, the Department sent the following letter to Petitioners "c/o Flynn Enterprises, 676 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 4000, Chicago, IL 60611," the address that Petitioners had indicated in the Application was their mailing address: We have reviewed the information received on May 31, 1996 for an Environmental Resource Permit and authorization to use sovereign submerged lands. The Department has deemed the application complete as of this date. Final action on your application for an Environmental Resource Permit and sovereign[] submerged lands authorization will be taken within 90 days of receipt of your last item of information unless you choose to waive this timeclock. If you have any questions, please contact me at . . . . A copy of this August 19, 1996, letter was sent by the Department to Adair. On August 27, 1996, the Department issued a Consolidated Notice of Denial (Notice) in which it announced its preliminary decision to deny Petitioners' Application. The Notice contained the following advisement: A person whose substantial interests are affected by the Department's action may petition for an administrative proceeding (Hearing) in accordance with Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. Petitions filed by the permittee and the parties listed below must be filed within 14 days of receipt of this letter. Third party Petitioners shall mail a copy of the petition to the permittee at the address indicated above at the time of filing. Failure to file a petition within this time period shall constitute a waiver of any right such person may have to request an administrative determination (hearing) under Section 120.57, F.S. The Petition must contain the information set forth below and must be filed (received) in the Office of General Counsel of the Department at 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000: The name, address, and telephone number of each petitioner, the permittee's name and address, the Department Permit File Number and county in which the project is proposed; A statement of how and when each petitioner received notice of the Depart- ment's action or proposed action; A statement of how each petitioner's substantial interests are affected by the Department's action or proposed action; A statement of the material facts disputed by petitioner, if any; A statement of facts which petitioner contends warrant reversal or modification of the Department's action or proposed action; A statement of which rules or statutes petitioner contends warrant reversal or modification of the Department's action or proposed action; and A statement of the relief sought by petitioner, stating precisely the action petitioner wants the Department to take with respect to the Department's action or proposed action. If a petition is filed, the administrative hearing process will constitute a renewed determination of the Department's decision on the application. Accordingly, the Department's final action may be different from the position taken by it in this letter. Persons whose substantial interests will be affected by any decision of the Department with regard to the permit have the right to petition to become a party to the proceeding. The petition must conform to the requirements specified above and be filed (received) within 14 days of receipt of this notice in the Office of General Counsel at the above address of the Department. Failure to petition within the allowed time frame constitutes a waiver of any right such person has to request a hearing under Section 120.57, F.S., and to participate as a party to this proceeding. Any subsequent intervention will only be at the approval of the presiding officer upon motion filed pursuant to Rule 28-5.207, and 60Q-2.010, F.A.C. This Notice constitutes final agency action unless a petition is filed in accordance with the above paragraphs or unless a request for extension of time in which to file a petition is filed within the time specified for filing a petition and conforms to Rule 62-103.070, F.A.C. Upon timely filing of a petition or a request for an extension of time this Notice will not be effective until further Order of the Department. . . . The Notice was mailed (by certified mail, return receipt requested) to Petitioners "c/o Flynn Enterprises, 676 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 4000, Chicago, IL 60611." Although the Notice's certificate of service reflected that a copy of the Notice had been mailed to Adair "before the close of business on AUG 27 1996," in fact, as a result of inadvertence on the part of Department staff, a copy of the Notice had not been mailed to Adair. On September 3, 1996, the Notice sent to Petitioners was received by a Flynn Enterprises, Inc., employee at the address to which it was mailed. The employee executed a return receipt upon receiving the Notice. The Notice was referred to Victor Casini, Esquire, the general counsel of Flynn Enterprises, Inc., on September 4, 1996. Casini set the document aside for filing. He did not believe that there was any immediate action that he or anyone else in the Flynn Enterprises, Inc., office in Chicago needed to take in response to the Notice. Casini noted that Adair's name was listed in the Notice as among those who purportedly had been furnished copies of the Notice. He knew that Adair was handling all matters relating to the permitting of the Project for Petitioners. He therefore assumed that any action that needed to be taken in response to the Notice would be taken by Adair on behalf of Petitioners. Inasmuch as it appeared (from his review of the Notice) that the Department had already furnished Adair with a copy of the Notice, he saw no reason to contact Adair to apprise him of the issuance of the Notice. In taking no action in response to the Notice other than setting it aside for filing, Casini acted reasonably under the circumstances. Adair first learned of the issuance of the Notice during a telephone conversation he had on September 9, 1996, with an employee of Broward County, who mentioned to him, in passing, that the Department had denied Petitioners' Application. 2/ Adair thereupon immediately telephoned the Department to confirm that the Application had been denied. The Department representative to whom he spoke confirmed that the Notice had issued, apologized for the Department's failure to have sent him a copy of the Notice, and promised to rectify the error by sending him a copy of the Notice as soon as possible. Keith Skibicki, the vice president of Flynn Enterprises, Inc., in charge of its day-to-day operations, served as the liaison between Adair and Petitioners. On September 12, 1996, Adair telephoned Skibicki to inquire (for the first time) if Petitioners had received a copy of the Notice. Skibicki, who previously had neither seen nor heard about the Notice, asked around the office and learned that the Notice had been received and was in Casini's files. Skibicki related this information to Adair. Later that same day, September 12, 1996, Adair received the copy of the Notice that the Department had sent him. He then faxed a copy of the Notice to Harry Stewart, Esquire, the Florida attorney who had been retained by Petitioners to assist them in their efforts to obtain favorable action on their Application. Shortly thereafter Adair telephoned Stewart to discuss what they should do in response to the Notice. During their conversation, Stewart expressed the opinion that the 14-day period for filing a petition for an administrative proceeding began to run only upon Adair's receipt of the Notice and that therefore Petitioners had until September 26, 1996, to file their petition. During the two-week period that followed their telephone conversation, Adair and Stewart worked together to prepare such a petition. The petition was filed with the Department on September 26, 1996 (which was 23 days after the Notice had been delivered to the Chicago office of Flynn Enterprises, Inc., but only 14 days after Adair, Petitioners' designated agent in their dealings with the Department, had received a copy of the Notice). The actions taken on behalf of Petitioners in response to the Notice were intended to preserve Petitioners' right to challenge the proposed denial of their Application. At no time was there any knowing and intentional relinquishment of that right.