Findings Of Fact The Application On or about November 8, 1994, Raymond and Nancy Swart, Trustees, applied for a permit to construct a private multislip dock facility at their property on Little Sarasota Bay in Sarasota County, DEP File No. 5826007043. As proposed, the dock would consist of: 237' of five foot wide access pier; a terminal dock 45' long and 5.5' wide; and eight finger piers 20' long and three feet wide. All of the structures were proposed to be three feet above mean high water (MHW). Normal construction procedures would be used to "jet" pilings into place, including the use of turbidity screens. As proposed, the dock would provide nine slips for the use of the owners of the nine lots in the Swarts' subdivided property, known as Sunset Place. There would be no live-aboards allowed, and there would be no fueling facilities, sewage pump-out facilities or any other boating supplies or services provided on or at the dock. Under the proposal, verti-lifts would be constructed for all of the slips at a later date. (When boat owners use verti- lifts, there is less need to paint boat bottoms with toxic anti-fouling paint.) As part of the application, the Swarts offered to grant a conservation easement encumbering approximately 400' of shoreline. The Intent to Issue Because Little Sarasota Bay is designated as an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW), and because of concerns regarding the maintenance of its environmental quality, the DEP required that the Swarts submit additional information for review in connection with their application. Specifically, the DEP wanted them to perform a hydrographic study to assure adequate flushing at the site and a bathymetric survey to assure adequate water depths and minimal impacts on seagrasses. After review of the additional information, the DEP gave notice of its Intent to Issue the permit, with certain modifications and conditions. The Intent to Issue would require that the "most landward access pier . . . be extended an additional 15 feet to avoid the mooring of watercraft within seagrasses." It also would require the decking of the main access pier (155' long), which would cross seagrass beds, be elevated to a minimum of five feet above mean high water (MHW). (This would reduce shading and minimize impacts on the seagrasses.) The Intent to Issue included specific measures for the protection of manatees during and after construction. The Intent to Issue specifically prohibited hull cleaning, painting or other external maintenance at the facility. The Intent to Issue specified the width of the 400' long conservation easement (30', for an area of approximately 0.27 acres) and required the Swarts to "plant a minimum of 50 planting units of Spartina patens and 50 planting units of Spartina alterniflora at appropriate elevations imediately waterward of the revetment along the northern portion of the property . . . concurrrent with the construction of the permitted structure." It specified planting procedures and included success criteria for the plantings (an 85 percent survival rate). The Objection On or about March 30, 1995, Raymond and Norma Komarek, the owners of property next to the Swart property, objected in writing to the "magnitude" of the proposed dock facility. They complained that the proposed dock facility "will not enhance anyone's view, but it will create disturbance with noise, night lights, wash and erosion on shore, even possible pollution from up to 35 foot boats." They continued: "We prefer not to live next to a Marina. This appears to be a commercial venture tied to the sale of real estate and/or houses . . .." They conceded that their concerns for manatees had been addressed, but they raised questions regarding the impact on commercial fishermen running crab trap lines, scullers, jet skis, and water skiers. They objected to restrictions on "one's personal rights to use the water by obstruction of navigable waters." They also alleged that the proposed dock facility would be a navigation hazard, especially in fog. The Komareks suggest that the three exempt 125' docks to which the Swarts are entitled under Sarasota County regulations, with the two boats allegedly allowed at each, should be adequate and are all the Swarts should be allowed. The Komareks' objections conclude by questioning the alleged results of alleged "turbidity tests" showing that there is "good action" (apparently on the ground that they believe Little Sarasota Bay has "declined") and by expressing concern about the cumulative impact of future dock facilities if granting the Swart application sets a precedent. The Komareks' Evidence The Komareks were able to present little admissible evidence at the final hearing in support of their objections. Much of the environmental evidence they attempted to introduce was hearsay. Moreover, at best, most of it concerned Little Sarasota Bay in general, as opposed to the specific location of the proposed docking facility. The alleged "turbidity tests" called into question in the Komareks' objection apparently refer to the hydrographic study done at the request of the DEP. The evidence the Komareks attempted to utilize on this issue apparently were the kind of general information about Little Sarasota Bay on which the DEP had relied in requesting the hydrographic study. There was no other evidence presented to contradict the results of the Swart study. While the proposed dock facility would project into the view from the Komarek property looking towards the north (and from the property of the neighbors to the north looking towards the south), there was no other evidence that the proposed dock facility "will create disturbance with noise, night lights, wash and erosion on shore . . .." "[P]ollution from up to 35 foot boats" is "possible," but there was no evidence that pollution is probable or, if it occurred, that the kind and amount of pollution would be environmentally significant. The application clearly is a "commercial venture tied to the sale of real estate and/or houses . . .." But the use of the dock facility would be personal to the owners of lots in Sunset Place; the use would not be public. The Komareks presented no evidence "regarding the impact of the dock facility on commercial fishermen running crab trap lines, scullers, jet skis, and water skiers." Clearly, the dock facility would extend approximately 250' into Little Sarasota Bay. But there was no other evidence either that it would restrict "one's personal rights to use the water by obstruction of navigable waters" or that it would be a navigation hazard. (There was no evidence to support the suggestion made at final hearing that an access dock built five feet above MHW would be a dangerous "attractive nuisance" or that it would be more hazardous than one built three feet above MHW.) Evidence Supporting DEP Intent to Issue Very little pollution can be expected from the actual construction of the dock facility. Primarily, there is the potential for temporary turbidity during construction; but the use of turbidity screens will help minimize this temporary impact. The conditions volunteered in the Swart application, together with modification and additional conditions imposed by the DEP Intent to Issue, limit other potential pollutant sources to oil and gas spillage from the boats using the dock facility. The Swarts' hydrographic study demonstrates that, notwithstanding relatively poor circulation in the general area of Little Sarasota Bay in which the proposed dock facility is located, there is adequate flushing at and in the immediate vicinity of the proposed facility, at least to the limited extent to which pollutants may be expected to be introduced into Little Sarasota Bay from construction activities and use of the facility with the conditions volunteered in the Swart application and imposed by the DEP Intent to Issue. A primary goal of the Komareks' objection is to "downsize" their neighbors' proposed dock facility. They object to its length and its height above MHW. Presumably, they believe that "downsizing" the Swart dock facility would improve their view. If it could not be "downsized," they would prefer that the Swart application be denied in its entirety and that three exempt docks, accommodating two boats each, be built in place of the proposed facility. Ironically, the evidence was that if the Komareks' primary goal is realized, more environmental harm would result. The evidence was that a shorter, lower dock would do more harm to seagrasses, and three exempt docks (even if limited to two boats each) would have approximately three times the environmental impact. Indeed, based on environmental considerations, the DEP Intent to Issue required the Swarts to lengthen the access dock proposed in their application by 15 feet and elevate it by two feet. Lengthening the access dock would move the part of the facility where boats would be moored to deeper water with fewer seagrasses. In that way, fewer seagrasses would be impacted by construction, fewer would be shaded by the mooring of boats, and fewer would be subject to the risk of prop scarring. In addition, the risk of scarring would be reduced to the extent that the water was deeper in the mooring area. Finally, DEP studies have shown that elevating the access dock would reduce shading impact on seagrasses under and adjacent to the dock. Besides having more than three times the environmental impact, exempt docks would have none of the conditions included in the DEP Intent to Issue. Verti-lifts would not be required. Methods of construction would not be regulated by the DEP. Measures for the protection of manatees, before and after construction, would not have to be taken. Hull cleaning, painting or other external maintenance would not be prohibited. Live-aboards, fueling facilities, sewage pump-out facilities and other boating supplies and services would not be prohibited (although County regulation may prohibit some of these activities). Finally, there would be no conservation easement and no planting of seagrasses. The Komareks suggest that County regulation may prohibit construction in accordance with the DEP Intent to Issue. But that would be a question for the County to determine in its own proceedings. All things considered, the DEP Intent to Issue is clearly in the public interest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a Final Order granting the application of Raymond and Nancy Swart, Trustees, (the Swarts) for a permit to construct a private multislip dock facility at their property on Little Sarasota Bay in Sarasota County, DEP File No. 5826007043, with the modifications and conditions set out in the Notice of Intent. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of September, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 29th day of September, 1995.
