The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaints filed against him, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was licensed as a certified general contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number CG C000942. At all times material hereto, Respondent was the licensed qualifying agent for Twenty First Century Construction Management, Inc. On September 5, 1992, Willie Janes, doing business as Janes Roofing Contractor, entered into a contract with Debourah Benjamin to replace the roof at her residence located in Margate, Florida. The contract price was $6,748, but Janes later agreed to do the work for $6,248, which was all Benjamin's insurance company would pay. On November 26, 1992, Benjamin gave Janes a check in the amount of $2,200 as a down payment on the work. The check was payable to Willie Janes. At the time Janes entered into his contract with Benjamin, his local roofing license had expired, and he was not licensed as a roofing contractor by the State of Florida. Respondent applied for the roofing permit for the Benjamin job. The City of Margate Building Department issued permit number 11525-R by and through Respondent's licensure on December 3, 1992. Janes commenced work on the Benjamin project on November 26, 1992. On December 8, 1992, the City of Margate Building Department performed a tin tag inspection of the work done by Janes. The work failed the inspection that day but passed two days later. On January 11, 1993, Benjamin issued a second check, in the amount of $2,300, payable to Willie Janes, for the purchase of roof tile. Janes did not order and did not pay for the roof tile until approximately June 25, 1993. The tile was delivered to Benjamin's residence a few days later and placed on the roof for installation but Janes did not return to the project site. The amount of tile delivered to Benjamin's residence was not sufficient to cover the entire roof. On approximately June 25, 1993, Benjamin noticed for the first time that the name of the company on the permit posted at her residence was Twenty First Century Construction. Neither the Respondent nor Twenty First Century Construction Management, Inc., had any involvement in Benjamin's project other than obtaining the building permit. Benjamin contacted the building department which issued the permit and was referred to Petitioner. An employee of Petitioner advised her that the qualifier for Twenty First Century Construction was Respondent. Benjamin had never heard of Respondent at the time. Benjamin contacted Respondent by telephone several times about completing the work commenced by Janes. Respondent repeatedly promised to finish the roof but never did. Benjamin next contacted the Margate Police Department to report the activities of Respondent and Janes. On September 3, 1993, Officer Liberatori of the Margate Police Department spoke to Respondent by telephone, and Respondent promised to complete the work within 30 days. However, Respondent did nothing to complete the work. The last inspection performed on the Benjamin project under permit number 11525-R was the dry-in inspection performed on February 8, 1993. Permit number 11525-R expired on July 8, 1993. In December 1993 Benjamin had the project completed by another contractor. On November 16, 1992, Delos and Barbara Johnson entered into a written contract with Respondent to remodel a porch enclosure at the Johnson residence in Coral Springs, Florida, for a contract price of $10,250. The Johnsons made three payments to Respondent: $1,000 on September 28, 1992; $5,000 on November 17, 1992; and $3,000 on December 2, 1992. On October 12, 1992, Respondent applied for a building permit from the City of Coral Springs for the Johnson remodeling. The City of Coral Springs issued permit number 920004472 by and through Respondent's licensure on November 30, 1992. When the City of Coral Springs issues a building permit, it provides with the permit a list of the required inspections. Respondent proceeded with the construction until December 2, 1992, when he received the third payment. Thereafter, Respondent ceased all construction activities on the Johnson project. Shortly thereafter, the Johnsons learned from the Coral Springs Building Department that their remodeling project had failed to pass the required inspections. When they confronted Respondent regarding his failure to obtain the required inspections, he represented to them that he had made a videotape of all the work he performed, that he himself was a building inspector and could inspect his work, and that he could get a special inspector to inspect the project from the videotape. At no time material hereto was Respondent a certified building inspector. Videotaping a construction project in lieu of obtaining required inspections is not permitted under the South Florida Building Code nor is it permitted by the City of Coral Springs Building Department. Of the required nine inspections for the project, Respondent only obtained three inspections. Of those three, he only passed two. Respondent's failure to obtain the required inspections constitutes a violation of the South Florida Building Code, the minimum standard required for any type of building construction in South Florida. A contractor's failure to adhere to that minimum standard causes harm to the public from deteriorating construction. The Johnsons and the City of Coral Springs Building Department gave Respondent an opportunity to obtain and pass the required inspections and complete the construction project. When Respondent declined to do so, the attorney hired by the Johnsons discharged Respondent. The Johnsons had paid approximately 90 percent of the money they had saved for the porch enclosure to Respondent, and they could not afford to continue with the construction project using the services of another contractor until November 1994. Rick Hugins of Hugins Construction Corp., the remedial contractor, needed to pass the required inspections that Respondent had neglected in order to be permitted by the City of Coral Springs Building Department to complete the project. Work that needed to be inspected was concealed by subsequently- installed construction materials which had to be removed in order that the required inspections could be performed. Numerous code violations were discovered in the concealed work. The work performed by Respondent was below industry standards. The Johnsons paid Hugins Construction Corp. $10,000 to correct the code violations, to pass the required inspections Respondent had missed, and to complete the project. Hugins completed the project by January 23, 1995. Respondent has been previously disciplined by Petitioner on charges of assisting unlicensed activity and of failing to notify Petitioner of his current mailing address and telephone number. That discipline included the payment of an administrative fine and an assessment of costs associated with that investigation and prosecution.