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter an order finding that Petitioners' petition challenging the proposed denial of their Application is not time-barred and remanding the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings for a Section 120.57(1) hearing on the merits of Petitioners' challenge. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 6th day of February, 1997. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of February, 1997.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations and admissions of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the testimony of the witnesses at hearing, I make the following findings of fact. Facts admitted by all parties The water quality standards contained in Rule 17-3.111, Florida Administrative Code will not be violated by this project. There are no aquatic macrophytes located in the area of the proposed project. The proposed project is located within 500 feet of the incorporated municipality of Horseshoe Beach, Florida. The proposed project is located within Class II waters of the State not approved for shellfish harvesting. The project will not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats. The proposed project will be of a permanent nature. The project will not adversely affect or will not enhance significant historical or acheological resources under the provisions of Section 267.061, Florida Statutes. The rest of the findings The Applicant, Dixie County, applied for a dredge and fill permit to construct a dock which would expand the existing public dock at Horseshoe Beach. In accordance with the revised plans dated October 23, 1986, the proposed facility would consist of a pier 6 feet wide and 120 feet long designed to accommodate six boat slips, each 30 feet wide and 40 feet long. The boundaries of the boat slips will be demarcated by pilings set 10 feet apart. Four of the boat slips would be primarily for the use of commercial fishing boats and commercial shrimping boats. The other two boat slips (the two slips closest to the land) would be reserved for the exclusive use of recreational and other small vessels. By adding a catwalk 3 or 4 feet wide down the middle of the two slips reserved for recreational vessels, the usefulness of those slips to recreational vessels would be greatly enhanced and the narrowness of the resulting slips would preclude their use by large vessels. Adding the two catwalks would be a minor addition to the proposed project which would greatly enhance the usefulness of the project and at the same time avoid the possibility that large vessels in the two slips closest to the land would impede ingress and egress at the nearby boat lift, boat fueling facility, and boat ramp. Adding a reasonable number of permanent trash or garbage containers would also enhance the usefulness of the proposed project and minimize the possibility of improper disposal of trash and garbage which is generated by the normal use of a dock by fishermen and boaters. The proposed project site is located in the Gulf of Mexico at Horseshoe Beach, Florida, and would extend into the waters of the Gulf, which is a tidally influenced water body adjacent to Dixie County, Florida. The water along the shoreline of the area is shallow for a considerable distance waterward, except where basins and channels have been dredged. The Horseshoe Beach area is relatively unpolluted. The existing public dock at Horseshoe Beach is used primarily by recreational vessels, but there is also extensive commercial fishing and Shrimping boat activity in the area. The project is located at the mouth of a canal with direct access to the Gulf. Several commercial fishhouses operate from the canal bank, which generates extensive commercial boat traffic past the proposed project site. Large numbers of commercial shrimp boats presently dock along the canal that ends near the proposed project site. The proposed project requires no dredging. The only filling required by the proposed project is the placement of pilings into the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico. Even though the plans do not specify whether concrete or wooden pilings will be used, this lack of specificity in the plans is irrelevant. Regardless of what types of pilings are used on this project, the filling activity will not violate the water quality criteria contained in Rule 17- 3.051(1), Florida Administrative Code. The placement of the pilings will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare. Further, the proposed project will not adversely affect any property interests of the Petitioners within the scope of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. The Gulf bottom in the area of the proposed project has already been disturbed. The presently existing suspension of particulate material in the water column, a natural occurrence in the area of the project, results in low visibility which means that seagrass beds and other marine vegetation, which provide shelter and detrital deposits for fish and other marine resources, will not grow. Coast Guard regulations prohibit commercial fishing vessels from depositing materials into the water within three miles of the coast line. Commercial fishing vessels must prominently display a sticker reciting that regulation and it is the practice of commercial fishing vessels operating in the vicinity of Horseshoe Beach to comply with this Coast Guard no discharge requirement by cleaning nets and scrubbing decks outside the three mile limit. It is not the practice of Commercial fishing vessels to deliberately discharge diesel fuel, fish parts or other material into the water while docked. Further, the limited number of commercial fishing vessels which could dock at the proposed facility at the same time cannot reasonably be expected to create discharges in amounts creating a nuisance, posing any danger to the public health safety or welfare, or violating the water quality criteria contained in Rule 17-3.051(1), Florida Statutes. Although small amounts of diesel fuel can become mixed with bilge water and be discharged by automatic bilge pumps while commercial fishing vessels are docked, there is no evidence that this would be in amounts Sufficient to create a nuisance or violate water quality criteria. To the contrary, notwithstanding a large amount of commercial boat traffic past the proposed site and notwithstanding the fact that large numbers of shrimp boats dock up the canal from the proposed site, the water in the area of the proposed site has remained relatively unpolluted. The proposed project will not affect the normal wind and wave action in the area of the proposed project. Such wind and wave action presently results in free exchange between the waters of the open Gulf and the waters near the shore. This free exchange of waters means that any pollutant discharges in the area of the proposed project will be diluted and rapidly dispersed into the Gulf of Mexico. There will be no measurable difference in the wind and wave action, or in the water exchange, after the proposed project is built. No harmful shoaling or erosion is expected to result from construction of the proposed project. Any docking structure extending out into the Gulf of Mexico will obviously have some effect on navigation in the area of the dock, but there is no evidence that the proposed dock will present a hazard to navigation or any significant interference with customary navigation patterns. The distance between the nearest channel marker and the waterward end of the proposed project is more than 200 feet. The angle of the proposed dock and its Spatial relation to the main Horseshoe Beach turning basin cause no impediment to navigation. The placement of Coast Guard Safety lights on the dock would minimize any potential for impeding navigation or posing a danger to the public health or safety during hours of darkness.