Findings Of Fact By Joint Application for Works in the Waters of Florida filed June 22, 1994, Petitioner requested a permit to dredge about 500 square feet of uplands for a boatslip and to maintenance dredge 1700-1900 square feet in an adjacent canal, removing 125 cubic yards of material waterward of mean high water. The Application describes the work as including a vertical concrete seawall running 92 feet inside the boatslip, a cat walk from the boatslip to the canal, and a roof over the boatslip. A drawing attached to the Application depicts the proposed boatslip at the east end of the Petitioner's lot and with rounded corners to facilitate flushing. By Notice of Permit Denial executed October 24, 1994, Respondent advised that the permit was denied. The Notice states that water quality in the surrounding canal system is generally poor with low dissolved oxygen (DO) levels. The shoreline vegetation is primarily mangroves, which are tall but not robust. The proposed dredge area consists of a healthy littoral shelf with live oysters and shells. Based on the foregoing site description, the Notice denies the permit because of impacts to the conservation of fish and wildlife and marine productivity and a degradation of the current condition and relative value of the affected area. The Notice relates all of these factors to the loss of the mangroves and dredging of the adjacent canal bottom. The Notice adds that the project would have an adverse cumulative impact on water quality and public resources if similar projects were constructed. In the alternative, the Notice suggests that Petitioner eliminate the dredging into the uplands and canal and instead construct a boat shelter in the canal in an area of existing adequate water depth. By letter dated November 7, 1994, Petitioner challenged the denial. The letter states that Petitioner has maintained an environmentally productive shoreline consisting of mangroves, oysters, and rip rap, rather than concrete seawalls, as are found along the shoreline of most of his neighbors. The letter suggests that, if Petitioner followed Respondent's suggestion and built a slip in the canal, Petitioner would be permitted to do maintenance dredging in the artificial canal. The letter concludes that the maintenance dredging and shading of an over- the-water boathouse would have more impact on the environment than dredging uplands and a small access channel to the slip. Petitioner's residence is located in Aqualane Shores, which is an established residential subdivision located between Naples Bay on the east and the Gulf of Mexico on the west. Petitioner's lot is located about two-thirds of the distance down a long, relatively wide artificial canal known as Jamaica Channel. Jamaica Channel intersects Naples Bay to the east of Petitioner's property. Jamaica Channel is a Class III waterbody. Petitioner owns about 200 feet of shoreline at the corner of Jamaica Channel and a shorter, narrower canal. The entire area is heavily canalized and completely built-out with nearly exclusively single family residences. Most of the shoreline in the area is bulkheaded with concrete seawalls. Jamaica Channel was dredged in the early 1950s. Early riprap revetment crumbled into the water and in some areas became colonized by oysters, which supply food and filter impurities from water. Shoreline owners weary of repairing riprap installed vertical seawalls, thereby destroying the oyster beds and intertidal habitat. But much of the riprap adjacent to unbulkheaded shoreline eventually was stabilized by mangrove roots. The absence of concrete seawalls along Petitioner's shoreline has permitted a significant colony of oysters to populate the 25-foot littoral shelf running along Petitioner's shoreline. The oysters form a hemisphere, thickest at the middle of Petitioner's shoreline and narrowest at the east and west edges, narrowing to a width of as little as 6-10 feet. In recent years, Australian pines were removed from Petitioner's shoreline. As a result, mangrove seedlings have successfully occupied much of the shoreline. The proposed boatslip would be located at the east end of the shoreline where there is a natural gap in the mangroves. As a result, only three mangroves would have to be removed, and a relatively narrow band of oysters would be dredged and, as offered by Petitioner, relocated. The proposed dredging involves uplands and submerged bottom. As to the uplands, Petitioner intends to create a slope in the slip with the rear one to one and one-half feet shallower than the front, although this slope is not reflected on the Application. The purpose of the slope is to facilitate flushing. Petitioner evidently intends to dredge sufficient material to fill the rear of the slip with two feet of water at mean water and the front of the slip with three feet of water at mean water. The dredging in Jamaica Channel would involve an 18-20 foot wide path leading to the slip. Beyond the oysters, the bottom is fine sandy substrate with scattered rock. The relocation of oyster-covered rocks might be successful, if there are sufficient areas suitable for colonization that have not already been colonized. However, the dredged areas would not be recolonized due to their depths. Presently, the Application discloses level dredging down to an elevation of -5 NGVD. Petitioner's intent to slope the boatslip has been discussed above. Although Petitioner did not reveal a similar intent to slope the area dredged in Jamaica Channel, Petitioner's witness, Naples' Natural Resource Manager, testified that he would insist on similar sloping the entire length of the dredged area, so that the deepest area would be most waterward of the boatslip. If the dredged canal bottom were not sloped, Petitioner proposes removing about 4.25 feet of material about ten feet from shore, about 3.4 feet of material about 22 feet from shore, about 1.8 feet of material about 30 feet from shore, and about 0.5 feet of material about 40 feet from shore. Petitioner did reveal that the cross-section indicating a dredged depth of -5 feet applies only to