The Issue Has the applicant, Grove Isle, Ltd. provided reasonable assurances and affirmatively demonstrated that its proposed marina is clearly in the public interest and will not lower the existing ambient water quality of Biscayne Bay, a designated outstanding Florida water?
Findings Of Fact On March 13, 1978 an application was made to DER for a water quality control permit to construct a wet-slip marina on the west side of Grove Isle, formerly known as Fair Isle and Sailboat Key. The original plan for the marina, which was initially objected to by the Department of Environmental Regulation, was modified to protect a bed of seagrasses extending about 30 feet wide in a band along the west side of the island. While the plans were being modified and consultations with other government permitting agencies were in progress, the application was "deactivated" from September 27, 1978 until March 30, 1979. As a result of its investigation and review, DER on October 23, 1979, issued a letter of intent to grant the permit to Grove Isle, Inc. The permit if granted, would allow the applicant to construct six concrete fixed piers, five "T" shaped, one "L" shaped, with a boat docking capacity of 90 pleasure boats. The piers will extend a maximum of 165 feet offshore from an existing concrete bulkhead. The width of the piers will be 8 feet from the bulkhead to a point 41 feet offshore, and then increased to a width of 10 feet. A sewage pump-out facility is also proposed. Attached to that letter of intent were the following conditions: Adequate control shall be taken during the construction so that turbidity levels outside a 50 foot radius of the work area do not exceed 50 J.C.U's, as per Section 24-11, of the Metropolitan Dade County Code. During construction, turbidity samples shall be collected at a mid-depth twice daily at a point 50 feet up stream and at a point 50 feet down stream from the work area. The contractor shall arrange to have turbidity sample results reported to him within one hour of collection. Turbidity monitoring reports shall be submitted weekly to DER and to the Metropolitan Dade County Environmental Resources Management (MDCERM) If turbidity exceeds 50 J.C.U's beyond a 50 foot radius of the work area, turbidity curtains shall be placed around the work area and MDCERM notified immediately. Turbidity samples shall be collected according to condition two above, no later than one hour after the installation of the turbidity curtain. It turbidity levels do not drop below 50 J.C.U's within one hour of installation of the curtain all construction shall be halted. Construction shall not be resumed until the contractor has received authorization from MDCERM. No live-a-board vessels (permanent or transient) shall be docked at this facility unless direct sewage pump-out connections are provided at each live-a-board slip. A permanent pump-out station shall be installed and maintained for further removal of sewage and waste from the vessels using this facility. Compliance with this requirement will entail the applicant's contacting the Plan Review Section of MDCERM for details concerning connection to an approved disposal system. Boat traffic in the shallow 30 foot wide dense seagrass area which parallels the shoreline shall be restricted by the placement of wood piles on 6 foot centers along the entire shoreline facing the marina. The channel from this marina to deeper water in Biscayne Bay shall be marked to prevent boats from straying into adjacent shallow areas. This will prevent habitat destruction. A chemical monitoring program shall be established to determine the effect of this marina on the water quality of this section of Biscayne Bay. Surface and mid-depth samples shall be collected at three points in the project area and at one background station. Parameters shall include, but not be limited to dissolved oxygen, pH, salinity, temperature, total coliform and fecal coliform and fecal streptococci bacteria, oil and grease, biochemical oxygen demand, and turbidity. Background samples shall be collected prior to construction and quarterly for a minimum of one year after 90 percent occupancy of the marina. In addition to the chemical monitoring program, a benthic community monitoring program is to be established. Samples of the benthic seagrass community within and adjacent to the project area are to be collected prior to construction and quarterly for a minimum of one year after 90 percent occupancy of the marina. Should either monitoring program detect dissimilar changes at its monitoring and control stations, DER and MDCERM shall be notified of the results. The monitoring programs shall be reviewed and approved by DER and MDCERM prior to implementation. Monitoring reports shall be submitted to DER and MDCERM and the United States Corps of Engineers on regular basis. Warning signs shall be posted in the marina area to advise marina users that manatees frequent the area and caution should be taken to avoid collisions with them. With the foregoing conditions imposed, the Department concluded that no significant immediate or long term negative biological impact is anticipated and state water quality standards should not be violated as a result of the proposed construction. Grove Isle, Inc., has agreed to comply with all the conditions established by the DER letter of intent to grant the permit. Grove Isle is a spoil bank in Biscayne Bay located approximately 700 feet east of the Florida mainland. It is linked to the mainland by a two-lane concrete bridge. The island is currently under development for a 510 unit condominium community with associated facilities such as a restaurant, hotel, and the proposed marina. The island is surrounded by a concrete bulkhead constructed many years ago. No changes in the bulkhead line are proposed. Grove Isle, Inc., proposes constructing the marina on concrete piles driven into the Bay bottom from a shallow draft barge. During construction there would be some turbidity caused from the disruption of the Bay sediment. This can however be adequately controlled by the use of turbidity curtains during construction. The construction will not require any dredging or filling. In the immediate marina site the most significant biota are a 30 foot wide bed of seagrasses. There are no other important biota because at one time the area was extensively dredged to create the island. There are no oyster or clam beds nearby. While lobsters may have once frequented the area, they too are no longer present. The water depth in the area ranges from 1 foot near the island bulkhead to 12 feet offshore to the west of the island. This particular seagrass bed consist primarily of turtle grass (thalassia, testudinum) with some Cuban Shoal Weed (Halodule, Wrightii). Protection for these grasses will be provided by a buffer zone between the island and the boat slips. The grassy zone will be bordered by a row of dolphin piles to exclude boat traffic. Because the grass requires sunlight for photosynthesis and therefore life, the six piers will have grated walkways where they pass over the grass. This will allow sunlight to reach below. In addition to the small grass bed on the west of the island there are extensive beds to the northeast, east and south of the island that extend several hundred yards from the island in water depths of three to ten feet. If boat traffic in the vicinity is markedly increased due to the existence of the marina, it is conceivable that the number of propeller scars in these shallow beds could increase. At the present time the beds are already traversed by boats, some of which are owned by Petitioner's members. There are already for example, approximately 50 crafts which operate from the nearby mainland or from Pelican Canal directly to the north of the island. Propeller scars take up to fifteen years to heal yet the number of scars in the Grove Isle area is insignificant and even a tripling of them from an additional 90 boats would still be de minimus. Potential damage to the seagrasses on the north side of the island will be minimized by the planned installation of navigation markers by Grove Isle. These markers will channel boats into water of a navigable depth and lessen the number of groundings and near groundings which cause the scarring. There is evidence that pleasure boats by their very existence and operation in the water are potential pollution sources. For instance, various maintenance chemicals such as anti-fouling bottom paint and wood cleaner have the ability, if used in sufficient quantity, to harm marine life. The fueling of engines and sewage discharge from boats are additional pollution sources. There was however, no showing that the location of up to 90 pleasure and sport fishing craft at the proposed marina site would in any way cause a degradation of water quality below the acceptable standards for Class III waters. At the present time, the marina site has adequate flushing to disburse those pollutants which may be generated by the marina operations. While a hydrographic survey was not requested by DER or provided by Grove Isle at the time the permit application was made, the testimony of Dr. Echternacht at the time of the Hearing provided adequate assurances respecting the hydrographic characteristics of the proposed site. The proposed marina will have no fueling or maintenance facilities. No live-a-board craft will be allowed at the marina. Both Mr. Wm. Cleare Filer and David A. Doheny live close to Grove Isle. Mr. Doheny's residence is on the mainland facing the proposed marina site and Mr. Filer's house is on Pelican Canal. They use the waters of Biscayne Bay around Grove Isle for recreation. If the quality of the water in the proposed marina site were lessened their substantial interest would be affected. Biscayne Bay is classified as a Class III water and is in the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve. Careful considerations has been given to each of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. To the extent that they are not contained in this Order, they are rejected as being either not supported by competent evidence or as immaterial and irrelevant to the issues determined here.