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, I recommend that the Department of Environmental Regulation issue a Final Order in this case granting the permit applied for by Dixie County. It is also recommended that the permit be made subject to the following additional conditions: That one or more Coast Guard safety lights be placed on the proposed expansion to the dock; That catwalks be added down the middle of the two most landward of the proposed boat slips; and That a reasonable number of trash or garbage receptacles be permanently located on the proposed expansion to the dock to minimize the possibility of trash and garbage being thrown overboard. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of October, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of October, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-1448 The following are my specific rulings on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by all of the parties. The paragraph numbers referred to below are references to the paragraph numbers in the parties' respective proposed recommended orders. Ruling on findings proposed by the Petitioners: Paragraph 1: Accepted. Paragraph 2: Accepted. Paragraph 3: Accepted. Paragraph 4: First sentence is rejected as appearing to be more in the nature of an introduction to a discussion of legal issues than a proposed finding of fact. Second and third sentences are rejected as repetitious Paragraph 5: Entire paragraph rejected as unnecessary speculative generalizations in light of the other evidence in this case. Paragraph 6: Entire paragraph rejected as unnecessary speculative generalizations in light of the other evidence in this case. Paragraph 7: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 8: Entire paragraph is rejected as appearing to be more in the nature of an introduction to a discussion of legal issues than proposed findings of fact. Paragraph 9: Entire paragraph rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; construction of the dock may be expected to bring about some changes in the nature of the boat traffic in the immediate area, but nothing of the nature or magnitude suggested by these proposed findings. Paragraph 10: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 11: First sentence is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Second sentence is accepted in part and rejected in part. Rejected portion is irrelevant. Third sentence is rejected as irrelevant. Fourth Sentence is accepted. Fifth sentence is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and as repetitious Sixth sentence is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 12: Entire paragraph rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rulings on findings Proposed by the Respondent: Paragraph 1: Accepted. Paragraph 2: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 3: First two sentences accepted in substance. Last sentence rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 4: Accepted. Paragraph 5: Accepted. Paragraph 6: Accepted. Paragraph 7: Rejected as unnecessary recitation of opposing party's contentions and not proposed finding of fact. Paragraph 8: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 9: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 10: Accepted. Paragraph 11: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 12: Accepted. Paragraph 13: First sentence accepted in substance. Second sentence accepted in part and rejected in part; rejected portion concerns riparian rights, which are irrelevant to whether this permit should be issued. Paragraph 14: Entire paragraph rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 15: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 16: Accepted. Paragraph 17: Accepted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick M. Bryant, Esquire Moore, Williams & Bryant, P.A. Post Office Box 1169 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 J. Doyle Thomas, Esquire County Attorney Post Office Box 339 Cross City, Florida 32628 Ann Cowles-Fewox, Legal Intern Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Karen Brodeen, Esquire 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dale Twachtmann, Secretary Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
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 Respondent is the owner and developer of the Plaza Venetia Marina, located in Biscayne Bay in Dade County, Florida, immediately north of the Venetian Causeway. The marina is constructed on submerged lands leased from the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund. On May 4, 1976, DER issued Permit No. 13-30-0364-6E to Respondent. That permit authorized the construction of two concrete marina docks, one "T" shaped and 255 feet long, and the other "J" shaped and 500 feet long. The project site is north of the Venetian Causeway on the western edge of Biscayne Bay, Section 31, Township 53 North, Range 42 East, Dade County, Florida. On August 18, 1977, DER issued Permit No. 13-30-3984 to Respondent. That permit authorized the construction of a 700 foot long "J" shaped pier with 24 finger piers and associated mooring pilings, and the construction of a 280 foot long "T" shaped pier. This permit authorized construction to be undertaken directly north of the docks authorized by Permit No. 13-30-0364-6E described above. On August 18, 1977, Respondent applied to DER's West Palm Beach office for a permit to construct the center pier of the Plaza Venetia Marina. On October 27, 1977, DER issued Permit No. 13-30-0740-6E to Respondent. This permit, which is the only one of the three permits at issue herein, authorized construction of a boat tie-up and fueling facility for a public marina. This facility represented a final phase of a master plan which includes the two other marinas with tie-up accommodations authorized by Permit Nos. 13-30-0364-6E and 13-30-3984. The drawings which accompanied the permit application carried the designation "FUEL" on the large platform at the end of the center pier of the marina. The cover letter from Respondent's authorized agent explained that " . . . the fueling area has been made sufficiently large so as to isolate the fuel pumps." No specific mention was made in the application or supporting materials of any building to be constructed on the central pier, and none of the permit drawings initially filed with DER depict any such building. DER employees who processed the permit, however, knew at some time during the processing of the permit application that some sort of structure would likely be constructed on the platform at the end of the center pier, although the plans did not disclose such a building, and the agency made no inquiries about, nor requested any additional information from Respondent concerning the type of structure contemplated. At the time of the issuance of Permit No. 13-30-0740-6E Respondent did not know the exact nature, size, or height of any structure that it might wish to build on the central platform. At the time, Respondent had only a conceptual idea of a structure that might accommodate the uses it contemplated for the platform. The words "fueling station" appear on the platform at the end of the center pier in one of the drawings attached to Permit No. 13-30-0740-6E. That drawing was not initially filed with the original permit application, but was provided during the permitting process by Respondent prior to issuance of the permit. Permit No. 13-30-0740-6E was issued to Respondent on October 27, 1977, pursuant to the authority granted DER under Chapters 253 and 403, Florida Statutes. Nowhere in the permit is there any reference to Section 258.165, Florida Statutes. The permit, by its expressed terms, authorized the following: To construct a boat tie-up and fueling facilities [sic] for a public marina. The facility will extend approximately 390 feet into Biscayne Bay from the bulkhead line. The dock will provide tie-up spaces for 20 boats and six fuel slips, and will contain floating oil collars in case of oil or gasoline spillage. This facility represents the final phase of a master plan which includes two other marinas with tie-up facilities . . . On January 11, 1979, some approximately fourteen months after issuance of the permit for the center pier, Respondent sent a letter to DER's West Palm Beach office which read as follows: Enclosed please find a copy of a letter as sent to the Army Corps, re: the service facility you and I discussed for the already approved fuel dock (State