Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto Respondent Howard B. Berman has been a licensed real estate broker having been issued license number 0178090. At all times material hereto Respondent Michael J. Weil has been a licensed real estate broker having been issued license number 0179132. At all times material hereto Respondent Paramount Realty, Inc., has been a corporation licensed as a broker having been issued license number 0196048. Although Respondent Berman was a director of Respondent Paramount Realty, Inc. since at least March 7, 1979, he did not become an officer or stockholder in that corporate broker until December of 1982 or January of 1983. Although Respondent Weil was a director of Respondent Paramount Realty, Inc. since at least March 7, 1979, he did not become an officer or stockholder in that corporate broker until January of 1984. Prior to the time that Respondent Berman and Respondent Weil became officers and stockholders of Paramount Realty, Inc., they were not employed by Paramount but rather had an independent contractor relationship with that corporate broker. On or about June 13, 1979, Respondent Weil, acting as trustee for himself and for Respondent Berman, entered into a contract to purchase a certain parcel of land located in Broward County, Florida, with the intent of developing that land by building a condominium thereon. On or about October 18, 1979, Respondent Weil as trustee sold the above-referenced parcel of land to an investors group known as North Beach Development Group, Ltd., a Florida limited partnership, which the Respondents organized. The general partner in that limited partnership was North Beach Development Company, a Florida corporation, in which none of the Respondents had an interest. On or about October 18, 1979, Respondents Berman and Weil, as employees of North Beach, Inc., a Florida corporation, negotiated and obtained a consultation agreement between North Beach Development Group, Ltd. and North Beach, Inc. under which Respondents Berman and Weil would provide consultation services in connection with the development of a 34 unit condominium complex on the above-referenced parcel of land. On or about October 19, 1979, the general partner North Beach Development Company, and each of its stockholders, and each of the limited partners of North Beach Development Group Ltd. executed an Approval, Consent and Ratification agreement approving the above mentioned consultation agreement, establishing Respondent Paramount as the exclusive real estate agent for the condominium units, and approving the purchase by Respondents Berman and Weil of condominium units Nos. 604 and 607 for a combined total purchase price of $185,000. Prior to the creation of North Beach Development Group, Ltd., Respondents Berman and Weil placed $25,000 of their moneys on deposit under the contract to purchase the above-referenced land. During the existence of the limited partnership Respondents Berman and Weil loaned approximately $40,000 to the partnership. Respondents Berman and Weil also personally guaranteed the three million dollar construction loan involved in the project. Accordingly, both Respondents Berman and Weil had their personal funds at risk in the development of the condominium project. At no time did either Respondent Berman or Respondent Weil represent to Pat Dalton or any other investor or potential investor that either or both of them had invested or would invest any of their personal moneys in either the general partner North Beach Development Company or the partnership North Beach Development Group, Ltd. Five changes were made to Respondent Berman's unit 604, the total cost of all five changes being approximately $2,300. On May 19 and May 20, 1981, two checks were written off the account of North Beach Development Group, Ltd. to pay for the five changes to unit 604. On May 26, 1981, Respondent Berman (and his wife) closed on their purchase of unit 604. At the closing, Respondent Berman totally reimbursed North Beach Development Group, Ltd. the moneys it spent six days earlier for the five changes to unit 604.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final order be entered finding Respondents Howard B. Berman, Michael J. Well and Paramount Realty, Inc., not guilty of the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint filed against them and dismissing that Amended Administrative Complaint with prejudice. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 25th day of January, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 25th day of January, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold Huff, Executive Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred Langford, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Post office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Richard S. Rachlin, Esquire 1810 New World Tower 100 N. Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33132
Findings Of Fact On or about December 4, 1981, Respondent executed an Agreement with Daytona Sands Beach Club, Inc. (Beach Club), the developer of the project, which was back-dated to August 14, 1981. By the terms of this Agreement, Beach Club sold its interest in thirty-four units of a forty unit condominium time share development having a retail value of $150,000, to Respondent for fifteen percent of the retail value. Respondent testified that the Agreement was simply a financing arrangement whereby Beach Club assigned time-share periods in thirty- four units as collateral for a loan made by Respondent. He stated he received none of the indicia of ownership. However, this is not confirmed by the terms of the Agreement which specifically refer to a sale of Beach Club's interest to Respondent, and an arrangement by which Beach Club would then market and sell the units which Respondent had purchased from them. The Agreement also expressly provides that it "constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and there are no other terms, conditions, or agreements which are not set forth herein or referred to herein." Additionally, it was Respondent who had used this form Agreement previously in other projects and who provided this Agreement for execution by Beach Club. Of the thirty-four units involved in Respondent's Agreement with Beach Club time-share purchasers had acquired time-share periods in twenty-eight units prior to the execution of this Agreement. An Addendum to the Agreement expresses the intention of Beach Club and Respondent that "the present structure of the Sands Beach Club, Inc., contemplates right to use only and not fee simple title." This was a "right to use project" whereby time-share purchasers acquired no interest in the underlying real property and were simply leasing the right to use particular units for a specified number of weeks each year. Thus, Beach Club had an ownership interest in the project at the time the Agreement was executed with Respondent despite the fact that time-share purchasers had already acquired a right to use twenty eight of the thirty-four units referenced in the Agreement. Respondent knew this was a "right to use" project at the time the Agreement was executed. Several months after the execution of this Agreement and Addendum, Respondent had an Assignment prepared which he executed with Beach Club. Although this later executed Assignment specifically acknowledges the prior executed Agreement and Addendum, Respondent contends that this Assignment was prepared and executed for the sole purpose of providing him with additional security for his purported financing arrangement with Beach Club. However, by acknowledging the prior executed Agreement and Addendum which, by their terms refer to a sale of Beach Club's interest to Respondent, the Assignment confirms that Respondent was not simply providing financing in this transaction. Respondent did not execute any additional agreement in association with the transaction other than as set forth above. Specifically, there is no evidence that Respondent agreed in writing to honor fully the rights of time- share purchasers to occupy and use the facilities and to cancel their contracts and receive appropriate refunds, nor did Respondent agree in writing to comply with Chapter 721 or to assume all obligations of the seller to these purchasers. There is no evidence that notice of Respondent's Agreement with Beach Club was mailed to each purchaser.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Petitioner enter a Final Order imposing a $5,000 civil penalty against Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of September, 1985, at Tallahassee Florida. DONALD D. CONN, 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 10th day of September, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas A. Bell, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert E. Austin, Jr., Esquire Post Office Drawer 1930 Leesburg, Florida 32748 Richard B. Burroughs, Jr. Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Kearney, Director Division of Florida Land Sales Condominiums & Mobile Homes 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact The Parties. The Respondent, the Department of Natural Resources (hereinafter referred to as the "Department") is a state agency charged with the responsibility to manage Florida's parks and recreation areas pursuant to Chapter 258, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder. The Department is also charged with responsibility to administer, supervise, develop and conserve the natural resources of the State pursuant to Chapter 370, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder. At issue in this proceeding are certain actions taken by the Department, primarily through the Department's Division of Recreation and Parks (hereinafter referred to as the "Division"), with regard to Amelia Island State Recreation Area (hereinafter referred to as the "AISRA"). The AISRA is located at the southern tip of Amelia Island, Nassau County, Florida. Petitioner Board of County Commissioners (hereinafter referred to as the "Board"), of Nassau County, Florida, is the governing body of Nassau County, Florida, a non-charter county of the State of Florida. The Board is authorized to enact ordinances not inconsistent with general or special law pursuant to Section 1(f), Article VIII of the Constitution of Florida. The Board is interested in insuring continued vehicular access to the southern end of Amelia Island within the AISRA. In part, the Board's concern is caused by a belief that the southern end of the AISRA is a good fishing area. The Board's concern is also based upon a belief that access to the southern end of the island will be severely restricted to the old and disabled if vehicular traffic is prohibited in the AISRA. The Board has authorized participation in this proceeding. Petitioner Amelia Island Company is a Florida corporation: Amelia Island Company has developed a resort and residential community known as Amelia Island Plantation (hereinafter referred to as the "Plantation"), on Amelia Island. Amelia Island Company also owns Amelia Island Inn, 2 undeveloped tracts of land, a beach club, a conference center, a tennis facility and golf courses. All of these properties are located within the Plantation. The eastern boundary of the Plantation consists of Atlantic Ocean beach. Ocean. Some facilities of Amelia Island Company front on the Atlantic The Plantation is located north of the AISRA. Amelia Island Company manages approximately 525 residential units within the Plantation pursuant to rental contracts with the unit owners. The units are rented and guests have the right to use the Plantation beach. Some owners and guests of the properties located within the Plantation use the AISRA for fishing. The weight of the evidence failed to prove how many people use the AISRA or how often. Petitioner Amelia Island Plantation Community Association (hereinafter referred to as the "AIPCA"), is an association: The members of AIPCA represent the residential communities within the Plantation, including Amelia Island Company and individual property owners. Members participate in the AIPCA through eighteen condominium associations representing the individual property owners. The AIPCA maintains the Plantation beach. The AIPCA owns the roads, parks and some other facilities within the Plantation. Petitioner Amelia Island Rental Property Owners Association (hereinafter referred to as the AIRPOA) is an association: AIRPOA consists of approximately 410 residential unit owners whose units are located within the Plantation. AIRPOA member units are rented through the Amelia Island Company. The AIRPOA has supported activities designed to stop beach driving on the Plantation beach. Petitioner Dune Club Company II is a Florida corporation: The company owns undeveloped land which it intends to develop as multifamily condominiums. The land owned by Dune Club Company II is located in the Plantation. Therefore, future owners of condominiums will have the right to use the Plantation beach. Petitioner Amelia Island Holding Company is a Florida corporation: The corporation owns undeveloped land within the Dunes Club development, which is located within the Plantation. Future owners of property within this development will have the right to use the Plantation beach. Petitioner Piper Dunes is a Florida corporation: Piper Dunes is developing multifamily condominiums within the Plantation. Future owners of Piper Dunes' condominiums will have the right to use the Plantation beach. Petitioners Dunes Club Community Association, Dunes Row Community Association, Beachwalker Villas Association, Inc., Captain's Court Villas Association, Inc., Inn Rooms at Amelia, a Condominium Association, Inc., Sandcastles at Amelia Island Condominium Association, Inc., Sea Dunes Condominium Association, Inc., Shipwatch Villas Association, Inc., Spyglass Villas Owners Association, Inc., Turtle Dunes Condominium Association, Inc., and Windsong at Amelia Island Plantation Community Association, Inc., (hereinafter referred to as the "Plantation Associations") are Florida corporations and condominium associations: The Plantation Associations are comprised of residents and owners located within the Plantation. The Plantation Associations' members are all proximate to the Atlantic Ocean beach of the Plantation. The governing boards of the Plantation Associations have been active in attempting to restrict driving on the beach running through the Plantation. A substantial number of property owners of the Plantation Associations use the beach running through the Plantation for sunbathing, swimming, surfing, walking, jogging, and other beach activities. Geography. Amelia Island is located at the most northeasterly corner of Nassau County, Florida, and the State of Florida. Amelia Island is bounded on the east by the Atlantic Ocean and on the west by the Intercoastal Waterway. Where the Intercoastal Waterway meets the Atlantic Ocean at the southern tip of the island is named Nassau Sound. The AISRA is bounded on the southwest by Nassau Sound, on the southeast by the Atlantic Ocean, on the north-northwest by Highway A1A and on the north by a relatively large area of undeveloped, privately-owned land. It is approximately one-half mile from the areas which have been designated by the Department as parking areas in the AISRA to the southernmost tip of Amelia Island. The distance can make it more difficult for fishermen to access the southern end of the island. The Creation of the AISRA. The previous owners of the property which makes up the AISRA transferred the property by warranty deeds dated July 1, 1983, December 19, 1983 and June 28, 1985 to the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund of the State of Florida (hereinafter referred to as the "Trustees"). See Petitioners' exhibit 16. The Division took over management of the property which makes up the AISRA pursuant to a Lease Agreement and pursuant to a Management Agreement for Certain Submerged Lands Bordering State Lands (hereinafter referred to as the "Management Agreement"). The Lease Agreement, dated November 19, 1984, and the Management Agreement were entered into between the Trustees and the Division. Petitioners' exhibit 16. The Lease Agreement was amended on June 22, 1987. Petitioners' exhibit 16. The Management Agreement was amended on January 19, 1988. Petitioners' exhibit 16. In general, the property was leased to the Division for recreation and conservation purposes. The Division is given authority to manage the property for public health and safety, for protection of the property and to be managed as a recreation area. In part, the Management Agreement, as amended, gave the Division authority over: All those sovereign submerged lands lying within 400 feet of the mean high water or ordinary high water line . . . . The Lease Agreement and Management Agreement require that the Division, within twelve months of entering into the Lease Agreement, adopt a Management Plan providing for the "basic guidance for all management activities." Management Plans are to be reviewed by the Trustees every five years after the first Management Plan is adopted. No Management Plan has been adopted by the Department. The evidence in this proceeding failed to prove that the Trustees have taken any action against the Division for failing to adopt a Management Plan as contemplated by the Lease Agreement. The evidence also failed to prove that the Petitioners are privy to the Lease Agreement or Management Agreement. Administratively, the Division treated the AISRA as part of the Talbot Island State Geo Park. The Geo Park is made up of Big Talbot Island State Park, Little Talbot Island State Park, Fort George Island Cultural Site and the AISRA. Therefore, because the administrative offices of the Talbot Island State Geo Park were not located at the AISRA, the AISRA has received minimal attention since its creation. Beach Driving and Parking; Prior to, and Immediately After, the Acquisition of the AISRA by the Department. Prior to the creation of the AISRA, people drove and parked motor vehicles on the beach which is now part of the AISRA. People were able, depending on the tides, to drive on the beach of the AISRA from the southwest end of Amelia Island from Highway A1A at Nassau Sound, around the southern tip of the island, and north on the Atlantic side of Amelia Island. After the Division acquired responsibility for the management of AISRA, the Division, and thus the Department, did not take any action to prohibit all driving and parking on the beach in the AISRA. See, however, section J, infra. Legislative Prohibition Against Driving on Coastal Beaches. Prior to 1985, driving and parking on the beach fronting the Plantation, as well as other beaches under the jurisdiction of the Board, was permissible. In 1985, the Florida Legislature enacted Section 161.58, Florida Statutes. In relevant part, Section 161.58, Florida Statutes, as amended by Chapter 88-106, Laws of Florida, provided that "[v]ehicular traffic . . . is prohibited on coastal beaches " As amended, Section 161.58, Florida Statutes, allows a "local government with jurisdiction over a coastal beach or portions of a coastal beach" to authorize vehicular traffic "on all portions of the beaches under its jurisdiction" [emphasis added], upon three-fifths vote of the local government's governing body and if certain conditions concerning existing off-beach parking are met. The Special Act, Chapter 89-455, Laws of Florida. A dispute over Section 161.58, Florida Statutes, arose between the Board and various private landowners on Amelia Island, including some, if not all, of the Petitioners in these cases. The Board was opposed to the ban on vehicular traffic on the beaches of Amelia Island provided by Section 161.58, Florida Statutes, while the private landowners were in favor of the total ban. As a result of the dispute between the Board and private landowners, the Board and private landowners approached the legislative representatives for their area. As a result of this effort, the Florida Legislature enacted a special act, Senate Bill 1577, Chapter 89-445, Laws of Florida (hereinafter referred to as the "Special Act"). The Special Act represented a compromise between the positions of the Board and the private landowners. Chapter 89-445, Laws of Florida, provides as follows: . . . . Section 1. (1) Scott Road shall be relocated south of the Amelia Surf and Racquet Club Condominium in Nassau County. As part of this relocation, off-beach parking spaces for 100 vehicles must be provided. In addition, access for motorized vehicles onto the Atlantic Beach area must be provided. Parking on the beach is permitted in Nassau County in the area known geographically as Peters Point Road to Scott Road, as relocated after September 30, 1989. Parking on the beach in such area is prohibited after Nassau County issues a certificate of occupancy for the planned Ritz Carlton Hotel. On-beach parking shall continue to be permitted in the following nonresort areas: The Peters Road intersection with the beach area north to the city limits of Fernandina Beach. The Lewis Street intersection with the beach area north to the developed resort area parcel and south to the developed resort area parcel. The southerly end of Amelia Island from the Nassau Sound side to the developed resort area parcel on the Atlantic Ocean side. The term "developed resort area" means any property that is subject to a development order as of the effective date for this act if such development order indicates resort activities. (4)(a) On-beach parking in front of an undeveloped resort area parcel shall be prohibited upon the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for that parcel, contingent upon the existence of adequate off-beach parking during the peak period. (b) For purposes of determining the existence of adequate off-beach parking, the parking available at sites off the beach, measured for the entire beach, under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Nassau County Commission must be considered. The peak period must be determined as measured by the Department of Natural Resources formula as published in the Administrative Weekly in May 1989, except that 70 percent of peak user must be the standard. Those sites which are permanent on-beach parking sites must be included in the determination. Section 2. Any resort area parcels which are developed and which are not contiguous must have lanes of traffic connecting with defined lanes identified by traffic-path indicators. Section 3. A motorized tram system is hereby authorized on the Atlantic Ocean beaches within the jurisdiction of Nassau County. Section 4. This act shall take effect March 1, 1990. . . . . County Ordinance 89-23. Subsequent to the enactment of the Special Act, the Board enacted Ordinance 89-23, which provides as follows: ORDINANCE 89 - 23 AN ORDINANCE DETERMINING, PURSUANT TO RULE 16B-45, FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, THAT LESS THAN 50 PERCENT OF THE PEAK USER DEMAND FOR OFF BEACH PARKING IS AVAILABLE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Paragraph 161.58(2)(b), Florida Statutes, mandates that vehicular traffic be prohibited from coastal beaches except where a local government has determined by October 1, 1989, in accordance with the rules of the Department of Natural Resources that less than fifty percent (50 percent) of the peak user demand for off-beach parking is available; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners had determined that it is in the public interest to preserve the maximum access to the public beaches of Nassau County; and WHEREAS, the public was in jeopardy of losing access to a majority of beaches in Nassau County unless action was taken by the Board on behalf of the citizens of the County in order to preserve the citizens' right to their beaches; and WHEREAS, the Legislature adopted Senate Bill 1577, which is a local bill pertaining to vehicular access to the Nassau County beaches; and WHEREAS, the Department of Natural Resources has adopted Rule 16B-47, Florida Administrative Code; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Rule 16B-47.004, the Board of County Commissioners desires to continue to authorize vehicular traffic on its County beaches. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED this 12th day of September, 1989, by the Board of County Commissioners of Nassau County, Florida, as follows: SECTION 1. TITLE This Ordinance shall be known as the "Authorized Beach Vehicular Traffic Ordinance". SECTION 2. INVENTORY OF AVAILABLE OFF-BEACH PARKING The following is an inventory of the available off-beach parking within the Board of County Commissioners of Nassau County's jurisdiction: Pasco access - 10 parking spaces Peters Point Park - 200 parking spaces Scott Road - 50 parking spaces Burney Park - 200 parking spaces Dunes Club access - 30 parking spaces South End Ramp - 25 parking spaces TOTAL OFF-BEACH PUBLIC PARKING SPACES 515 SECTION 3. PEAK USER DEMAND FOR OFF-BEACH PARKING The Board of County Commissioners has determined from the Kings Bay Area Recreation Master Plan dated March 8, 1985, that: In 1985, the study indicated that peak day on-beach demand was 4,775 people per day. The study further indicated that 1,640 parking spaces would be needed for the year 1985. The study further projected that in 1990 the peak day beach users would be 5,669 and require 1,995 parking spaces. The study further indicates that in the year 2000 the peak day beach users would be 7,487 and require 2,602 parking spaces. The above represents peak day beach users and off-beach parking spaces required from Sadler Road to the South End of the island. SECTION 4. AVAILABLE PERCENTAGE OF PEAK USER DEMAND FOR OFF-BEACH PARKING The Board of County Commissioners has determined, based upon the above referenced study, that there is less than fifty percent (50 percent) of the peak user demand for off-beach parking available and, as a result, the Board hereby authorizes vehicular traffic to continue to utilize the County beach areas within its jurisdiction. Commencing March 1, 1990, the county beach areas available to vehicular traffic shall be set forth in the Special Act referred to as Senate Bill 1577. SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance shall take effect upon being filed in the Secretary of State's office. . . . . Amelia Island Company v. Nassau County, Florida. Despite the enactment of the Special Act and Ordinance 89-23, some of the Petitioners were not satisfied because vehicular traffic continued along the beaches in front of their property. Consequently, a number of the Petitioners, including Amelia Island Company, brought an action for declaratory judgment against the Board in the Circuit Court, Fourth Judicial Circuit in and for Nassau County, Case No. 90-397. Parking was only authorized by the Special Act and Ordinance 89-23 on beaches fronting undeveloped property. Parking was not authorized on beaches fronting developed property such as the property of most of the Petitioners. Those Petitioners which were involved in the litigation in the Circuit Court were interested in insuring that vehicles were not allowed to drive along the beach in front of their developed areas in order to access the beach in front of undeveloped areas. On February 1, 1991, the Circuit Court entered a Final Judgment in Case No. 90-397 (hereinafter referred to as the "Final Judgment"), and another related case which had been consolidated with it. Among other things, the Court concluded in the Final Judgment, the following: Section 161.58, Florida Statutes, "prohibits vehicular traffic on all beaches in the State of Florida except where the local government authorizes such traffic and determines that 'less than 50 percent of the peak user demand for off-beach parking is available.'" The Special Act "authorizes vehicular traffic on beaches within the exclusive jurisdiction of Nassau County." [Emphasis added]. The Court further stated: Senate Bill 1577 [Chapter 89-455, Laws of Florida], creates an exception for beaches under the exclusive jurisdiction of Nassau County by authorizing parking in certain areas and directing the creation of lanes of traffic on its beaches. It goes without saying that for one to use the parking areas on the beaches designated by the legislature, one must be able to drive. . . . The Court must conclude that Senate Bill 1577, by inference and implication authorizes vehicular traffic on the beaches within the exclusive jurisdiction of Nassau County. As a result, it conflicts with Chapter 161, Florida Statutes, and the Special Act takes precedence. Consequently, even if the Ordinance is invalid, Senate Bill 1577 authorizes vehicular traffic on the beaches within the exclusive jurisdiction of Nassau County. Ordinance 89-23 "permits vehicular traffic within the exclusive jurisdiction of Nassau County." [Emphasis added]. Ordinance 89-23 was enacted consistent with the exception against vehicular traffic on coastal beaches of Section 161.58, Florida Statutes. Ordinance 89-23 is valid. As a result of the Final Judgment, beach driving was still permitted on Nassau County beaches that fronted developed and undeveloped property. The Final Judgment did not specifically address the beach of the AISRA. In fact, the Final Judgment is expressly limited to beaches "within the exclusive jurisdiction of Nassau County." The Final Judgment was appealed to the District Court of Appeal, First District. The District Court reversed the Final Judgment in part and affirmed it in part. Amelia Island Company v. Nassau County, 585 So.2d 1061 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). In pertinent part, the District Court concluded the following: In sum, the trial court correctly found that Nassau County Ordinance 89-23 is valid, but the final judgment is in error to the extent that it interprets the ordinance and SB 1577 as authorizing unrestricted vehicular traffic over the entire beach. Instead, the county beach areas available to vehicular traffic . . . include only areas reasonably necessary to permit use of all specified beach parking in the manner permitted under the terms of the special act. Accordingly, the final judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for entry of judgment in conformity with this opinion. Amelia Island Company, 585 So.2d at 1064. On April 28, 1992, the Circuit Court entered a Final Judgment (hereinafter referred to as the "Final Judgment on Remand"), on remand from the District Court. Among other things, the Final Judgment on Remand lists those areas "on the beaches within the jurisdiction of Nassau County" where driving is prohibited. No reference to the AISRA is contained in the listing. There is a relatively large area of undeveloped privately-owned land north of the AISRA and south of the land owned by some of the Petitioners. As a result of the Special Act and Ordinance 89-23, parking is allowed on the beach bounding this undeveloped property. As a result of the Final Judgment on Remand, vehicular traffic was authorized to travel to the undeveloped property beach. Such access was available, however, by traveling around the southern tip of Amelia Island through the AISRA. Consequently, vehicular traffic would not be allowed on the beaches fronting the property of the Petitioners (other than the Board) so long as beach driving is allowed through the AISRA. The Final Judgment on Remand, however, recognized that it was possible that beach driving could be prohibited in the AISRA despite Ordinance 89-23 and the Special Act. Although the Circuit Court and District Court did not specifically construe section 1(3)(c) of the Special Act, the Final Judgment on Remand includes the following reference to the southern end of Amelia Island: 6. In the event the access to the south end is closed to public use by any state or federal law or regulation (and for so long as such access is closed), access to the parking areas permitted by Section 1(3)(c) of the Senate Bill will be permitted from the Lewis Street access south to the southerly end of Amelia Island. In addition, in the event any state or federal law or regulation closes or limits the access to the south end of any part of a twenty-four hour period, then during such time, access to the south end will be permitted from the Lewis Street south (unless such closure or limitation is applicable to all the beaches under the jurisdiction of Nassau County), in accordance with the provisions of Senate Bill 1577. Recognizing that beach driving could be prohibited in the AISRA, which would in turn prevent access to beaches of the privately-owned undeveloped tracts of property immediately to the north of the AISRA, the Final Judgment on Remand recognized that beach driving would have to be allowed from north of the privately-owned undeveloped tracts of property. The only northerly access to the beaches of the undeveloped privately-owned property is a road located north of the property owned by Petitioners (excluding Nassau County). Consequently, beach traffic would have to travel along the beach of the Plantation to reach the undeveloped privately-owned property if beach driving were prohibited in the AISRA. Powers and Duties of the Division; The General Prohibition Against Driving and Parking in State Parks. Section 258.004, Florida Statutes, sets out, in general, the duties of the Division as follows: 258.004 Duties of division.- It shall be the duty of the Division of Recreation and Parks of the Department of Natural Resources to supervise, administer, regulate, and control the operation of all public parks, including all monuments, memorials, sites of historic interest and value, sites of archaeological interest and value owned, or which may be acquired, by the state, or to the operation, development, preservation, and maintenance of which the state may have made or may make contribution or appropriation of public funds. The Division of Recreation and Parks shall preserve, manage, regulate, and protect all parks and recreational areas held by the state and may provide these services by contract or interagency agreement for any water management district when the government board of a water management district designates or sets aside any park or recreation area within its boundaries. In order to implement the Division's responsibilities pursuant to Chapter 258, Florida Statutes, the Department enacted Chapter 16D-2, Florida Administrative Code. Section 258.007, Florida Statutes, sets out the power of the Division to adopt rules. In relevant part, the Division is given the following rule- making power: (2) The division shall make and publish such rules and regulations as it may deem necessary or proper for the management and use of the parks, monuments, and memorials under its jurisdiction, and the violation of any of the rules and regulations authorized by this section shall be a misdemeanor and punishable accordingly. Pursuant to the authority and duties assigned to the Division by Chapter 258, Florida Statutes, the Department has adopted rules governing vehicles and traffic on lands within the Department's jurisdiction, including state recreation areas such as the AISRA. Rule 16D-2.002, Florida Administrative Code. See also Rule 16D-2.001, Florida Administrative Code. In particular, the Department has provided the following with regard to driving: Restriction to Roads. No person shall drive any vehicle on any area except designated roads, parking areas, or other such designated areas. Rule 16D-2.002(4), Florida Administrative Code. Pursuant to this rule, driving is not allowed anywhere in a state recreation area except to the extent specifically designated by the Division. With regard to parking, the Department has provided the following: Parking. All vehicles shall be parked only in established parking areas or in such other areas and at such time as the Division may designate. Rule 16D-2.002(5), Florida Administrative Code. Pursuant to this rule, parking is not allowed anywhere in a state recreation area except to the extent specifically designated by the Division. The evidence failed to prove that Rules 16D-2.002(4) and (5), Florida Administrative Code, are invalid or otherwise not applicable in this case. Rules 16D-2.002(4) and (5), Florida Administrative Code, apply to the AISRA. As evidenced in findings of fact 29, 57 and 59, following the acquisition and lease of AISRA to the Division, the Division (and, therefore, the Department) failed to totally enforce Rules 16D-2.002(4) and (5), Florida Administrative Code. Instead, the Division allowed most of the historical beach activities, including beach driving and parking, to continue despite the general prohibition against driving and parking unless otherwise designated by the Department pursuant to Rules 16D-2.002(4) and (5), Florida Administrative Code. In effect, by failing to enforce Rules 16D-2.002(4) and (5), Florida Administrative Code, the Division authorized driving and parking in the AISRA without taking any action to formally "designate" authorized parking or driving areas as contemplated by Rules 16D-2.002(4) and (5), Florida Administrative Code. The Department's Subsequent Decision to Enforce Rules 16D-2.002(4) and (5), Florida Administrative Code. In part, because of the fact that the AISRA was a satellite of Talbot Island State Geo Park, Robert Joseph, the Park Manager, did not take any action to totally enforce the ban of Rules 16D-2.002(4) or (5), Florida Administrative Code, on beach parking and driving in the AISRA, when the AISRA was first created. Mr. Joseph's decision was also based, in part, on the fact that such activities had historically been allowed. Therefore, Mr. Joseph was concerned about the impact that enforcement of the rules would have on the public. Mr. Joseph did take action to enforce the prohibitions of the rules on the dunes of the AISRA and in areas covered by vegetation in the AISRA. Mr. Joseph believed that the issue of beach driving and parking would have to be looked at closely in the future. In subsequent years, after the services of environmental specialists of the Department became available to evaluate the AISRA, the rules banning parking and driving in state parks were enforced in the AISRA to the extent that it appeared that shore bird nesting areas were being negatively impacted by driving and parking. Eventually, Mr. Joseph became convinced that the ban on parking and driving of Rules 16D-2.002(4) and (5), Florida Administrative Code, needed to be enforced throughout the AISRA. Mr. Joseph made this decision based upon the following general observations: Driving on the beach of the AISRA had been increasing since the Department's acquisition of responsibility for the AISRA, further endangering the resources of the AISRA; and There was an increase of safety hazards as a result of the increased vehicular activity. In light of Mr. Joseph's fear that the proposed enforcement of the Department's rules banning parking and driving in the AISRA would be controversial, Mr. Joseph decided to make a recommendation to his supervisors that beach driving be prohibited in order to allow their input. Mr. Joseph recommended an immediate and total ban on all beach driving. Mr. Joseph's recommendation was ultimately reviewed by the District Manager for the district of the Division in which the AISRA is located, the Assistant Division Director, the Division Director and the Department's Policy Coordinating Committee (hereinafter referred to as the "PCC"). Among those serving on the PCC were the Assistant Executive Director of the Department, Deputy Assistant Executive Director of the Department and the Director of the Division. The recommendation was also reviewed by the Chief of the Bureau of Natural and Cultural Resources of the Department. The PCC is an advisory committee which considers various issues which the Department must confront. The PCC makes recommendations to the Executive Director of the Department concerning a variety of policy decisions. After considering Mr. Joseph's recommendation at a meeting of the PCC on July 22, 1991, the PCC adopted the following: Amelia Island State Recreation Area Beach driving will be phased out beginning with a night driving ban effective January 1, 1992 and ending with a total ban on April 1, 1992. The status and legal implications of Chapter 89-445, Laws of Florida, will be investigated and clarified as it relates to driving on the island. Ultimately, Mr. Joseph's recommendation, as modified by the PCC, was reviewed, further modified and accepted by the Executive Director of the Department. Implementation of the Department's Decision to Enforce Rules 16D-2.002(4) and (5), Florida Administrative Code. Mr. Joseph was ultimately informed that he should prohibit beach driving in the AISRA in the manner ultimately explained on the Information Sheet at issue in this proceeding. On or about April 1, 1992, Mr. Joseph caused signs to be posted in the AISRA notifying the public of the Department's decision concerning beach driving and parking (hereinafter referred to as the "Signs"). It was indicated on the Signs, when and where driving and parking on the beach of the AISRA was allowed and not allowed. The Signs were intended to notify the public that there were two designated parking areas in the AISRA. One parking area was designated at the southwestern edge of the AISRA adjacent to Highway A1A. The other parking area was designated at the northeast edge of the AISRA on the Atlantic ocean side of the AISRA. The Signs were also intended to notify the public that driving on the beach was restricted from April 1 to October 31, 1992. The Signs indicated that between April 1 to October 31, 1992, driving was not allowed south of the two designated parking areas. Although couched in terms of a restriction, the Signs also have the effect of designating where and when vehicular traffic is allowable in the AISRA as contemplated by Rules 16D-2.002(4) and (5), Florida Administrative Code. Subsequent to placing the Signs in the AISRA, Mr. Joseph became concerned that there was confusion over exactly what the Signs allowed and prohibited. Consequently, Mr. Joseph decided to distribute the Information Sheet in an effort to better inform the public of what was acceptable in the AISRA. The Information Sheet (without the map that was attached thereto) provided the following: AMELIA ISLAND STATE RECREATION AREA BEACH ACCESS INFORMATION SHEET DNR's policy to regulate beach driving is clearly established. The Division of Recreation and Parks (DRP), with management authority for Amelia Island State Recreation Area (AISRA), is charged with the multiple tasks of providing maximum access for recreational pursuits with protection of Florida's natural values and rare and fragile resources. Beginning April 1, 1992, and continuing until October 31, 1992, a seasonal program of beach access will prohibit vehicular beach access to the southernmost tip of Amelia Island within AISRA. Pedestrian access to the south tip is encouraged during this period. Vehicular parking will be allowed during this period from AISRA boundaries to signs posted on the beach. Access to, and parking on the beach in these areas will be allowed on the hard sand beach area below the high tide line. No driving or parking will be allowed above the high tide line. The entire beach will be closed to parking and driving during high tide and after sunset. The seasonal program of beach access will continue until October 31, 1992, whereupon beach driving and parking will again be permitted on the entire beach within AISRA below the high tide line. Absence of vehicles from the south tip will further protect one of only three designated Critical Wildlife Areas (CWA) in Northeast Florida. Several listed species utilize the Amelia Island CWA, including american oystercatchers and the threatened least tern. During nesting season, park visitors should avoid walking within a 100 yard perimeter of the designated CWA. Adult birds must remain on the nest during the day to protect eggs and hatchlings from the intense heat from the sun. Even temporary abandonment may cause the eggs to literally bake. The boundaries of the CWA will be designated by red and white nesting area signs. The program will improve nesting habitat for marine turtles. The absence of artificial lights, and vehicular traffic will combine with the natural beach profile to enhance nesting. Amelia Island State Recreation Area now offers a recreational experience available nowhere else on Amelia Island. The ability to walk a stretch of the island which is undeveloped, pristine, and un-impacted, with a chance to view native wildlife that has been excluded elsewhere to the brink of extinction. For more information, please contact the Talbot Islands State Park Ranger Station on Little Talbot, or call (904) 251-2320. SUMMARY OF RESTRICTIONS (April 1, 1992 - October 31, 1992) No driving on the beach after sunset. No driving on the beach at high tide. Driving allowed on hard sand beach only. (below previous high tide line) See attached map for authorized parking areas. Petitioners' exhibit 2 and Respondent's exhibit 1. The Information Sheet was distributed to persons entering the AISRA. Although the Signs and the Information Sheet are limited to a particular period of time, the evidence established that the decisions of the Department evidenced by the Signs and the Information Sheet will apply to future years also. The parties have characterized the action of the Department evidenced on the Signs and in the Information Sheet as a restriction on parking and beach vehicular traffic. Because driving and parking on the beach has historically continued in the AISRA, from a practical standpoint, the Signs and Information Sheet do impose a restriction. Technically and legally, however, without the designation of appropriate parking areas on the Signs and the Information Sheet, parking and vehicular traffic on the beach of the AISRA was already prohibited or restricted in the AISRA pursuant to Rules 16D-2.002(4) and (5), Florida Administrative Code. The Signs and Information Sheet constitute a designation by the Department, pursuant to Rules 16D-2.002(4) and (5), Florida Administrative Code, of when and where driving and parking is permitted in the AISRA and not a ban on driving or parking. The Signs and Information Sheet apply to any person who uses the AISRA. It has no application to other areas operated or managed by the Division. The Signs and Information Sheet inform the public of two separate decisions of the Department. The Petitioners have challenged the action of the Department evidenced by the Signs and Information Sheet to the extent that the public is informed of the Department's first decision: the decision to begin enforcement of the ban on driving and parking in state parks set out in Rules 16D-2.002(4) and (5), Florida Administrative Code. The Petitioners have not, however, challenged action of the Department evidenced by the Signs and Information Sheet to the extent that the public is informed of the Department's second decision: the decision to designate the acceptable areas and times for beach vehicular traffic and parking in the AISRA. By enforcing the prohibition against beach driving in the AISRA, vehicular traffic is no longer able, at least from April 1 to October 31 of each year, to access the beaches of the undeveloped, privately-owned tracts of land north of the AISRA from the south. Therefore, pursuant to the Final Judgment on Remand, vehicular traffic is allowed to travel from the beach access road located to the north of the property of the Petitioners (other than the Board), to the south on the beaches running through the Petitioners' property. The challenge to the Signs and Information Sheet as an unpromulgated rule in case numbers 92-4912RU and 92-4913RX were dismissed by a Final Order entered simultaneously with this Recommended Order.
The Issue The issues presented are whether two separate sales of unregistered securities to elderly persons demonstrate a lack of fitness or trustworthiness to engage in the business of insurance in violation of Section 626.611(7), Florida Statutes (2001); and, if so, what penalty, if any, should Petitioner impose against Respondent's license. (All chapter and section references are to Florida Statutes (2001) unless otherwise stated.)
Findings Of Fact Respondent is currently licensed in this state as an insurance agent pursuant to license number A124652. The license authorizes Respondent to perform the duties of an agent for health and life insurance and variable annuity agent. Respondent is not licensed to sell securities. Petitioner is the state agency responsible for regulating the business of insurance in this state. Petitioner is not authorized to regulate the sale of securities. On September 18, 1998, Respondent sold eight shares of unregistered securities in Palm Beach Investment Group, Inc. (Palm Beach) to Mr. and Mrs. Anthony and Lucille Fusco (Fusco) for $40,000. On January 5, 1998, Respondent sold 18 shares of unregistered securities in Palm Beach to Mrs. Gladys Speth (Speth) for $90,000. The Department of Banking has jurisdiction over the sale of unregistered securities by unlicensed individuals. The Department of Banking disciplined Respondent for the sales of unregistered securities to Fusco and Speth. On November 10, l999, Respondent and the Department of Banking entered into a Settlement Stipulation and Final Order whereby Respondent admitted he violated Sections 517.07 and 517.12 by offering for sale or selling unregistered securities while he himself was not authorized to sell securities. Respondent did not dispute these facts at the administrative hearing of this case. The Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent violated Sections 626.611(7)(9)(13), 626.621(2)(3) and (6), and 626.9541(1)(e)1 when he sold unregistered securities to Fusco and Speth. In Petitioner's PRO, however, Petitioner admits that Respondent could not have violated any statute other than Section 626.611(7) because Respondent did not engage in the business of insurance when he sold securities to Fusco and Speth. In relevant part, Petitioner states: Petitioner concedes that the alleged conduct does not involve insurance transactions and therefore cannot be considered transactions under Respondents [sic] insurance licenses. As a result, no violation of the other enumerated statutes has occurred. Petitioner's PRO at 11, paragraph 5. The only remaining issue that Petitioner asserts is whether Respondent violated Section 626.611(7). A licensee violates Section 626.611(7) if he or she demonstrates a lack of fitness or trustworthiness to engage in the business of insurance. Petitioner asserts that Respondent violated Section 626.611(7) by engaging in a business other than the business of insurance in a manner that demonstrates a lack of fitness or trustworthiness to engage in the business of insurance. Neither Fusco nor Speth are experienced investors. Neither buys or sells stock or securities and neither has any training or education in investing. Mr. and Mrs. Fusco are retirees, as is Speth. Fusco invested $40,000 of their life savings, and Speth invested $90,000 from a personal injury settlement. Mrs. Fusco had never purchased shares of stock before. Her father had lost a great deal of money in the l929 market crash and there was a long-standing family prejudice against stock. Fusco had business experience with Respondent prior to the time that Respondent sold Palm Beach securities to Fusco. That prior experience is relevant to the perspective and understanding that Fusco brought to the Palm Beach transaction. Sometime in l998, while Respondent worked with a previous employer, Respondent solicited Fusco to invest funds in a Certificate of Deposit (CD). Fusco did so and believed they were completing a similar transaction when they later purchased Palm Beach securities from Respondent. After Respondent sold the CD to Fusco, but still in l998, Respondent changed his employment to Evergreen National (Evergreen). Respondent telephoned Fusco and informed them that he had moved to Evergreen and that he was selling a very good security that they might be interested in purchasing. Mrs. Fusco explained to Respondent that they were not interested in securities, but they would be interested in purchasing a CD similar to the one they had previously purchased from Respondent. Fusco made an appointment to visit Respondent at his office. At Respondent's office, Mrs. Fusco stated unequivocally that Fusco desired to purchase only a CD. Fusco wanted no risk to their funds, and they made that clear to Respondent. Respondent represented to Fusco that Respondent was selling a CD that was fully guaranteed and insured against any loss. Respondent represented that Fusco would be investing in a proportionate share of a jumbo CD issued by Palm Beach, that they would enjoy a 14 percent return on their investment, and that their investment was insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Great American Insurance Company (Great American). Respondent provided Fusco with various brochures about the investment that verified Respondent's representations that the investment was an insured, safe way to earn a high interest rate. Fusco relied on the representations contained in those brochures and those made by Respondent. Fusco was still somewhat hesitant to invest their funds. Respondent then brought into his office Darrin Carlson, the president of Evergreen (Carlson). Carlson reiterated to Fusco that the investment was insured and was completely safe and without risk. Fusco elected to invest $40,000 to purchase a CD. They gave a check to Respondent, and Respondent promptly remitted the check to Palm Beach. On September 18, 1998, Fusco signed a document entitled Subscription Agreement. The terms of the Subscription Agreement state that it is an application for Fusco to purchase shares of stock in Palm Beach. The agreement is clearly not an application to purchase a CD. In fact, no reference is made in the document to any CD or to Fusco's $40,000. Fusco did not understand the terms of the Subscription Agreement. Respondent