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, determining that the requested water quality control permit and certification be issued subject to the conditions contained in the Notice of Intent to Issue Permit and that the Relief requested by the Petitioners be denied and their Petitions be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of February, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL P. DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: David A. Doheny, Esquire 1111 South Bayshore Drive Miami, Florida 33131 Wm. Cleare Filer 3095 Northwest 7th Street Miami, Florida 33125 Joel Jaffer 2479 Southwest 13th Street Miami, Florida 33145 Randall E. Denker, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry S. Stewart, Esquire Frates, Floyd, Pearson, Stewart, Richmond & Greer One Biscayne Tower 25th Floor Miami, Florida 33131 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION BAYSHORE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 79-2186 79-2324 STATE OF FLORIDA, 79-2354 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, and GROVE ISLE, LIMITED, Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact This cause comes on for consideration based on the Petitioners' challenge to the Respondent's State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation's stated intent to issue a permit to the applicant, Atlantic Bancorporation under the authority of Chapters 253 and 403, F.S., and Public Law 92-500. The Respondent Atlantic Bancorporation filed an application for a permit with the Respondent State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation. There were four items found in the application, being: The construction of a 256 foot long by 5 foot wide dock, together with a 30 foot long by 14 foot wide boat ramp. Six storm sewers using 15" pipe with headwalls. An access road to the boat ramp of 425 feet in length, constructed of limerock. Crossing of a stream with sanitary sewer. The details of the written application may be found in the Respondent, Atlantic Bancorporation's Exhibit #1, admitted into evidence. The only aspects of the permit application which the Petitioners are challenging pertain to the proposed dock, boat ramp and access road to those facilities. On May 3, 1977, Mr. C. E. Barber, an inspector with the Department of Environmental Regulation met with Daniel Thatcher, the President of General Shelter Corporation, which corporation was the agent of Atlantic Bancorporation on that date. (Subsequent to the time of the application General Shelter Corporation has become the owner of the land and Atlantic Bancorporation is the first mortgagee on the land.) The meeting on May 3, 1977 took place at the site of the proposed boat dock, boat ramp and access road. The meeting was for purposes of pre-application inspection, as a preliminary step toward filing the application for permit. During the course of this meeting, Mr. Barber looked around the general area and talked to Thatcher about the underlying scope of the project and the items which would be considered in the permit process. This conversation and inspection took place over a period of 45 minutes. Subsequent to this meeting and conversation, the application for permit was filed on May 9, 1977 over the signature of Daniel Thatcher. Inspector Barber determined that the nature of the project was such that a short form investigation could be utilized in keeping with the requirements of Chapter 403, F.S. He returned to the area of the project on June 7, 1977 and spent two hours inspecting the area. He went to his office and wrote a report on the question of granting the permit. This report is entitled Permit Application Appraisal and may be found as Respondent's Department of Environmental Regulation's Exhibit #1, admitted into evidence. His recommendation was that the permit be granted upon condition that silt screens be used in the course of the construction phase of the project to combat turbidity in the literal zone, an area of the creek In which the dock and boat ramp are being placed. Mr. Barber's supervisor David Scott, who was an Environmental Specialist III, at the time of the application, approved the recommendation that the permit be granted. This approval of Mr. Barber's position was upon condition that the silt screens be employed in the construction phase. Additionally, the State of Florida, Department of Natural Resources and local water management district were made aware of the pending application of the Respondent Atlantic Bancorporation. Neither of these agencies offered any comment or disagreement to the intention to grant the permit. The Petitioners were notified of the position of the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation's intention to issue the permit requested by Atlantic Bancorporation, in the form of letters addressed to the Petitioners. Copies of those letters may be found as Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation's Composite Exhibit #2, admitted into evidence. The substance of these letters is the same in that the letters state that the Department of Environmental Regulation has been given reasonable assurances by the applicant that the short term and long term effects of the proposed activity will not result in violation of water quality criteria, standards, requirements and provisions of Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code. Nor, will the proposed activity interfere with the conservation of fish, marine and wildlife or other natural resources to such an extent as to be contrary to the public interest. Finally, the letter also states that the proposed project will not create a navigational hazard, or serious impediment to navigation, or substantially alter or impede the natural flow of waters, so as to be contrary to the public interest. In trying to establish a position contrary to that of the Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, Petitioners offered the testimony of one of the Petitioners Thomas T. Elmore, Jr. and a Mr. Lamar Veal. The substance of their testimony indicated that there was a large number and variety of fish, marine and wildlife to include: osprey, hawks, blue and white herring, water turkey, ducks, coots, cranes, geese, egrets, woodpeckers, and various other small birds. The type of fish spoken of were bass and sunfish. They also indicated that alligators, manatee, and shrimp may be found in the vicinity of the project. Specific reference was made to one manatee that had been observed in the area which appeared to have been scarred by propellers of boats. Reference was also made to an alligator that had been killed, apparently by propellers of boats. Considering the damage done to the manatee, it is unclear where the damage occurred, because the area in question, which is known as Doctors Lake is a tributary to the St. Johns River, a body of water of considerable dimension. On the other hand Doctors Lake is one to one and a half miles wide and five miles long. These same witness, to wit: Elmore and Veal, testified about grass beds at various places in the area of Doctors Lake. Photographs offered as exhibits by the Petitioners demonstration that some of these grasses were found in the vicinity of the location for the boat ramp and dock, but there was no testimony that these grasses would be unduly disturbed. Testimony by Mr. Veal indicated that Doctors Lake does not "flush" very readily. Their testimony established that there are a number of homes located on Doctors Lake and that there is some motor boat activity and that oil and gas spills from boats occur in the lake. Finally, the testimony established that the power boats that pass by have some effect, which measurement was not known, on the erosion of the shore, particularly in the areas that lack grass vegetation. The area where the permit is requested is not one lacking in grass vegetation at the shoreline. After examining the sum and substance of the testimony offered in behalf of the Petitioners, they have failed to establish that the granting of the permit and subsequent construction under the permit, violates water quality criteria, standards, requirements and provisions of Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code. Nor, have they established that the proposed activity will interfere with the conservation of fish, marine and wildlife or other natural resources, to such an extent as to be contrary to the public interest. Moreover, the Petitioners have failed to show that the proposed project will create a navigational hazard, or a serious impediment to navigation, or substantially alter, or impede the natural flow of navigable waters so as to be contrary to the public interest. Therefore, the Petitioners have failed to show any reason why the permit as applied for should not be granted by the Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation.