No. 13-30-0740-6E) for the Plaza Venetia Marina. I also enclose copy of the plans. Please review as quickly as possible since we intend to start construction on the marina within 30 to 45 days. (Emphasis added.) Enclosed with the January 11, 1979, letter to DER was a copy of a January 11, 1979, letter to the Army Corps of Engineers which read as follows: Recently I reviewed with [a Corps representative] the placement of a small service accommodation facility on the already approved fuel dock for the Plaza Venetia Marina . . . I left a set of plans with [the Corps] at the Corps office in Miami Beach. The facility is in close keeping with the permitted use of the marina. It will occupy less than half the already approved area of the fueling facility. It will be constructed on an already permitted facility. Included are a small bait and tackle shop; convenience store; captains' office; observation area and required bathrooms. The discharge from the bathrooms will flow directly into the main County sewer disposal system and will utilize a sewer pump-out facility located on the fuel dock. * * * After carefully reviewing my existing permit, the limited nature of the facility described, and its sole purpose of servicing the already permitted marina, please advise me if any modifications are required. I look forward to hearing from you as quickly as possible on this matter since construction of the marina is projected to begin within the next 30 to 45 days. A copy of the floor plan of the proposed building was attached to the January 11, 1979, letter received by DER. This floor plan indicates areas to be included in the building for bait and tackle facilities, a food store, storage areas, restroom facilities, and a marina office. Also shown on the floor plan is a storage area for electric carts to be used in servicing vessels utilizing the marina facility. The record in this cause establishes that Respondent never intended its January 11, 1979, letter to DER to be a request for a permit modification or an application for a new permit. Instead, the letter was intended only as a request for DER review of and comments on the proposed structure to be built at the end of the central pier. DER representatives in its West Palm Beach office forwarded the letter to the Tallahassee office of DER. DER never responded either orally or in writing to Respondent's communication of January 11, 1979, enclosing the building plan. On June 19, 1979, DER had opened its file No. 13-9916 in its standard form dredge and fill permitting section in Tallahassee in response to a letter received from Respondent requesting the addition of some dolphin pilings along the bulkhead at the Plaza Venetia Marina. The request from Respondent was treated as standard form application because the scope of the entire marina project exceeded short-form criteria. After receiving this request from Respondent, DER sent a completeness summary to Respondent within 30 days of receipt of the application requesting that Respondent provide approval from the Department of Natural Resources for the use of sovereignty submerged lands. Through various correspondence, this application was expanded to include several additional modifications to the overall marina, including reconfiguration of the fuel dock, addition of finger piers, reconfiguration of the "T" docks, and addition of a 12-foot boardwalk. Finally, the application was modified so that it constituted an application to consolidate the three existing permits. On January 29, 1980, Respondent submitted the last item of information required by the completeness summary except for DNR approval for use of sovereignty submerged lands. The aforementioned letter of January 11, 1979, from Respondent, which included the building floor plan, was apparently placed in DER file No. 13-9916 relating to Respondent's requested permit modification. Although the floor plan is contained in this file, the record in this cause clearly establishes that neither Respondent nor DER treated either the January 11, 1979, letter or the enclosed plan as a request for modification of Permit No. 13-30-0740-6E. DER file No. 13-9916 sat dormant for almost three years awaiting DNR consent for the use of state-owned lands. By letter dated July 10, 1981, DER requested Respondent to indicate whether it wished to pursue the permit modification application further since it had been 1,085 days since DER had notified Respondent of the necessity to furnish notification from DNR concerning further use of state sovereignty submerged lands. By letter dated July 15, 1981, Respondent withdrew its permit modification application. On April 20, 1979, the City of Miami issued a valid building permit for the marina fueling station. Respondent notified DER in July, 1979, that it was beginning construction of the marina. Construction of the central pier began on July 16, 1979, and ended on June 11, 1980. Construction of the fueling platform began on February 28, 1981, with erection of the fueling station walls beginning sometime after April 1, 1981. Subsequent to the commencement of construction DER representatives inspected the building site on several occasions. Respondent was not made aware in advance of when these inspections would occur since they were scheduled at the sole discretion of DER. DER first learned of the actual construction of the marina fueling station after receipt of a citizen complaint on December 1, 1981. Upon inspection of the site by DER personnel on December 2, 1981, it was discovered that the building on the fuel dock was partially complete with finish work and the placement of some interior and exterior walls remaining to be accomplished. DER served a warning notice on Respondent on December 7, 1981, advising Respondent of an alleged violation of its existing permit. A second warning letter was sent to Respondent on January 26, 1982, followed by the issuance of the Notice of Violation by DER. DER incurred costs and expenses of $405.40 in investigating the alleged violation. The structures authorized by Permit Nos. 13-30-0364-6E, 13-30-3984, and 13-30-0740-6E ("the structures") have been constructed by Respondent. The structures are located within the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve ("the Preserve") established by Section 258.165, Florida Statutes. Biscayne Bay at the site of the structures is a navigable water of the State of Florida. A building with a floor area of approximately 3,800 square feet and a roof area of 5,292 square feet has been constructed at a cost of approximately $500,000 on the platform at the end of the center pier of the marina. The net area of the platform contains about 9,640 square feet. It has been stipulated by the parties that construction of the building on the center pier will not result in significant adverse water quality or biological impacts which were not contemplated when the above-referenced permits were issued for the marina. The building as presently constructed has provisions for the following uses: a waiting area for water-borne transportation, a bait and tackle shop and marine supply store, an electric cart parking and recharging station, and an attendant's room with cash register and equipment for the fuel pumps. All of these uses are customarily associated with the operation of marina facilities. The building as constructed differs in several minor respects from the one shown on the plans submitted to DER in the January 11, 1979, letter from Respondent. What had been shown on those plans as outdoor seating has been enclosed, walls and proposed uses have been relocated within the building, and the entire building has been moved back on the fuel dock. It is concluded, however, that these changes are of such a minor nature as to not constitute a material departure from the plans furnished to DER in January of 1979. As-built plans for the building have never been provided by Respondent to DER. At the time of Respondent's application for the permit for the center pier, DER rules required that a permit applicant provide cross-sectional drawings of proposed structures to be built in conjunction with docking facilities such as those proposed by Respondent. Drawings attached to the permit application show two cross sections through the center pier, but neither of these cross sections depict a building to be constructed on the pier. Respondent did not submit cross-sectional drawings for the building at the time of its application, and none had been submitted to DER as of the date of final hearing in this cause. However, DER at no time requested such cross-sectional drawings, despite the fact that those agency representatives processing Respondent's permit application assumed from the outset that some structure would and could be built by Respondent on the platform attached to the central dock under the terms of the October 27, 1977, permit. The estimated cost for removal of the building at the end of the central pier is $150,000-$200,000.