did not explain the terms of the agreement to them. Fusco relied on the representations made by Respondent. Approximately three weeks later, Fusco received a stock certificate in the mail issued by Palm Beach showing that they owned eight shares of stock in Palm Beach. The certificate makes no reference to any CD or Fusco's $40,000 investment. Fusco was confused and upset. The stock certificate does not document that the Fusco's owned any CD or any share in a CD. Furthermore, Respondent offered no evidence of the use of the funds by Palm Beach. Fusco contacted Respondent. Respondent assured Fusco that this was the "way things were done," and their investment was safe. Fusco trusted Respondent and relied on the representation by Respondent. In May of l999, Fusco received a letter from Palm Beach informing Fusco that they would receive a full refund of their money plus interest as of June 7, l999. Palm Beach did not deliver on its promise. When Fusco did not receive any money from Palm Beach, Fusco contacted Respondent. Respondent assured Fusco that their investment as safe, that they were insured, and that they would soon receive their money. Fusco has never received the original $40,000 or any interest payment from Palm Beach. Palm Beach has never provided an accounting to Fusco showing the value of their investment. Fusco has suffered a loss of $40,000 plus accumulated interest at a fair market value rate. Respondent also sold unregistered securities to Speth. Sometime in January l999, Respondent visited the home of Speth. Speth had recently received $90,000 as a personal injury settlement and was looking for a secure investment. Speth wanted a risk-free investment. She told Respondent that she would purchase a CD, but had no interest in purchasing stock. Respondent suggested that Speth invest in a proportionate share of a jumbo CD to be issued by Palm Beach that would yield a 14 percent return. Respondent represented that the CD would be insured and risk free. Respondent showed Speth various brochures claiming that the investment was fully insured by the FDIC as well as other insurance companies. Respondent did not inform Speth that there was a risk she could lose her entire investment. Speth gave Respondent a check for $90,000 made out to Palm Beach to invest in a CD with a one-year maturity date. Speth subsequently received a stock certificate in the mail from Palm Beach showing that she owned 18 shares of Palm Beach stock. Speth was puzzled, telephoned Respondent, and told him that she thought she had purchased a CD. Respondent represented to Speth that her money was safe and fully insured. Speth has not received either her original investment or any interest on that investment. Palm Beach has not provided Speth with an accounting showing the value of her investment. Speth has suffered a loss of $90,000 plus accumulated interest at a fair market value rate. Respondent sold investments to Fusco and Speth that were not appropriate for their age, skill, and investment objectives. Both Fusco and Speth clearly expressed the maximum aversion to risk. Neither Fusco nor Speth would have invested in Palm Beach if they knew they were investing in stock. Both Fusco and Speth intended to purchase a CD or a proportionate share of a CD that was insured by the FDIC and Great American. At no time were their investments insured by the FDIC or any insurance company. Respondent had actual knowledge of the investment goals and skill of Fusco and Speth. Respondent believed that he was selling an investment vehicle that was appropriate to the knowledge, skill, and goals of Fusco and Speth. Prior to selling any securities in Palm Beach, Respondent undertook several independent inquiries that are fairly characterized as a form of due diligence. Some of Respondent's efforts toward due diligence are relevant to the unauthorized sale of unregistered securities. Other efforts are relevant to the nature of the investment as a secured investment. Palm Beach represented in a letter to Respondent that the securities offered for sale were exempt from registration. Carlson believed the securities were exempt and assured Respondent that Respondent did not need a license to sell the securities. Carlson went on-line to the web site of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and obtained a letter from private securities attorneys stating that the securities were exempt. Carlson believed that the securities were insured by Great American and obtained a copy of a financial institution bond with a limit of $5 million. Carlson represented to Respondent that any investment in Palm Beach securities was an insured investment. Respondent thought that he had verified the matter by telephoning the office of Great American and obtaining verbal assurances that the Palm Beach investment was insured. Respondent had a good faith belief that the securities he offered to Fusco and Speth, in part, were appropriate to the clients' investment goals because Respondent believed the securities satisfied the risk aversion expressed by Fusco and Speth. Respondent believed the securities were risk-free because he believed they were insured. Respondent knew the Palm Beach securities he offered to Fusco and Speth, in part, were not appropriate to the clients' investment goals because the securities were stock in a company and that neither Fusco nor Speth wanted to invest in securities. The first paragraph of the Securities Agreement clearly states that the investor is purchasing stock in Palm Beach. Respondent had actual knowledge that he was selling securities to Fusco and Speth and that neither wanted to purchase securities. Respondent has demonstrated in two separate transactions a willingness to sell a product to a person that the person did not desire to purchase. Even though the products sold were securities, rather than insurance, and even though Respondent believed the products represented the risk- free investment sought by Fusco and Speth, the willingness to sell securities to persons who have expressly stated that they do not want to purchase that type of product demonstrates a lack of fitness or trustworthiness to engage in the business of insurance within the meaning of Section 626.611(7). Respondent sold a product to Fusco and Speth that, in fact, was not risk-free. Respondent's due diligence prior to the sale did not include an independent attempt to ascertain whether Palm Beach in fact purchased a jumbo CD with the investments made by Fusco and Speth. Respondent did not disclose his omission to Fusco or Speth. After Respondent entered into a stipulation and final order with the Department of Banking, Respondent continued to represent to Fusco and Speth that their money was safe and that they would receive their money. Respondent has no prior discipline against his insurance license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 626.611(7) and suspending Respondent's license for nine months. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of October, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DANIEL MANRY 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 25th day of October, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Elihu H. Berman, Esquire 509 South Greenwood Avenue Post Office Box 6801 Clearwater, Florida 33758 James A. Bossart, Esquire Division of Legal Services Department of Insurance 200 East Gaines Street, Room 612 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Honorable Tom Gallagher State Treasurer/Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307
The Issue Whether the application submitted on behalf of the City of Miami Beach, Florida (City) for a coastal construction control line (CCCL) permit should be approved.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Wallace Corporation, owns and operates the Richmond Hotel located at 1757 Collins Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida. The Richmond Hotel (the Richmond) was built in 1941 by Allan Herbert's grandfather. It has been continuously controlled by Mr. Herbert's family since that time. The Richmond prides itself on its appeal to upscale international travelers. It seeks to offer unique accommodations, service, and privacy. The Richmond was recently renovated and restored at a cost of several million dollars. The guest rooms, roof, plumbing, and electrical systems were upgraded while the original Art Deco decor was preserved. Included in the renovations were improvements to the pool area, landscaping, and a dune walk-over. These renovations sought to appeal to a "boutique" clientele seeking a peaceful and tranquil housing accommodation while enjoying the Miami Beach locale. The Respondent, City of Miami Beach, is the applicant for the instant CCCL permit. Coastal Systems was retained by the City to file and procure the subject permit which is identified in this record as CCCL permit no. DA-361. The CCCL permit application was filed with the Department on June 19, 1997. Since that time it has been modified to address Department concerns. The Department of Environmental Protection is the state agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing applications for CCCL permits. In its review of the instant permit, the Department deemed the application complete on February 5, 1998. Thereafter, the Department's Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems entered a proposed order to approve CCCL permit no. DA-361. If approved, this permit will allow the construction and improvements sought by the City. The project proposed by the City will allow for the construction of a beachwalk that would extend from Lummus Park at 14th Lane to an existing boardwalk at 21st Street. This beachwalk, along with its attendant improvements, will allow the public to access the beach at several controlled points along the dune system. Additionally, it will allow pedestrian traffic to move efficiently length-wise along the dune system. The project concept is to limit the number of points across the dune system that the pedestrian public uses for access to the beach. Further, the beachwalk will offer the public an efficient means of traveling north to south or vice versa without reverting out to Collins Avenue. Shifting pedestrian traffic away from Collins Avenue should improve traffic conditions in this highly urbanized area. The design of the beachwalk minimizes impacts to the beach dune system and prevents erosion by keeping pedestrians on the walk and off the dune. The design will act as an erosion preventative measure and should assure minimal adverse impacts to the dune and beach system. In this regard, it is critical to note that the dune and beach system in this area of Miami Beach are the product of beach renourishment. The beach itself was created in the late 1970s and 1980s by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In order to address the severe erosion that threatened properties along Miami Beach, the Corps stepped in and deposited millions of cubic yards of sand on the beach. The beach renourishment project expanded the beach from government cut to 32nd Street. It was designed to provide storm protection for upland owners by widening the non-existent beach and by creating a dune system. The dune was established immediately seaward of the erosion control line (ECL). This ECL had formerly been the mean high water mark for the beach prior to the massive undertaking to deposit sand along the coast. The newly created dune served as a dike to reduce the impacts which would be expected from a 100-year storm event. In theory, water generated in such a storm event would be blocked from coming onshore thereby minimizing damage from wave or surf action upland of the ECL. To enhance the dune's efficiency in this regard, a vegetation program was implemented to address wind and pedestrian erosion to the dune system. This vegetation program will be expanded as explained below if the instant permit is approved. Currently the dune system is marred by cross-over channels cut by pedestrian traffic through the dune. These pathways provide convenient access to the beach but do so at a cost to the dune's efficiency and security. Because they cut through the dune in an easterly direction, they allow wind and, potentially water in a storm event, to gouge the dune. The cuts in the dune undermine the efficiency of the erosion control. By installing the beachwalk proposed by the City, the number of cuts across the dune will be minimized. Moreover, they will be designed to trap sand and to promote erosion control. The areas which have already been gouged will be re- vegetated to deter pedestrian use. The native vegetation planned for this work should promote erosion control and enhance the dune system. The types of vegetation and manner of planting should also deter future unauthorized pedestrian access through the dune. Subsequent to the beach renourishment program, the beach, along the entire project length, has experienced a natural accretion. This means that natural erosion is not occurring. Natural erosion results from wind, tidal, or other naturally occurring influences. In contrast, however, are the man-made erosion sources: pedestrian paths, cuts in the dunes which endanger the dune and limit its effectiveness. The danger from these unregulated cuts could potentially undermine the dune and accelerate erosion from natural events. Dune cross-walks such as proposed by the instant project (and as maintained by the Petitioner) are required for the prevention of erosion. Thus the project in its entirety will prevent erosion. The proposed project will not adversely impact the beach-dune system. Petitioner presented no evidence to establish a significant impact. The project creates a net improvement of sand and vegetation to the dune and will restore all dune cuts. The beachwalk is proposed to follow the shore, parallel to the beach. It is to be constructed of paver blocks and is to accommodate controlled movement of pedestrian traffic and bicyclists. While it could accommodate emergency vehicle traffic such as police or medical rescue, it is not designed for such use on a routine basis. The beachwalk will improve public access at 17th and 18th Streets. These access points will give the public better availability of parking and public accommodations. All of the street end dune cross-overs are designed to trap sand and to minimize erosion to the dune. The proposed access points significantly improve the west to east access to the beach. As currently designed, the beachwalk will not cause wind borne or water borne projectiles during a storm event. Moreover, the paver block walk is located landward of the dune in most instances. Even this walk has been designed to break apart and result in no increased erosion during a storm event. The beachwalk will be constructed of paver blocks installed on a crushed shell or rock base. This base should give the path stability under normal use yet give way in a significant storm event. In some areas the height of the dune will be increased by the placement of additional sand fill. Foundations for improvements proposed along the beachwalk are also designed to give way in a storm event. Thus, planters or low walls should easily collapse if undermined in a storm event. All of the improvements seaward of the ECL are minor structures. Most of the project will be located on state lands. In the instances where the project crosses or touches private property the City recognizes it must secure easements or other appropriate access to construct and maintain improvements. It is unlikely that the improvements will cause scour. It is also unlikely that the project will accentuate or contribute to storm surge. As currently proposed, the beachwalk project will have no adverse impact on the dune system. Moreover, the project will create an improvement to the system by adding sand, stabilizing and improving vegetation on the dune, controlling pedestrian access to the beach, and trapping sand. Prior to 1980 there was no documented turtle nesting on the project area of Miami Beach. Since that time, and the creation of the beach from renourishment, there has been a marked increase in turtle nesting in the area. While such nesting is encouraged by the Department, due to the urbanized nature of the area and the intense pedestrian and public use of the beach, all turtle nests located along this beach are relocated to hatcheries. This relocation policy and practice for the area existed before the proposed project was submitted for approval. The relocation program is managed by Miami-Dade County under a permit issued by the Department. Pursuant to the permit, the County conducts nesting surveys, operates self-release and restraining hatcheries, documents false crawls, and rescues turtles for relocation. None of the foregoing activities will change if the instant permit is approved. Given the width of the beach in the subject area of the proposed beachwalk, the limitations on the lighting proposed for the path, and the current restraints employed to deter the public from interfering with turtle nesting, it is unlikely turtle nesting in the subject area will change. If anything, there is a possibility that nesting may increase. For reasons unknown to the experts, turtle nesting on Miami Beach is greater in the better lit areas of South Beach. More turtles have nested along the better lit area, have had more false crawls, and have resulted in more nest re-locations from the highly commercial area of South Beach than in the darker, more traditional beach of the subject area. As turtles and hatchlings become disoriented by lights, this documented phenomenon seems contrary to the typical turtle scenario which would have the nesting turtle approach a dark, quiet beach, nest within a limited distance of the rack line (the line of seaweed deposited by tide along the beach), and return to the ocean. At the area of the Richmond, turtle nests are typically found within 50 feet of the rack line. Turtles nest within a limited distance of this line, rarely more than 100 feet. Since the beach is several hundred feet wide along the project length, it is unlikely nesting turtles will be deterred by the construction of the path. Additionally, it is unlikely the lights proposed for the beachwalk will adversely impact turtles. The number, placement, and limitations proposed on the lights will adequately minimize lighting impacts expected from this project. Given the need for some lighting to address security and safety issues for the public using the beachwalk, given the relocation of all turtle nests on the subject beach, given the project distances and design considerations to be employed for the path, and given the lack of substantial evidence to the contrary, it is found that the proposed project does not constitute a "take" of marine turtles in the project area. Miami Beach is a very well lit, commercial area. The pockets of dark beach are only dimly lit in comparison to the more pronounced lights from night clubs or other entertainment areas. The lighting plan proposed by the City adequately addresses the potential for impacts to turtles such that the project should not have a significant adverse impact. To further limit impacts, however, construction of the project should not occur during nesting season. The proposed beachwalk with its attendant improvements does not cross in front of the Richmond. The project stops immediately to the south of Petitioner's property. The project picks back up immediately to the north of Petitioner's property. The original design of the project was modified in this fashion because Petitioner opposes the construction of the path and its attendant improvements. Because Petitioner opposes the project, no portion of the beachwalk will impede Petitioner's riparian rights to the beach/ocean. None of the proposed improvements will be constructed seaward of the ECL along Petitioner's property. All owners of property upon whose land the beachwalk will be constructed, have or will be required to give written consent to the project. Any public entity upon whose land the beachwalk will be constructed, has or will be required to give written consent to the project. Petitioner expects the beachwalk to damage business at the Richmond. Mr. Herbert believes the damage should be comparable to the events such as the cold winter of 1958, World War II, and, more recently, the murder of foreign visitors. While it is certain the beachwalk has the potential for increasing pedestrian traffic along the beach in front of the Richmond, any damage suggested by Petitioner is too remote or speculative to be of significant consideration. The construction of the proposed beachwalk will have no adverse impact on the physical condition of Petitioner's property. The proposed project will not create a significant adverse impact to the property of others. Petitioner was not required to establish its dune cross-over was required for erosion control. All dune cross- overs allowed by the Department previous to the instant request were not required to establish that they were required for erosion prevention. All of the existing and proposed cross-overs are seaward of the ECL. No upland riparian rights will not be adversely affected by the project. Petitioner's rights as an adjacent property owner to the project will not be adversely affected by the beachwalk. Petitioner will not be adversely affected from storm impacts as a result of this project.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a Final Order approving CCCL permit no. DA-361 with the conditions as set forth in the proposed agency action order and with additional assurances that construction of the project will not occur during turtle nesting season, and that all property owners over whose land the project will meander provide written approval of, and authorization for, the proposed improvements to their properties. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of June, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. Parrish 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 8th day of June, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Neil Chonin, Esquire Chonin, Sher & Navarrete, P.A. 95 Merrick Way, Suite 100 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Joseph C. Segor, Esquire 12815 Southwest 112th Court Miami, Florida 33176-4431 Ricardo Muratti Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Earl G. Gallop, Esquire Nagin, Gallop, Figueredo, P.A. 3225 Aviation Avenue, Suite 301 Miami, Florida 33133-4741 Raul J. Aguila, Assistant City Attorney Office of the City Attorney City of Miami Beach 1700 Convention Center Drive Miami Beach, Florida 33139 Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 F. Perry Odom, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue Whether respondent's registered building contractor's license should be revoked, suspended or otherwise disciplined based on allegations he violated (1) Section 489.129(1)(c), Florida Statutes, in that he violated a provision of Chapter 455, Florida Statutes; (2) Section 489.129(1)(g), Florida Statutes, in that he acted in the capacity of a contractor under a name other than on his registration; and (3) Section 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes, in that he failed, in two material respects, to comply with the provisions of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, respondent was licensed by the Construction Industry Licensing Board as a registered building contractor, having been issued a license number RR 0007671. He was not, however, licensed as a roofing contractor. Neither did he, at any time, qualify Gus Schmidt Home Improvements, Inc., with the Construction Industry Licensing Board. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 1). In 1968, respondent was issued a limited general contractor's license by Palm Beach County, Florida, under which he was authorized to install roofs only on structures which he constructed; he was not authorized to re-roof existing roofs. He has continuously renewed this local license, from 1968 to the present. On November 26, 1979, he qualified Gus Schmidt Home Improvements, Inc., with the Palm Beach County Construction Industry Licensing Board, which qualifications he has maintained to the present time. (See Petitioner's Exhibits 5). At all times material hereto, he held no other certificates of competency issued by Palm Beach County, Florida. At all times material hereto, he was the only qualifier for Gus Schmidt Home Improvements, Inc. ( See Petitioner's Exhibit 5). On or about May 5, 1980, he signed and submitted a notarized letter of authorization to the Palm Beach County Building Department. By this letter, he authorized Linda DeVito, his daughter, to obtain local building permits in the name of Gus Schmidt Home Improvements, Inc., and accepted liability for all acts performed under the permits. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 6). On or about May 29, 1980, Gus Schmidt Home Improvements, Inc., contracted with Mr. and Mrs. Garrett McLaughlin to remove and replace the existing roof over the carport and entry-way of the McLaughlin's home, and waterproof the entire roof. The house is located at 2041 Upland Road, West Palm Beach, Florida. The contract was signed by an employee of the respondent, and contained a five-year warranty on the work performed by Gus Schmidt Home Improvements, Inc. The contract price was $2,532.00. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 8). On or about June 16, 1980, Linda DeVito, as the authorized agent for Gus Schmidt Home Improvements, Inc., applied for a county building permit to perform the roofing work on the McLaughlins' home. Based on her application, a county building permit, number 80-14711, was issued to Gus Schmidt Home Improvements, Inc. (See Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 7). This permit was issued based on respondent's letter of authorization, dated March 5, 1980, which was on file with the Palm Beach County Building Department. (See Petitioner's Exhibits 6 and 7). In or about August 1980, Gus Schmidt Home Improvements, Inc., completed the re-roofing work on the McLaughlins' home, without subcontracting it. Between May 29, 1980, and July 29, 1980, Mrs. McLaughlin paid Gus Schmidt Home Improvements, Inc., $2,532.00--the full contract price. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 10). A few weeks after the roofing work was completed, Mrs. McLaughlin checked the roof and discovered that the coating had not completely covered it. There were openings where stones were showing. She became concerned and called Gust Schmidt Home Improvements, Inc. She was told not to worry because the work was covered by a five-year warranty. During 1981, weeds began to grow on the McLaughlins' roof. In May or June of 1982, Mrs. McLaughlin called respondent to complain about the roof's condition. He told her that he had gotten out of the business before the work on the McLaughlins' home was completed, and that a company on Lake Avenue in West Palm Beach, Florida, had done the work on her home. He told her that he would call her back with further information, but never did. When respondent did not call back with further information, Mrs. McLaughlin checked the phone book and decided that respondent must have been referring to a company called Florida Exteriors. She called that company and was told that they would honor her warranty. But the roof on Mrs. McLaughlin's home was never repaired, even though the roof leaked where boards had been replaced.