Recommendation It is recommended that the permit application filed by Atlantic Bancorporation, which is the subject of this case, be granted by the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of October, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Edward C. Coker, III, Esquire 1212 Atlantic Bank Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Allen Scott, II, Esquire 220 East Forsyth Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Sheri W. Smallwood, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Montgomery Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at the evidentiary hearing on the Department's Motion, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: In October of 1995, Petitioners, who desired to construct a single-family, concrete dock in the Hillsboro Canal (in Broward County, Florida) for their 171-foot yacht and to perform dredging adjacent to the dock (Project), filed with the Department a Joint Application for Environmental Resource Permit/Authorization to Use State Owned Submerged Lands/Federal Dredge and Fill Permit (Application). In the Application, Petitioners indicated that their mailing address was: c/o Flynn Enterprises 676 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 4000 Chicago, IL 60611 Flynn Enterprises, Inc., is a business owned by Petitioner Donald Flynn. The Application listed "Jeff Adair, Project Manager" of "Keith and Schnars, P.A., 6500 N. Andrews Avenue, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309," as the "agent authorized to secure permit" for Petitioners. The application form that Petitioners used to submit their Application contained the following signature page: By signing this application form, I am applying, or I am applying on behalf of the applicant, for the permit and any proprietary authorizations identified above, according to the supporting data and other incidental information filed with this application. I am familiar with the information contained in this application and represent that such information is true, complete and accurate. I understand this is an application and not a permit, and that work prior to approval is a violation. I understand that this application and any permit issued or proprietary authorization issued pursuant thereto, does not relieve me of any obligation for obtaining any other required federal, state, water management district or local permit prior to commencement of construction. I agree, or I agree on behalf of my corporation, to operate and maintain the permitted system unless the permitting agency authorizes transfer of the permit to a responsible operation entity. I understand that knowingly making any false statement or representation in this application is a violation of Section 373.430, F.S. and 18 U.S.C. Section 1001. Typed/Printed Name of Applicant (if no Agent is used) or Agent (if one is so authorized below) Signature of Applicant/Agent Date (Corporate Title if applicable) AN AGENT MAY SIGN ABOVE ONLY IF THE APPLICANT COMPLETES THE FOLLOWING: I hereby designate and authorize the agent listed above to act on my behalf, or on behalf of my corporation, as the agent in the processing of this application for the permit and/or proprietary authorization indicated above; and to furnish, on request, supple- mental information in support of the appli- cation. In addition, I authorize the above- listed agent to bind me, or my corporation, to perform any requirement which may be necessary to procure the permit or authorization indicated above. I understand that knowingly making any false statement or representation in this application is a violation of Section 373.430. F.S. and 18 U.S.C. Section 1001. Typed/Printed Name of Applicant Signature of Applicant Date (Corporate Title if applicable) Please note: The applicant's original signature (not a copy) is required above. PERSON AUTHORIZING ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY MUST COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING: I either own the property described in this application or I have legal authority to allow access to the property, and I consent, after receiving prior notification, to any site visit on the property by agents or personnel from the Department of Environ- mental Protection, the Water Management District and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers necessary for the review and inspection of the proposed project specified in this application. I authorize these agents or personnel to enter the property as many times as may be necessary to make such review and inspection. Further , I agree to provide entry to the project site for such agents or personnel to monitor permitted work if a permit is granted. Typed/Printed Name Signature Date (Corporate Title if applicable) The name "Jeff Adair" appears on the "Name of Applicant (if no Agent is used) or Agent (if one is so authorized below)" line under the first paragraph on the signature page of Petitioners' Application; however, neither Adair's signature, nor any other signature, appears on the signature line under this paragraph. Petitioner Donald Flynn's signature appears on the signature lines under the second (agent designation and authorization) and third (access to property) paragraphs on the page. By letter dated November 17, 1995, the Department informed Petitioners of the following: Preliminary evaluation of your project leads staff to the conclusion that the project as proposed cannot be recommended for approval. While this is not final agency action or notice of intent, it does represent the staff review of your application based on consider- able experience in permitting matters. We are sending you this letter at this stage of the processing to allow you to assess fully the further commitment of financial resources for design dependent on permit issuance. . . . In summary, please revise plans to: (1) reduce the amount of dredging; (2) reduce impacts to natural resources; (3) reduce the size of the dock; (4) reduce encroachment on navigational channel; (5) reduce encroachment on adjacent properties; and (6) after minimization, offer mitigation plans that would address the loss of seagrass in the vicinity (watershed or basin) of the project site. Your application is currently "incomplete" and Final Agency Action will not occur until a reasonable amount of time is allowed for the submittal of a revised plan. A completeness summary has been sent under separate cover, addressing the items that are still outstanding. Staff will continue to process your application in the normal manner; however, I suggest you contact Tim Rach of this office . . . to discuss these possible alternatives regarding your project. The Department's November 17, 1995, letter was addressed to Petitioners "c/o Jeff Adair, Project Manager, Keith and Schnars, P.A., 6500 North Andrews Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309-2132," as were subsequent requests for additional information made by the Department and other correspondence from the Department concerning the Project. Adair responded to the Department's requests for additional information and otherwise corresponded and communicated with the Department on behalf of Petitioners. In July of 1996, Adair participated in a telephone conference call during which the Department advised him that, if the Application was not withdrawn, it would be denied. On August 13, 1996, Adair sent the following letter to the Department concerning the Project: Pursuant to our recent discussions pertaining to the proposed mitigation plan and final review and processing of the Flynn Dock application, we have been advised via Mr. Flynn's attorney not to withdraw the application. Therefore, we await the Department's final decision relative to the permittability of this project. As you have indicated, we are anticipating the Depart- ment's response toward the end of this month. In making your decision, we strongly urge you to consider the merits or our innovative and "no risk" mitigation plan. We believe our mitigation plan more than compensates for proposed impacts and provides substantial net benefits to the environment and the research community. In particular, information obtained from our proposed research effort would not only benefit our project, but would also facilitate scientific analysis and review of similar applications and issues. As always, please do not hesitate to call should you have any questions or concerns. On August 19, 1996, the Department sent the following letter to Petitioners "c/o Flynn Enterprises, 676 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 4000, Chicago, IL 60611," the address that Petitioners had indicated in the Application was their mailing address: We have reviewed the information received on May 31, 1996 for an Environmental Resource Permit and authorization to use sovereign submerged