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, dismissing the Notice of Violation. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of June, 1983, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM E. WILLIAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of June, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul R. Ezatoff, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Clifford A. Shulman, Esquire and Thomas K. Equels, Esquire Brickell Concours 1401 Brickell Avenue, PH-1 Miami, Florida 33131 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lee Rohe, Esquire Assistant Department Attorney Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Elton Gissendanner, Director Department of Natural Resources Executive Suite 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32303 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, Petitioner, v. CASE NO. 82-1640 FLORIDA EAST COAST PROPERTIES, INC., Respondent. /
The Issue The issue to determine in this matter is whether Respondent Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) properly issued its proposed verification of an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) exemption, dated March 23, 2018, for the installation of nine pilings off of Respondent Larry Lynn’s residential property, in the direction of Petitioner MarineMax, Inc.’s commercial property (MarineMax), pursuant to section 373.406(6), Florida Statutes, commonly known as the “de minimus” exemption.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Lynn has owned the real property located at 111 Placid Drive, Fort Myers, Florida, since 1994. Mr. Lynn’s residential property is a corner lot that fronts a canal on two of the four sides of his property, and also contains his home. MarineMax is a national boat dealer with approximately 65 locations throughout the United States and the British Virgin Islands. MarineMax has approximately 16 locations in Florida. MarineMax, through subsidiary companies, acquired the property at 14030 McGregor Boulevard, Fort Myers, Florida, in December 2014 (MarineMax Property). Prior to MarineMax’s acquisition, this property had been an active marina for more than 30 years. MarineMax continues to operate this property as a marina. The MarineMax Property is a 26-acre contiguous parcel that runs north-south and that is surrounded by canals and a larger waterway that connects to the Gulf of Mexico. The “northern” parcel of the MarineMax Property is surrounded by two canals and the larger waterway that connects to the Gulf of Mexico. The “southern” parcel is a separate peninsula that, while contiguous to the northern parcel, is surrounded by a canal that it shares with the northern parcel, along with another canal that separates it from residential properties. Mr. Lynn’s property is located directly south of the northern parcel of the MarineMax Property, and the canal that runs east-west. As his property is a corner lot, it also fronts an eastern canal that is directly across from the southern parcel of the MarineMax Property. The eastern canal described above also serves as a border between MarineMax and a residential community that includes Mr. Lynn’s residential property. Mr. Lynn has moored a boat to an existing dock on the eastern canal described in paragraphs 5 and 6 for many years. MarineMax holds ERPs for the business it conducts at its MarineMax Property, including the canal between the northern parcel of the MarineMax Property and Mr. Lynn’s property. For example, these ERPs permit: (a) the docking of boats up to 85 feet in length with a 23-foot beam; (b) boat slips up to 70 feet in length; (c) up to 480 boats on the MarineMax Property; and (d) a boatlift and boat storage barn (located on the southern parcel). The MarineMax Property also contains a fueling facility that is available for internal and public use. It is located on the northern parcel of the MarineMax Property, directly across the east-west canal from Mr. Lynn’s property. The prior owner of the marina constructed this fueling facility prior to 2003. Request for Verification of Exemption from an ERP Mr. Lynn testified that after MarineMax took over the property from the prior owner, he noticed larger boats moving through the canal that separates his property from the MarineMax Property. Concerned about the potential impact to his property, including his personal boat, Mr. Lynn contracted with Hickox Brothers Marine, Inc. (Hickox), to erect pilings off of his property in this canal.2/ On March 8, 2018, Hickox, on behalf of Mr. Lynn, submitted electronically a Request for Verification of Exemption from an Environmental Resource Permit to DEP. The “Project Description” stated, “INSTALL NINE 10 INCH DIAMETER PILINGS AS PER ATTACHED DRAWING FOR SAFETY OF HOMEOWNER’S BOAT.” The attached drawing for this project depicted the installation of these nine pilings 16 and 1/2 feet from Mr. Lynn’s seawall, spaced 15 feet apart. On March 23, 2018, DEP approved Mr. Lynn’s Request for Verification of Exemption from an Environmental Resource Permit, stating that the activity, as proposed, was exempt under section 373.406(6) from the need to obtain a regulatory permit under part IV of chapter 373. The Request for Verification of Exemption from an Environmental Resource Permit further stated: This determination is made because the activity, in consideration of its type, size, nature, location, use and operation, is expected to have only minimal or insignificant or cumulative adverse impacts on the water resources. The Request for Verification of Exemption from an Environmental Resource Permit further stated that DEP did not require further authorization under chapter 253, Florida Statutes, to engage in proprietary review of the activity because it was not to take place on sovereign submerged lands. The Request for Verification of Exemption from an Environmental Resource Permit also stated that DEP approved an authorization pursuant to the State Programmatic General Permit V, which precluded the need for Mr. Lynn to seek a separate permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Megan Mills, the environmental specialist and program administrator with DEP’s South District Office, testified that DEP’s granting of Mr. Lynn’s Request for Verification of Exemption from an Environmental Resource Permit was routine, and that his Request for Verification of Exemption from an Environmental Resource Permit met the statutory criteria. After DEP granted the Request for Verification of Exemption from an Environmental Resource Permit, Hickox, on behalf of Mr. Lynn, installed the nine pilings in the canal at various distances approximately 19 feet from Mr. Lynn’s seawall and in the canal that divides Mr. Lynn’s property from the MarineMax Property (and the fueling facility).3/ MarineMax timely challenged DEP’s Request for Verification of Exemption from an Environmental Resource Permit. Impact on Water Resources MarineMax presented the testimony of Sam Lowrey, its corporate vice president of real estate, who had detailed knowledge of the layout of the MarineMax Property. Mr. Lowrey testified that the canal between the MarineMax Property and Mr. Lynn’s residential property is active with boating activity, noting that MarineMax’s ERP allows up to 480 vessels on-site. With the installation of the pilings, he testified that he was concerned that MarineMax customers “will be uncomfortable navigating their boats through this portion of the canal[,]” which would be detrimental to MarineMax’s business. Mr. Lowery