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in Counts I and III of the Administrative Complaint filed against him in DOAH Case No. 97- 1365, finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint filed against him in DOAH Case No. 97-1368, requiring Respondent to pay restitution to the Johnsons, assessing against Respondent the costs of investigation and prosecution through the time the final order is entered, and revoking Respondent's certification as a general contractor in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of July, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of July, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Dorota Trzeciecka, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 401 Northwest Second Avenue, No. N-607 Miami, Florida 33128 Edward Conrad Sawyer, Esquire 1413 North 58th Avenue Hollywood, Florida 33021 Rodney Hurst, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact In 1950, Petitioner acquired lots 8 and 9, block 23, of Lone Palm Beach subdivision, third addition, which lots front on Boca Ciega Bay in Pinellas County, and she has held the property in free simple since. Petitioner's late husband, her predecessor in title, acquired the lots in 1941. They constitute the tip of man-made peninsula jutting bayward from a barrier island bordered on the other side by the Gulf of Mexico. In 1926, the lots did not exist as such, because the peninsula had not yet been built. Petitioner's exhibit No. 10. Since the creation of the lots, their aquatic periphery has varied continually, on account of accretion and reliction. In the first half of the last decade, wooden and metal stakes were sunk along the shoreline, landward of the water's edge. Since then, water has washed away Petitioner's beach, moving the shoreline inland an average distance of approximately thirty feet. Erosion has been more severe along the northern half of Petitioner's beach than along the southern half. Seawalls have been built along adjacent properties on either side of Petitioner's parcel. The evidence did not establish what proportion of this erosion may have been attributable to the effects of Hurricane Agnes or to the location of neighboring seawalls or to any other particular cause. In 1972, the Honorable C. Richard Leavengood, Petitioner's present husband, hired Rupert Osteen, a contractor, to build a seawall. Pinellas County issued a building permit to Mr. Osteen, covering a "Seawall - 356LF - Type D," Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5, on March 14, 1973. (In September of 1951, the Town of Redington Beach had issued a building permit for "Dredging and Filling behind Sea Wall Constructed on [what is now Petitioner's] Rear Property Line.") Construction began, but came to an abrupt halt in July of 1973, when Mr. Osteen was arrested for building a seawall "without having obtained the recommendation of the Chief of Engineers and the Authorization of the Secretary of the Army prior to beginning," a criminal offense of which he was subsequently convicted in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Respondent's Exhibit No. 4. Before work on the seawall stopped, Petitioner had caused some 4,500 cubic yards of fill dirt to be deposited on the lots. After Mr. Osteen's arrest, Petitioner applied for a fill permit to the Pinellas County Commission, sitting as the Pinellas County Water and Navigation Control Authority. The Authority granted the permit on March 19, 1974, on condition that the seawall be made to tie in with the existing seawall on lot 7, which adjoins Petitioner's property to the west. On or about August 16, 1974, Petitioner applied to the Department of the Army prior to beginning," a criminal offense of which he was subsequently convicted in the United State District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Respondent's Exhibit No. 4. Before work on the seawall stopped, Petitioner had caused some 4,500 cubic yards of fill dirt to be deposited on the lots. After Mr. Osteen's arrest, Petitioner applied for a fill permit to the Pinellas County Commission, sitting as the Pinellas County Water and Navigation Control Authority. The Authority granted the permit on March 19,1974, on condition that the seawall be made to tie in with the existing seawall on lot 7, which adjoins Petitioner's property to the west. On or about August 16, 1974, Petitioner applied to the Department of the Army for a permit, pursuant to Sections 403 and 1344 of Title 33, United States Code. Petitioner applied for the "after the fact" permit at issue in these proceedings on May 10, 1974. At one point in the course of negotiations between Petitioner and Respondent, Mr. Douglas Jones, Chief of Respondent's Bureau of Permitting, indicated that Respondent would permit Petitioner to erect another seawall along the present mean high water line. Eventually, Respondent's staff notified Petitioner that it would recommended denial of an after the fact permit for the existing seawall, and Petitioner filed a request for administrative hearing, which initiated these proceedings. Aerial photographs dating back to 1942 were received in evidence. Respondent's Exhibits Nos. 5 through 11. None of these phontographs show land as far out in the