the centerline of the dredge site, which would be tapered off to the east and west. The slope of the taper was not disclosed, but it is evident that the affected areas within 20 feet of the shoreline would be dredged at least two feet deeper and, in most areas, three feet deeper. The deepening of Jamaica Canal in the vicinity of the shoreline would not only eliminate existing oyster habitat, but would also eliminate habitat currently used by small fish. The deepening of Jamaica Channel in the vicinity of the shoreline would also impact water quality in the area. Water quality in Naples Bay and Jamaica Channel is poor and violates water quality standards for DO. Due to poor mixing of freshwater infusions and saltwater, DO levels deteriorate with depth. Where DO levels are probably adequate in the shallows around Petitioner's shoreline, the proposed dredging would likely result in depths at which violations could be expected to occur. Petitioner offers to install an aerator to introduce oxygen into the water. Ignoring the fact that the aerator was to operate only in the boatslip and not in the remainder of the dredged area, Petitioner did not show the effect on DO levels of this proposal. Even if the aerator had been shown to result in a net improvement in area DO levels, Petitioner also failed to show how the operation of the aerator would be guaranteed to extend indefinitely, or at least until the dredged areas were permitted to regain their pre-dredged depths. Petitioner argues that he could construct an over-the- water boathouse and maintenance dredge, and the resulting environmental impact would be greater. Several factors militate against this proposed alternative and thus preclude consideration of this alternative against the proposed project. Most significantly, the oysters have occupied the littoral shelf adjacent to Petitioner's shoreline for a period in excess of 20 years. There is considerable doubt as to whether Petitioner would be permitted to maintenance dredge under these and other circumstances. Respondent argues more persuasively the issue of cumulative impacts. There are about 350 residences in Aqualane Shores, of which only 150 have boatslips similar to that proposed by Petitioner. This raises the prospect of an additional 200 boatslips as a cumulative impact on water and biological resources.
Recommendation It is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order denying the application. ENTERED on May 26, 1995, 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 May 26, 1995. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1-2: adopted or adopted in substance. 3: rejected as irrelevant. 4-5 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 5 (remainder)-6: rejected as irrelevant. 7: rejected as recitation of evidence. 8: adopted or adopted in substance. 9: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 10: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, irrelevant, and not findings of fact. 11-12 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 12 (remainder): rejected as recitation of evidence and as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 13: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-20: adopted or adopted in substance. 21-25: rejected as unnecessary. 26-29: adopted or adopted in substance. 30: 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 Miles L. Scofield Qualified Representative Turrell & Associates, Inc. 3584 Exchange Ave., Suite B Naples, FL 33942 Christine C. Stretesky Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact Respondent TCI has more than 70 homes completed or under construction in furtherance of plans to build 141 single family residences as part of Tymber Creek Phase I, a development in Volusia County. The development site is partially bounded by the Little Tomoka River, a natural body of water which is navigable in fact. The site of the construction respondent DER proposes to permit is home to wildlife of various kinds, including woodpeckers, great horned owls, herons, mussels, manatees, snakes, turtles and alligators. At the present time, boat traffic on the Little Tomoka River is negligible. The dock TCI proposes to build would have a total area of 120 square feet and would not impede the flow of the river. It would protrude over the water no more than five feet along the bank of the river at a point where the river widens, described by some of the witnesses as a lagoon, and would not constitute a hazard to navigation. With respect to the dock, the foot bridges, the boat ramp and the removal of the agreed upon portion of unauthorized fill, the permit DER proposes to issue would be before the fact. According to DER's appraisal of TCI's original, revised permit application, which was received in evidence as DER's exhibit No. 5, TCI made revised application, on November 29, 1977, for "after-the-fact approval for the placement of approximately 3500 cubic yards of fill After TCI had filled, it constructed parking and recreational facilities. In evaluating TCI's application, Steve Beeman, a DER employee, described the site in January of 1978: Approximately 1.6 acres of filled flood plain is presently covered by a sports complex including tennis courts, swimming pool and recreation building and an asphalt parking lot. An additional 3000 square feet has been filled and paved (asphalt was applied after receipt of DER cease and desist notice) for [access to] a [proposed] boatramp and parking area, and approximately 14,000 square feet of swamps have been filled in the construction of a 1800+ feet "natural trial". DER's exhibit No. 5. By letter dated February 22, 1978, respondent DER notified respondent TCI of its intent to deny TCI's initial application, as revised. Among the reasons DER gave for its intended denial were expected violations of various water quality standards, including a prohibition against oils and greases in concentrations greater than 15 mg. per liter ("or that no visible oil, defined as iridescence, be present to cause taste or odors, or interfere with other beneficial uses.") DER's exhibit