testified that he had no personal knowledge of whether MarineMax has lost any business since the installation of the pilings. MarineMax also presented the testimony of Captain Ralph S. Robinson III, who the undersigned accepted as an expert in marine navigation, without objection.4/ Captain Robinson has been a boat captain, licensed by the U.S. Coast Guard, since 1991. He has extensive experience captaining a variety of vessels throughout the United States and the Bahamas. He is an independent contractor and works for MarineMax and other marine businesses. Captain Robinson is also a retired law enforcement officer. Captain Robinson testified that he was familiar with the waterways surrounding the MarineMax Property, as he has captained boats in those waterways several times a month for the past 15 years. Captain Robinson testified that he has observed a number of boats with varying lengths and beams navigate these waterways, and particularly, the canal between the MarineMax Property and Mr. Lynn’s property. Captain Robinson estimated that the beam of these boats range from eight to 22 feet. He also testified that the most common boats have a beam between eight and 10 feet. Captain Robinson’s first experience with the pilings in the canal occurred in April 2018, when he was captaining a 42- foot boat through the canal. He testified that an 85-foot boat was fueling on the fuel dock, and when he cleared the fueling boat and pilings, he had approximately one and a half feet on each side of his boat. He testified that “[i]t was very concerning.” Captain Robinson testified that since this experience in April 2018, he calls ahead to MarineMax to determine the number and size of boats in the portion of this canal that contains the pilings. On behalf of MarineMax, in December 2018, Captain Robinson directed the recording of himself captaining a 59-foot Sea Ray boat with an approximately 15- to 16-foot beam through the canal separating the MarineMax Property and Mr. Lynn’s residential property, with another boat of the same size parked at MarineMax’s fueling dock.5/ Captain Robinson testified that these two boats were typical of the boats that he would operate at the MarineMax Property and surrounding waterway. The video demonstration, and Captain Robinson’s commentary, showed that when he passed through the canal between the fuel dock (with the boat docked) and Mr. Lynn’s residential property (with the pilings), there was approximately four to five feet on either side of his boat. Captain Robinson stated: This is not an ideal situation for a boat operator. Yes, it can be done. Should it be done? Um, I wasn’t happy or comfortable in this depiction. Captain Robinson testified that his “personal comfort zone” of distance between a boat he captains and obstacles in the water is five or six feet. Ultimately, Captain Robinson testified that he believed the pilings in the canal between the MarineMax Property and Mr. Lynn’s property were a “navigational hazard.” Specifically, Captain Robinson stated: Q: In your expert opinion, has Mr. Lynn’s pilings had more than a minimal, or insignificant impact on navigation in the canal, in which they are placed? A: I believe they’re a navigational hazard. The impact, to me personally, and I’m sure there’s other yacht captains that move their boat through there, or a yacht owner, not a licensed captain, um, that has to take a different approach in their operation and diligence, um, taking due care that they can safely go through. It’s been an impact. Q: Is a navigational hazard a higher standard for you as a boat captain, being more than minimal or insignificant? A: Yes. A navigational hazard is, in my opinion, something that its position could be a low bridge or something hanging off a bridge, a bridge being painted, it could be a marker, it could be a sandbar, anything that is going to cause harm to a boat by its position of normal operation that would cause injury to your boat, or harm an occupant or driver of that boat. Ms. Mills, the environmental specialist and program administrator with DEP’s South District Office, testified that after MarineMax filed the instant Petition, she and another DEP employee visited Mr. Lynn’s residential property. Although not qualified as an expert in marine navigation, Ms. Mills testified that, even after observing the placement of the pilings and the boating activity the day she visited, the pilings qualified for an exemption from the ERP.6/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the undersigned recommends that DEP enter a final order dismissing MarineMax’s challenge to the determination that Mr. Lynn’s pilings qualify for an exemption from an environmental resources permit pursuant to its March 23, 2018, approval of Mr. Lynn’s Request for Verification of Exemption from an Environmental Resources Permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of March, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT J. TELFER III 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 28th day of March, 2019.
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.
Findings Of Fact On March 10, 1986, Respondents, Charles R. Moeller and Julia Moeller (Applicants) entered into a consent order with Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation (Department) pursuant to which their request for an "after the fact" permit to construct an 5-slip docking facility in Florida Bay, Upper Matecumbe Key, Monroe County, Florida, was granted. Petitioners, James E. Williams and Charles W. Causey (Protestants) filed a timely request for formal administrative review of the Department's action. The Applicants are the owners of a 2.2 acre parcel of property situated on the northwestern side of central Upper Matecumbe Key, with approximately 280' frontage on Florida Bay. Since 1983, the Applicants have sought authorization to construct a multi-family dock facility for use in conjunction with their plans to develop the uplands as a condominium community. Protestants, James E. Williams and Charles W. Causey, are neighbors of the Applicants. Mr. Williams' property abuts the north boundary of Applicants' property, and extends northerly with 230' frontage on Florida Bay. Mr. Causey's property abuts the north boundary of Mr. Williams' land, and extends northerly with 230' frontage on Florida Bay. Protestants have used, and use, the waters adjacent to their residences, the project site, and Florida Bay for fishing, swimming, boating and other recreational pursuits. Protestants have standing to maintain this action. Background On February 28, 1983, Applicants filed their first request with the Department and the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) for authorization to construct a docking facility to serve their proposed uplands development. That application sought authorization to construct a 10-slip docking facility, roughly "L" shaped, with a main pier extending into Florida Bay in a westerly direction and measuring 90' by 5', and the terminal section of the dock running southerly parallel to the shore line and measuring 100' by 5'. A row of 11 mooring piles spaced 10' apart, 20' landward of the terminal section of the dock, formed the 10 boat slips. As proposed, the facility was less than 1,000 square feet (sq. ft.), and exempt from the Department's permitting requirements. 