water as the portion of the seawall Mr. Osteen finished. The partially completed seawall is further waterward tan the 1971 interface between land and water. Respondent's Exhibits Nos. 9 and 10. In November of 1973, Alan J. Burdette, Jr., a marine biologist, who is now employed by Respondent, inspected lots 8 and 9 of Lone Palm Beach subdivision and found water in the low area landward of the seawall. More recent photographs indicate that the seawall still stands somewhat offshore. E.g.., Respondent's Exhibit No. 16, taken on September 7, 1977. Mr. Bardette's inspection revealed oyster and fiddler crabs inside the seawall and clams just outside. Mangroves, which were not there at the time construction began, had sprung up. Removal of the seawall would create additional shallow bottom where algae, clams, oysters, mangroves and other marine life could flourish. Mr. R. S. Murali, a hydorgraphic engineer employed by Respondent, visited Petitioner's property the day before the hearing in this matter was held. While he was on the site, the wind blew from the southwest and waves with an average height between eight and nine inches struck Petitioner's unfinished seawall every 1.2 seconds. Mr. Murali discovered evidence of erosion under the seawall, which was caused by wave action. If the seawall were placed more landward, so that waves travelled up a sloping beach before striking it, the erosion problem could be significantly alleviated.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner's application for an after the fact fill permit authorizing the seawall which has already been constructed around lots 8 and 9, block 23, of Lone Palm Beach Subdivision, third addition, be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of November, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 904/488-9675 APPENDIX Paragraph one of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact has been adopted, in substance, insofar as relevant:. Paragraph two of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact has been adopted, in substance, insofar as relevant, except for the date of the permit issued by the Pinellas County Water and Navigation Control Authority, which is immaterial. Paragraph three of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact is apparently predicated on Petitioner's Exhibit No. 12, an uncertified copy of page 74 of Pinellas County's Plat Book 20. Although a handwritten notation on the exhibit reads "Plat Recorded June 21, 1937" such extraneous handwriting on an uncertified copy is not "evidence of a type commonly relied upon by reasonably prudent persons in the conduct of their affairs.". Section 120.58(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1975). The question of the Butler Act's applicability is a question of law rather than of fact and it has not been necessary to decide the question. Paragraph four of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact has not been adopted, for the most part, because of lack of support in the evidence. Paragraph five of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of fact emphasizes that the testimony as to flora and fauna related to a time considerably after application for the after the fact permit was made. While this is true, what is at issue is the ecological consequences of leaving the seawall, so that the relevant time period is the time period beginning when the application was made and extending indefinitely into the future. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Carol Haughey, Esq. Department of Environmental Regulation 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Montgomery Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Ross H. Stanton, Jr., Esq. 280 Florida Federal Building 26274th Street North St. Petersburg, Florida 33704 Ms. Patricia M. Duryee, Esq. Department of Environmental Regulation 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Montgomery Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION DOROTHY B. LEAVENGOOD, Petitioner, vs. CASE NOS. 77-484 STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, Respondents. /
Findings Of Fact By Joint Application for Works in the Waters of Florida filed January 14, 1993, Richard and Claudia Cowart requested permission to construct a concrete seawall with sloping riprap along their property, which is bordered by the Caloosahatchee River. The application describes the length of the seawall as 130 feet. The application describes the length of the riprap as "up to 130 [feet]" and the width of the riprap as five feet. The application states that the Cowarts are the record owner of the property and that Brian Bevan is an owner of adjacent property. There are seawalls for some distance on both sides of the proposed seawall, including along the property of Mr. Bevan. The seawall on the side opposite that of Mr. Bevan is indicated on the drawing accompanying the application. The drawing attached to the application depicts an existing retaining wall waterward of the approximate mean high water line and the proposed seawall landward of the approximate mean high water line. The proposed seawall would travel parallel to the river's shoreline for a distance of about 130 feet. At both ends, the wall turns away from the river and runs an additional 25-30 feet perpendicular to the river. At the southerly end of the proposed seawall, the drawing also indicates a "wetland enhancement area" where 100 one-gallon red mangrove trees would be planted. A second drawing attached to the application consists of a cross- section of the proposed activity. The cross-section drawing depicts, among other things, the riprap to be placed waterward of the proposed seawall, which is perpendicular to the surface of the water. The proposed riprap has no discontinuities. By letter to the Cowarts dated January 20, 1993, the Department of Environmental Regulation (DEP) stated that it found that the proposed activity was exempt from the need for a wetland resource permit, pursuant to Rule 17- 312.050(1)(t), Florida Administrative Code. Within a couple of months after issuance of the letter, the Cowarts constructed a seawall. Petitioners challenged the determination by filing a petition on February 4, 1993. The proposed seawall would not violate existing water quality standards, impede navigation, or adversely affect flood control.