No. 4. Rule 17-3.05(2)(r) , Florida Administrative Code. This water quality standard violation was anticipated because of "the [projected] focussing of stormwater runoff into the Little Tomoka River, across paved surfaces, which are high in petroleum based pollutants." DER's exhibit No. 5. In its notice of intent to issue a permit, DER proposes to authorize TCI "to realign (straighten) existing boatramp access road." DER's exhibit No. Mr. Wheeler's letter to Mr. Shirah of April 6, 1978, DER's exhibit No. 2, describes the proposed access road change as part of "discussions and agreements concerning resolution of the initial unauthorized fill and subsequent after-the- fact application." A drawing attached to this letter indicates that the contemplated alteration of the roadway would decrease the amount of paved surface to some unspecified extent. Another part of these "discussions and agreements concerned removal of some 1900 cubic yards of fill. Most of the fill designated for removal had been placed with the idea of creating a dry pathway through the marshy area separating the Little Tomoka River from an asphalt parking area. So placed, the fill dirt acts as a dike, preventing the preexisting communication between the waters of the Little Tomoka River and the waters of the adjacent marsh. At the hearing, Mr. Wheeler testified that, if revised in accordance with DER's exhibit No. 2, TCI's project would pose no threat to water quality, but he conceded that the effects of gasoline boat motors were not considered. An increase in beat traffic would likely result in an increase in oils and greases in the waters of the Little Tomoka River.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent DER, deny the permit is proposed to issue to respondent TCI in letters to petitioners dated April 7, 1978. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of August, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Segundo J. Fernandez, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida Judson I. Woods, Jr., 32301 Esquire Post Office Box 1916 Ormond Beach, Florida 32074 Tymber Creek, Inc. c/o Stan Shirah Route 40 Twin River Drive Ormond Beach, Florida 32074
Findings Of Fact Ben A. Posdal is the owner of property commonly known as 166 Brightwater Drive, in the City of Clearwater, Florida. On August 7, 1986, he applied for variances to construct two wooden decks on his property, located at the above address. The property which is the subject of the variance request is a building which contains four apartments, which are rented by Ben A. Posdal to various tenants. On August 28, 1986, the Development Code Adjustment Board (DCAB) denied the variance requested by Mr. Posdal on the grounds that he had not demonstrated a hardship and that he had not demonstrated that the requested variance would not violate the general spirit and intent of the Clearwater Land Development Code. On September 9, 1986, an appeal was filed by Ben A. Posdal from the decision of the Development Code Adjustment Board. The appeal alleges that the DCAB decision was arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable on the following grounds: Other properties allegedly are in violation of the back line setback regulations; The DCAB failed to give enough evidentiary weight to photographs he submitted; and Appellant allegedly is being deprived of the beneficial use of the property in a manner commensurate with the community. There are no physical conditions which are unique to the property. There is no particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical condition that would result in an unnecessary hardship upon the Appellant. Failure to obtain a variance would not impinge upon Appellant's use of the property in any way. The record on appeal contains competent, substantial evidence to support the DCAB decision. Nonconforming uses in the area of the subject property are legal nonconforming uses.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. The Petitioner, Clifford O. Hunter, is the owner of real property located at Dekle Beach, Taylor County, Florida. Mr. Hunter's property is located at lot 53, Front Street, Dekle Beach, within section 22, township 7 south, range 7 east, Taylor County. Respondent, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is an agency of the State of Florida with responsibility for, among other things, dredge and fill permits involving Florida waters. Mr. Hunter lived in a home on his Dekle Beach property until a storm in March of 1993 destroyed the home. Mr. Hunter's Application for Permit. On or about June 2, 1993, Mr. Hunter applied for a wetland resource permit to rebuild his home, construct a bulkhead and fill 1750 square feet of salt marsh. The permit was designated No. 62-232123-2 by the Department. Mr. Hunter also sought approval for the construction of a dock. The dock, however, is exempt from the permitting requirements of Rule 17- 312.050(1)(d), Florida Administrative Code. On July 21, 1993, the Department issued a Notice of Permit Denial. The Notice of Permit Denial was received by Mr. Hunter. On August 13, 1993, Mr. Hunter filed a Request for Formal Administrative Hearing with the Department contesting the denial of his permit application. The Department's Jurisdiction Over the Proposed Project. The proposed project involves dredging and filling in the waters of the State of Florida. A wetland resource permit is, therefore, required. Wetland jurisdiction of the State of Florida extends to the eastern edge of an existing concrete slab on Mr. Hunter's property from a canal adjacent to Mr. Hunter's northern boundary. The canal connects with the waters of the Gulf of Mexico. The Gulf of Mexico surrounding Dekle Beach, except for an area extending 500 feet outward from the town limits of Dekle Beach, is within the Big Bend Seagrasses Aquatic Preserve. The preserve is an Outstanding Florida Water (hereinafter referred to as an "OFW"). The evidence presented by the Department to support findings of fact 9, 10 and 11 was uncontroverted by Mr. Hunter. Impact on Water Quality Standards. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the Mr. Hunter has provided reasonable assurances that the proposed project will not lower the existing ambient water quality of waters of the State of Florida. The evidence presented by the Department concerning adverse impacts of the proposed project on water quality standards was uncontroverted by Mr. Hunter. Approval of Mr. Hunter's proposed project would allow the placing of fill in an intertidal area and the elimination of the portion of the intertidal area filled. Intertidal areas help maintain water quality by acting as a filter for water bodies. Mr. Hunter has obtained a variance from the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services which will allow him to place a septic tank on his property if the permit is granted. The septic tank will leach pollutants. Those pollutants will include nutrients, viruses and bacteria. Because the soil around the septic tank is very saturated, filtering of the pollutants will be low. Pollutants will, therefore, leach into the waters of the State of Florida and adversely impact water quality standards of the canal adjacent to Mr. Hunter's property. Under such circumstances, Mr. Hunter has failed to demonstrate that the project will not lower existing ambient water quality of waters of the State of Florida. Public Interest Test. Mr. Hunter failed to present evidence to support a conclusion that the proposed project will not be adverse to the public interest. Rather, the unrebutted evidence presented by the Department supports a finding that Mr. Hunter's proposed project will not be in the public interest, especially when the cumulative impacts of the proposed project, discussed, infra, are considered. Possible adverse impacts to the public interest include the following: The septic tank which Mr. Hunter will place in the 1750 square feet of filled area will allow fecal coliform, viruses and pathogens to leach into the waters of the canal adjacent to Mr. Hunter's property. Anyone who enters the canal could be infected from bacteria and viruses leaching from the septic tank. The conservation of fish and wildlife would also be adversely affected by the adverse impact on water quality and by the elimination of intertidal area. Recreational value of the canal would be reduced because of the adverse impact on water quality. The proposed project is for a permanent structure. Cumulative Impact. There are a number of applications for permits similar to the application filed by Mr. Hunter which have been filed by property owners of Dekle Beach whose homes were also destroyed by the March 1993 storm. If Mr. Hunter's permit application is granted, the Department will have to also grant most, if not all, of the other similar permit applications. Approximately 20 to 30 other applications involve similar requests which will allow the placement of fill and the installation of septic tanks. The resulting fill and use of septic tanks will have a significant cumulative adverse impact on the waters of the State of Florida. The cumulative impact from leaching effluent from the septic tanks on the waters of the State could be substantial. In addition to the impact on the canal adjacent to Mr. Hunter's property, there will a cumulative negative impact on the ambient water quality of approximately 20 septic tanks on the canals and on the OFW. Errors in the Department's Notice of Permit Denial. The Notice of Permit Denial issued by the Department contained the following errors: An incorrect description of Mr. Hunter's lot number and section number; An incorrect statement that the amount of Mr. Hunter's proposed fill would eliminate 3,200 square feet of marsh; An incorrect statement that Mr. Hunter proposed to fill his lot for a distance of 64 feet waterward. The errors contained in the Notice of Permit Denial did not form any basis for the Department's denial of Mr. Hunter's application. The errors were typographical/word-processing errors. Several notices were being prepared at the same time as the Notice of Permit Denial pertaining to Mr. Hunter. The incorrect information contained in Mr. Hunter's Notice of Permit Denial was information which applied to the other notices. Other than the errors set out in finding of fact 23, the Notice of Permit Denial was accurate. Among other things, it was properly addressed to Mr. Hunter, it contained the project number assigned by the Department to Mr. Hunter's proposed project and it accurately reflected the Department's decision to deny Mr. Hunter's permit application. Mr. Hunter responded to the Notice of Permit Denial by requesting a formal administrative hearing to contest the Department's denial of his application. On December 20, 1993, Mr. Hunter received a letter from the Department which corrected the errors contained in the Notice of Permit Denial. The corrections were also contained in a Notice of Correction filed in this case by the Department on December 20, 1993. The Notice of Permit Denial was received by Mr. Hunter within 90 days after his application was filed. The corrections to the Notice of Permit Denial was received by Mr. Hunter more than 90 days after his application was filed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a Final Order dismissing the petition in this case and denying the issuance of permit number 62-232123-2 to Clifford O. Hunter. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of April, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 26th day of April, 1994. APPENDIX The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Mr. Hunter's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in 1 and 3. Accepted in 2. Accepted in 4. Although Ernest Frey, Director of District Management, Northeast District Office of the Department, did ask Mr. Hunter whether he wanted to sell his property to the State, the evidence failed to prove why Mr. Frey asked this question, that Mr. Frey asked the question in his official capacity with the Department, or that Mr. Frey made the inquiry at the direction or on behalf of the Department or the State. More importantly, the evidence failed to prove that the Department denied the permit sought by Mr. Hunter because of any interest the State may have in purchasing Mr. Hunter's property. See 4. 