1/ The Corps declined, however, to permit the facility as proposed. Noting that "a mixture of lush vegetation including mixed searasses and the hard corals" was located in the 2' to 3' MLW (mean low water) docking area, the Corps requested that the Applicants extend their pier further offshore to create dockage in waters of no less than -5' MLW depth. Consistent with the Corps' request, Applicants modified their proposal by extending their pier 170' offshore. In all other respects, their proposal remained unchanged. On August 12, 1983, Applicants received Corps' approval for their modified docking facility; however, their extension of the pier increased the docks' square footage to over 1,000 sq. ft., and subjected the project to the Department's permitting requirements. Accordingly, on October 7, 1983, Applicants filed a request with the Department for authorization to construct the dock facility approved by the Corps. On November 7, 1984, the Department issued its intent to deny the requested permit predicated on its conclusion that, inter alia, degradation of local water quality was expected, as well as destruction of marine habitat and productivity to such an extent as to be contrary to the public interest. Although advised of their right to request formal administrative review of the Department's proposed action. /2 Applicants took no action. On December 13, 1984, the Department entered a final order, which adopted the reasons set forth in its notice of intent to deny, and denied the Applicants' requested permit. The current application On January 24, 1985, Applicants filed their request with the Department for authorization to construct the docking facility which is the subject matter of these proceedings. The application sought permission to construct an 8-slip 3/ docking facility of the same configuration as previously applied for, but with a main pier measuring 170' by 4', and a terminal section of 79' by 4'. A row of 9 mooring piles spaced 10' apart, 20' landward of the terminal section of the dock, formed the 8 boat slips. Applicants still proposed the same wood construction, and wood dock piles, as well as using the terminal section of the dock as a batterboard type breakwater by attaching heavy boards to the waterward side of the dock. 4/ As proposed, the dock facility was less than 1,000 sq. ft. and exempt from the Department's permitting requirements. Accordingly, on January 30, 1985, the Department issued the Applicants a copy of their application marked "EXEMPT FROM DER D/F PERMITTING PER FAC RULE 17-4.04(9)(c)," and apprised the Applicants of the need to secure approval from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for use of state-owned submerged lands. Applicants promptly applied for DNR approval. On February 22, 1985, they received their first completeness summary, which was responded to on April 26, 1985, and on September 4, 1985, they received their second completeness summary, which was responded to on October 15, 1985. Finally, on December 5, 1985, Applicants received DNR approval conditioned upon Applicants execution and recording of a 10' conservation easement along the shoreward extent of Applicants' property to prevent the construction of any further dock facilities. Applicants duly executed and recorded the conservation easement. On December 24, 1985, Applicants received their Monroe County building permit, and commenced construction on January 22, 1986. On January 23, 1986, Protestants contacted the Department's local environmental specialist, David Bishof, to complain of the construction. Mr. Bishof promptly telephoned the applicant, Mrs. Moeller, and advised her that the subject waters had been designated Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW), and that docks in excess of 500 sq. ft. were no longer exempt. 5/ At this point in time, only 6-8 pair of pilings had been set. Notwithstanding Mr. Bishof's advice, Applicants continued to construct the dock facility until all pilings were in place and 500 sq. ft. of the main pier area was decked. On March 10, 1986, the Department and Applicants entered into the consent order which is the subject matter of these proceedings. That order granted the Applicants an "after the fact" permit to construct their 8-slip docking facility, and granted substantially affected persons the right to petition for formal administrative review. The project site The waters of Florida Bay which abut the Applicants' 280' shoreline are classified as Class III waters and have, since May, 1985, been designated as Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW). At Applicants' shoreline, erosion has cut an escarpment into the limestone such that the land's elevation drops abruptly from approximately 1' above MH to 2'-3' below MHW. Along much of the shoreline, erosion has undercut the limestone, forming small cliffs with an overhang of up to 5'. Very little vegetation exists on the exposed edge of the solution-faced limestone which forms the Applicants shoreline. What does exist consists of a few moderate to small red and black mangrove trees. On the face of the shoreline escarpment a rich biota is found, which includes star arene, bearded periwinkles, and star coral. A narrow band of turtlegrass, with some Cuban shoalweed, is found at the base of the escarpment. At 50' from shore along the path of the proposed pier, 6/ the depth is 4+- MHW and the bottom consists of gently sloping bedrock, with a thin layer of sediment. Sparse vegetation, consisting of patches of turtlegrass and Bataphora are found at this point, along with a healthy fauna community consisting of numerous sponges and moderate sized colonies of star coral. At a distance of 100' along the proposed dock route, the bottom is covered by a thin layer of sediment which allows for a fairly constant growth of turtlegrass. Depths at this point are approximately 6' MHW. The turtlegrass bed continues to the end of the proposed dock and generally covers the entire proposed docking area. Depths in the proposed docking area range between 6'-7' MHW. Lobster frequent the area, together with fish common to the Florida Keys. Areas of concern The only permit application appraisal conducted by the Department was done in connection with the Applicants' October 7, 1983 permit request, and at a time when the waters of Florida Bay did not carry the OFW designation. At that time, the Department's environmental specialist, David Bishof, found that: The proposed dock, along with the boats moored to it, when it is complete and in use, can be expected to shade approximately 2,000 ft 2 of seafloor. Much of the area that will be shaded, is covered by seagrass. A general decline in the quantity of seagrass in the shaded areas, can be expected to result from the project. With the loss of seagrass vegetation in the marina area, will also be the loss of the functions of habitat, sediment stabilization, primary production and pollution filtration. Activities that can normally be expected to be associated with the use of the proposed dock will result in the discharge of toxic metals, hydrocarbons, organic debris, detergents and miscellaneous trash. With a dock of the size being proposed, the above discharges are expected to be moderate in magnitude, but will probably not lower water quality below class III standards. These findings were not disputed in this proceeding. Although the dock area has been reduced from 100' to 79' in length, from 5' to 4' in width, and the number of boat slips from 10 to 8, the proposed dock, with the boats moored to it, can still be expected to shade approximately 1,900 sq. ft. of seafloor. 7/ This shading effect will result in the general decline in the quantity of seagrass in the dock area, and the consequent loss of habitat, sediment stabilization, primary production, and pollution filtration. Loss of seagrass in the dock area and surrounding area will be intensified by "prop dredging" and "scaring" due to seasonal tidal fluctuations of 1-3 feet. As sited, the proposed docks are located in waters of 6'- 7' NHW depth, as opposed to the 5' NLW depth recommended by the Department and the Corps. Other environmental consequences associated with the proposed facility include the discharge of hydrocarbons, toxic metals, detergents and organic debris into the surrounding waters. Mr. Bishof described these discharges as "moderate in magnitude" in his November, 1983 appraisal and concluded that they "will probably not lower water quality below class III standards." At hearing, with Florida Bay now designated OFW, Mr. Bishof again characterized the discharges as "moderate in magnitude" and opined that OFW standards would not be violated. While Florida Bay is a vast body of water, which offers the opportunity for pollutant dilution, the waters in the area of the proposed facility are relatively shallow and lacking in strong currents; conditions- conducive to pollutant buildup. There has been no appraisal of the proposed project since November, 1983, 8/ and no substantive evidence that the hydrography of the waters in the area is adequate to control pollutant buildup. Consequently, Mr. Bishof's opinion cannot