lands. The Department has deemed the application complete as of this date. Final action on your application for an Environmental Resource Permit and sovereign[] submerged lands authorization will be taken within 90 days of receipt of your last item of information unless you choose to waive this timeclock. If you have any questions, please contact me at . . . . A copy of this August 19, 1996, letter was sent by the Department to Adair. On August 27, 1996, the Department issued a Consolidated Notice of Denial (Notice) in which it announced its preliminary decision to deny Petitioners' Application. The Notice contained the following advisement: A person whose substantial interests are affected by the Department's action may petition for an administrative proceeding (Hearing) in accordance with Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. Petitions filed by the permittee and the parties listed below must be filed within 14 days of receipt of this letter. Third party Petitioners shall mail a copy of the petition to the permittee at the address indicated above at the time of filing. Failure to file a petition within this time period shall constitute a waiver of any right such person may have to request an administrative determination (hearing) under Section 120.57, F.S. The Petition must contain the information set forth below and must be filed (received) in the Office of General Counsel of the Department at 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000: The name, address, and telephone number of each petitioner, the permittee's name and address, the Department Permit File Number and county in which the project is proposed; A statement of how and when each petitioner received notice of the Depart- ment's action or proposed action; A statement of how each petitioner's substantial interests are affected by the Department's action or proposed action; A statement of the material facts disputed by petitioner, if any; A statement of facts which petitioner contends warrant reversal or modification of the Department's action or proposed action; A statement of which rules or statutes petitioner contends warrant reversal or modification of the Department's action or proposed action; and A statement of the relief sought by petitioner, stating precisely the action petitioner wants the Department to take with respect to the Department's action or proposed action. If a petition is filed, the administrative hearing process will constitute a renewed determination of the Department's decision on the application. Accordingly, the Department's final action may be different from the position taken by it in this letter. Persons whose substantial interests will be affected by any decision of the Department with regard to the permit have the right to petition to become a party to the proceeding. The petition must conform to the requirements specified above and be filed (received) within 14 days of receipt of this notice in the Office of General Counsel at the above address of the Department. Failure to petition within the allowed time frame constitutes a waiver of any right such person has to request a hearing under Section 120.57, F.S., and to participate as a party to this proceeding. Any subsequent intervention will only be at the approval of the presiding officer upon motion filed pursuant to Rule 28-5.207, and 60Q-2.010, F.A.C. This Notice constitutes final agency action unless a petition is filed in accordance with the above paragraphs or unless a request for extension of time in which to file a petition is filed within the time specified for filing a petition and conforms to Rule 62-103.070, F.A.C. Upon timely filing of a petition or a request for an extension of time this Notice will not be effective until further Order of the Department. . . . The Notice was mailed (by certified mail, return receipt requested) to Petitioners "c/o Flynn Enterprises, 676 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 4000, Chicago, IL 60611." Although the Notice's certificate of service reflected that a copy of the Notice had been mailed to Adair "before the close of business on AUG 27 1996," in fact, as a result of inadvertence on the part of Department staff, a copy of the Notice had not been mailed to Adair. On September 3, 1996, the Notice sent to Petitioners was received by a Flynn Enterprises, Inc., employee at the address to which it was mailed. The employee executed a return receipt upon receiving the Notice. The Notice was referred to Victor Casini, Esquire, the general counsel of Flynn Enterprises, Inc., on September 4, 1996. Casini set the document aside for filing. He did not believe that there was any immediate action that he or anyone else in the Flynn Enterprises, Inc., office in Chicago needed to take in response to the Notice. Casini noted that Adair's name was listed in the Notice as among those who purportedly had been furnished copies of the Notice. He knew that Adair was handling all matters relating to the permitting of the Project for Petitioners. He therefore assumed that any action that needed to be taken in response to the Notice would be taken by Adair on behalf of Petitioners. Inasmuch as it appeared (from his review of the Notice) that the Department had already furnished Adair with a copy of the Notice, he saw no reason to contact Adair to apprise him of the issuance of the Notice. In taking no action in response to the Notice other than setting it aside for filing, Casini acted reasonably under the circumstances. Adair first learned of the issuance of the Notice during a telephone conversation he had on September 9, 1996, with an employee of Broward County, who mentioned to him, in passing, that the Department had denied Petitioners' Application. 2/ Adair thereupon immediately telephoned the Department to confirm that the Application had been denied. The Department representative to whom he spoke confirmed that the Notice had issued, apologized for the Department's failure to have sent him a copy of the Notice, and promised to rectify the error by sending him a copy of the Notice as soon as possible. Keith Skibicki, the vice president of Flynn Enterprises, Inc., in charge of its day-to-day operations, served as the liaison between Adair and Petitioners. On September 12, 1996, Adair telephoned Skibicki to inquire (for the first time) if Petitioners had received a copy of the Notice. Skibicki, who previously had neither seen nor heard about the Notice, asked around the office and learned that the Notice had been received and was in Casini's files. Skibicki related this information to Adair. Later that same day, September 12, 1996, Adair received the copy of the Notice that the Department had sent him. He then faxed a copy of the Notice to Harry Stewart, Esquire, the Florida attorney who had been retained by Petitioners to assist them in their efforts to obtain favorable action on their Application. Shortly thereafter Adair telephoned Stewart to discuss what they should do in response to the Notice. During their conversation, Stewart expressed the opinion that the 14-day period for filing a petition for an administrative proceeding began to run only upon Adair's receipt of the Notice and that therefore Petitioners had until September 26, 1996, to file their petition. During the two-week period that followed their telephone conversation, Adair and Stewart worked together to prepare such a petition. The petition was filed with the Department on September 26, 1996 (which was 23 days after the Notice had been delivered to the Chicago office of Flynn Enterprises, Inc., but only 14 days after Adair, Petitioners' designated agent in their dealings with the Department, had received a copy of the Notice). The actions taken on behalf of Petitioners in response to the Notice were intended to preserve Petitioners' right to challenge the proposed denial of their Application. At no time was there any knowing and intentional relinquishment of that right.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter an order finding that Petitioners' petition challenging the proposed denial of their Application is not time-barred and remanding the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings for a Section 120.57(1) hearing on the merits of Petitioners' challenge. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 6th day of February, 1997. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of February, 1997.
The Issue The issue here presented concerns the entitlement of the Applicant/Respondent, Raymond B. Spangler, to construct a boat dock of approximately 800 square feet, included in that dimension is a boat house. The Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, has indicated its intention to grant the permit application request and the Petitioner, Louise C. Stone, has opposed the Department's intention to grant the permit.