6-8 No relevant. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Accepted in 6, 23, 28 and 30. Not a proposed finding of fact. See 8. The "aerial photo, Petitioner's exhibit 6, does not show "No vegetation behind the slab, nearly to the Mean High Water Line . . . ." Respondent's exhibit 3 does, however, show vegetation as testified to by Department witnesses. 13-14 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not a proposed finding of fact. Generally correct. Mr. Hunter was not properly put on notice of "alternatives" by the Notice of Permit Denial, as corrected, issued by the Department. Summation: Mr. Hunter's Summation was considered argument and was considered in this case. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in 1 and 3. Accepted in 2. Accepted in 1 and 4-5. Accepted 6-7. Accepted in 8. 6-9 Hereby accepted. Accepted in 12. Accepted in 13. Accepted in 14. Accepted in 15. Accepted in 19. Accepted in 20. Accepted in 15. 17-18 Accepted in 15 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 15 and 20-21. Accepted in 10. Accepted in 22. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 22. Accepted in 12. Accepted in 15-16. Accepted in 17 and 21. 27-28 Accepted in 17. Accepted in 18. Accepted in 13. Accepted in 16. 32-33 The Notice of Permit Denial, as corrected, did not put Mr. Hunter on notice that the alternatives raised by the Department at the final hearing would be an issue in this case. Those alternatives should not, therefore, form any basis for the Department's final decision. Accepted in 24-25. Accepted in 23. Accepted in 25. Accepted in 24 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 26. COPIES FURNISHED: Clifford O. Hunter 1410 Ruby Street Live Oak, Florida 32060 Beth Gammie Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-9730 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Kenneth Plante, Esquire General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Studebaker's Restaurant (Respondent), owns a 50's theme bar in Clearwater which offers entertainment and dancing and serves alcoholic beverages and food. Studebaker's has a nationwide policy, also followed at the Clearwater establishment, of restricting admittance to persons aged 23 and older. In the same building housing the Clearwater Studebaker's, Respondent also owns and operates a theme bar called the Palm Beach Club which is under common management and which is operated like Studebaker's except that the theme and music is contemporary and anyone who has attained the legal drinking age is allowed admittance. Petitioner, Ronald M. McElrath, is the coordinator for the Community Relations Board established under Chapter 99 of the City of Clearwater Code. He is approximately 38 years of age. In May or June 1985, McElrath witnessed an employee of the Clearwater Studebaker's refusing admission to a female on the basis that she was not at least 23 years of age. Investigating further, McElrath verified through the manager of the Clearwater Studebaker's that Respondent did have a policy restricting admission to the Clearwater Studebaker's to persons at least 23 years of age. Based on McElrath's knowledge and information, McElrath and the Community Relations Board attempted to conciliate with Respondent the alleged conflict between Respondent's age policy at the Clearwater Studebaker's and Chapter 99 of the City of Clearwater Code. By November 13, 1985, McElrath and the Community Relations Board concluded that their attempts at conciliation would not be successful, and the Community Relations Board filed a charge of discrimination against Respondent. That charge of discrimination was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned Case No. 85-3513. On or about February 11, 1986, Case No. 85-3513 was dismissed and the file closed based upon the Community Relations Board's report that it was withdrawing its petition in the case and that an individual other than the Community Relations Board would file a separate petition as Charging Party. Actually, on or about January 9, 1986, McElrath, in his capacity as coordinator for the Community Relations Board, had filed a Supplemental Charge Of Discrimination against Respondent on the same alleged facts that formed the basis of Case No. 85-3513. McElrath's Supplemental Charge Of Discrimination was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings on or about February 4, 1986, resulting in this case. McElrath has never attempted to file any other complaint under Chapter 99 of the City of Clearwater Code in his capacity as coordinator for the Community Relations Board. Because no further investigation was necessary and no further attempts to conciliate were reasonably likely to succeed, McElrath made no further investigation and made no further attempts to conciliate with Respondent after filing the Supplemental Charge Of Discrimination. Before filing of the Supplemental Charge Of Discrimination in this case, McElrath did not make a formal probable cause determination and did not serve notice of determination of probable cause on the Respondent. Respondent and its management has a commendable and appropriately implemented policy of being a responsible seller of alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises. However, contrary to Respondent's assertions in this case, the policy of allowing only persons 23 years of age and older in the Clearwater Studebaker's is not significantly motivated by a desire to reduce alcohol-related traffic accidents. The primary motivation for the age limit is to establish and maintain an economically successful theme bar. Any contribution towards reducing alcohol related traffic accidents is an after thought rationalization. This was proven by Respondent's willingness to divert patrons younger than 23 next door to its Palm Beach Club where Respondent willingly serves them alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises.