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent's contractor's license be suspended for six months, and that he be administratively fined $1000. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of April 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 12th day of April 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephanie A. Daniel, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gus Schmidt 602 North "A" Street Lake Worth, Florida 33460 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained herein, the Petitioner, Department, was the state agency responsible for the regulation of the sale and operation of time-share condominiums in Florida. The Respondent, Association, is a successor owner organization made up of owners of time- shareperiods in the complex, Sarasota Sands, located in Sarasota, Florida. Joseph T. Aube is President of the Association and has held that office since 1986. He has been an owner at Sarasota Sands since 1981. At that time, the complex was controlled by the initial developer. The complex was sold out prior to 1982, but the initial developers still maintained control of the Association Board with the individual owners being a minority representation. In 1982, however, the initial developer turned over to the period owners control of the Association. When Mr. Aube became President of the Association, he asked the management company then holding the contract with the Association for the records developed by the initial developer which pertained to the Association, but the manager was able to come up with nothing. He was told at the time that the Board was not to be bothered with management but to satisfy itself with being mere figureheads, leaving management up to the initial developers and the management company they had hired. Notwithstanding, when Mr. Aube took over as President, he was under the impression that the initial developers owned only their own units as individuals and that the balance of the units had been sold out to investors. There was, then, no sales force on the premises. Though turnover was to have taken place at the June, 1982 meeting of the Board, the management company hired by the original developers continued to manage the Association's business until it was discharged by Mr. Aube when hetook over as President in 1986. After the first management company was dismissed, the Association became the management entity and remains so to this date, operating through a manager hired by and responsible to it. The 18 units in issue came into the possession of the Association as a result of foreclosure. On foreclosure, the units belong to the Association as a whole, and when they are resold, the Association gets the proceeds of the sale. Most of the units in issue had been owned by the initial developer which held mortgages on them. When Mr. Aube signed the contracts and deeds for resale, he signed as President of the Association as seller. The By-Laws of the Association call for the President to sign any documents which pertain to the business of the Association. The deeds in question refer to units which were sold by a licensed broker with whom the Association contracted to procure buyers and to whom a commission for each sale was paid by the Association. No escrow agreement was filed with the Division because the Association did not receive any of the deposit or other money pending closing. The deposits were held by the independent broker who handled the sale. The Association has never taken title to any units other than by foreclosure and it has never solicited or sold time-share units other than those which came into its possession through foreclosure. In addition, the Association did not file any documents with the Bureau of Time-Share that are required by developers prior to offering and selling time-share periods, nordid it provide a public offering statement, approved by the Division, to any of the 18 purchasers who contracted to purchase these 18 units through the independent broker. The contract forms used by Ms. Shenko for these sales did not include the language required for inclusion in time-share sales contracts by Section 721.06, Florida Statutes. Further, with respect to these sales, the Association failed to establish an escrow account for the deposit of any funds received from the purchasers of those periods sold through the broker. Since no escrow agreement was established, none was furnished to the Division for approval. On or about January 17, 1989, Wendy S. Holcomb, the Association's manager for the complex, prepared a check drawn on the Association's account with the First Florida Bank, in the amount of $126,719.95, payable to Barbara Ford-Coates, Tax Collector of Sarasota County. The check, which was signed by Mr. Aube and Ms. Holcomb, was payment in full of the entire amount due for ad valorem real estate taxes for 1988 on the Sarasota Sands Complex. This fund did not come from a tax escrow account. The Association does not maintain such an account, agreement or bond. It was paid from the operating account of the Association since there was sufficient funds therein to pay the taxes without first receiving the tax payments due from individual owners. Tax notices were sent to the owners in January, 1989 for the 1988 taxes, and the money was due from the owners by January 31. When it came in, the money was not placed into an escrow account but was used to reimburse the operating accountsince that account had advanced the funds to pay the taxes prior to the date they were due. This practice is still followed. In essence, Ms. Holcomb admittedly never holds any money which she received from the individual owners for taxes in escrow. Deposit money received from purchasers is held by the broker, not by the Association. Proceeds from sales are received only after closing and are used to reimburse the Association for money spent. No money utilized by the Association comes from any deposit money. The Association never even sees any deposit money except that which is forfeited by prospective purchasers and which is then released to it as liquidated damages under the terms of the purchase contract. Therefore, the Association did not have an independent escrow agent and received no funds from time share purchasers which had to go into an escrow account. So long as Ms. Holcomb has been an employee of the Association, since 1985, the Association has never solicited units for sale and has sold only those it has received through foreclosure. With regard to the current allegations, as manager of the Association, Ms. Holcomb claims she was contacted by the Department by mail in either March or April, 1991 and was furnished the Notice to Show Cause. Prior to receiving that document, however, she had had no contact from the Department regarding any allegations of misconduct. There was a prior visit by a Ms. Clark from the Department who asked for books and records but she claimed she was there only to review the operation. She made no referenceto specifics of the allegations involved here, and Ms. Holcomb interpreted her visit as a routine inspection and asked no questions. Ann Marie Shenko, a licensed real estate broker, who maintains her office in one of the units in the complex, arranged the sale of the 18 units in issue here. She drew up the contracts and prepared a few of the deeds. Most deeds, however, were prepared by a title company as is routine in the conveyance of residential real estate. Ms. Shenko did no outside advertising for Sarasota Sands. She makes all sales by referral from others. When she gets a deposit on a unit, she places it into her trust account with the Southeast Bank. The Association is not a party to that account. Any proceeds received from a consummated sale are ultimately disbursed by the title company which handles the closing. In March, 1989, Ms. Shenko received a letter from Mr. and Mrs Terry Estepp in which they requested the refund of the $560.00 deposit they had placed with her for the purchase of a time unit at Sarasota Sands. Ms. Shenko had determined to forfeit the deposit and sought the advice of the Real Estate Commission because the Estepps had failed to respond timely to several pieces of correspondence she had sent them about the property. When they finally decided not to go through with the sale and requested a refund of their deposit, she refused to return it until, after advice from the Real Estate Commission, she agreed to do so and wrote a check for the sum in question on her own business account. At no time was the Association involved in this transaction. Of the 18 contracts and deeds in issue, no one other than the Estepps requested a refund of their deposit. She claims never to have been contacted by the Department regarding how she conducts her business and feels the operation is routine. Of the 18 units in issue, all were acquired by foreclosure and none goes back unsold to initial construction. Eleven of the 18 purchasers were already owners at Sarasota Sands; 6 were RCI exchanges, (owners at other similar and related resorts); and 1 was the renter of an existing unit, (the Estepps). All had had some contact with time-shares and so far as she knows, the Estepps are still interested in purchasing a time-share period at Sarasota Sands. Ms. Shenko has a trust account as a part of her real estate business. It is not an escrow account. She has never sent an escrow agreement, reflecting she had such an account, to the Department. When she gets a time-share customer, she takes a deposit which goes into that trust account. The contract for purchase is then forwarded to a title company for closing. Upon payment in full at closing, the seller is paid and she gets her commission. The buyer gets title to the unit purchased. She is not instructed by the Association regarding the disbursement of sales proceeds and gets no compensation from the Association except a commission on the sales of units owned by it - only the 18 in issue here. Though Ms. Shenko maintains her primary businessoffice in the Sarasota Sands complex, she pays no rent or utility cost - only phone. She receives no salary or guarantee from the Association and has been compensated by the Association solely through the commissions she receives on those few sales for it. She does receive commissions from unit owners when she sells their units to someone else, just as any real estate agent would. The majority of her business is in transfers of units within the Sarasota Sands complex. As to the two previous Consent Orders involving the Association, involved neither the sale nor resale of units by the Association. In one case the Association paid a small fine for alleged irregularities relating to the dismissal of the former management company. In a ratification vote take subsequent to the discharge, 90% of the owners approved the Association's action of dismissal. The other prior action relates to an ad valorem tax account and again, while the Association was chastised and fined for failure to maintain an escrow account, there was no indication the taxes were not paid when due. In neither case were the actions the result of intentional disobedience of statutes or the Department's rules. In fact, in the Spring of 1989, after reading an article about successive developers, Mr. Aube had the Association's representative contact the Department for clarification and got no answer. Though counsel contacted the Department by letter, at no time, either directly or through counsel, did the Association receive any guidance from the Department. As a result it acted on advice of counsel.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore recommended that the Notice to Show Cause in this case be dismissed. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 15th day of October, 1991. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of October, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-3652 The following constitute my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: Accepted and incorporated herein. & 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 7. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted to the extent that Respondent did not file any documents with the Bureau of Time-share. Rejected that the requirement for filing pertained to Respondent. - 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE RESPONDENT: 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but a Conclusion of Law. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Henderson, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Daniel E. Scott, Esquire 2710 Main Street Sarasota, Florida 34237 Janet E. Ferris Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Henry M. Solares Director Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums, and Mobile Homes 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Donald D. Conn General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007
The Issue Whether the Sherry Petitioners have standing to initiate the proceeding in Case No. 10-0515? Whether the Oceania Petitioners have standing to initiate the proceeding in Case No. 10-0516? Whether the MACLA Intervenors have standing to intervene? Whether the Department should enter a final order that issues the JCP, the Variance and the SSL Authorization?
Findings Of Fact Setting and Preliminary Identification of the Parties These consolidated cases are set in Okaloosa County. They concern the Consolidated NOI issued by the Department to the County that indicate the Department's intent to issue state authorizations to allow the restoration of a stretch of beach known as the Western Destin Beach Restoration Project (the "Western Destin Project" or the "Project"). In addition to the Western Destin Project, there are other beach restoration efforts (the "Other Beach Restorations") which concern the Gulf of Mexico coastal system along the shores of the Florida Panhandle and about which the parties presented evidence in this proceeding. The applicants for the authorizations in the Other Beach Restorations efforts are either Okaloosa County or Walton County, the coastal county immediately to the County's east, and concern Okaloosa and Walton County property or are on federal property used by Eglin Air Force Base (the "Eglin Projects" or "A-3" or "A-13"). The Eglin Projects have been completed. The source of the sand use in the Eglin Projects is a borrow area designated by the County and its agent, Taylor Engineering, as "OK-A" ("OK-A" or the "OK-A Borrow Area"). The County intends that the OK-A Borrow Area be the source of sand for the Western Destin Project. West of East Pass, a passage of water which connects Choctawhatchee Bay and the Gulf of Mexico, the OK-A Borrow Area is between 4,000 and 5,000 feet off the shores of Okaloosa Island. Okaloosa Island is not an island. It is an area of the incorporated municipality of Fort Walton Beach that sits on a coastal barrier island, Santa Rosa Island. Except for the part of the final hearing conducted in Tallahassee, the final hearing in this case took place in Okaloosa Island. As Mr. Clark put it (when he testified in that part of the hearing not in Tallahassee), "I am in Okaloosa Island. [At the same time], I am on Santa Rosa Island." Tr. 521 (emphasis added). Petitioners in Case No. 10-0515, David and Rebecca Sherry and John Donovan (the "Sherry Petitioners") live along a stretch of beach that is in Okaloosa Island. They do not live along the stretch of beach that is within the area subject to the Western Destin Project. The Sherry Petitioners' stretch of beach is the subject of another beach restoration effort by the County (the "Okaloosa Island Beach Restoration Project"). The Okaloosa Island Beach Restoration Project, in turn, is the subject of another case at DOAH, Case No. 10-2468. The OK-A Borrow Area is much closer to the Sherry Petitioners' property than to the beach to be restored by the Western Destin Project. The Sherry Petitioners recognize the need for the restoration of at least some of the beaches in the Western Destin Project. The Sherry Petitioners initiated Case No. 10-0515, not to prevent the Western Destin Project from restoring those beaches, but because they are concerned that the beaches subject to the Okaloosa Island Project (including "their" beach) will suffer impacts from the dredging of the OK-A Borrow Area whether the dredging is done to serve the Western Destin Project or the other Projects the OK-A Borrow Area has served or is intended to serve. In contrast to the Sherry Petitioners, the Petitioners in Case No. 10-0516 (the "Oceania Petitioners") do, in fact, live on beaches in a section of the Western Destin Project that was slated for restoration when the Consolidated NOI was issued. The Oceania Petitioners are opposed to the restoration of the beaches subject to the Western Destin Project. They initiated Case No. 10-0516, therefore, because of that opposition. Walton County applied authorizations from the state for the Walton County/East Destin Project (referred-to elsewhere in this order as the "Walton Project"). The Walton Project, like the Eglin Projects, is completed. Unlike the Eglin Projects, and the intent with regard to the Western Destin Project and the Okaloosa Island Project, the Walton Project did not use the OK-A Borrow Area as its source of sand. The Walton Project used a Borrow Area to the east of OK-A (the "Walton Borrow Area"). The Walton Borrow Area is in an area influenced by the ebb tidal shoal formed by the interaction between East Pass and the Gulf of Mexico. The MACLA Intervenors (all of whom own property deeded to the MHWL of the Gulf in the stretch of beach subject to the Western Destin Project) together with the Sherry Petitioners and the Oceania Petitioners, seek findings in this proceeding concerning the impacts of the Walton Borrow Area to the beaches of Okaloosa County. They hope that findings with regard to Walton Borrow Area beach impacts will undermine the assurances the County and the Department offer for a finding that the Western Destin Project will not cause significant adverse impacts to the beaches of Okaloosa County. The Holiday Isle Intervenors support the Project. They are condominium associations or businesses whose properties are within the Project. Like the Eglin Projects, the Walton Project is complete. The Walton Project was the subject of a challenge at DOAH in Case Nos. 04-2960 and 04-3261. The challenge culminated at the administrative level in a Final Order issued by the Department that issued the state authorizations necessary to restore the Walton Project beaches. The Walton Project Final Order was appealed to the First District Court of Appeal where it was reversed. But it was reinstated in a decision by the Florida Supreme Court. The Florida Supreme Court decision was upheld when the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous 9-0 decision less than two months before the commencement of the final hearing in these consolidates cases: Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Fla. Dep't of Envtl Prot., 130 S. Ct. 2592 (2010). The Court held in Stop the Beach Renourishment that the Walton County Project was not a regulatory taking of property that demanded compensation to affected property owners under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Stop the Beach Renourishment was argued before the United States Supreme Court in December of 2009, shortly before filing of the petitions that initiated these consolidated cases. The final hearing in these cases was not set initially until July 2010 in the hope that the Stop the Beach Renourishment case would be decided, a hope that was realized. In the meantime, another event threatened to affect these consolidated cases: the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill (the "Oil Spill") in the Gulf of Mexico. The spill began with the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oil platform in April of 2010 and continued until August of 2010 when the Oil Spill was stopped while these cases were in the midst of final hearing. The Joint Coastal Permit issued by the Department was revised to address impacts of the Oil Spill. No impacts, however, were proven in this proceeding by any of the parties. The Parties The Sherry Petitioners and Their Property David and Rebecca Sherry, husband and wife, are the leaseholders of "Apartment No. 511 [ a condominium unit] of Surf Dweller Condominium, a condominium with such apartment's fractional share of common and limited elements as per Declaration thereof recorded in Official Records . . . of Okaloosa County, Florida."2/ Their address is 554 Coral Court, #511, Fort Walton Beach, FL 32548. The Sherrys entered the lease for their condominium unit in May of 2002 in anticipation of it being their retirement home. After retirement, "towards the end of 2005," tr. 840, the unit became their permanent residence. They chose their home after an extensive search for the best beach in America on which to reside. The couple toured the Gulf Coast of Florida, the Keys and the Atlantic seaboard from South Florida into the Carolinas. Both explained at hearing why they picked the Panhandle of Florida in general and selected the Surf Dweller Condominium in particular as the place that they would live during retirement. Mr. Sherry testified: Tr. 841. This particular area we chose because of the beach quality. Quite frankly, . . . I was surprised when I first saw the place . . . the really stunning quality of it. The sand is absolutely beautiful. The water has that clear green hue. You can walk off shore and it just looks great. There isn't any other place like it in the Continental US that I've ever seen. Mrs. Sherry elaborated about the reasons for their choice to reside on the beach adjacent to the Surf Dweller and their enjoyment of the beach in the Okaloosa Island area of Santa Rosa Island. "We moved here for the quality of the beach, the sugar white sand." Tr. 936 (emphasis added). She explained that both she and her husband walk or run the beach daily. Mr. Sherry always runs; Mrs. Sherry's routine is to walk and run alternately. There are other distinctions in their daily traverses over the sugar white sand of Okaloosa Island. Mr. Sherry sometimes runs in shoes. As for Mrs. Sherry, however, she professed, I always run barefoot. I always walk barefoot and I take longer walks than he does. He runs the whole Island. I walk the whole Island and I run 3 miles at a time of the Island. So, that's the difference in the way we use [the beach.] Id. Mrs. Sherry described her activities on the beach more fully and how she enjoys it: I . . . swim. I surf on the skim board, float out in the water . . . I help Dave fish, we crab, . . . all sorts of things like that for recreation. Pretty much a beach person. I sit down on the beach under an umbrella with a lot of sunscreen. * * * I've always run barefoot. That's the reason [we chose the beach next to the Surf Dweller], it's not only the quality of the sand, [it's also] the fact that it's so soft because as I've aged, my husband and I have both been running for 30 years. He's in much better shape. I can still run barefoot and I can do a good pace, but if I've got shoes on, it's not nearly as much fun and I don't do nearly as much of it. So, to me, being able to have the squeak [of the sand underfoot], which you don't have with the restored sand is a big deal and having to wear shoes is a big deal. I really like to . . . [cross the beach] barefoot. Tr. 939. I actually think the project will impact me, at least, as much as my husband, David . . . my husband is . . . involved with . . . being board president of the Surf Dweller[.] I spend at least as much time as he does on the beach. And the way our furniture is arranged in the unit, it's so that when I'm in the kitchen, I bake the cookies, I see the beach, when I'm at the computer I can see the beach. I've got all the best views. So, I think I'm . . . extremely involved with it. It's the first thing I see in the morning; it's the last thing I see at night and I'm down there every morning. In fact, I was on the beach this morning before we came in . . . I don't miss my morning walk. Tr. 950. The Surf Dweller Condominium is located in Block 5 of Santa Rosa Island,3/ Okaloosa County, on real property that was deeded to the County by the federal government and then subsequently leased out by the County under long-term leases. The legal description of the Surf Dweller Condominium,4/ is: LOTS 257 TO 261, INCLUSIVE, LOTS 279, 280, 281, BLOCK 5, SANTA ROSA ISLAND, PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 84, OKALOOSA COUNTY. Ex. P-8, PET7158. Block 5 of Santa Rosa Island is subject to Protective Covenants and Restrictions adopted by the Okaloosa Island Authority and recorded in the Official Records of the County at Book 121, Pages 233-250. See County Ex. 13. The Protective Covenants and Restrictions set up four classifications of areas denominated as Zones B-1 through B-4.5/ Block 5 of Santa Rosa Island is in Zone B-2, "Apartment, Hotel Court and Hotel Areas."6/ Part F of the Protective Covenants and Restrictions, provides, in part, Beach Protection * * * The beaches, for 300 feet inland from mean water level (or to the dune crest line, whichever is the greater distance), are under strict control of the Authority . . . One hundred fifty feet inland from the mean water line, in front of all B1 and B2 Areas, will be public beaches. The next 150 ft. inland will be private beaches as set out on subdivision plats . . . County Ex. 13, at page marked "BOOK 121 PAGE 242." The Surf Dweller Condominium property, lying between reference monuments R-6 and R-7, does not extend as far south as the mean high water line ("MHWL") of the Gulf of Mexico. From testimony provided by Mr. Sherry, see below, it appears that the Surf Dweller condominium property is deeded to the border with the beaches governed by Part F of the Protective Covenants and Restrictions. John Donovan is the leaseholder of "APARTMENT NO. 131 AND APARTMENT NO. 132, OF EL MATADOR, A CONDOMINIUM AS PER DECLARATION THEREOF, AS RECORDED IN . . . THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF OKALOOSA COUNTY, FLORIDA."7/ The address of the El Matador is 909 Santa Rosa Boulevard, Fort Walton Beach, FL 32548. Petitioner Donovan is not a resident of the State of Florida. His primary residence is in the State of Georgia. Mr. Donovan described in testimony his use and the use of his family of the beach seaward of El Matador and other parts of the Okaloosa Island area of Santa Rosa Island: I've . . . got to walk [for reasons of health] and I do walking every day I'm down here[.] I get all the way down to East Pass. I don't get down there every