Findings Of Fact THIS CAUSE comes on for consideration based upon the Petitioner, Louise E. Stone's petition and request for formal proceedings to consider the propriety of the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation's granting of an environmental permit to Raymond B. Spangler. This petition was filed after the Petitioner had received the Department of Environmental Regulation's Notice of Intent to Grant the permit. That notice was dated July 10, 1979, and a copy of that notice has been received into evidence as Department of Environmental Regulation's Exhibit No. 5. The Secretary of the Department of Environmental Regulation opted to have the Division of Administrative Hearings consider this case and on November 5, 1979, a formal hearing was held before a Hearing Officer with the Division of Administrative Hearings. The Petitioner is an adjacent landowner to the Respondent, Raymond B. Spangler, with property located on Lake Minneola. The applicant's project is located in the northwest corner of his property and is as far removed from the common property line with the Petitioner as is possible without violating setback lines. The Petitioner's property is located to the southeast of the project. The project as now contemplated calls for the construction of a boat deck and boat house with dimensions of approximately 800 square feet. The details of this construction may be found in a copy of the Application for Permit which is the Department of Environmental Regulation's Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence. The boat house and boat dock would be constructed on Lake Minneola, Lake City, Florida, near the town of Clermont, Florida. Lake Minneola is a navigable waterway and the boat dock and boat house would extend into the navigable water body. The discussion of the project as found in the Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation's Exhibit No. 1 is an accurate depiction with the exception that the dock will have an increase in length from the original proposal of 70 feet to a new proposal of some 80 to 84 feet. Nonetheless, with the optimum extension, the amount of square footage still closely approximates the initially requested 800-square-foot amount. The reason for the change is due to the rise in the water level of the lake causing the mean high water line to be further landward than was the case at the time the permit was first applied for. The additional extension of the dock is necessary to allow for dry access to the water and to reach the open waterway beyond the growth of maidencane grass (Panicum Hemitomon) near the shoreline. In keeping with allowed exemptions found in Section 403.813, Florida Statutes, and Rule 17-4.04, Florida Administrative Code, 500 square feet of the deck has been constructed and this portion of the dock as constructed may be seen in the Respondent, Raymond B. Spangler's Exhibit No. 10 admitted into evidence, which is a photograph of the partially completed dock. Other photographs of the partially completed dock and the surrounding area of the lake showing the adjacent property may be found as Respondent, Spangler's Exhibits 5 through 9. The Respondent, Spangler's Exhibit No. 4, a composite which was admitted into evidence, is a series of photographs and an overlay which by scale shows a view of the completed dock and a depiction of the boat house when completed. The dock, when completed, will be constituted of a four-foot walkway extending approximately 80 to 84 feet into the water, intersecting at right angles at the terminus of the dock and forming a "T" shape. The boat house would be located adjacent to the walkway leading to the deck terminus. The dimensions of the covered boat house would be 25 feet by 14 feet. The depth of the water in the lake at the location of the continuing dock construction is sufficiently deep to allow the construction of the dock without the necessity of dredging. There is an extensive grassy community mostly constituted of maidencane (Panicum Hemitomon) and although some of the grassy community has been removed during the construction phase of the project, the denuded area may be easily reconstituted and the applicant has expressed his intent to achieve this end as a means to avoid further erosion which has started to occur at the site. None of the erosion which has occurred has interfered with the property of neighboring landowners. The impact of the continued construction in its affect on water quality would be inconsequential. Furthermore, the construction as now completed and as contemplated does not and would not constitute a hazard to navigation, nor interfere with and cause a danger to participants in water sports and related activities that take place on Lake Minneola. When the project is completed the aquatic vegetation can be expected to return and to remain as a viable wetland community. This is due to the fact that the amount of water surface covered by the project is slight and there is sufficient sunlight to support the aquatic vegetation even in the shaded areas. During the construction phase the amount of turbidity caused by the construction has been de minimis, and will be, in view of the fact that the bottom of the lake is a sand base which settles out quickly. This settling effect was seen by the project evaluator, James Morgan, Department of Environmental Regulation, when he toured the site of the construction and saw Respondent Spangler placing pilings. Morgan noted that the turbidity involved was of a short duration. The project will not interfere with fish and wildlife either in their day-to-day activities or in their propagation. None of the standards pertaining to water quality as found in Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code, will be violated by the project. The project will not be an unreasonable obstruction to the view of adjoining riparian owners and the applicant does not intend to use the boat house as a dwelling. When the project was first reviewed by the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, that agency notified the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission; the St. Johns River Water Management District, and the Department of Pollution Control of Lake County, Florida. None of these agencies have made known any objection to the project and the Department of Pollution Control of Lake County has specifically indicated their lack of opposition by written comment, a copy of which may be found as the Department of Environmental Regulation's Exhibit No. 3 admitted into evidence.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Applicant/Respondent, Raymond B. Spangler, be allowed to conclude the construction of the boat deck and boat house as contemplated by the application of May 11, 1979, with the addendum that the dock length be extended to 80 feet to 84 feet as necessary; with the proviso that the applicant ensure that the grassy community be returned to its pristine condition in the area of his project, to prohibit further erosion and that these results be accomplished by the issuance of a permit pursuant to the conditions as outlined. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of November, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Robert F. Vason, Jr., Esquire Raymond B. Spangler 408 East Fifth Avenue Route 3, Box 319 Mount Dora, Florida 32757 Clermont, Florida 32711 Segundo J. Fernandez, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondent/applicant, The Yachting Arcade (applicant), initiated this matter when it filed an amended application with respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), on April 27, 1984, seeking a permit authorizing the construction of a docking facility on the eastern shore of Bethel Creek in the City of Vero Beach, Florida.1 Specifically, applicant wished to construct a commercial shoreline dock 530 feet long and six feet wide with four access docks at various locations along the shoreline. The access docks would vary in size from thirteen to sixteen feet in length and from four to ten feet in width. The dock will be situated in front of a two-story commercial structure and parking lot on 1.14 acres owned by applicant which lies between Highway A-1-A and Bethel Creek. That structure will house a restaurant and other retail establishments. A city permit for the dock was previously issued on November 17, 1983, and remains in effect at this time. According to the parties, permit approval is also required from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). However, DNR is awaiting action by DER before issuing or denying a permit. Bethel Creek is a relatively small navigable U-shaped dead-end canal connected to the Intracoastal Waterway in the Indian River in Indian River County, Florida. It is classified as a Class III water of the State. Because of continued development along the Creek, and poor flushing characteristics, the water has gradually deteriorated over the years. Most of its shoreline is bulkheaded in the vicinity of the proposed project, and it has a depth of around fifteen to twenty feet. The width of the Creek at the site of the project ranges from 120 to 195 feet and represents the most narrow part of the canal. The project is approximately one to two-tenths of a mile from the dead-end of the canal, and less than a half a mile from the opening at Indian River. In addition to applicant's commercial development, there are a number of single family residences on the Creek, a large condominium known as the Riverwalk Condominium, and eight townhouses at the deadend of the Creek. Other development may also exist but was not disclosed at hearing. There are a number of existing private docks with boats on the Creek including a four-dock marina at the end of the canal. Petitioner, Riverwalk Condominium Association, Inc., is an association of condominium owners who reside within 500 feet of the proposed activity. Under the proposal, applicant intends to limit the docking facilities to the private use of The Yachting Arcade." There will be no fuel or maintenance service for boats, and sewage disposal facilities and live-aboards will be prohibited. Shoreline improvement is to be accomplished by excavating an area landward of the dock, backfilling the area with sand and rubble, placing filter fabric over the backfill, laying sand and gravel over the fabric and revegetating the excavated/backfilled area with cordgrass and red mangroves. The theoretical capacity of the docking facility will depend on the size of the boats, but it will allow docking by up to twelve to fifteen boats of the fifty foot category at one time, or up to thirty-six smaller boats simultaneously. At the insistence of DER, the boats will be moored parallel to the Creek in an effort to not impede navigation. After receiving the original and amended applications, DER personnel made three on-site inspections of the property. These were conducted in January and May, 1984 and May,|1985. Although no water quality testing was performed, the Department found the Creek to be a viable habitat for various game and nongame species, including mullet, sheepshead, tarpon, snapper, manatees, great blue herons and egrets. The property along the shoreline was comprised of Australian pines, pepper trees and railroad vines until they were removed in June, 1985 by applicant. There has been severe erosion along the water front but this will diminish through revegetation and excavation of the bank. The construction of the dock will create only minor, short-term turbidity. The quality of the water within the Creek is now poor, but a vegetated shoreline, including mangroves, will assist in cleansing the water and improving its quality. Therefore, applicant has given reasonable assurances that the proposed project will not violate established water quality standards, or constitute a threat to marine life, wildlife or natural resources. According to agency rule an applicant must demonstrate that "the proposed project will not create a navigational hazard, or a serious impediment to navigation. . ." in the affected waters. Even though the dock will be built at the most narrow part of the creek, and may have as many as thirty-six boats moored at any one time, the agency expert concluded that no impediment to navigation would occur.2 However, testimony by residents on the Creek indicate that the actual navigable part of the stream is much smaller, and that boats are frequently "beached" because of the shallow nature of the waters. Since applicant will simultaneously allow as many as fifteen boats in the fifty-foot category, or thirty-six of a smaller variety, to traverse the Creek, there will be a serious impediment to navigation on the narrow navigable part of the Creek. Moreover, it will create a navigational hazard. A restriction on the number of boats to use applicant's dock at one time is not practical, and even DER omitted such a condition because of its inability to enforce this provision. Therefore, the criteria for issuance of a permit have not been met.