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order dismissing the petition of the Bevans and declining to award attorneys' fees and costs against them or any of them. ENTERED on October 28, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on October 28, 1994. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioners' Proposed Findings Petitioners filed a proposed recommended order without proposed findings of fact. To the extent that anything in the proposed recommended order may be construed to be a proposed finding of fact, it is rejected as irrelevant or unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Rulings on Cowarts' Proposed Findings 1-11: adopted or adopted in substance. 12: rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Kenneth Plante, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 John L. Chaves, Assistant General Counsel Douglas H. McLaughlin, Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Brian Bevan 1200 Masanabo Lane Ft. Myers, FL 33919 Richard A. Lotspeich Landers & Parsons Box 271 Tallahassee, FL 32302
The Issue The issues are whether Respondents dredged and filled within wetlands and surface waters without a permit and, if so, what penalty and corrective action should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Trust owns the Property, and Freeman is the sole trustee of Trust and its sole beneficiary. The Property, which is located in Lake County, abuts Lake Nettie, a 45-acre lake with no outlet, under ordinary water conditions. A portion of the Property occupies wetlands and surface waters of Lake Nettie. Much of the upland abutting the lake in the vicinity of the Property is developed, although no other seawalls are visible. The shoreline in the vicinity of the Property is not heavily developed, but it bears clear signs of maintenance to control the growth of vegetation in the sandy beach. Sometime after October 29, 2003, Freeman's late mother purchased the Property, on which is located a single-family home. At the time, the Property did not have a dock or seawall. Shortly after Ms. Freeman acquired the Property, Freeman, an accountant, or his mother hired a contractor to build a dock. The dock was constructed in early 2004. Because it did not exceed 1000 square feet over water, this activity qualified for a noticed general permit, under Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-341.475(1)(a), although the record does not reveal whether Ms. Freeman provided the notice required for this activity. Nothing in the record suggests that the construction of the dock altered the pattern of limited vegetation of the Property waterward of the wetlands line. However, nothing in the record suggests that erosion, siltation, or turbidity has been a problem at the waterward end of the Property. The only evidence touching on the issue of drainage into the lake is that, in the vicinity of the Property, runoff enters the lake by sheetflow. In 2007, by which time title to the Property had passed to the Trust, Freeman sought to add a roof to the dock that his mother had had constructed. Finding that the contractor who had built the dock was no longer in business, Freeman obtained the required local building permit and did the work himself. Shortly after completing this job, Freeman constructed the seawall, obtaining the fill from a neighbor who was excavating a basement. In connection with this dispute, Petitioner has established a wetlands line on the Property. The wetlands line is amply supported by the evidence, including careful analysis by Petitioner's representatives of the vegetation and soils, as well as hydrologic indicators, such as algal mats, that are present on the Property within the area of the Seawall Project. Based on this wetlands line, the Seawall Project is in the wetlands, so that the construction of the project constituted dredging and filling of wetlands. The waterward face of the seawall is entirely in wetlands, as are the return walls that run upland from the seawall face and the fill placed upland of the seawall face. DEP Exhibit 11, which is incorporated by reference herein, accurately depicts the wetlands line on the Property. There is some confusion in Petitioner's pleadings between the surface area of wetlands that Freeman filled and the amount of fill. The surface area of disturbed wetlands is about 500 square feet. According to Freeman, whose testimony is credited, the amount of fill was about what would be contained in a small dump truck, so it might be in the neighborhood of five cubic yards. In the NOV, Petitioner describes the corrective action that it is imposing on Respondents. Within 45 days of the NOV, "Respondent" would be required to conduct certain preliminary activities and then: 1) remove the seawall and all associated fill waterward of the wetland line; 2) place the removed fill in a contained upland location where it will not discharge into wetlands or surface waters; 3) during and after regrading, stabilize with vegetation all slopes adjacent to the restored area as soon as possible (not more than 72 hours after attaining final grade) to prevent erosion, siltation, or turbid runoff into the wetlands and surface waters; remove nuisance and exotic vegetation prior to planting; replant the restoration area with listed wetland species on three-foot centers within elevation- based zones depicted on an attached drawing; plant healthy, nursery-grown stock from a state-licensed nursery; provide receipts for all plants used in the restoration area; monitor the restoration area at four-month intervals until the restoration area contains less than ten percent coverage of nuisance and exotic species and 80 percent of the plantings have survived for at least one year and are viable, reproducing plants; submit monitoring reports to Petitioner; and allow Petitioner's representatives access