be credited. Under the circumstances, Applicants have failed to provide reasonable assurances that the proposed facility will not violate state water quality standards. Public interest In considering whether a project is clearly in the public interest, Section 403.918(2)(a), Florida Statutes establishes seven criteria which must be considered and balanced. That subsection provides: In determining whether a project is not contrary to the public interest, or is clearly in the public interest, the department shall consider and balance the following criteria: Whether the project will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others; Whether the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; Whether the project will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; Whether the project will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project; Whether the project will be of a temporary or permanent nature; Whether the project will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of s. 267.061; and The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. The proposed project was not shown to promote any of the seven criteria. It would not, however, adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare or the property of others; adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; or adversely affect significant historical and archaeological resources. The relative condition of the vegetation and marine life in the area was shown to be good. Overall, the project was shown to be permanent and to have an adverse impact on the conservation of fish, habitat, marine productivity and recreational values. On balance, the proposed project is not clearly in the public interest, and no evidence was presented to mitigate its adverse impacts. Cumulative impact Section 403.919, Florida Statutes, mandates that the Department consider the cumulative impact of the proposed project in deciding whether to grant or deny a permit. Currently, there are no other projects existing, under construction, or for which permits or jurisdictional determinations have been sought, nor are there any projects under review, approved or vested, within one mile of the project site. Accordingly, cumulative impact is a neutral factor in the evaluation of the proposed project.
The Issue The issues for determination in this case are whether Petitioner has standing to bring this action and, if so, whether Respondent Stuart Yacht Corporation is entitled to the General Permit which the Department of Environmental Protection (Department) intends to issue.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner owns Lot 4 in St. Lucie Settlement, a subdivision in Stuart, Florida. The subdivision has one border along the South Fork of the St. Lucie River. The subdivision has a finger fill that extends to the South Fork with canals on both sides. There are four lots on the finger fill, Lots 1 through 4 of the subdivision. Lot 4 is farthest from the river. On the north side of Petitioner’s property he has a dock where he keeps a boat. The dispute in this case involves the canal on the south side of Petitioner’s property. All references to “the canal” hereafter, unless otherwise noted, will be to the canal on the south side of Lot 4. Between Lots 2, 3, and 4 and the canal is a road which provides access to the lots on the finger fill. Between the road and the canal is a narrow strip of land. Petitioner owns this narrow strip of land where it corresponds with his lot lines. In other words, the southern boundary of his Lot 4 abuts the canal. However, because the canal is artificial, having been created by dredging, Petitioner has no riparian rights associated with the canal. That was the holding of the circuit court for Martin County in the litigation between Stuart Yacht Corporation and Petitioner. It was also established in the circuit court litigation that St. Lucie Settlement, Inc., which is the homeowner's association for the subdivision, owns the northern half of the canal and Stuart Yacht Corporation owns the southern half of the canal. No subdivision documents were presented to show the extent of rights granted to homeowners within St. Lucie Settlement related to the construction of docks or other uses of water bottoms that are included within the subdivision. Petitioner testified that he terminated his membership in the homeowners association three-and-a-half years ago. Stuart Yacht Corporation owns and operates a marina on the south side of the canal which includes docks over the water. At some point in the past, but before Petitioner purchased Lot 4 in 1995, Stuart Yacht Corporation constructed a dock along the north side of the canal, over the water bottom owned by St. Lucie Settlement, Inc. The dock along the north side of the canal has been used for mooring large yachts. The portion of the dock that ran along the boundary of Lot 4 was recently removed by Stuart Yacht Corporation following the rulings in the circuit court. The balance of the dock along the north side of the canal would be removed as a part of the proposed permit that Petitioner has challenged. In addition to removing the dock along the north side of the canal, the proposed permit authorizes Stuart Yacht Corporation to construct a new dock that is four feet wide and runs 150 feet along the property boundary in the center of the canal. No part of the proposed new dock would be on the property of St. Lucie Settlement, Inc. St. Lucie Settlement, Inc., did not challenge the proposed permit. In his petition for hearing, Petitioner alleged that the proposed new dock would cause the following injuries to his interests: interference with ingress and egress to Petitioner’s shoreline; interference with Petitioner’s desire to obtain a permit in the future to construct a dock or to “harden” the southern shoreline; and interference with Petitioner’s riparian rights. Petitioner’s testimony about his past use of the canal was inconsistent. He said he moored his boat in the canal once in 1995. He said he boated into the canal to fish on several occasions. He said that (at least twice) when he attempted to enter the canal by boat, he was denied access by representatives of Stuart Yacht Corporation. However, in a deposition taken before the hearing, Petitioner said he had never attempted to use the canal. The only testimony presented by Petitioner to support his claim that the proposed permit would interfere with his navigation, fishing, and desire to obtain a dock permit in the canal was the following: I couldn’t get a boat in there with that proposed dock in the center line of the canal right on their side of the canal. It would be 150 feet long. It would be a huge Wall of China. My neighbor and I couldn’t get to our shoreline. The evidence presented was insufficient to prove that Petitioner would be unable to navigate into the canal in a small boat or to fish in the canal if the proposed dock is constructed. The evidence was also insufficient to prove that Petitioner would be unable to construct any kind of dock for any kind of watercraft if the proposed dock is constructed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department dismiss the petition for hearing based on Petitioner's failure to prove standing, and issue the proposed permit to Stuart Yacht Corporation. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of February, 2008, 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 20th day of February, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection The Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Tom Beason, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection The Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Michael W. Sole, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection The Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Paul B. Erickson, Esquire Alley, Maass, Rogers & Lindsay, P.A. 340 Royal Poinciana Way, Suite 321 Palm Beach, Florida 33480 Amanda Gayle Bush, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Office of the General Counsel 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Stop 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Guy Bennett Rubin, Esquire Rubin & Rubin Post Office Box 395 Stuart, Florida 34995