day, but I get down there a lot. My sons and my one grandchild take great pleasure in fishing off there, right at the end where the East Pass is right from the surf. * * * I swim. I don't swim probably as much as my co-petitioners [the Sherrys], but I'm sure I go out further. And I don't surf like David [Sherry] does but my grandchild would never tell me that I don't. I run as much as I can. Not as much as I used to. We also take long walks. Tr. 973-4. In a plat of El Matador Condominium introduced into evidence as part of Exhibit P-7, El Matador is described as: A CONDOMINIUM OF LOTS 557 THROUGH 590 INCLUSIVE, BLOCK 9 AND THE INCLUDED PORTION OF PORPOISE DRIVE THEREOF SANTA ROSA ISLAND A SUBDIVISION OF BLOCK 9 A RESUBDIVISION OF BLOCK 8 AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 190, PUBLIC RECORDS OF OKALOOSA COUNTY, FLORIDA Exhibit P-7, last page (un-numbered). Block 8 of Santa Rosa Island (like Block 5 in which the Surf Dweller Condominium is located) is also in Zone B-2 set up by the Protective Covenants and Restrictions. Block 8, just as Block 5, is governed by Part F, Beach Protection, of the Protective Covenants and Restrictions that places the beaches, for at least 300 feet inland, of the segment of Santa Rosa Island to which Block 8 is adjacent under the strict control of the County and makes the first 150 feet inland from the MHWL "public beaches." County Ex. 13, at page marked "BOOK 121 PAGE 242." El Matador Condominium lies between reference monuments R-1 and R-2. It is not deeded to the MHWL of the Gulf. The plat that is the last page of County Exhibit 13 shows the southern edge of the El Matador condominium property to be adjacent to the "FREEHOLDERS BEACH," Exhibit P-7, last page (un-numbered), landward of the Gulf of Mexico, that is, to the edge of the area of the private beach designated under the "Beach Protection" provision of the Protective Covenants and Restrictions, landward of the public beach designated by the same provision. Neither the Surf Dweller Condominium Property in which the Sherrys reside, nor the El Matador Condominium Property inhabited by Mr. Donovan abuts or is a part of the area subject to the Western Destin Beach Restoration Project. The two properties in Okaloosa Island are to the west of the Project. The Sherrys and Mr. Donovan did not initiate Case No. 10-0515 because they oppose the restoration of the beach subject to the Project. They initiated the proceeding because of concerns that the borrow area that will serve the Project is so close to Okaloosa Island and situated in such a way that once dredged it will cause adverse impacts to the Okaloosa Island beaches to the detriment of their use and enjoyment of the beaches. The Beach, Post-Hurricane Opal and Other Tropical Storms Beginning with Hurricane Opal in 1995, the beaches and shores adjacent to the Surf Dweller and El Matador Condominium Properties were seriously damaged. Nonetheless, there is a significant stretch of dry beach between the Surf Dweller and El Matador condominium properties and the MHWL of the Gulf. In the case of the Surf Dweller Property, Mr. Sherry estimated the width of the beach between the condominium property and the MHWL to be 300 feet. See his testimony quoted, below. The MHWL of the Gulf of Mexico is a dynamic line, subject to constant change from the natural influences of the coastal system. Whatever effect its ever-changing nature might have on the width of the beaches declared public and private8/ between the MHWL and the Surf Dweller and El Matador condominium properties, however, there can be no doubt on the state of the record in this proceeding that at the time of hearing there existed a 150 foot-wide stretch of beach water-ward of the two condominiums that the public has the legal right to occupy and use. Indeed, Petitioner David Sherry, when asked about the private beach and public beach governed by the Part F of the Protective Covenants and Restrictions in cross-examination conducted by Mr. Hall on behalf of the County, confirmed as much when he related the actual practice by the public in using it and the response that public use generated from him and his wife: Q If someone . . . crosses Santa Rosa Boulevard and utilizes this access[-]way that's marked on the map that you identified earlier, do they have the right to utilize any of the portion of [the private beach] of that 150-foot portion in front of your condominium? A . . . [N]o, they wouldn't have the right to do that. Q . . . [D]o they have the ability to set up an umbrella or place their towel within that 150-foot area [of private beach] in front of your condominium? A In that area, no. In the area south of that [the public beach] , which is where everyone actually sets up and wants to set up, in that area south, people set up and we don't have any problem with that. We let people do it -- Q On [the] public beach[.] A On the public beach they're perfectly free to do that. * * * Q I believe your testimony today, based on your GPS calculations, was that you have 300 feet of dry sand beach . . . running from the boundary of the condominium to the edge of the Gulf of Mexico; is that correct? A Essentially, from the building to the Gulf of Mexico. * * * Q So, 300 feet, roughly, from the boundary of the Surf Dweller Condominium common area down to the waterline? A Correct. Q So, there would be enough room today, based on the language of the restrictive covenants to have . . . 150 feet of public beach and then the 150 feet of Freeholders Beach as designated on the plat [in County Exhibit 13] now? A Much like it was in 1955 [when the Protective Covenants and Restrictions were adopted and recorded], yes. Tr. 891-3, (emphasis added). Since the first 150 feet of beach landward of the MHWL under the Protective Covenants and Restrictions is "public beach," there is no doubt that there is a stretch of beach between the Surf Dweller Condominium and the MHWL that is public beach and its width is at least 150 feet.9/ From aerial photographs introduced into evidence, the same finding is made with regard to beach that is public between El Matador and the MHWL of the Gulf. Mr. Donovan testified that his leasehold interest in his units at El Matador along with the interests of the other El Matador condominium unit leaseholders included 150 feet of private beach landward of the 150 feet of public beach adjacent to the MHWL of the Gulf of Mexico. His lawyer, moreover, advised him not to convert his leasehold interest into a fee simple ownership in order to protect his interest in access to the private beach designated by the Protective Covenants and Restrictions. See Tr. 986-87. Mr. Donovan is concerned about the erosion and turbidity impacts the borrow site could have on the Gulf and the beach. Erosion would change his view of the beach from the window of his condominium unit and aggravate a scalloping of the shore. The unevenness of the scalloped surface would cause him difficulties in his walks. Turbidity could attract sharks which would make it unsafe for him to swim. Most importantly to him, a change in the beach and shoreline along the El Matador Condominium property as drastic, in Mr. Donovan's view, as that contemplated by the Draft JCP could deter his family members (his grandchild included) from visiting him and vacationing at his unit in the El Matador Condominium. The Guidry Petitioners and Their Property Roland Guidry, a retired Colonel in the United States Air Force, is co-trustee of the Guidry Living Trust and the President of the Oceania Owners' Association, a condominium association governed by chapter 718, Florida Statutes. The Guidry Living Trust is the owner of Condominium Unit 605 in the Oceania Condominium, a condominium established under chapter 718, Florida Statutes. The address of the unit is 720 Gulf Shore Drive, Unit 605, Destin, Florida, 32541. In his capacity as co-trustee, Mr. Guidry has the independent power to protect, conserve, sell, lease or encumber, or otherwise to manage and dispose of trust assets, which include Unit 605 in the Oceania Condominium. The Oceania Owners' Association is mandated by the Oceania Declaration of Condominium to "maintain, manage and operate the condominium property." Ex. P-6 at 4. The declaration also declares, "[a]ll unit owners shall automatically become members of the association after completion of closing of the purchase of a unit in Oceania, A Condominium." Id. The Guidry Living Trust, therefore, is a member of Oceania Condominium Association. The powers of the officers and directors of the Oceania Owners' Association are set forth in the Declaration of Condominium that governs Oceania: The officers and directors of the association shall have the powers set forth in this declaration and the association bylaws, and shall, at all times, have a fiduciary relationship to the members of the association and shall operate and manage the association in the best interest of its members. Id. Oceania's Declaration of Condominium, furthermore, prescribes that "[t]he association shall have all powers granted by Chapter[s] 718 and 617, Florida Statutes." Id. at 5. Every member of the Oceania Owners' Association Board of Directors approved the initiation of Case No. 10-0516, according to the testimony of Colonel Guidry, but there was no documentary evidence offered that a vote had been taken of the Board of Directors at a board meeting on the issue of whether to file the petition that initiated Case No. 10-0516 or the outcome of any such vote. As an owner of a unit in Oceania, The Guidry Living Trust owns an undivided share of the Oceania Condominium's common property10/ which "comprise[s] all the real property improvements and facilities to Oceania, A Condominium, including all parts of the building other than the units . . . and . . . [certain] easements . . . ." P-6 at 1, 2. The Oceania Condominium real estate is deeded to the "APPROXIMATE MEAN HIGH WATER LINE OF THE GULF OF MEXICO". P-6, Exhibit "B." The Surveyor's Certificate on the survey of Oceania, A Condominium, attached to the Oceania Declaration of Condominium is dated January 16, 1996. The date is more than two months after Hurricane Opal made landfall and damaged the Okaloosa County coastline in October of 1995. Standing of the Oceania Petitioners Colonel Guidry did not appear at hearing in a personal capacity. He appeared in his capacities as co-trustee of the Guidry Living Trust and President of the Oceania Owners' Association. In contrast to the Sherry Petitioners, therefore, Colonel Guidry did not allege his personal use and enjoyment of the beach as a basis for standing. As to injury and standing of both the Guidry Living Trust and the Oceania Owners' Association, Colonel Guidry asserted a number of interests that he believed will be substantially affected by the Project. They fall into four categories of concern. The first concern is with regard to the action of the sand along the shoreline of the Oceania property after the two reaches of beach to the east and west will have been restored under the revisions to the Draft JCP. After construction activities, sand along the shoreline will equilibrate, that is, the sand will move or be transported so as to stabilize the shoreline. This stabilization or achievement of shoreline equilibrium will tend to move the shoreline along the Oceania property waterward. Colonel Guidry expressed his concern as follows: [The Oceania property] would be sandwiched . . . between two public beaches . . . mother nature will fill in what I call the Oceania Gap. Right now the only line we have on our beach is our southern property line [the MHWL of the Gulf][11] . . . . That's the only line I know of that's on our beach or will be placed on our beach. But if sand fills in, then that creates a cloud of confusion, if the State lays claim to this sand that accumulates in the Oceania Gap, as a result of the construction on both sides of us. Tr. 764, (emphasis added). The second category of concern relates to the location of the property post-construction between "two public beaches." Such a location, in Colonel Guidry's view, would make individual units at the Oceania Condominium less valuable. The third category is that the public would be more likely to trespass on private Oceania property. The fourth concern of Colonel Guidry is that the Project will have undesirable impacts to Oceania property owners' littoral rights to accretion and to touch the water. The first three concerns all stem from a decision made by the Board of County Commissioners after this proceeding was commenced to remove the Oceania property from the Project. Oceania Removed The beach and shore in the southern part of the Oceania condominium property,12/ (the "Oceania Beach Segment of Shoreline" or the "Oceania Gap") were originally subject to the Consolidated NOI for the Western Destin Beach Restoration Project. But on the eve of the date scheduled for the commencement of the final hearing in these cases, the Board of County Commissioners for Okaloosa County voted to remove the Oceania Beach Segment of Shoreline from the application for the Project. Taylor Engineering (the County's Agent) submitted a request to the Department that reads: On behalf of Okaloosa County, Taylor Engineering submits its request to modify the project area and Draft Joint Coastal Permit for the Western Destin Beach Restoration Project . . . The applicant has decided to remove the Oceania Condominium Property from the beach fill placement area. The revised project, as described in the enclosed permit drawings, includes two reaches: Reach 1 extends from the east jetty of East Pass to approximately 600 ft east of FDEP reference monument R-22 (R-22.6) and Reach 2 extends from approximately 200 feet east of R-023 (R- 23.2) to R-25.5. The Oceania Property defines the gap between Reach 1 and Reach 1. Additionally, we request the FDEP modify Specific Condition 1 of the Draft Joint Coastal Permit to reflect the modified project area. More specifically, we request that the Mean High Water Line Survey requirement of Specific Condition 1 exclude the Oceania Condominium property. Notice of Filing Request for Modification and Revised, Draft Joint Coastal Permit, Exhibit A. Revisions to the Original Draft JCP In light of the vote and based on the County's request, DEP filed a Revised Notice of Intent on July 26, 2010, which included revision of the Draft JCP (the "First Revised Draft JCP"). The First Revised Draft JCP eliminated the Oceania Beach Segment of Shoreline from the Project and took other action such as requiring the applicant to check for oil in the OK-A Borrow Area prior to construction by both visual inspection and analysis of sand samples because of the ongoing Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill in the Gulf. The revision also included changes to Specific Condition 5 of the Draft JCP.13/ On August 18, 2010, the Department gave notice of another revision of the JCP (the "Second Revised Draft JCP"). The Second Revised Draft JCP changed Specific Condition 1 of the JCP by eliminating the requirement that the County establish a pre-project MHWL prior to undertaking construction activities and instead requires the County to conduct a survey in order to locate an erosion control line ("ECL"). The revisions to the Draft JCP stirred interest in participating in this proceeding among a group of property owners who do not want the beaches along their properties restored: the MACLA Intervenors. The MACLA Intervenors and Their Properties On September 8, 2010, a petition to intervene (the "MACLA Petition to Intervene") was filed by nine putative intervenors: MACLA LTD II, a Limited Partnership ("MACLA"); H. Joseph Hughes as Trustee of the Betty Price Hughes Qualified Vacation Residence Trust ("Hughes Trust"); Kershaw Manufacturing Company, Inc. ("Kershaw"); Kayser Properties LLC ("Kayser"); Destin, LLC ("Destin"); Paul Blake Sherrod, Jr., and Cindy M. Sherrod ("Sherrods"); Blossfolly, LLC ("Blossfolly"); 639 Gulfshore, LLC ("639 Gulfshore"); and Laura Dipuma-Nord ("Nord"), (collectively, the "MACLA Intervenors.") All nine of the MACLA Intervenors own real property in the City of Destin within the Project area that fronts the Gulf of Mexico. All nine properties have the MHWL of the Gulf as their southern boundary. MACLA is a Texas Limited Partnership. Louise Brooker is its president. The address of its property is 620 Gulf Shore Drive. The Hughes Trust owns a one-third interest in real property at the address of 612 Gulf Shore Drive. H. Joseph Hughes is a trustee of the Hughes Trust. Kershaw is an Alabama corporation. The address of its property is 634 Gulf Shore Drive. The address of the Kayser property is 606 Gulf Shore Drive. The address of the Destin property is 624 Gulf Shore Drive. The address of the Sherrods' property is 610 Gulf Shore Drive. The address of the 639 Gulfshore property is 6346 Gulf Shore Drive. The address of the Blossfolly property is 626 Gulf Shore Drive. The address of Ms. Dipuma-Nord is 600 Gulf Shore Drive. The properties owned by the MACLA Intervenors are among 18-single family lots located between a rough mid-point of reference markers R-020 and R-021 and a rough mid-point of reference markers R-022 and R-023. See Ex. P-238. These 18 single-family lots are in the approximate middle of the Project. The Oceania property, eliminated from the Project at the time of the filing of MACLA Petition to Intervene, is just to the east of the 18 single family lots in which the properties of the MACLA Intervernors are located. (Reference marker R-023 is set along the shoreline adjacent to the Oceania property.) The MACLA Intevenors' properties and the Oceania property are within the area from R-020.3 to R-023.3 (the "Middle Segment", see discussion of Critically Eroded Shoreline, below). According to an evaluation conducted by the Department on January 7, 2009, the Middle Segment of the beach is one in which "[u]pland development is not currently threatened." Ex. P-238. Timeliness of the MACLA Petition to Intervene The MACLA Petition to Intervene was filed well after the commencement of the hearing. Under rule 28-106.205, because it was filed later than 20 days before the commencement of the hearing, it could only be accepted upon "good cause shown" or if the time for filing were "otherwise provided by law." The MACLA Petition to Intervene was also filed after the Department had entered an order dismissing petitions for administrative hearings filed by three of the MACLA Intervenors14/ to contest the Second Revised JCP. The order of dismissal with prejudice by the Department dated September 7, 2010, was entered on the following bases: First, the Petitioners had a clear point of entry to challenge the proposed permit after it was publicly noticed on January 9, 2010. The Petitioners failed to timely challenge the proposed permit when given the opportunity to do so. Second, it is well settled that any proposed modifications to a proposed permit made during the course of a de novo proceeding to formulate final agency action do not create a new point of entry. Accordingly, the Petition is dismissed without prejudice to amend. Petition to Intervene, filed September 8, 2010, Ex. A, at 2 of 8. The Department was aware that the Western Destin Project "because of its size, potential effect on the environment, potential effect on the public, controversial nature or location, is likely to have a heightened public concern or is likely to result in a request for administrative proceedings." Consolidated NOI, at 13 of 17. The Department therefore took pains to ensure that parties affected by the Western Destin Project would be provided notice of the Project and have an opportunity to timely assert their rights to challenge the permitting and authorization of the Project. The Consolidated NOI required publication within 30 days in the legal ad section of a newspaper of general circulation in the area a public notice of the Consolidated NOI. It also required proof of publication. The County complied on both counts. A notice was published on January 9, 2010, in the Destin Log, in Okaloosa County. The public notice specifically identified the project location as between reference monuments R-16.6 and R-25.5 in Okaloosa County, which includes the segment of the shoreline adjacent to the MACLA Intervenors Property. The Department also provided a detailed statement of the "Rights of Affected Parties," including their right to petition for an administrative hearing pursuant to sections 120.569 and 120.57 within 14 days of receipt of written notice of the Consolidated NOI. The point of entry into the administrative proceedings to challenge the Consolidated NOI, therefore, in the case of affected parties with notice by virtue of the publication on January 9, 2010, expired on January 23, 2010. The section of the Consolidated NOI that governed the rights of affected parties also warned: Because the administrative hearing process is designed to redetermine final agency action on the application, the filing of a petition for an administrative hearing may result in a modification of the permit or even a denial of the application. * * * The failure of any person to file a petition within the appropriate time period shall constitute a waiver of that person's right to request an administrative determination (hearing) under Sections 120.569 and 120.57, F.S. Consolidated NOI, at 14 of 17. The MACLA Intervenors read the Destin Log at least on occasion and communicated with counsel for the Oceania Petitioners. Some believed they were represented by counsel for the Oceania Petitioners and had contributed to legal fees incurred by the Oceania Petitioners. Despite the foregoing, the MACLA Petition to Intervene was granted (subject to proof of standing) on the basis that the MACLA Intervenors had shown good cause for the filing after the deadline imposed by rule 28-106.205. At the time a point of entry into administrative proceedings was provided by the combination of the Consolidated NOI in December of 2009 and publication in the Destin Log of the notice on January 9, 2010, the Draft JCP called for the applicant to provide a survey of a Pre-project MHWL rather than the establishment of an ECL. Neither notice of the Second Revised Draft JCP, filed on July 26, 2010, nor the Second Revised Draft JCP, itself provided a point of entry into formal administrative proceedings to parties whose substantial interest were at stake. A new substantial interest, however, had been injected into the proceedings by the Second Revised JCP. The Second Draft JCP requires the establishment of an ECL as a condition of the permit in lieu of provision of a survey of Pre-project MHWL. The MACLA Intervenors promptly sought a point of entry to contest what is plainly a drastic change in circumstances with significant consequences to the boundary of their properties toward the shoreline with the Gulf of Mexico. The effect of this change and the difficulty of keeping up with beach restoration activities in Okaloosa County, particularly for affected persons whose permanent residence is elsewhere, was demonstrated by the testimony of Louise Brooker, who lives in Amarillo, Texas. When asked "[w]hy did you wait until September of this year [2010] to file the intervention?," she testified: [O]ur group thought that we were being represented by the Oceania group . . . when I did find out [the JCP had been issued], it was after the 30-day period . . . I hadn't been reading the Destin Log every day because it's very difficult to do, and then it changed. * * * Then it made a huge difference between using the mean high water line * * * And then the ECL being established, which was the ECL that I do not agree with, then that was being put in the permit. So that changed things a great deal. (emphasis added). Tr. 1526-7. Once their petitions for formal administrative proceedings had been dismissed with prejudice by the Department (or in the case of the MACLA parties whose petitions for an administrative had not been dismissed yet but appeared likely to meet the same fate), the MACLA Intervenors promptly sought relief through filing the MACLA Petition to Intervene. When the petition to intervene of the MACLA Intervernors was opposed by the County and the Department, the placement of the substantial interest at stake in the proceeding of a fixed ECL as the southern boundary of their property by the Second Revised JCP and the quick action of the MACLA Intervenors in contesting in contesting it was viewed as good cause for the filing of their petition later than required by rule. The Other Parties Okaloosa County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and the applicant for the JCP, the Variances and the SSL Authorization. The Department is the state agency responsible for administration of the state's regulatory authority as found in Part I of the Beach and Shore Preservation Act, chapter 161, Florida Statutes, and in particular, for the issuance of permits required by section 161.041 and the concurrent processing of "joint coastal permits" as allowed by section 161.055. It also serves as staff to the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund and in that capacity handles the processing and issuance of SSL Authorizations. The Holiday Isle Intervenors are businesses and condominium associations, all of whose members own real property or conduct businesses along the segment of the beach to be restored by the Project. Their properties (unlike the Oceania property and the MACLA Intervenors' properties in the Project "gap" between R-22.6 and R-23.2) are along shoreline that has been designated by the state as critically eroded.15/ Critically Eroded Shoreline Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62B-36 governs the Beach Management Funding Assistance Program. It contains the following definition of "Critically Eroded Shoreline": "Critically Eroded Shoreline" is a segment of shoreline where natural processes or human activities have caused, or contributed to, erosion and recession of the beach and dune system to such a degree that upland development, recreational interests, wildlife habitat or important cultural resources are threatened or lost. Critically eroded shoreline may also include adjacent segments or gaps between identified critical erosion areas which, although they may be stable or slightly erosional now, their inclusion is necessary for continuity of management of the coastal system or for the design integrity of adjacent beach management projects. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B-36.002(4), (the "Critically Eroded Shoreline Rule"). The Department determines whether upland development, recreational interests, wildlife habitat or cultural resources are threatened or lost based on a 25-year storm event. Consideration of the Project on this basis leads to the Project being broken into three segments: a segment from R-17 at the west end of the Project to roughly R-20.3 (the "Western Segment"); a segment roughly between R-20.3 and R-23.2 (the "Middle Segment"); and a segment roughly between R-23.2 and R-25.5 (the "Eastern Segment"). Mr. Clark described the impact of a 25-year storm event on the Western and Eastern Segments: [T]hose two areas, based on the evaluation and the projection of the impact of a 25-year storm event, which is a high frequency storm event, showed that there would be erosion through deflation of the beach profile and recession of the shoreline to such an extent that upland development and infrastructure would be threatened. Tr. 499. As for the Middle Segment, "the same evaluation did not show that the 25-year storm event would provide that same level of threat." Id. The Middle Segment, however, for the purposes of continuity of the management and design integrity, was also designated as Critically Eroded Shoreline and the entire stretch of shoreline, including all three segments, Western, Middle, and Eastern, was originally included in the Project.16/ The Project With the elimination of the Oceania Gap, the Project calls for the placement of 831,000 cubic yards or so17/ of beach- quality sand along 1.7 miles (less the 600 feet of the Oceania Gap) of shoreline within the City of Destin between reference monuments R-16.6 and R-22.6 and between R-23.2 and R-25.5. The Project is designed to restore the shoreline to conditions that existed before Hurricane Opal in 1995. The useful life of the Project is estimated to be eight years. The Project will restore beach along 32 separate parcels of property, 31 of which are privately owned. The exception is a small area of publicly owned beach at the extreme west end of the Project. The Project's Construction is intended to be facilitated by hopper dredge. The dredge excavates at a borrow site. A ship brings the excavated material to the beach fill site where it is discharged by pipe onto the beach. The pipeline runs perpendicular to the shore and extends about a quarter of a mile offshore. The contractor normally fences off a work zone that is about 500 feet wide. The work zone moves along the beach as construction progresses. "[I]n that work zone, there is a lot of heavy equipment that moves the sand around . . . looking at the Project . . . [from] an aerial view, roughly half the sand will be placed seaward and half the sand . . . landward of . . . [the] Mean High Water Line." Tr. 139. The Project's construction template or "the shape of the beach when it[']s constructed," id., consists of a dune, a back berm and a wide variable berm. The dune has an elevation of 8.5 feet and a crest width of 30 feet. The berm has an elevation of 5.5 feet. The width of the construction varies but averages about 200 feet. Over the first several months following the Project's construction, a calibration process takes place. About half of the berm erodes and deposits offshore in a near shore sand bar. "That near shore bar acts as a wave break . . . and dissipates wave energy during storms. So having a good healthy bar out there can definitely provide storm protection." Tr. 140. "Using "two to 250 feet a day,"18/ as a "good approximation for the progress . . . [in] constructing the"19/ Project, construction on any particular individual property should take between one or two days "depending on how . . . wide the property is and how fast the construction progresses." Tr. 141. A property along a lengthier segment of the beach, like the 600 feet at the seaward boundary of the Oceania Property had it remained a part of the Project, therefore, would take "two to three days." Tr. 142. Storm erosion models on the construction berm showed that the Project will provide protection from a fifty-year storm. Selection of the Sand Source: Borrow Area OK-A The engineers of the Project, ("Taylor Engineering," the "Project's Engineers" or the "Engineers") examined the Gulf's underwater expanse from Santa Rosa County to Walton County seaward to Federal waters. The search for a sand source included a reconnaissance phase and a detail phase investigation of geophysical and geotechnical data. After exhaustive study, two potential borrow areas were identified: a "far-shore" site and a "near-shore" site. The far-shore site is eight miles offshore and about a mile east of East Pass and is designated "OK-B." The near-shore site, three miles west of East Pass and centered about a mile and a quarter from the shores of the Okaloosa Island part of Santa Rosa Island, is designated "OK-A." With its edge within the designated Outstanding Florida Water boundary of the Gulf Islands National Seashore Park, it is within a relic ebb tidal delta in water depths of -36 to -51 feet, NGVD. Approximately 1.7 miles wide from east to west and approximately 0.9 miles wide north to south, it covers approximately 700 acres. At its landward-most side, it will be dredged to 10 feet into the existing bottom. Reference in documents of Taylor Engineering and the County to OK-A as the "near-shore site" does not mean it is located in the "nearshore" as that term is used in coastal geology. The coastal geologic term "nearshore" refers to the zone from the shoreline out to just beyond the wave breaking zone.20/ Borrow Area OK-A is well beyond the nearshore. It is clearly located "offshore," in "the relatively flat zone that is located from the surf breakers seaward out to the outer limits of the continental shelf."21/ Tr. 513. It is referred as the near- shore site by Taylor and the County to distinguish it from OK-B which is farther offshore and therefore was referred to as the "farshore site." The two sites, OK-A and OK-B, were selected for comparative review on three bases: sand quality; financial impact; and dredging impacts. Sand quality is "the number one criteri[on]." Tr. 143. It involves grain size, soil and shell content, and sand color. Financial impact is determined mainly by distance; the farther from the construction site, the more expensive to transport the sand. If the borrow area is close enough to shore, a Borrow Area Impact Analysis is conducted. An impact analysis was not conducted for OK-B. The Engineers assumed on the basis of its 8 miles distance from shore that it would not impact the shoreline in any way. The assumption was a reasonable one. Impacts to the shoreline or beach from the dredging of OK-B are unlikely.22/ A Borrow Area Impact Analysis was conducted of OK-A. The quality of the sand in OK-B was similar to that of OK-A but OK-A's "was slightly better." Tr. 144. The slight difference was not a significant factor in the determination that OK-A should be selected. The main factor in favor of OK-A was distance. Because it is so much closer to the Project than OK-B, use of OK-A "substantially reduces the cost of construction" id., compared to OK-B. Taylor Engineering (and ultimately the County) selected OK-A as the sand source. The selection process included a sand source investigation by Taylor. Taylor Engineers' final report on sand source was released in October of 2009. The report shows that in OK-A, the southeast corner of the area "seemed to contain a lesser quality sand than the borrow area as a whole and in terms of color." Tr. 145. Sand from the southeast corner of OK-A, nonetheless, was used in two beach restoration projects, both on Eglin Air Force Base property. Those projects were denominated A-3 and A-13.23/ The selection of OK-A was not upset by Taylor Engineering's OK-A Borrow Area Impact Analysis. Borrow Area Impact Analysis An Okaloosa County Sand Search Borrow Area Impact Analysis was prepared by Taylor Engineering for the Joint Coastal Permit Application and released in July of 2008. Aware that dredging the borrow site could affect both wave climate and current (the swift flow of water within a larger body of water), Taylor examined the impact of dredging the OK-A Borrow Area for those effects in the borrow area vicinity. The ultimate purpose of the Borrow Area Impact Analysis, however, was larger. It was to determine the changes to wave and current climate for impact to the beach, such as erosion. An increase in wave height, for example, would increase erosion. Two numerical modeling efforts were conducted. The first, called STWAVE, documents the impacts to wave climate. The second, ADCIRC, analyzes the effects of the dredging on currents. The STWAVE model requires wave characteristics as input. Taylor Engineering used "a 20-year hindcast of wave data from a WIS station located directly offshore in deep water. Under STWAVE modeling, impacts were examined for normal conditions and then 'under a 100-year storm condition.'" Tr. 149. The basis was the 100-year storm data from Hurricane Opal. The impacts of bottom friction were ignored, a common practice in applications like the County's JCP application that involves work on the open coast with a uniform sandy bottom. As Mr. Trudnak put it: Tr. 150. When you use . . . wave monitoring devices, you're trying to calibrate a model for the effects of bottom friction. And when the borrow area is this close to shore [as in the case of OK-A], . . . the propagation of distance of the waves is relatively short. And when you have a uniform sandy bottom you don't expect the impacts of bottom friction to be significant. So . . . in applications like [Okaloosa County's for the Western Destin Project], you ignore the effects of bottom friction. The analysis assumed that all of the sand in the borrow area would be removed when, in contrast, "the borrow site usually contains 50 percent more sand than what the Project requires on the beach." Tr. 152. In the case of OK-A, it is intended to serve the Eglin Air Force Base Project, the Okaloosa Island Project and the Western Destin Project. These projects require 4.7 million cubic yards of sand of the nearly 7 million cubic yards of sand available in OK-A. The impact analysis, therefore, was conservative in that it predicted more impact than would actually occur because significantly less sand would be removed from the site than was factored into the STWAVE modeling. With regard to normal conditions, the STWAVE modeling led to the conclusion that impacts from the permitted activities associated with the borrow area would be negligible. Under storm wave conditions, the STWAVE modeling showed "a certain wave angle or direction that increased the wave height." Tr. 151. The increase in wave height, however, was far enough offshore so as to never affect the "actual breaking wave height on the beach." Id. The modeling results enabled Taylor Engineering to conclude "that the borrow area did not have a potential to cause any impacts whatsoever." Tr. 152. ADCIRC is a state-of-the art hydrodynamic model that simulates tidal currents. Taylor Engineering conducted the ADCIRC modeling to analyze effects on the tidal currents and circulation in and around East Pass that would be caused by dredging the borrow area. Just as in the case of STWAVE, ADCIRC modeling showed that the impact of dredging the borrow area would be negligible whether in normal or "storm" conditions. The Application Coastal Construction Permits and CCCL Permits The Application was processed as one for a joint coastal permit (a "coastal construction" permit under section 161.041). It was not processed as an application for a coastal construction control line ("CCCL") permit. Section 161.041 (the "Shore Protection Statute") and chapter 62B-41 apply to JCPs. Section 161.053 (the "CCCL Statute") and chapter 62B-33 govern CCCL permits. The Department treats its JCP and CCCL permitting programs as independent from each other and as mutually exclusive permitting programs. A project that involves "beaches and shores" construction is permitted under one permitting program or the other but not under both permitting programs. See Tr. 424-5. Indeed, when it comes to beach restoration projects (or "shore protection" projects) such as the Western Destin Project, section 161.053 of the CCCL Statute provides as follows in subsection (9): "The provisions of this section do not apply to structures intended for shore protection purposes which are regulated by s. 161.041 [the Shore Protection Statute] " The Department interprets section 161.053(9) to exempt the Project from CCCL statutory requirements and the rules that implement the CCCL Statutes so that the only permit the Project requires, in the Department's view, is a JCP. b. The "Written Authorization" Provision Chapter 62B-14 is entitled "Rules and Procedures for Applications for Coastal Construction Permits." The Shore Protection Statutes serves as rule-making authority for every rule in 62B-41. Every rule in the chapter, moreover, implements, among other provisions, one provision or another of the Shore Protection Statute. Rule 62B-41.008 derives its rule-making authority from the Shore Protection Statute and section 161.055(1) and (2). Among the statutory provisions it implements are four subsections of the statute: (1), (2), (3) and (4). Section (1) of rule 62B-41.008 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: A Joint Coastal Permit is required in order to conduct any coastal construction activities in Florida. A person required to obtain a joint coastal permit shall submit an application to the Department . . . The permit application form, entitled "Joint Application for Joint Coastal Permit, Authorization to Use Sovereign Submerged Lands, Federal Dredge and Fill Permit" . . . is hereby incorporated by reference . . . . The application shall contain the following specific information: * * * (c) Written evidence of ownership of any property which will be used in carrying out the project, or authorization for such use from the property owner which is upland of mean high-water, or below mean high water but not sovereign land of the State of Florida. * * * (n) Written authorization for any duly- authorized member of the Department staff to enter upon any property to be used in carrying out the project, for the purpose of evaluating site conditions prior to final processing of the permit application. (emphasis added). Rule 62B-41.008(2) (the "Waiver Provision") lists requirements of rule 62B-41.008(1) which are to be waived by the Department under circumstances described in the Waiver Provision: "Any of the requirements contained in paragraph 62B-41.008(1)(f), (h), (i), (j), (k), (l), or (m), F.A.C., will be waived if the Department determined that the information is unnecessary for a proper evaluation of the proposed work." In its list of requirements that will be waived under certain circumstance, the Waiver Provision does not include paragraphs (c) or (n). The Application did not contain the "specific information" detailed in paragraphs (c) and (n) of rule 62B- 41.008(1). It did not contain written proof of ownership of any property that will be used in carrying out the Project nor did it contain authorization for such use from the property owner upland of mean high-water, information required by paragraph (c). It did not contain written authorization for any duly-authorized member of the Department staff to enter upon any private property to be used in carrying out the Project for the purpose of evaluating the site conditions prior to final processing of the permit application, information detailed in paragraph (n). As of the dates of final hearing, the County had not provided the Department with any written authorizations from the owners of the 31 privately-owned properties within the Project area, including the MACLA intervenors. As part of the Application, however, the County requested a waiver of the requirements related to authorizations. A waiver was requested under number 14 of the Application. It provides: Satisfactory evidence demonstrating that the applicant has sufficient control and interest in the riparian upland property, as described in Section 18-21.004(3)(b), Florida Administrative Code. Governmental entities that qualify for the waiver of deferral outlined in this rule must provide supporting documentation in order to be eligible. If the applicant is not the property owner, then authorization from property owner for such use must be provided. Joint Ex. 1, at 3 of 9. The County, through its agent, Taylor Engineering, responded to number 14 of the Application as follows: Response: The applicants request a waiver of the requested information under Rule 18- 21.004(3)(b), which grants an exception to the upland interest requirement for restoration and enhancement (e.g. nourishment) activities conducted by a government agency. According to Rule 18- 21.004(3)(b), satisfactory evidence of sufficient upland interest is not required for the proposed activity, because the proposed offshore borrow area is not riparian to uplands and the beach fill activities will not unreasonably infringe on riparian rights. Joint Ex. 1, Attachment A, at 3rd un-numbered page. Rule chapter 18-21 governs Sovereignty Submerged Lands Management. Rule 18-21.004(3)(b) ("the Upland Interest and Riparian Rights Rule") provides as follows: (3) Riparian rights. * * * (b) Satisfactory evidence of sufficient upland interest is required for activities on sovereign submerged land riparian to uplands, unless otherwise specified in this chapter. * * * Satisfactory evidence of sufficient upland interest is not required . . . when a governmental entity conducts restoration and enhancement activities, provided that such activities do not unreasonably infringe on riparian rights. (emphasis added). Item number 18 of the Application calls for signatures related to "any proprietary authorizations identified above," such as those identified in item number 14. Consistent with the request for a waiver from providing the requested information with regard to satisfactory evidence demonstrating sufficient control and interest in the riparian upland property, no signatures were provided by the County or its agent. Rule 62B-49.003(3), entitled "Policy" provides: Any application submitted pursuant to this chapter shall not be deemed complete, and the timeframe for approval or denial shall not commence until the Department has received all information required for: a coastal construction permit under Section 161.041, F.S., and Chapter 62B-41, F.A.C.; an environmental resource permit under Part IV of Chapter 373, F.S., and Title 62, F.A.C.; and a proprietary authorization, under Chapter 253, F.S., and Chapters 18-18, 18-20 and 18-21, F.A.C. See the material bound and attached to the Request for Official Recognition filed August 2, 2010, Tab "Chapter 69B-49, F.A.C." The Department deemed the Application complete on December 30, 2009. Amendment of the JCP re: Written Authorizations The petition for formal administrative hearing filed in Case No. 10-0516 challenged the Consolidated NOI on the bases, inter alia, that the Application had failed to "provide 'sufficient evidence of ownership' as defined in rule 62B- 33.008(3)(c), F.A.C., to be a proper applicant for the Permit"24/ and that the County had not "provided satisfactory evidence of sufficient upland interest to be entitled to a letter of consent to use sovereign submerged lands."25/ To support their allegation that the County is not a proper applicant for the JCP, the Oceania Petitioners amended their petition on July 13, 2010, to add the following: The County must provide the Department "[w]ritten evidence of ownership of any property which will be used in carrying out the project, or authorization for such use from the property owner which is upland of mean high-water, or below mean high-water but not sovereign land of the State of Florida", as required by [paragraph (c) of the JCP Application Specific Information Rule]. The Department must receive "[w]ritten authorization for any duly-authorized member of the Department staff to enter upon any property to be used in carrying out the project, for the purpose of evaluating site conditions prior to final processing of the permit application", as required by Rule 62B- 41.008)1)(n), F.A.C. The Amendment was made despite the existence in all of the versions of the Draft JCP, the original version and the revised versions, of General Condition Six: This permit does not convey to the Permittee or create in the Permitee any property right, or any interest in real property, nor does it authorize any entrance upon or activities on property which is not owned or controlled by the Permittee. The issuance of this permit does not convey any vested rights or any exclusive privileges. Joint Ex. III at Tab 9 at 4 of 26. With the filing of the Oceania Petitioners' Second Amended Complaint in Case No. 10-0516, the issues appeared to be fully joined. Before the case proceeded to hearing, however, the County voted to remove the Oceania Property from the Project (see paragraphs 31 and 32, above). The vote led to a formal request from the County to DEP to revise the Project and a revision by the Department of the Project's drawings and the Draft JCP (the "First Revised Draft JCP"), notice of which was filed on July 23, 2010. The revisions to the Draft JCP necessitated by the elimination of the Oceania property from the Project was not the only revision made to the Draft JCP as noticed on July 23, 2010. The Department also revised the Draft JCP's Specific Condition 5. This latter revision prompted the Sherry Petitioners to file a petition for an administrative determination concerning un- adopted rules. DOAH assigned the petition Case No. 10-6205RU. During the final hearing, the Department revised the Draft JCP a second time (the "Second Revised Draft JCP".) The second revision inspired the MACLA Petitioners' petition to intervene. Just as with the Sherry Petitioners, the revision to Specific Condition 5 prompted the MACLA Petitioners to petition for an administrative determination concerning un-adopted rules. DOAH assigned this second un-adopted rule challenge to Specific Condition 5 Case No. 10-8197RU. Case Nos. 10-6205RU and 10-8197RU In general, the revision to the Draft JCP's Specific Condition 5 advised the County that no beach restoration work can be performed on private upland property unless authorization from the owner of the property has been obtained and submitted to the Department ("the Upland Property Authorization Requirement"). The revision also provided an exception to the Upland Property Authorization Requirement: the County could submit an authorization from a court of competent jurisdiction that such an authorization is not required. Case Nos. 10-06205RU and 10-8197RU were heard at the same time as these consolidated cases.26/ A final order was issued with regard to the two cases on November 4, 2010. The final order dismissed the case because the Sherry Petitioners and the MACLA Petitioners had not demonstrated that they would be "substantially affected" by Specific Condition 5 as required by section 120.56(3) for a party to have standing to challenge an agency statement that constitutes a rule which has not been adopted pursuant to the rule-making procedures found in section 120.54(1)(a). Case Nos. 10-6205RU and 10-8197RU were two of three petitions seeking administrative petitions concerning un-adopted rules that were consolidated and heard with the consolidated cases subject to this Recommended Order. The third was a case that had been filed by the Oceania Petitioners earlier in the proceeding: Case No. 10-5384RU. Case No. 10-5384RU Case No. 10-5384RU was filed by the Oceania Petitioners in order to challenge as an un-adopted rule Specific Condition 1 as it appeared in the Original Draft JCP ("Original Specific Condition 1"). Original Specific Condition 1 contained several requirements. In general, it required the County to record a certificate before the commencement of construction associated with the Western Destin Project. The certificate was required to describe all upland properties along the shoreline of the Project. The certificate was also required to be accompanied by a survey of a pre-project mean high water line (the "Pre-project MHWL) along the entire length of the Project's shoreline. The case claimed that the Department had made another statement that constituted an un-adopted rule which violated the rule-making provisions of chapter 120: "that an Erosion Control Line (the 'ECL') is not required to be established pursuant to Section 161.161, Florida Statutes, for a beach restoration project unless 'state funds' are used for the construction (as opposed to just the design) of a beach restoration project." Case No. 10-5384RU, Petition for an Administrative Determination Concerning Unadopted Rules, at 2. During the course of the final hearing, however, the Department filed a notice of a set of revisions to the First Revised Draft JCP. These revisions (the "Second Revised Draft JCP") included a revision of Specific Condition 1. The Second Revised Draft JCP The notice by the Department that alerted the parties to the Second Revised Draft JCP was filed on August 18, 2010. The August 18, 2010, Notice contains two changes to the First Revised Draft JCP. The first change deletes entirely the existing language in Original Specific Condition 1 (the language challenged in Case No. 10-5384RU). It substitutes the following language: Prior to construction of the beach restoration project, the Board of Trustees will establish an Erosion Control Line along the shoreline of the beach restoration project. The Erosion Control Line shall be established consistent with the provisions of ss. 161.141-161.211, Florida Statutes. An Erosion Control Line shall not be established in conjunction with this joint coastal permit with respect to the shoreline seaward of the Oceania Owner's [sic] Association, Inc. members' common elements property. In lieu of conducting a survey, the Board of Trustees may accept and approve a survey as initiated, conducted, and submitted by Okaloosa County if said survey is made in conformity with the appropriate principles set forth in ss. 161.141-161.211. Department of Environmental Protection's and Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund's Notice of Revisions to the Proposed Joint Coastal Construction Permit, page 3 of 4. Thus, the first change noticed by the Department on August 18 deleted the requirement that the County submit a survey of a Pre-project MHWL. It requires, instead, that the county establish an ECL consistent with applicable statutory provisions. The second change was made with respect to Specific Condition 4(c) of the First Revised Draft JCP, which lists items to be submitted to the Department for approval prior to the commencement of construction and the issuance of a Notice to Proceed (with construction) by the Department. The existing language was deleted in its entirety and the following language was substituted: Id. Written documentation that the Erosion Control Line required by Special Condition Number 1 has been filed in the public records of Okaloosa County. Disposition of Case No. 10-5384RU The same Final Order that disposed of Case Nos. 10- 6205RU and 10-8197RU disposed of Case No. 10-5384RU. The Petitioners in Case No. 10-5384RU were found to lack standing to challenge Original Specific Condition 1 and the petition that initiated the case was dismissed. In addition, the Final Order concluded that had the Petitioners had standing to bring the challenge, the case would still have been decided in favor of the Department. This