to the Property at reasonable times to determine compliance with the NOV conditions. Petitioner does not seek corrective action for the addition of the roof to the dock, which resulted in the addition of about 216 square feet to the original, 1000 square-foot dock. Presumably, this decision acknowledges the relative ease of obtaining a standard general permit for a dock of no more than 2000 square feet serving a single-family home under Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-341.427(1)(a)2. For this reason, the violation arising out of the Dock Project is relatively minor. The corrective actions focus on the seawall because the violation arising out of the Seawall Project is more significant. Under Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-341.475(1)(c), this activity involved 400 square feet more than the 100 square feet of dredging and filling that is allowed as a "minor system" under a noticed general permit. An individual environmental resource permit would be required for this project, and there is no reason to assume that Respondents would be able to obtain such a permit. Corrective action is therefore necessary in the form of the removal of the entire Seawall Project, including all of the fill, and the restoration of the pre-project grade. The question concerning corrective action is the extent of Respondents' liability for undertaking the planting scheme outlined above in the NOV. The record fails to establish the restorative nature of this activity because, immediately before the commencement of the Seawall Project, the shoreline in the impacted area was unvegetated. If Respondents had applied for permits for these two activities, Petitioner would have charged the fee for the proposed activity that carried the higher fee, which is the Seawall Project. The application fee would have been $600. By not applying for and obtaining this permit, Respondents wrongly obtained an economic benefit of $600. The fact that Respondents will only be allowed to keep the product of the Dock Project suggests that the final economic benefit should be based on the reduced fee associated with this activity, but, for reasons stated in the Conclusions of Law, this point is irrelevant because Petitioner is not authorized to recover either application fee in this case. Two of Petitioner's representatives testified as to the cost of their investigatory services in this case. Based on the total hours expended, at their respective hourly rates, without regard to any fringe benefits, the cost of the investigation is about $1700, but, for the reasons stated in the Conclusions of Law, this fact is also irrelevant because Petitioner is not authorized to recover these costs in this case.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Department of Environmental Protection (Department) should approve a permit for the applicant, Indian River County (County), to install a prefabricated erosion prevention reef (PEP reef) off the coast of Vero Beach, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing and approving permits such as the one at issue. The County is a governmental entity and is the applicant which has requested a permit for an experimental project to be located in Vero Beach, Florida. The Petitioners oppose the proposed project. The project at issue is the installation of a PEP reef system to be located between approximately 300 feet south of reference monument R-80 to approximately 300 feet south of reference monument R-83, in Indian River County, Florida. Because of the uncertainty as to the performance of the proposed project and the potential that it may cause adverse impacts to the coastal system, the Department classified the project as experimental pursuant to Chapter 89-175, Section 27, Laws of Florida. In making its preliminary approval for the permit, the Department required special permit conditions to safeguard the coastal system and marine turtles. Additionally, the Department specified both preconstruction and post installation monitoring and testing. The term of the permit is limited to five years, including three years to monitor the project's impacts. A PEP reef is a prefabricated erosion prevention product installed as a breakwater off the shore. In this case, the product measures approximately twelve feet long and six feet high. The base of the product (which is conically shaped) is approximately 15 feet tapering to a one foot crest at the top. The PEP unit is a proprietary product of a company called American Coastal Engineering (ACE). The County proposes to contract with ACE for the manufacture and installation of the units. It is proposed that the PEP units would be installed in an alignment parallel to the beach for a total, though not continuous, length of 3000 feet. The proposed location for the PEP reef in Vero Beach is in an erosion area as identified by the Department's Beach Restoration Management Plan. Historically, the subject beach has experienced a steady and continuous erosion which has been exacerbated during storm conditions. The proposed site is suitable for the experimental nature of this project. At least one past storm event caused substantial damage to the beach front at the project site. Walkways, utilities, and other public improvements were substantially damaged. Past efforts to curb the erosion have proved unsuccessful. Such efforts included beach renourishment, and the installation of seawalls or bulkheads. Future beach renourishment is undesirable for the project site due to the lack of compatible sand, and its high cost. More important, however, are concerns over the negative environmental impacts to nearshore reefs which could result from a large scale renourishment project. For over ten years the County has sought a solution to the erosion that has plagued the project site. To that end, the County established a special committee, the Beach and Shore Preservation Advisory Committee, to review options available and to recommend long-term solutions to the County. In June, 1993, the County contracted with Petitioner Walther to prepare a map of the nearshore