The Issue The issue in this appeal is whether the decision of the City of Clearwater Development Code Adjustment Board denying Petitioner's application for a variance is supported by the evidence in the record, or whether it departs from the essential requirements of law. See Section 137.014(f)(3), City of Clearwater Land Development Code.
Findings Of Fact On or about May 15, 1989, Branch Sunset Associates (Petitioner), the owner of certain property located at 1856 U.S. Highway 19 North, Clearwater, Florida (Section 6-29-16), applied for a variance to eliminate a condition previously imposed by the Development Code Adjustment Board on a prior variance. The property is zoned CC (Commercial Center), and is the site of a strip shopping mall. In March, 1988, the Board granted a variance allowing a tenant in Petitioner's mall, Workplace, to have a building identification sign which is larger than would be allowed under the Code without a variance. In November, 1988, Petitioner was granted a variance for the square footage of a pylon property identification sign with the condition that a Workplace sign not be placed on the pylon property identification sign located at the right of way. Petitioner and this tenant, Workplace, are now seeking removal of this condition in order to allow Workplace to be identified on the existing pylon sign, while leaving Workplace's large building identification sign in place. The Development Code Adjustment Board denied Petitioner's application for variance on June 8, 1989, and Petitioner timely filed this appeal of the Board's decision. Workplace is located approximately 800 feet off of U.S. Highway 19, and due to this distance, the prior variance of 97 square feet was granted in March, 1988, to allow a business identification sign of 225 square feet. The Code allows business identification signs up to 128 square feet without a variance. The letters spelling out "Workplace" are from 4 to 6 feet in height. Since opening in May, 1988, Workplace has experienced a steady growth in its business, and now completes approximately 1000 transactions per day. It is an office products store, and is open seven days a week. When the condition was placed on the variance for the pylon identification sign in November, 1988, the property owner agreed to this condition. At this time, it is primarily the tenant, Workplace, which is seeking this variance to eliminate the condition agreed to in November, 1988, by the property owner. Workplace seeks to be allowed to be included on the property identification sign, but is unwilling to immediately conform to Code on its building identification sign, a variance for which was granted in March, 1988, if this currently sought variance is approved. Thus, Workplace seeks to retain its variance for the size of its building identification sign, while also being included on the pylon property identification sign, which is larger than otherwise allowed due to the November, 1988, variance. The reason that the Development Code Adjustment Board approved the variance for Workplace in March, 1988, was that there was no property identification sign on site at that time, and the store was to be located so far off the right of way. This was a newly opening mall, and Workplace was one of the first new tenants to open for business. There are some prior tenants on this property that had business identification signs on their buildings that are in excess of the square footage allowed by the Code, but these are prior nonconforming signs which must be removed or brought into compliance by October, 1992. Section 134.015(c). However, when the property owner sought the variance in square footage limits to erect a pylon property identification sign in November, 1988, the Workplace business identification sign was already in place. Rather than allow Workplace to benefit from two variances, the Board conditioned the November, 1988, variance on precluding Workplace from being shown on the pylon sign. This was a reasonable condition under the circumstances, and was agreed to by the property owner. There was no showing of hardship on behalf of Workplace since business has been very good, and since any concerns about distance from the right of way were fully addressed by the March, 1988, variance.
Findings Of Fact Fred Thomas owns a home and lot on the beach in Clearwater at 730 Eldorado Avenue, Mandalay Subdivision, Block 2, Lot 8, now zoned RS-8 (single family residential). The Thomas house was built 30 years ago when front yard setbacks for the area were only 10 feet and there were no open space requirements. Now the front setback in the area is 25 feet, and Section 135.029(8) of the Clearwater Land Development Code now requires lots in RS-8 zones to have a minimum open space of 35 percent of the lot and 40 percent of the front yard. There are many properties in the area of the Thomas house that maintain pre- existing non- conformities to the current setback and open space requirements. The Thomas property, in addition to the pre-existing setback non-conformity, had only 26 percent open space overall and no open space at all (all concrete) in the front yard. In 1987, Thomas undertook renovations to his house. During construction, Thomas' concrete front yard deteriorated from additional cracking, and he decided to replace the concrete with brick pavers. He removed the concrete but then was required to get a building permit for this work. The building permit was not granted because the placement of brick pavers in the front yard violated the open space requirements. Thomas applied for a variance to replace the concrete with brick pavers and later modified the application to be allowed to have 29 percent lot coverage and 12 percent front yard coverage with open space. The modified application was denied by the DCAB after hearing on February 11, 1988, and Thomas took this appeal. Thomas also filed another variance application to be allowed to have 30 percent lot coverage and 16.8 percent front yard coverage with open space. This application was heard on March 10, 1988, and this time the DCAB granted the application. The only open space required under the granted variance not required under the denied variance application is a 10' by 10' square on the far left side of the front yard (facing the house). Thomas claims that this open space requirement prevents him from using a narrow concrete alley to the left of the house (and perhaps the concrete apron in the back of the house) for guest parking, leaving him with a two-car garage and the brick paved area directly in front of the garage that could accommodate two cars but would block the garage. Lack of guest parking would create a hardship of sorts on Thomas. There is no on-street parking in the area, and the Clearwater Police vigorously patrol and ticket violators in the area. The brick paved spaces in front of the garage could be inconvenient to the owners of the vehicles parked in the garage (probably the Thomases) and conceivably could block the cars in the garage temporarily under some circumstances. However, Thomas is incorrect in his presumption that guest parking in the alley and back of the house would be blocked by the 100 square feet of open space required under the granted variance but not under the denied variance application.