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of The Yachting Arcade for a permit to construct a shoreline dock on Bethel Creek in Indian River County, Florida be DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of August, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of August, 1985.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the amended petition alleges facts sufficient to establish standing and a legal basis for a hearing pursuant to 120.57, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact For the purposes of this recommended order the following substantive facts alleged by Petitioner are deemed to accurate: On May 22, 1970, the Department entered into a lease agreement with the City which, for the sum of one dollar per year, leased the right of way to the south approach to the Bakers Haulover Bridge located in Dade County, Florida. According to this lease, the property was to be used as a parking lot and remain open to all members of the motoring public. The property leased to the City was, and is, adjacent to Biscayne Bay. This bay has been designated an aquatic preserve as defined in Section 258.39(11), Florida Statutes. The Petitioner is a sport fisherman who for many years has utilized the public right of way leased to the City to gain access to fishing at Bakers Haulover Inlet. On or about July 11, 1987, the City erected a fence on the right of way which blocked Petitioner's access to the water at Haulover Cut. The fence was erected without a permit from the Department. On November 13, 1987, Petitioner and other members of the public, primarily fishermen, met with officials from the Department to complain about the fence and to attempt to reach a compromise. As a result, the City was to apply for an after the fact permit to erect the fence. Petitioner and the other protesting fishermen believed they would be given an opportunity to review and comment upon the permit application. No notice was provided to Petitioner nor any other member of the group regarding the permit application. On December 1, 1987, the Department approved the City's permit for the erection of the fence. Petitioner has not been given an opportunity to respond to the permit application submitted by the City.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Transportation enter a final order dismissing the amended petition filed by Dan Dawson. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 19th day of December, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of December, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred W. Van Vonno Suite 1750, Courthouse Tower 44 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130-1808 Charles G. Gardner Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Kaye N. Henderson, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Attn: Eleanor F. Turner, Mail Station 58 Thomas H. Bateman, III General Counsel 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
The Issue Whether petitioners have timely availed themselves of a clear point of entry into administrative proceedings on Mr. and Mrs. Rankin's application for a permit to build a dock and, if so, whether the permit application should be granted?
Findings Of Fact On April 12, 1982, Frederick W. Rankin applied for a dredge and fill permit to construct a dock six feet wide and 300 feet long in the waters of Bayou Chico in Escambia County, Florida. Paralleling the dock on either side of the outboard end, two rows of mooring pilings 19.5 feet distance from the dock were proposed in the application. On April 20, 1983, Mark N. Snowdon, an employee of the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) inspected the site, and, in an official DER permit application appraisal dated April 23, 1982, reported: Two large support vessels (crew boats) are moored at a small pier immediately east of the site. A commercial marina facility i[s] located directly across the bayou (north) from the project site. Bayou Chico is approximately 0.25 mile wide at this point. DER Exhibit No. 4. Between the crew boats' dock (Gulfwater Marine) and the site proposed for the Rankins' dock is the mouth of a small embayment (the bayouette). The Holzbauers own a house and lot, separated from the Rankins' lot by a parcel less than 75 feet wide, that fronts on the bayouette. PERMIT ISSUES DER issued a permit on June 9, 1982, and work began on the Rankins' dock on June 12, 1982. On the same day, Mr. Holzbauer inquired of the men putting in pilings whether DER had issued a permit for the work, then telephoned DER and asked DER's Mr. Fancher the same question. Mr. Fancher told Mr. Holzbauer that a permit had been issued, which was the first Mr. Holzbauer was told of issuance of the permit. As far as the evidence revealed, no notice of intent to issue preceded issuance of the permit. On June 26, 1982, the Holzbauers received a letter from W. Richard Fancher on behalf of DER, dated June 24, 1982, in which he stated: It is my understanding that, until recently, you had no knowledge of this private dock project. If this is correct, you may consider this formal notice of the activity. Should you object to this permit, including any and all of the conditions contained therein, you may file an appropriate petition for administrative hearing. This petition must be filed within 14 days of the receipt of this letter. Further, the petition must conform to the requirements of Part III, Chapter 17-1 and Section 28-5.201, Florida Administrative Code (copies enclosed). The petition must be filed with the Office of General Counsel, Department of Environmental Regulation, Twin Towers Office Building, 2600 Blair Stone Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32301. If no petition is filed within the prescribed time, you will be deemed to have waived your right to request an administrative hearing on this matter. DER Exhibit No. 1. A copy of Mr. Fancher's letter to the Holzbauers was also sent to Mr. Rankin. On July 8, 1982, a letter from the Holzbauers to Ms. Tschinkel reached DER's Office of the Secretary, protesting issuance of the permit and alleging that the dock did not conform to permit conditions. 1/ This letter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings, whose Director entered an order, sua sponte, on July 28, 1982, that "[t]his matter is dismissed without prejudice." No. 82-1947. An amended petition dated August 4, 1982, reached DER's Office of the Secretary on August 9, 1982, and the Division of Administrative Hearings on August 20, 1982. No. 82-2314. NO PERMIT RELIANCE The dock has been continued to completion, at a cost of $11,000.00. As built, the dock veers out from shore at a more easterly angle than the permit purported to allow. Whereas the permit contemplated construction at an angle several degrees west of north, the dock has in fact been built at an angle about 15 degrees east of north. One result is that the end is some 90 feet east of the point contemplated by the permit. Although a DER employee testified that this deviation was "within reason," it is clearly a significant departure from what the permit putatively allowed. The Rankins only own 86 feet of bayou frontage. The mouth of the bayouette is no more than 110 feet across. The mooring pilings, moreover, have been set in two rows parallel to the dock not 19.5 feet on either side, but 40 feet from the west side of the dock and 30 feet from the east side. If any of the landowners on the bayouette (with one exception) tried to build a pier perpendicular to their shore line extending even half the length of the Rankins' dock, it would intersect the Rankins' dock. NAVIGATION While the dock does not seal off the bayouette, it makes access considerably more difficult, especially for Mr. Holzbauer who sails in and out in his 14 foot boat. The dock juts out from the point at the western edge of the entrance into the bayouette at such an angle that it comes within 70 feet of the eastern edge of the entrance into the bayouette. Petitioner's Exhibit No. The crew boats moored to the east of the Rankins' dock have overall lengths ranging from 65 to 85 feet and there were three of them moored at Gulfwater Marine last summer. When the crew boats are docked, the distance between the westernmost one and the most inboard mooring piling next to the Rankins' dock is 81.5 to 103 feet. Where traffic from Bayou Chico to Pensacola Bay passes under a bridge, the channel is only 80 feet wide and the crew boats sometimes hit the bridge. The greatest problem the Rankins' dock has caused the crew boats is making docking more difficult. It is not always easy to turn an 85 foot boat around in the wind. The root of the problem, according to Mr. Kingry, who owns the crew boats, is that a patch of slightly deeper water in this generally shoaled area has been cut or blocked by the Rankins' dock. Sooner or later, Mr. Kingry predicted, a crew boat will "wipe out" the Rankins' mooring pilings.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Regulation deny the application for a dredge and fill permit for a dock located and aligned as this dock is. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of April, 1983.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding are whether the Department should issue a permit to Casetta, and whether the Department should issue a permit to Harbor Point. The two application proceedings were consolidated for hearing purposes. In many respects, common factual and legal issues relate to the two proceedings. For that reason, in the interest of economy of time and space, a single recommended order is being issued with respect to the two proceedings.