hardbottom reef and to evaluate alternatives for beach restoration at the project site. Such work was completed, and recommendations from Mr. Walther were not incompatible with the installation of the proposed reef. The proposed installation should not adversely affect the hardbottom reefs which are in the vicinity of the PEP units. Such hardbottom is considered environmentally sensitive; however, no PEP unit will be placed on the hardbottom or so close to it that it will disturb the organisms located within the hardbottom community. In December, 1993, the County submitted an application for an experimental coastal construction permit to install the PEP reef which is at issue. The PEP units are to be placed in seven to ten feet of water. The PEP reef is designed to reduce wave heights, particularly during a storm event, which should reduce the wave energy and currents in the lee of the structure. While it is hoped the units will deter erosion, they may also cause some accretion to the beach. Whether such accretion would be temporary or long- term is uncertain. As a result of studies performed by the University of Florida under the direction of Dr. Dean, and supported by the County's coastal engineer Mr. Donaldson, it was determined that the PEP units should be installed in shorter lengths (than originally designed) with gaps between each segment. Consequently, the installation proposed by the County is not continuous but is staggered and gapped. The installation proposed by the County is unique in that the coastal characteristics of the area and the proposed design should produce results different from past installations of reef structures in Palm Beach County, Florida. As a result, studies performed by Dr. Dean in connection with a reef installed in Palm Beach County have been discounted as dissimilar to the one proposed in this case. In reviewing the subject permit application, the Department requested additional data which the County retained Dr. Zarillo to gather. Dr. Zarillo performed numerical modeling for the proposed reef system. Based upon Dr. Zarillo's work it is expected that the PEP reef system will have a positive benefit in that wave height and energy is likely to be reduced by the installation of the units. The site for the installation is suited for the proposal and is not within an area that is considered environmentally sensitive. Moreover, the PEP reef itself will add to the development of species since it should develop into a nursery habitat for young fish and other marine organisms. The installation of PEP reefs at other locations have proven to be both successful and unsuccessful. Having considered the studies performed by Dr. Bruno, an expert in coastal engineering and in measuring/modeling coastal processes, it is likely that the proposed project will be similar enough in design to installations reviewed by Dr. Bruno to allow the proposed project to be compared. Dr. Bruno has monitored three installations at three different sites in New Jersey. Each site had different results based upon conditions of each location. One site, expected to be most like the proposed site in Vero Beach, has experienced a reduced rate of erosion. Based upon Dr. Bruno's "real life" experience it is expected that the proposed installation will result in a reduction of wave height on the order of 10 percent to 20 percent. Consequently, the proposed installation should provide a benefit to the control of erosion. The reduction of wave height leads to a reduction in the erosive power of the wave field. Therefore, it is expected to result in a reduced erosion rate behind the PEP reefs. Additionally, Dr. Bruno's assessment of Dr. Zarillo's modeling work suggests that "in theory" the proposed site should experience a reduction in wave height as a result of the proposed installation. As a result, both scientific methods support the proposed project. No scientific study can, however, assure the success of this project. In fact, success may be derived from the value of the data which will be gathered during the monitoring period. Such data may assist in the future design of structures to reduce wave energy. The County's proposed monitoring plan contains detailed and adequate performance criteria to assure that the PEP reef system will be fully evaluated. The County has provided adequate assurance that it will comply with the permit conditions, including the modification or removal of the reef system if directed by the Department. All installation and monitoring as well as removal is to be performed at the County's expense. The PEP reef system will have no appreciable adverse impact on marine turtles. Construction is prohibited during nesting season under the terms of the permit. The PEP reef system will have no adverse impact on swimmers or boaters. The units are to be clearly marked and identified under the terms of the permit. No adverse impacts to Petitioners Walther and Clemens should be incurred as a result of the installation of the proposed project.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order approving the permit requested by the County. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of February, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH, 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 16th day of February 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-4045 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner Walther: 1. Paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 26, 29, 42, 44, 47, 50, 51, 59, and 60 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 2, the allegation is hearsay as it relates to the record cited; however, although not stipulated, the record most likely supports the paragraph in substance. Paragraph 5 is rejected as irrelevant. There is no evidence to support the factual conclusion that because another permit holder has failed to remove a reef that the County will similarly default on its obligation to do should the agency order the PEP reef removal. Paragraph 11 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 14 is rejected as irrelevant