conclusion was based on the remedy called for by section 120.57(1)(e).27/ That remedy was found to have been achieved when the Department changed Specific Condition 1 to require an ECL rather than a Pre-project MHWL. See Final Order, Case No. 10- 5384RU (DOAH November 4, 2010). In addition to the record made with regard to the three rule challenges during the final hearing on the Sherry and Oceania Petitions, most of the rest of the evidence at the final hearing concerned the application of the regulatory authority of the Department and the Board of Trustees found in the Florida Statutes and the Florida Administrative Code, especially the environmental impacts of the Project as permitted by the Second Revised Draft JCP and as authorized under the Variance and the Sovereign Submerged Lands Use Authorization. Impacts The depth of OK-A should not exceed -49.4 feet, NGVD in an area where the depth of the ocean bottom is roughly -40 feet, NGVD. The excavation of the borrow site is designed in two dredging phases. The first phase, anticipated to provide up to 116 percent of the sand needed by the Project, is designed to a depth of 47.4 feet. "If for some reason, the contractor needs more sand . . ., then he can move into Phase II . . . [at a depth] of minus 47.4 to minus 49.4 feet [NGVD]. . . [,] a two foot deep layer throughout the entire borrow area." Tr. 165. OK-A is relatively wide, at least as compared to an existing borrow area not far away, the borrow area used for beach restoration in western Walton County and eastern Okaloosa County east of the City of Destin (the "Walton Borrow Area"). It is also a shallow borrow area when its depth is measured from the Gulf floor. It is in deeper water than the Walton Borrow Area. These factors make it less likely to cause impacts to the beach than the Walton Borrow Area.28/ Despite the width of OK-A, its relative shallowness measured from the Gulf floor, and its water depth, Dr. Dally, on behalf of the Petitioners, challenged the Taylor Engineering conclusion that there would be no impacts to the beach from the dredging of Borrow Area OK-A. The challenge from Dr. Dally, however, did not detail what the impacts would be or how serious they would be. Instead, Dr. Dally concluded that "not nearly enough study has been conducted of the proposed borrow area to ascertain that there will be no adverse impacts." Tr. 633. Dr. Dally's challenge to the conclusion by Taylor Engineering of no impacts to the beach from an excavated OK-A begins with an explanation in general of wave dynamics, sediment transport, and borrow site impacts. Wave Dynamics, Littoral Sediment Transport, and Borrow Site Impacts, Generally General Wave Dynamics "[W]aves in very deep water will start to turn and become more shore parallel in the case of Okaloosa County." Tr. 636. As they approach shore, a dynamic process of shoaling and refraction occurs. The waves may also become involved with diffraction. Shoaling is a growth in height from interaction with the shallow bottom or a shoal. Refraction is a process of alignment of waves with bottom contours. Diffraction is a spreading of waves or the bending of waves or change in wave direction after interaction with emergent structures or submerged features. As the process of shoaling, refraction and diffraction takes place, waves may be affected by bottom friction, depending on ocean bottom conditions. Dr. Dally offered the following description of wave changes as they close in on the face of the beach and approach interaction with the shoreline. The description includes the potential impacts of an excavated OK-A on the beaches and shores of Okaloosa Island adjacent to the Surf Dweller and El Matador condominium property: As they pass into the very nearshore . . . they, of course, grow in height. They then break . . . [or] [s]ometimes, as they pass over a [sand]bar, they'll stop breaking. And then begin breaking again when they get right up onto the beach face. Any time you put a bathymetric feature [such as a borrow area] into that otherwise natural system, you affect the wave transformation due to processes dependent upon the character of the perturbation . . . * * * Wave reflection from abrupt bathymetric changes. . . in this case, the landward most . . . notch of the borrow area would be a reflective surface . . . when something has perturbed the wave field like that, defraction [sic] becomes an important process. So, as the waves pass over this proposed borrow area and, especially, over the 10-foot or greater vertical face, they will reflect and begin defraction [sic] so that it becomes a . . . complicated wave field . . . . Tr. 636-7. In addition to the perturbation caused by the borrow area there is another factor at work that has the potential to affect the beach along the condominium properties owned by the Sherry Petitioners: sediment transport. Sediment Transport "Sand can move along or away from the beach in two ways." Tr. 1141. It can move along the shoreline or it can move offshore. Littoral transport of sediment, a factor important to erosion and accretion, is the movement of sediment, mostly sand, along or parallel to shore. It is caused by the intersection of waves that come ashore at an angle to the shoreline, rather than those that break straight onto the beach. The average net long-term littoral transport in the area of the Project and Okaloosa Island is east to west. The Sherrys and Mr. Donovan Petitioners own property down-drift from the OK-A site, or to the west. Dr. Young described the beaches down-drift of OK-A at hearing: "[t]hose beaches have, over the . . . last decade or so, been generally stable to accreting. There's a pretty nice beach out there right now." Tr. 1143. This area of the Okaloosa County's beaches and shores is the area most likely to be affected by an excavated OK- A if there are, in fact, any impacts to beaches and shores caused by the dredging of the borrow site. Borrow Site Impacts Two processes affecting waves in the Gulf would occur above an excavated OK-A Borrow Area. The first wave process would be "that part of the wave energy will actually reflect and go back out to sea," tr. 640, in essence, a scattering effect of the energy. Diffraction at the same time would cause the waves to radiate outwards from the borrow area rather than the waves going straight back out to sea. The second wave process creates the potential for the waves to become "very, very, complicated." Tr. 640. They could "trip", that is, the notch in the borrow area could break the waves. "[B]rag scattering" (tr. 641) could make the waves deteriorate into shorter period waves. If there are changes in waves, tide level or current, changes will be caused to the beach. As Dr. Dally succinctly put it at hearing, "[the beach] might erode, it might accrete, it might do both," tr. 641, by virtue of the presence of an excavated OK-A Borrow Area. If the impact of the excavation of the borrow area were to create shorter period waves, the result generally would be erosion. If the impact created longer period waves which generate water movement deep into the water column the result generally would be accretion. The borrow area has the potential in Dr. Dally's opinion to create both longer and shorter period waves. Wave angle of the waves breaking on the beach also is a factor in beach impacts. But Dr. Dally was unable to predict the impacts of the excavation of OK-A to Okaloosa Island beaches and shores without more study, data and analysis as to what effects a dredged OK-A would have on wave period and wave angle and the concomitant sediment transport. Just as Mr. Trudnak, Mr. Clark concluded that OK-A is too far offshore to cause adverse impacts to the beach. If, however, the Project were to utilize a borrow area along the same stretch of the beach but much closer to shore as in the case of the Anna Maria Island Project in which the borrow area was only 1000 feet from the shoreline, erosion impacts could occur on part of the beach. Beneficial impacts in such a case would occur to the beach downdrift of the borrow area. In the Anna Maria Island Project, beaches far enough to the south which were downdrift of the borrow area accreted. The impact to the Sherry and Donovan Properties, both being downdrift of a borrow area located along the same stretch of beach but within 1000 feet of shore and closer in than OK-A, would likely be beneficial. The area of shoreline that would be affected by wave impacts from an excavated OK-A is larger than the area in the immediate shadow zone of the borrow site, that is, a shadow zone perpendicular from the borrow site to the shore. The area affected by wave impacts depends on the angle of the waves. In the Destin area and along Okaloosa Island where the Sherry Petitioners reside, the waves come ashore predominately out of the east. If the waves come ashore along Okaloosa Island at a strongly oblique angle (more directly from the east), "the shadow zone now stretches further to the west and the diffraction pattern . . . increases the size of the shadow zone," tr. 680, to a size much larger "than the actual shadow zone of the . . . borrow area." Id. Along these same lines, if there are impacts to the beach caused by a dredged OK-A, the impacts should be greater the closer the beach is to the footprint of a dredged OK-A. Given the predominate tendency of the waves to come from the east along Okaloosa Island, if the beaches alongside both the Surf Dweller Property and the El Matador Property are affected, the beach alongside the Surf Dweller Property will incur the greater impact. Likewise, if beach impacts are incurred by beach alongside only one property or the other, it is much more likely that the beach alongside the Surf Dweller Property will be affected than the beach alongside the El Matador Property. Distance of an offshore borrow area from the shore is critical to the effect of the borrow area on diffraction and wave dynamics. If the borrow area is far off shore, as in the case of the alternative, potential borrow site identified by Taylor Engineering, OK-B, then, as explained by Dr. Dally, diffraction "has a lot of time and a lot of opportunity to smooth the waves out once again and things become uniform when they hit the beach." Tr. 645. A borrow area that is closer to the beach has higher potential for creating impacts. Dr. Dally again: "[I]f you move the borrow area closer to the beach, you have this scattering pattern induced by the reflection and the diffraction and refraction that doesn't have time to smooth itself out. And that's when you can really cause impacts to the beach, both accretive and erosive impacts." Id. (emphasis added). The underscored sentence from Dr. Dally's testimony quoted in the previous paragraph was directly addressed in the County's case through Mr. Trudnak's determination that OK-A, although not as far away as OK-B, is far enough away from the beach that it will not cause adverse impacts to the beach. Again, Dr. Dally's testimony, despite the underscored testimony in the previous paragraph, is not that OK-A will, in fact, cause impacts to the beach. His testimony, rather, is the equivalent of a statement that the closer a borrow area is to the beach the more likely that it will have impacts to the beach and that at some point, a borrow area, will be so close to the beach, that adverse impacts will occur. The fact that OK-A is much closer to the beach than OK-B does not mean that an excavated OK-A will cause impacts to the beach. Impacts of an excavated OK-A depend upon OK-A's actual distance from the beach rather than OK-A's distance relative to OK-B's distance. Thus, while it may be determined that the likelihood of impacts to the beach is greater in the case of OK-A than in the case of OK-B, actual impacts from OK-A to the beach (as far as the effect of distance) is a function of OK-A's actual distance from the beach without regard to OK-B's distance from the beach. In addition to Dr. Dally's certitude that there will be impacts to the beach by virtue of the presence of a dredged OK-A, Dr. Dally also took issue with the method by which Taylor Engineering reached the conclusion of no impacts in the OK-A Borrow Area Impact Analysis Report. The OK-A Borrow Area Impact Analysis Generally Mr. Trudnak was part of the Taylor Engineering team that prepared the Borrow Area Impact Analysis Report. Mr. Trudnak was not the only expert to defend the report's conclusion of no impact to the beach. The report was reviewed by Mr. Clark, the Department's expert, who also opined that there would be no impacts. Mr. Clark relied on more than the report for his opinion. He also relied on his extensive experience with beach restoration projects and monitoring data for those projects and visual observation of those projects post-construction. The only numerical data analysis specific to the excavation of the OK-A Borrow Area, however, that the Department used in determining that excavation of OK-A would not have any adverse impacts to the shoreline and coastal systems of Okaloosa Island was the Taylor Engineering OK-A Borrow Area Impact Analysis Report. The Report described its evaluative efforts: [T]his report evaluates two potential dredging templates in terms of their impacts on wave and tidal current patterns during normal and extreme conditions. The evaluation requires analysis of the wave climate and tidal currents before and after the borrow area dredging. The analysis required a balance between minimizing impacts to wave climate and current patterns, and providing acceptable nourishment volumes. STWAVE (Steady-State Spectral Wave Model) simulated normal (average) and extreme (100- year (yr) storm) waves propagating over the baseline and post-dredging bathymetries. ADCIRC hydrodynamic modeling simulated tidal flow over the baseline and post-dredging bathymetries for normal (spring) and extreme (100-yr storm) tide conditions. A comparison of the baseline and post dredging model results established the effects of borrow area dredging on the neighboring shorelines (Destin and Eglin AFB) and the inlet. County Ex. 1, Okaloosa County Sand Search Borrow Area Impact Analysis, at 6. Thus, the STWAVE modeling conducted by Taylor as part of the analysis attempted to simulate normal (average) and extreme (100-year storm) waves propagating over the baseline and post-dredging bathymetrics. Taylor Engineering relied on WIS (Wave Information Study) results in performing its STWAVE modeling. WIS data is not measured wave data. Instead, it consists of numerical information generated by specific stations in wind fields in various locations around the Gulf of Mexico. The data is then placed in a model coded to represent the entire Gulf. The WIS station from which data was collected by Taylor Engineering is located approximately 10 miles offshore where the depth is approximately 85 feet. It would have been preferable to have used comprehensive field measurement, that is, data obtained from wave gauges on both sides of the borrow area over enough time to support use of the data, rather than WIS data. Comprehensive field measurement would have produced much more information from which to predict impacts to the beach. As Dr. Dally explained, however, If you don't have [field measurement data], then . . . especially over the long-term . . . a year or more [or] if you're analyzing your beach profile data over a 10 year period, you would like to have . . . wave data to accompany that 10 year period. Generally we don’t and that's when we start relying on models to fill in this missing information. Tr. 645-6 (emphasis added). This testimony was consistent with Mr. Trudnak's testimony: the problem with field measurement is that "the useful data that you [get] from [field measurement] gauges is . . . limited to [the] deployment period." Tr. 1234. It is not practical to take 10 years' worth of field measurement. As Mr. Trudnak explained: Typically, you would install those gauges for . . . a month or a couple of months . . . you want to use representative conditions . . . you try to pick a winter month and a summer month so you can try to capture those extremes and wave conditions. * * * [W]hen you . . . install those gauges in the field, you have no idea what those conditions are going to be during your deployment period. You can install your wave gauge for a month in the winter but that can be an unusually calm month, it could be an unusually severe month. So, it's really hit or miss, whether you . . . capture representative conditions. Id. (emphasis added). The WIS information utilized is hind-casted. Hind- casting is a method for developing deepwater WIS data using historic weather information to drive numerical models. The result is a simulated wave record. The WIS information utilized includes 20 years of hind-cast information. The purpose of using such a lengthy period of information is that it ensures that representative conditions are captured in the data for purpose of the analysis. Such "lengthy period" information overcomes the concern that there is not enough data to capture representative conditions as in the case of typical field measurement data. For its extreme STWAVE modeling, Taylor relied on WIS information generated during Hurricane Opal in 1995. Analysis of the model results showed negligible impacts on wave height under normal conditions and increased wave height during extreme conditions. Increased wave height during extreme conditions, however, was no closer than 300 feet from the shoreline. The increased wave height and wave angle in storm conditions were far enough offshore that they "never impacted the actual breaking wave height on the beach." Tr. 151. The model's prediction of no impacts in wave height on the shoreline due to a dredged OK-A and no change in sediment transport rate by virtue of the presence of a dredged OK-A led Taylor Engineering to conclude that whether in normal or extreme conditions, a dredged OK-A Borrow Area would not cause impacts to the beaches and shores of Okaloosa County. Criticisms of Taylor's STWAVE Modeling Dr. Dally offered four basic criticisms of Taylor Engineering's STWAVE Modeling: a) the model did not account for wave transformation processes caused by bottom friction between the WIS Station (10 miles out in the Gulf) and the OK-A site; b) the model was not calibrated or verified; c) the model did not sufficiently account for wave transformation impacts from the dredging of Site OK-A; and d) Taylor did not plot wave direction results from its STWAVE models or conduct any sediment transport analysis. Mr. Trudnak offered refutations of the criticisms. For example, taking the first of them, wave transformation processes caused by bottom friction between the WIS Station and the OK-A site were not accounted for by Taylor Engineering in its analysis because "most of that distance [between the WIS Station and the OK-A site] is deep water, meaning the waves aren't . . . feeling the bottom so they're not being affected by the bottom friction." Tr. 1236. The refutations were not entirely successful. The second of Petitioners' experts, Dr. Young cast doubt on the validity of all modeling no matter how well any particular modeling activity might meet the criticisms leveled by Dr. Dally against Taylor Engineering's effort. Dr. Young accepted Dr. Dally's testimony about why Taylor Engineering's modeling were not sufficient to support an opinion of "no impacts", but he differed with Dr. Dally as to whether coastal engineering models should be utilized to predict impacts to beaches.29/ See Tr. 1157. Dr. Dally believes in the benefits of modeling as long as the modeling is conducted properly. Dr. Young does not. It is his opinion that no model produces a projection that is precisely accurate but the essence of his criticism is that "we don't know how wrong the models are." Tr. 1159. Models are "incapable of quantifying the uncertainty or how right or wrong that they might be." Id. With regard to the modeling used in Taylor's Borrow Area Impact Analysis, Dr. Young summed up: [W]hen we do this model run, especially with a model that isn't calibrated or verified, we get an answer . . . it's not precisely the right answer, but . . . nobody knows how wrong the answer is. I don't know it, Mr. Trudnak doesn't know and Mr. Clark doesn't know. And that's why being prudent is important and why relying on the monitoring data is critical because the monitoring data is real data. Tr. 1160. In contrast to Dr. Young, Dr. Dally, consistent with his faith in models appropriate for the investigation and conducted properly, took another tack in attacking the modeling used by Taylor Engineering. He criticized Taylor Engineering's failure to use a more comprehensive wave transformation model: the Boussinesq Model. Dr. Dally opined that the Boussinesq Model was superior to STWAVE principally because it takes diffraction into account. But Petitioners did not produce any off-shore Borrow Area Impacts Analyses which used the Boussinesq Model, and Mr. Trudnak testified that he was unaware of any.30/ Taylor Engineering used STWAVE and not Boussinesq as the model for the Borrow Area Impact Analysis because the Boussinesq Model is typically used where diffraction plays the dominant role, that is, within areas like inlets or ports which have structures that will cause wave perturbation. The open coast is not such an area, making the STWAVE Model, if not more appropriate than the Boussinesq Model, certainly an acceptable model under the Project's circumstances. When asked about the Bousinessq modeling's application in the context of his testimony that he could not say what would be the impacts of the dredging of the OK-A Borrow Area, their extent or whether they would be adverse, Dr. Dally testified that based on his experience (rather than actual testing or modeling the impacts of OK-A as done by Taylor), he was "almost certain," tr. 691, that Bousinessq modeling would show impacts to the beach adjacent to the Surf Dweller and El Matador Properties that could be a "type of accretion . . . [that is] momentary . . . due to the propagation of these features as they go up and down the beach." Id. This statement is consistent with Mr. Clark's opinion that if the Project's borrow area were within 1000 feet of shore, the impact of dredging OK-A to the Sherry and Donovan Properties would be beneficial. When asked if the beaches would develop scalloping (sand erosion in some areas and accretion in others), Dr. Dally said, "Right. This [wave transformation process caused by an excavated OK-A borrow area] makes a scalloping." Tr. 692. Perhaps the dredging of Borrow Area OK-A would aggravate scalloping along the shores of Okaloosa County but they would not create scalloping of an "un-scalloped" coastal system. Scalloping features in the Okaloosa Island portion of Santa Rosa Island existed at the time of final hearing. In short, Dr. Dally roundly criticized Taylor Engineering's STWAVE modeling. As to the impacts he was sure would occur, he was unable to state whether they would be adverse, beneficial or both. Most importantly to the weight to be assigned his testimony, he was unable to testify as to how significant the impacts would be; one cannot determine from his testimony whether the impacts will be entirely de minimus, see rule 62B-41.002(19)(c) or whether some could be significant, see rule 62B-41.002(19)(a). Dr. Dally's testimony with regard to the creation by the Project of scalloping did not indicate the significance of that scalloping to the coastal system of Okaloosa County, a system whose ocean bottom, beaches and shores already contain scalloped features. Suppositive impacts that would be caused by the Project to the beaches of Okaloosa County were not the only attack by Petitioners. They also challenged the impact analysis on the basis of the opinion that adverse impacts had been caused to beaches by another beach restoration project and its borrow area not far away: the Walton Project. The Walton Project and Its Borrow Area Completed in the late spring of 2007, the Walton Project placed sand dredged from the Walton Borrow Area on approximately 7 miles of beach in eastern Okaloosa County (East Destin) and western Walton County. Just as in the case of the Western Destin Project, Taylor Engineering performed a borrow site impact analysis for the borrow site used in the Walton Project. Location and Comparison to the OK-A Borrow Area The northwest corner of the Walton Borrow Area is roughly 2.75 miles from the northernmost point of the western boundary of the OK-A Borrow Site. See Ex. P-13. The area between the easternmost point of the OK-A Borrow site and the westernmost point of the Walton Borrow Area, therefore, is roughly half that distance or 1.375 miles. The northwest corner of the Walton Borrow Area is approximately 0.8 miles offshore; its easternmost point is roughly one-half mile off-shore. Comparison of the Walton Borrow Area and OK-A shows that OK-A is larger and will have more sand removed. It is also wider, shallow when measured from the Gulf floor, and in deeper water than the Walton Borrow Area. Nonetheless, Petitioners characterize the two borrow sites as similar,31/ mainly because with less than 1.5 miles separating them, they are relatively close to each other. Despite proximity, there are significant differences, however, between the two. A wider, less deeply dredged borrow area would have less impacts than one deeper and narrower. OK- A's location in deeper water makes it less likely to affect waves and current than the Walton Borrow Area. The footprints of the borrow areas are dissimilar. The Walton Borrow Area has an irregular shape. OK-A is in the shape of a rectangle with a uniform dredging depth although "the depth of sand that is dredged will taper off . . . further offshore . . .