The Issue Whether or not the Petitioners, Guy T. Selander and Henry W. Harris, should be granted an "after the fact" construction permit in accordance with Section 253.124(7)(a), F.S., for the retaining wall which has been constructed on or near their property located on Beauclerc Point, Duval County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact This cause came on to be heard upon the Petitioners' request for an "after the fact" construction permit for a retaining wall which had been built on or near their property. The specific property spoken of is two lots located on Beauclerc Point, Duval County, Florida. These lots are shown as numbers 21 and 22 found on Petitioners' Exhibit No. 15, admitted into evidence. This is a replat based upon a survey of November 28, 1923. The exhibit shows the retaining wall superimposed on the survey. A more specific showing of the placement of the retaining wall on lots 21 and 22 may be found in Petitioners' Exhibit No. 16, admitted into evidence. Petitioner, Guy T. Selander is the owner of lot number 21, which lot contains his residence. Henry W. Harris is the owner of lot No. 22 and there are no permanent buildings located on that lot. Dr. Selander built a home on lot No. 21 in the years 1974 through 1975. Prior to building the home he was of the opinion that he needed to protect the front of the lot which faces the St. Johns River. Dr. Harris was also interested in protecting his lot. Between them it was determined that they would build a retaining wall to protect their lots. The two lots are located on a bluff which drops approximately 20 to 25 feet down to the level of the river. The St. Johns River is a navigable river. Prior to commencing the construction of the retaining wall, the Petitioners, upon the suggestion of a friend of Dr. Selanders, applied to the City of Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida for a building permit. The application for permit was made on January 19, 1973. The Petitioners were granted a permit on January 19, 1973, entitled "miscellaneous permit", No. 495. A copy of the permit is a part of Petitioners' Exhibit No. 1, admitted into evidence. The Petitioners at that time did not seek further approval of the construction of their retaining wall, by the state authorities or the United States Corp of Engineers. In constructing the retaining wall the Petitioners contemplated the use of fill, some of which was to be placed in the river proper. Some fill was placed in the river at this point in time which constituted an obstruction or alteration of the natural flow of the St. Johns River. The apex of the retaining wall and the southwest section of the retaining wall, was constructed waterward of the existing bulkhead line found on the neighboring property located to the north and south of the subject two lots. The apex of the retaining wall, as can be seen in Petitioners' Exhibit No. 15, lies at the approximate center of the two lots. At the time the permit was requested of the City of Jacksonville and the retaining wall was constructed, which construction was between January, 1973 and September, 1973, Section 253.124(1)(2), F.S., required that the permit application be approved by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, prior to any construction. As indicated, this approval was not received prior to commencing construction and in September, 1973, officials of the State of Florida and the U.S. Corp of Engineers came to the property and discovered that the wall was being constructed. At this point in the construction, the bottom of the river where the retaining wall was being placed had been smoothed out and sand bags filled and laminated, such that the wall was in place. Then "riprap", broken concrete, was being placed landward of the retaining wall. The officials of the two governmental bodies told the Petitioner Selander that he would need approval of the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund and of the U.S. Corp of Engineers to construct that wall. Prior to undertaking the project of constructing the retaining wall, the land along the toe of the bluff had been dry land, but as established before, some fill had been placed in the river, with the majority of that fill being placed at the southern most point of the two lots. This location is further described as being the point where the retaining wall makes an approximate right angle and comes back to the southern boundary line of lot No. 22. The retaining wall and the Selander residence may be seen in Petitioners' Photographic Exhibits No. 9 and 11, admitted into evidence. The condition of the shoreline on lots No. 21 and No. 22 prior to the construction of the retaining wall and placement of the fill may be seen in Petitioners' Photographic Exhibit No. 8, admitted into evidence. This photograph was taken somewhere in the time period of 1970 through 1971, and shows water of the St. Johns River at a place on the lot fronts that was later filled in. The photograph, Petitioners Exhibit No. 8, also shows that the retaining wall had been constructed waterward of the mean high waterline. Subsequent to the conversation with the state and federal officials, the Petitioners filed a request for an "after the fact" permit. This permit request was filed on November 1, 1973 and is found as Petitioners' Exhibit No. 1, admitted into evidence. The Petitioners stopped working on the project and did not recommence until after receiving the recommended approval of the City of Jacksonville, which is found in Petitioners' Exhibit No. 2, admitted into evidence, an August 16, 1974, letter from the Director of Public Works of the City of Jacksonville. This permit letter is conditioned upon the approval of the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund and of the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. From that point there