if it purports to suggest the contracting was improper; this proceeding does not consider the propriety of the contracting process. With the deletion of any emphasis and the last sentence which are rejected as argument, paragraph 15 is accepted. Paragraphs 18 through 24 are rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 25 is rejected as hearsay; it is accepted that Mrs. Clemens opposed the permit and requested a hearing. Paragraph 27 is rejected as an incomplete statement and therefore not supported by the total weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 28 is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraphs 30 through 33 are rejected as law not statements of fact. Paragraph 34 is accepted in general terms but not as to the specific measurements cited. Paragraphs 35 through 38 are rejected as contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. It is determined that the site is suitable for a non-biased, comprehensive analysis of the project. Paragraphs 39 through 41 are rejected as contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. Paragraph 43 is rejected as irrelevant. With regard to paragraph 45, it is accepted the reefs may settle but such is expected to be unlikely to impair the overall performance of the structure; therefore, the paragraph, as drafted, must be rejected as contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. Paragraph 46 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. Paragraph 48 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. Paragraph 49 is rejected as unclear or incomplete to stand as a finding of fact or contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. Paragraph 52 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 53 is rejected as incomplete to stand as a finding of fact or contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. Paragraphs 54 through 58 are rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. With regard to paragraph 61, it is accepted that Dr. Dean envisioned a current being created that would run parallel to the shoreline as a result of the reef installation but otherwise rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. With regard to paragraph 62, such statement is generally true; however, Dr. Dean did not conduct any sediment transportation test to verify that the structure in an open setting (as opposed to the experimental tank) would transport sediment as inferred. Paragraphs 63 through 67 are rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 68 is accepted as accurate but the agency did not express, and the record does not establish, that there is a concern that the County may not honor its agreement to remove the PEP reef if directed to do so. Paragraph 69 is rejected as irrelevant. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner Clemens: 1. None submitted. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent Department: All proposed findings of fact adopted by the Department as listed are accepted. See comments below as to rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the County. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent County: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 5, 7 through 15, 17, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, 27 through 30, 34, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, and 46 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 6, it is accepted that an extensive renourishment program might damage the sensitive nearshore hardbottom community; otherwise rejected as irrelevant. With regard to paragraph 16, with the deletion of the word "significantly" in the second sentence and the last sentence which are rejected as irrelevant, editorial comment, argument or not supported by the total weight of credible evidence, it is accepted. With regard to paragraph 18, the first sentence is accepted. As to the balance of the paragraph, with the deletion of the word "significantly" and the substitution of "might" for "could", the paragraph is accepted. Otherwise rejected as an inaccurate characterization of the weight of the record. With regard to paragraph 19, the first sentence is accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 22 is rejected as a compound statement of proposed fact some of which are accurate but which taken in whole constitute argument, unnecessary, irrelevant or not supported by the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 25 is rejected as unnecessary or irrelevant. With regard to paragraph 31, with the deletion of the word "significant" in sentence three, the paragraph is accepted. With regard to paragraph 32, with the deletion of the word "significant" in sentence two, the paragraph is accepted. Paragraph 33 is rejected as repetitive, unnecessary or irrelevant. With regard to paragraph 35, the first sentence is accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as unnecessary, comment, argument, or irrelevant. Paragraphs 36 through 38 are rejected as unnecessary, comment, argument, or irrelevant. The proposed PEP reef should not adversely impact the Vero Beach shoreline. Paragraph 44 is rejected as unnecessary, comment, argument, or irrelevant. With regard to paragraphs 47 through 53, it is accepted that the Petitioners did not establish that they will be substantially affected by the proposed project; however, their conduct does not rise to the level to establish participation in the administrative process was for an improper purpose. Consequently, the paragraphs are rejected as argument, irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Steve Lewis, Esquire John W. Forehand, Esquire LEWIS, LONGMAN & WALKER, P.A. 215 S. Monroe Street, Suite 702 Post Office Box 10788 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Kevin S. Hennessy, Esquire LEWIS, LONGMAN & WALKER, P.A. 2000 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard Suite 900 West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 Michael P. Walther 1725 36th Avenue Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Adele Clemens 3747 Ocean Drive Vero Beach, Florida 