[s]o that the seaward most edge does not have significant thickness of sand. The maximum cut is towards the northern boundary." Tr. 306. In addition to distance from shore, the predominately significant difference between the two is the presence on the Gulf floor in the vicinity of the Walton Borrow Area of an ebb shoal: a large deposit of sediment. The ebb shoal exists because of interaction between East Pass and the waves, tides and currents of the Gulf. The Walton Borrow Area is "close to the East Pass ebb shoal . . . and it included the outer flanks of the ebb shoal." Tr. 155. It makes the littoral zone for the Walton Project more active than the littoral zone near which OK-A is located. Located a significant distance to the west of the East Pass ebb shoal, OK-A would not interact with its littoral zone in the way the Walton Borrow Area interacts with its littoral zone. Walton Borrow Area Impact Analysis and Monitoring Taylor Engineering's borrow area impact analysis for the Walton Borrow Area was similar to the impact analysis for OK-A in that both consisted of "wave models and hydrodynamic models." Tr. 156. The Walton impact analysis showed "one potential impact area about 2,000 feet long [on the beach] just west of East Pass," id., an impact area also described as extending from approximately 3,000 to 5,000 feet west of the westernmost jetty at East Pass. It anticipated that impact would be caused by wave action due to the perturbation resulting from the presence of the dredged Walton Borrow Area. The potential impact was projected by the analysis to be a reduction in the sediment supply to the beaches west of East Pass by 11,000 cubic yards per year. Because of that reduction, DEP included a mitigation condition in the Walton Project permit: placement of 55,000 cubic yards on the impacted beach. As a condition of the Walton Project, Taylor Engineering conducted monitoring of the impacts to the beach from the project in general and in particular from the Walton Borrow Area. At the time of hearing, reports for 2007, 2008, and 2009 had been completed and the engineering firm was working on the 2010 report. Mr. Trudnak described the results from the monitoring through 2008 at hearing. From the period of pre-construction in 2006 through immediate post-construction, the monitoring revealed "a huge volume of erosion." Tr. 159. Subsequent analysis from 2007 to 2008 revealed "a huge amount of accretion that actually exceeded the amount of erosion from the previous year." Id. The volumes of erosion and accretion "seemed abnormal." Id. The bottom line, however, of the two years of data is that the early erosion was more than countered by the accretion that occurred into 2008. After describing the impacts in the first two years of monitoring, Mr. Trudnak stressed the importance of what was revealed by additional monitoring. "[M]ore important is the long term trend . . . ." Id. From 2006 through 2009, the monitoring area "as a whole, actually accreted, it gained sand." Tr. 160. Determining the impacts to the beach caused by the Walton Project is complicated because of impacts caused by behavior of the beach at the time of construction and earlier. Consistent with the Department's "critically eroded" designations, data from March of 1996 (not long after Hurricane Opal), data from June, 2004 (before Hurricane Ivan) and 2006 pre- construction data showed the shoreline adjacent to the Walton Project Area to have been receding landward at a rapid rate. This "background" erosion is due mainly to the effects of tropical storms. In the wake of the dredging of the Walton Borrow Area it was difficult for Taylor Engineering to determine what impacts were caused by "background" erosion due to tropical storms and what impacts were caused by the dredging of the Walton Borrow Area. In contrast, it is not difficult to determine from monitoring data in the three years after construction of the Walton Project, however, that the beach west of the borrow area has accreted and that this appears to be the long-term trend. Tr. 159. Contrary to conclusions Petitioners would have drawn from the evidence presented by their experts, the more comprehensive data indicates that the Walton Project (including its borrow area) is having a beneficial impact on the beaches to the west of the project and its borrow area. Dr. Young opined on behalf of Petitioners that the problem with the OK-A Borrow Area Impact Analysis is that it is based on modeling which is far inferior to "real world" data. His opinion that actual data is superior to data generated by modeling, no doubt, is sound. The only "real world" data that will prove any impacts for sure, whether adverse or beneficial, from a dredged OK-A, however, is after-the-fact monitoring data. Such data is usually obtained annually after the construction of a project or after major storm events. It consists of obtaining near-shore and offshore monitoring profiles and involves determining shoreline changes and volumetric beach changes.32/ In the absence of data from monitoring impacts of a dredged OK-A, Dr. Young opined that the data derived from monitoring the Walton Borrow Area which showed erosion early after completion of the Project is superior to the modeling data reviewed by Taylor Engineering in predicting impacts to Santa Rosa Island beaches. There are two problems, however, with Dr. Young's conclusion. First, beach impacts after the dredging of the Walton Borrow Area do not necessarily support similar impacts from a dredged OK-A because the two borrow areas are materially different. Second, the trend revealed by the more comprehensive data gathered in the wake of the dredging of the Walton Borrow Area is that the beach is receiving impacts which are beneficial. Reasonable persons might differ as to the outcome of reasonable assurances with regard to impacts based on the testimony of Mr. Trudnak and Drs. Dally and Young. The balance, however, swings clearly in favor of the applicant in consideration of the testimony of Ralph Clark. Mr. Clark and The Department's Review of Western Destin Project Borrow Site Impacts Ralph Clark is a Registered Professional Engineer in Florida. The recent recipient of the Stan Tate Award from the Florida Shore and Beach Preservation Association, a lifetime achievement award for work over the years in beach preservation, at the time of hearing, Mr. Clark had worked for 37 years for the State of Florida as a coastal engineer. During his long career, Mr. Clark has worked on the State's two separate regulatory programs in the arena of beach management: a "Wet Beach Program, which is working below Mean High Water and includes projects such as beach restoration" tr. 485, and "the more dry beach program which involves construction seaward of Coastal Construction Control Lines and activities landward of Mean High Water . . . ." Id. He has been involved with the Department's Beach Management Program, a grants program for cost-sharing with local governments to develop a long-term comprehensive management plan for the state to solve critical impact problems around Florida which may include erosion. He has conducted or prepared the Critically Eroded Beaches Report every year "going back to the late 1980's" id., and he has "conducted Beach Erosion Studies and Storm Damage Impact Investigations around the State for the past four decades." Tr. 486. Among his specific duties is the review of "scopes of work and project feasibility studies that are provided . . . by the [Department's] Beach Management Section." Id. In this capacity, Mr. Clark conducted the Department's engineering review of the Western Destin permit application and additional information related to the Project. After review, Mr. Clark reached the conclusion that the "Project is a well designed Beach Restoration Project that's critically needed . . . to restore the beaches of Western Destin to provide needed storm protection, recreational benefits and wildlife habitat." Tr. 488. With regard to his overall conclusion as to the Project's physical impacts, Mr. Clark testified: Id. In my opinion, the placement of 831,000 cubic yards of beach compatible sand fill along Western Destin will provide a positive, beneficial impact to the beach and dune system of Western Destin. The excavation of that material from the proposed borrow area [OK-A], along with the excavation of material for four other fill projects proposed for Santa Rosa Island, three of which have been approved, is not expected to have any adverse impact to the beaches of Santa Rosa Island. Mr. Clark's opinions that the Project would be beneficial to the beach and dune system and that the excavation of OK-A is not expected to have adverse impacts have a solid base. His opinions are founded on extensive experience with beach restoration projects over 37 years; extensive experience with coastal processes, coastal morphology, and coastal hydrodynamics; review of the application and supporting information; experience with the Project area and vicinity; extensive experience with coastal storm impacts and beach erosion; and review of roughly three dozen technical documents. Mr. Clark has reviewed 136 beach restoration projects. Of these, 111 were in Florida, six in other states and Puerto Rico, and 19 in countries on every continent in the world other than Asia. But coastal engineering experience in Asia is not missing from Mr. Clark's resume. He has conducted beach erosion control projects and coastal and shore protection projects (as distinguished from beach restoration projects) in that continent as well. Among the "countless number" tr. 490, of such projects he has reviewed are ones in the Netherlands, Denmark, Italy, Turkey, Egypt, China, and the Bahamas." Id. The reason his experience extended beyond the State of Florida to nations all over the world is because "the Florida Beach Preservation Program is internationally recognized." Id. The State has received many requests for technical assistance from various world governments. Mr. Clark has also in his time away from his employment with the state served as a consultant to the governments of Mexico, the Cayman Islands, and the Island Nation of St. Bartholomew and the French West Indies. Mr. Clark has investigated the impacts of 83 tropical storms in the Gulf of Mexico. Most investigations have been in Florida but some have been in other Gulf states and along the coast of the country of Mexico. During some of those investigations and while acting as a coastal engineer for the state, Mr. Clark visited the vicinity of Santa Rosa Island 176 times, excluding academic field trips. In his capacity as a state coastal engineer, Mr. Clark provided the Department with detailed damage assessments for each of the eight tropical storms noted in the Consolidated NOI for the Western Destin Project Over his 37 years, Mr. Clark served on numerous task forces, committees and technical advisory groups relating to erosion control and beach management efforts by states along the Gulf and Mexico. Mr. Clark's early reports were used in the development of the state's Strategic Beach Management Plan and he prepared the first "Critically Eroded Beaches in Florida document" tr. 494, now electronically available to the public on the Department's website. The report prepared by Mr. Clark which led to the designation of the Western Destin Project beach as critically eroded showed that the areas from R-17 to roughly R-20.3 and R- 23.2 to R-25.5 revealed erosion through deflation of the beach profile and recession of the shoreline to such an extent that upland development and infrastructure would be threatened. The report is based on evaluation and projection of the impact of a 25-year storm event. The same report did not conclude that a 25-year storm event would provide the same level of threat to the area between R-20.3 and R-23.2 (the shoreline along the MACLA Intervenors' Property and the Oceania Gap) although that stretch of the beach is "potentially threatened by a 50 to a 100-year storm event." Tr. 499. The "R-20.3 to R-23.2" segment was included in the critically eroded designation for design and integrity of the Project and continuity of management of the coastal system. The designation of the Project area as critically eroded was made in 2006 and was updated by the Department at the request of the County in 2008. The 2008 update indicated no need to change the designation. Although not as threatened as the rest of the shoreline in the Project, the shoreline along the Middle Segment, (including the MACLA Intervernors' Property and the Oceania Gap) is erosional. Data obtained as late as October 19, 2009, indicate that there had been more erosion since a Mean High Water Survey located the MHWL in 2008. The data does not show volumetric change, only that "there is a continued trend of erosion" of the shoreline in the Oceania Gap. Tr. 506. With the Oceania Gap eliminated from the Project, elimination of the rest of the property in the Project's Middle Segment (between R-20.3 and R-23.2) would make the remainder of the Project unstable. It would "isolate a 2,000-foot segment between R-23.2 and R-25.5 [the Eastern Segment] . . . and a 2,000-foot fill segment is not long enough to be a stable fill segment." Tr. 507. Although the elimination of all of the Middle Segment would not hurt "the very far west end" of the Project "very much," tr. 508, the elimination of the entire Middle Segment from the Project would also make the very east end of the Western Segment "relatively unstable." Tr. 508. The Middle Segment, therefore, while not critically eroded, would benefit from beach restoration. Restoration will provide protection from the erosion it is experiencing and from 50-year and 100-year storm events should they occur during the life of the restoration. Restoration will include dune work that will provide protection from storm surge and dissipate the wave energy seaward of any structures in the Middle Segment. Recent storm events have been 50-year and 100-year events. In the area of the Project, "Hurricane Opal was comparable to a 100-year storm event." Tr. 509. In Pensacola Beach, Ivan was a 200-year event. In the Destin area, Ivan "probably dropped to just below a 100-year storm event in terms of its magnitude. Hurricane Dennis was probably comparable to a 50-year storm event." Id. The best defense against 25-year, 50-year, and 100- year storm events is beach restoration. The OK-A Borrow Area is an offshore borrow area. Mr. Clark gave a few examples of other borrow areas that are offshore borrow areas and that are as large as OK-A. These were borrow areas used in the restoration of beaches in Panama City, Delray Beach, Canaveral Shoals, and Anna Maria Island. In addition to Taylor's Borrow Area Impact Analysis Report, Mr. Clark based his opinion on review of monitoring data for the many restoration projects with which he has been involved. Mr. Clark has reviewed borrow area impacts on beach restoration projects that have had adverse impacts. But these projects, typically, were "in inlet ebb tidal deltas of tidal inlets." Tr. 518. Located about three miles east of the ebb shoal of East Pass, OK-A is not an inlet-related borrow area. Of the 111 beach restoration projects that Mr. Clark reviewed, there was one that had an off-shore borrow area that adversely impacted the adjacent beach: the Anna Maria Island Project. The Anna Maria Island Borrow Area was located "roughly 1,000 feet off the [adjacent] beach . . . ." Tr. 519. In comparison, OK-A "is four to five times further offshore than the Anna Maria Island borrow area." Tr. 520. If instead of OK-A, the Project were to use a borrow area as close to the shore as the Anna Maria Island Borrow Area, its impacts to the shoreline would be both adverse and beneficial. The impact to adjacent beach would be erosion, but to the beach to the west of the borrow area the impact would be accretion. Mr. Clark's opinion of no impacts to the beach from dredging OK-A would be entirely different if OK-A had been located in the near-shore zone where "it's a whole different ball game." Tr. 532. The location of OK-A, between 4,000 and 5,000 feet offshore is in a zone that is "no problem," that is, it is not in the near-shore and far enough off shore that it will not cause impacts, adverse or beneficial, to the beaches and shores of Okaloosa County. For all his experience and coastal engineering prowess, Mr. Clark is not an expert in modeling. He relies on others within the Department to evaluate the sufficiency of a model or its methodologies. Mr. Clark did not ask anyone in the Department to evaluate the models used by Taylor Engineering. Dr. Young disagreed with the opinions of Mr. Trudnak and Mr. Clark that there would be no adverse impacts to the beach. He was sure that the dredging of OK-A would cause an adverse impact that would be either erosion or a decrease in the accretion that occurred in recent years along the beaches of Okaloosa Island. Dr. Young also cast doubt on Mr. Clark's experience as support for the opinion that dredging of OK-A would cause no adverse impacts. "Nobody believes there's ever been an adverse impact from a borrow area . . . ." Tr. 1206. Dr. Young used the "real world" experience with the Walton Borrow Area to back up that doubt. "[T]he problem is that we're not doing a good job of monitoring this project [the Walton Project] and the problem is convenient interpretation of the monitoring results." Id. Dr. Young's doubt about the value of Mr. Clark's experience was tempered by the reality of beach restoration in contrast to other types of projects whose failure was sudden, dramatic and easily discernible. Dr. Young: [W]hen a bridge collapses, civil engineers converge on that failed project and they learn more from that failure than they could ever learn from a bridge that lasted 30 years. And . . . one of the problems with coastal project design is that never happens. We never have a beach nourishment project that disappears in six months or a borrow area that causes erosion and coastal engineers converge from around the country and say, wow, here's a project that went wrong. And I think that is one of the hurdles that we need to cross in order to do a better job of project design. * * * We have no clear definition of what a failed project is. So, that way you can never have one that fails. And to me, a failed project is one that does not meet the promises made in the design of that project. And a failed project is also one where there are impacts that occur as a result of the project that are not adequately mitigated or anticipated. Tr. 1150-1. When asked the question of whether there is a definition of a failed beach restoration project in the literature or that is generally accepted by the coastal engineering community, see tr. 1152, Dr. Young testified, "I have not seen one." Tr. 1152. He added, " I would assume they might offer a similar definition [to mine], if the project doesn't work the way we said it would, then we would consider that a failure. But there is certainly not large scale discussion of projects that did not perform as designed." Tr. 1152-3. Dr. Young, like Dr. Dally, did not perform any analysis to quantify any degree of erosion or decreased accretion. Nor has he ever performed modeling to analyze borrow area impacts in keeping with his view of the inutility of modeling for accurate prediction of beach impacts. Variance The "Variance" referenced in the Consolidated NOI concerns two related variances: one from rule 62- 4.242(2)(a)2.b., and the other from rule 62-4.244(5)(c). The northern boundary of the proposed borrow area is within Outstanding Florida Waters ("OFW"). That location led the County to seek a variance from the limitation in rule 62- 4.242(2)(a)2.b. that turbidity can exceed background conditions in OFW during permitted construction activity for no more than 30 days. Section (2) of rule 62-4.242 sets "standards applying to Outstanding Florida Waters." Subsection (a)2.b of section (2) of the rule reads as follows: (a) no Department permit . . . shall be issued for any proposed activity . . . within an [OFW] or which degrades an [OFW], unless the applicant affirmatively demonstrates that: * * * 2. The proposed activity . . . is clearly in the public interest, and . . . * * * b. the existing ambient water quality within [the OFW] will not be lowered as a result of the proposed activity . . . , except on a temporary basis during construction for a period not to exceed thirty days . . . . The County also sought a variance from rule 62- 4.244(5)(c) which governs mixing zones in surface waters and reads: In no case shall the boundary of a dredge and fill mixing zone be more than . . . 150 meters in radius in . . . bodies of water [other than flowing streams], where these distances are measured from the cutterhead, return flow, discharge or other points of generation of turbidity or other pollutants. Section 120.54(2) authorizes an agency to grant a variance as follows: Variances . . . shall be granted when the person subject to the rule demonstrates that the purpose of the underlying statute will be or has been achieved by other means by the person and when application of a rule would create a substantial hardship or violate principles of fairness. Nephelometric turbidity units ("NTUs") in OFWs cannot exceed zero at the edge of the 150 meter radius referenced in rule 62-4.244(5)(c). To keep NTUs at zero outside the 150 meter radius, the County "would have had to almost continually be shutting down . . . .[its hopper] dredge," tr. 415, because the turbidity plume created by the hopper dredge's activity would have regularly extended beyond the 150 meter radius. Use of a different type of dredge (such as a cutterhead) would not alleviate the need for the variances for the construction of the Project. A cutterhead dredge is substantially more expensive with regard to both mobilization costs and actual dredging: $15-$20 per cubic yard versus $8 per cubic yard for a hopper dredge. Cutterhead dredges, moreover, do not operate in waves as effectively as hopper dredges. In rough water, "a cutterhead would see much more down time and conditions [could cause] a cutterhead . . . to stop dredging and go into safe harbor into East Pass." Tr. 173. The variance from rule 62-4.244(5)(c), therefore, was needed because the standard size mixing zone would have created a substantial hardship for the County. In addition to outlining the substantial hardship, the County provided two additional bases in its application to justify the variances: (a) no resources in the area, such as hard bottom or sea-grass beds, would be affected by a turbidity plume and an expanded mixing zone; and (b) citation to the Pensacola Naval Air Station ("NAS") project claimed to be similar in that it involved OFW and had received a variance. Upon receipt of the application for the variances, the Department requested additional information to establish whether OK-A, in fact, would be within OFW and more analysis of the comparability with the Pensacola NAS project. The Department's engineering section determined that the comparability of the Pensacola NAS project was not adequately demonstrated because of a lack of detail about the hydrodynamics and mixing zone sizes of the two sites. Nonetheless, the staff responsible for making the final decision on the variances (and ultimately the Department) determined the County's information justifying the variances to be sufficient. In granting the variances, the Department did not rely on the County's comparison of the Project to the Pensacola NAS project. As explained by Dr. Edwards at hearing, "[H]aving the data . . . from an actual project to back up and . . . calibrate a mixing zone is an added bonus, but we just didn't have it in this particular case." Tr. 420. The Department based its decision, in part, however, on background knowledge from permitting of borrow areas and beach projects "all over the Panhandle," tr. 421, and the data gathered from them including "data from side scan sonar from seismic information all along this area." Id. Included in this background is knowledge of a similar mixing zone of 1,500 meters established for one of the Eglin AFB beach restoration projects which excavated OK-A with a hopper dredge and in which the 1500- meter mixing zone was determined to be appropriate. Independent of the information provided by the County, the decision, therefore, was founded on the Department's own knowledge that no resources would be impacted by an expanded mixing zone and that there was a comparable project in the area (not the Pensacola NAS project) that had been allowed a 1500- meter mixing zone. In applying the standard from section 120.54(2) related to the underlying intent of the rules at issue and the statutes, the Department determined that "[t]he Project in the OFW was clearly in the public interests, according to [section] 373.414 and the minimum Water Quality Standards, even within the mixing zone[,] would still be met." Tr. 421-2. There were at least two other mitigating factors that the Department entertained as support for its decision. First, because of the difficulty in controlling turbidity in open waters in the Gulf, the 1,500-meter mixing zone established by the Consolidated NOI actually "is on the small side," tr. 422, of a mixing zone for the dredging of a borrow area to serve a beach restoration project. Second, 29 NTUs is the maximum turbidity allowed in waters that are not OFW. An extended mixing zone to allow the County to exceed 29 NTUs outside OFW was not granted as part of the variances under the Consolidated NOI. Petitioners presented no evidence to rebut the testimony elicited by the Department and the County that the purpose of the statute underlying the rules from which the variances are sought will be met by other means and that the application of the rules will create a substantial hardship. Changed Site Conditions 267. Rule 62B-49.005(16) provides: If site conditions change during the processing of an application to such an extent that the data already provided can no longer be used to determine consistency as provided in this chapter, then the application shall be denied unless the applicant agrees to waive the 9-day time requirements of Chapter 120.60, Florida Statutes, and provides the additional information required to reanalyze the application. After the filing of the County's application, malfunction of British Petroleum's Deepwater Horizon offshore oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico led to the Oil Spill, a discharge of a massive amount of oil and natural gas into the Gulf of Mexico. No evidence was presented that showed the Oil Spill had caused impacts to the OK-A Borrow Area. The permit was revised, nonetheless, to add language in the wake of the Oil Spill that requires the County to visually inspect the borrow area prior to construction activity and to analyze sand samples from the borrow area. The County, therefore, plans to send a diver to collect samples to be analyzed for contamination. See tr. 175. Western Destin Erosion Control Line The requirement for an Erosion Control Line is in section 161.161: Once a project is determined to be undertaken, a survey of all or part of the shoreline within the jurisdiction of the local government in which the beach is located shall be conducted in order to . . . locate an erosion control line. * * * In lieu of conducting a survey, the board of trustees may accept and approve a survey as initiated, conducted, and submitted by the appropriate local government if said survey is made in conformity with the appropriate principles set forth in ss. 161.141-161.211. § 161.161(3), Fla. Stat. The Draft JCP as originally issued did not require the establishment of an ECL. It required the establishment of a Pre- project Mean High Water Line instead. The Second Revised Draft JCP dispensed with the requirement of a Pre-project MHWL. It requires that an ECL be established for all properties within the 1.7 miles stretch of beach in the Project area subject to beach restoration.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order issuing the Joint Coastal Permit, Variance, and Sovereign Submerged Lands Authorization as revised during the course of these proceedings. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of June, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DAVID M. MALONEY 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 June, 2011.