were various requests made by the agencies of the state, which were complied with by the Petitioners. Additional work was done on the retaining wall based on receipt of a copy of a letter from Robert W. Hall, Administrator of the Dredge and Fill section of the State of Florida, Department of Pollution Control. This letter is Petitioners' Exhibit No. 6, admitted into evidence and is dated October 31, 1974. The letter indicates the recommended approval of the Department of Pollution Control of the project conditioned upon the installation of "riprap" material waterward of the retaining wall, and pending the Trustees' approval. The principal questions being addressed by the agencies were: Whether or not it would be more detrimental to the marine biological resources to remove the construction and fill. If the answer to the first question was yes, then what was the nature of the erosion of the bluff line, was it slow and imperceptible or was it avulsion or artificially induced. During the course of the investigation of the application for permit, review of the project was made by the Department of Natural Resources. In addition, a field inspector with the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, Jeremy Tyler, went to the project and examined the retaining wall and surrounding area on November 18, 1974. His inspection revealed that the water on the property located south of the Petitioners' property touched the bluff of the bank at high tide. The water on the property south of the Petitioners' property was lapping against the bulkhead at the base of the bluff. The witness noted that the point of the bluff in that general area was located on the Harris and Selander property. According to this witness's observation, the mean high waterline on November 18, 1974 would have been an approximate diagonal line going from the adjacent north bulkhead line to the adjacent south bulkhead line. On November 3, 1975, Jerome Kelly, a subdistrict biologist for the State of Florida, made an inspection of the property. He felt that the only adverse effect on the biological resources that would occur with the removal of the retaining wall would be removal of a stand of typha, also known as cattails, which was waterward of the north end of the retaining wall. A memorandum of his observations is found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 5, admitted into evidence. The Petitioners employed Dr. Joe A. Edmisten, an ecological consultant. The results of the examination of the property, which was made by Dr. Edmisten may be found as Petitioners' Composite Exhibit No. 17, admitted into evidence. Dr. Edmisten and his assistant took soil samples and cores in the general area and examined various aquatic and wetland plants in the area of the project. It was concluded by Dr. Edmisten that soil had washed from the bluff line before and this erosion was prohibiting the health of certain of these plants. Additionally, Dr. Edmisten felt that the retaining wall was assisting in the development of these plants and the development of periphyton and sessile animals. He felt that the removal of the retaining wall would cause the destruction of the aquatic plants, terrestial plants and animals, and aquatic animals and the substrate. The report does not speak to the issue of the long term effects of removing the retaining wall landward of its present placement and landward of the mean high waterline; however, his testimony at the hearing seemed to suggest that a properly constructed retaining wall in such a location would not be inappropriate. This is in keeping with the testimony of Jerome Kelly who didn't feel that removing the wall and placing it in a location landward of the mean high waterline would damage the ecological system. Additionally, it can be seen that if the wall was moved landward of its present location there would be a greater volume of water for marine life to exist in. The second consideration that was addressed in the discussion of the "after the fact" permit was the question of whether the erosion of the property found in the lots of the Petitioners had transpired through imperceptible erosion or by specific avulsion or artificially induced erosion. Testimony was offered by Petitioner Harris, which appears as a deposition in lieu of in hearing testimony. Affidavits were also submitted to the Respondent by persons living in the vicinity of the Petitioners' property. These affidavits may be found as part of the Edmisten report which is Petitioners' Exhibit No. 17, admitted into evidence. The Petitioners tried to demonstrate that the loss of land was caused by avulsion due to hurricane Dora which occurred in 1964 and through various northeastern storms. It is clear that the property line has receded since the replat of 1923 shown in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 15, admitted into evidence. It is unclear however, whether this erosion was caused by avulsion, imperceptible erosion or artificially induced erosion. Therefore, the Petitioners have failed to demonstrate their entitlement to reclaim land beyond the mean high waterline. Based upon an examination of the facts it has been demonstrated that it would not be more damaging to the environment or the marine resources protected by Chapter 253, F.S., to cause the removal of the fill which has been placed waterward of the mean high waterline, as opposed to granting an "after the fact" permit.
Recommendation It is recommended that the "after the fact" construction permit sought by the Petitioners under authority of Section 253.124(7)(a) F.S., be denied. DONE AND ORDERED this 24th day of June, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Almer W. Beale, II, Esquire South 1014, Barnett Bank Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Vance W. Kidder, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32301