32963 Thomas I. Mayton, Jr. Dana M. Wiehle Assistants General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Virginia B. Wetherall Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Kenneth Plante General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact By Stipulation of the parties, it is found that Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a certified roofing contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number CC-C015772. He is also known as Tony Gory, and was the qualifying agent for Roofing Technology, Inc., at all times material hereto. On or about August 16, 1982, Respondent submitted a proposal, on behalf of Roofing Technology, Incorporated, to Lillian Perper for roofing work to be done on her residence at 3616 Flamingo Drive, Miami Beach, Florida. Mrs. Perper accepted the proposal on August 17, 1982, and testified that the written proposal contained all terms and conditions of her agreement with Respondent. Respondent obtained the permit for this job on August 23, 1982. Mrs. Perper made timely payments to Respondent, under the terms of their agreement, totaling $11,057.00. Respondent completed the work in late September, 1982 and Mrs. Perper made her final payment on October 8, 1982. Respondent's agreement with Mrs. Perper included a warranty stated as follows: All workmanship and material to be guaranteed against defects for a period of ten (10) years; except for fire, termites, windstorm, or damages caused by acts of God. Within two months after completion of the reroofing, Mrs. Perper noted leaks in her livingroom and bedroom ceilings. She called Respondent, and-he came right out and 3 inspected her roof. He then sent a crew to Mrs. Perper's house and they attempted to locate and fix the leaks. However, they were not successful and the leaks continued. Mrs. Perper made several additional attempts to reach Respondent, but was not able to personally talk with him again about her roof. She did leave messages at his office that she was continuing to have leaks in her roof. In June, 1983, Respondent sent a crew of two men to Mrs. Perper's house to work on her roof. However, she denied them access to her roof because Respondent was not present, although they did identify themselves as roofers who Respondent had sent to repair her roof. Mrs. Perper was concerned that this crew would tear her roof off without Respondent being present to supervise the job. No additional attempts were made by Mrs. Perper to reach Respondent, or by Respondent to repair her roof, after she refused access to the roofing crew in June, 1983. The South Florida Building Code has been adopted as the building code of the City of Miami Beach. Regarding roof coverings, the South Florida Building Code provides that the building official shall be notified by the permit holder upon completion of the roof covering (Section 3401.1(b)(4)), nails should not be driven through the sheathing between supports (Section 3401.1(c)), mortar used to secure roof tile shall be sandwiched between all laps at all butts and along the sides of barrel tile (Section 3403.2(e)), roof tiles shall be secured to resist uplift forces (Section 3403.2(f)) and such tile shall extend beyond roof sheathing at the eaves (Section 3403.2(h)). An inspection of Mrs. Perper's roof conducted on February 25, 1985, by Robert B. Hilson, who was accepted as an expert in roofing and the installation of Spanish-S tile, indicates there were violations of several of the above provisions of the South Florida Building Code when he made his inspection, but there is no evidence that these violations were willful or deliberate, or that they were the result of work completed by Respondent in September, 1982. Between June, 1983, when Mrs. Perper denied access to Respondent's crew and February, 1985, when Hilson made his inspection, Mrs. Perper allowed a painter to go on her roof to see about her leak problem and to repair some flashing around her chimney. There is conflicting evidence concerning whether Respondent called for a final inspection after completing the roofing of Mrs. Perper's residence. Respondent testified that he did call for the inspection, but could offer nothing to substantiate his testimony. Petitioner called Oswald Ferro, building inspector, who testified that in the limited time he had available to him he could only find a record in the City of Miami Beach building department of one inspection on this job, but this was not a final inspection on this job. He had no personal knowledge about inspections on this job or whether Respondent had failed to call for a final inspection. Based upon the conflicting evidence presented and considering the demeanor of the witnesses, it is found that Petitioner has not established that Respondent failed to call for a final inspection.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that a Final Order be issued dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent Frank A. Gory. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of August, 1986 at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of August, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Errol H. Powell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Martin G. Brooks, Esquire 300 Hollywood Federal Building 4600 Sheridan Street Hollywood, Florida 33021 APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1,2 Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Rejected as irrelevant. 7,8 Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5, 6. Adopted in part and rejected in part in Finding of Fact 5, 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. 13,14 Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5,7. Rejected in Finding of Fact 12. 17,18 Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Rejected in Finding of Fact 13. 21-28 Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. Respondent did not timely file proposed findings of fact by August 26, 1986 as required by Order entered August 6, 1986, and therefore no rulings can be made relative to any proposed findings which may be submitted by Respondent.