Findings Of Fact History of Proceedings In 1974, a prior owner of the property now owned by Casetta filed an application with the Department to entirely fill the pond which is the subject of this proceeding. A final order denying the application was entered by the Department on August 31, 1977. A second application to fill the entire pond was filed with the Department by Casetta's predecessor in 1979. During the pendency of that proceeding, Casetta purchased the property and by stipulation was permitted to be substituted as the Petitioner. The Department gave notice of its intent to deny the second application in February, 1981. Casetta challenged the Department's assertion that it had jurisdiction under the provisions of Chapter 253, Florida Statutes. The matter was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings and given Case No. 81-1082. The matter before the Division has been closed, but it remains as a pending proceeding before the Department. It is being held in abeyance pending the resolution of Casetta's present application. The application involved in this proceeding was submitted to the Department during December, 1981. The City of Riviera Beach, Florida, granted local approval for this application; and on May 18, 1982, the Department issued a Notice of Intent to issue the permit. The Department published a notice of its proposed action in the Commercial Record, a Palm Beach County newspaper. The Florida Wildlife Federation and the Property Owners' Association of Singer Island together filed a request for formal hearing with the Department. The Singer Island Civic Association filed a separate request. Counsel for the Wildlife Federation and the Property Owners' Association withdrew during the course of the proceeding. It was indicated that these parties would voluntarily dismiss the requests for hearing, but no such papers were filed. No one appeared on behalf of the Florida Wildlife Federation or the Property Owners' Association of Singer Island during prehearing conferences that were conducted in this matter or at the final hearing. The Executive Director of the Florida Wildlife Federation testified as a public witness at the hearing and indicated that they were not participating in the proceeding as a party. During the pendency of proceedings respecting the Casetta application before the Division of Administrative Hearings, Harbor Point filed an application with the Department to install a culvert which would connect the pond that is the subject of the Casetta application with a pond located on property owned by Harbor Point through a culvert system. Harbor Point sought to have its application considered by the Department as an alternative to the Casetta application. On or about August 2, 1982, the Department issued a Notice of Intent to deny the Harbor Point application Harbor Point thereafter petitioned for a formal hearing. On or about June 4, 1982, the United States Corps of Engineers issued a permit to Harbor Point to construct its proposed culvert system. Description of Property in the Area of Proposed Projects. Casetta is the owner of approximately five acres of land that lie between the Atlantic Ocean and Lake Worth on Singer Island in Palm Beach County, Florida. The property includes a rectangular pond that is approximately three acres in area. This pond will hereafter be referred to as the "Casetta pond." Submerged lands in the Casetta pond were conveyed into private ownership by the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, State of Florida, in 1924. Harbor Point owns land adjacent to Casetta's property to the north. Harbor Point's property includes a pond which is configured in the approximate shape of an hourglass and is approximately one acre in area. A condominium apartment building has been constructed on Harbor Point's property. Harbor Point members own residential units in this facility. The area presently owned by Casetta and Harbor Point was, in its natural condition, a part of the littoral zone, a shallow, submerged area, on the eastern edge of the lake. Lake Worth is an estuarine water body located between the mainland and Singer Island. The littoral zone of such a lake is of fundamental ecological importance. It serves as a habitat for a wide variety of wildlife and serves to maintain water quality in the lake through uptake of nutrients by vegetation that thrives in the area. The natural condition of the area was markedly changed by the construction of State Road A-1-A. The highway separated the area, including what is now the Casetta and Harbor Point properties, to a large extent from the waters of Lake Worth. A culvert was constructed under the highway in the area of what is now the Harbor Point property. This culvert allowed tidal waters from Lake Worth to enter the area, and the area thus remained in a diminished fashion as a littoral zone of Lake Worth. Sometime between 1953 and 1964, landowners in the area constructed dikes which appear to have served as driveways along their northern and southern boundaries. Fill was placed on the Harbor Point property so that a pond was created in its present approximate configuration. The Harbor Point condominium facilities are presently in part set on the filled land. The Harbor Point pond remained connected with the waters of Lake Worth through the culvert system. The Harbor Point pond thus remains subject to tidal influences from Lake Worth. It is an estuarine system which serves as a part of the littoral zone of Lake Worth. The driveway to the condominium, however, completely Separated the Casetta pond from direct interaction with the waters of Lake Worthy. The Casetta pond is presently in an approximately rectangular configuration. Probably as a result of groundwater interaction, it is affected in a minimal manner by tidal influences in Lake Worth. The Casetta pond receives water from runoff and from groundwater interaction. It has become a freshwater body. While the Casetta pond is no longer a direct part of the Lake Worth estuarine system, and while it is by no means in its natural condition, it remains a wetland ecosystem. The pond is surrounded by mangrove communities. There is considerable biologic activity. Many bird species roost in the mangroves and feed in the pond. The mangroves provide shelter for aquatic organisms which are a food source for the birds. The pond does not support a wide diversity of marine plants or animals. A single species of minnow, mosquito fish, exists in substantial quantities These serve as a food source for birds including ducks, herons, egrets, and kingfishers It appears that the Casetta pond has been used in the past as a borrow pit to obtain fill for adjoining properties trenches, which are as much as six feet in depth, have been dug along the northern, southern, and eastern perimeters and across the pond. Because it is cut off from Lake Worth, and because of the ditches that have been cut through it, the Casetta pond is in a very deteriorated condition. While healthy mangroves surround the pond, they are, except to the west, extremely narrow populations due to the sharp banks that have been caused by dredging activity. The mangroves have no room to expand their population and are stressed due to invasion of upland vegetation such as Brazilian pepper. Widgeon grass exists in the lake bottom. Algae, however, has become the dominant vegetation in the pond. From 80 to 90 percent of the pond's bottom is covered by a mat of algae that ranges up to five and one-half inches in thickness. The algae population is increasing rapidly. Widgeon grass populations are being choked off by the algae. Dissolved oxygen levels in the Casetta pond are consistently low, below standards set in the rules of the Department. The oxygen demand of the algae community has depleted dissolved oxygen levels. While the Casetta pond functions as a wetland community, its values are severely reduced, and it appears that water quality in the pond is likely to continue to deteriorate. While by no means in a natural condition, the Harbor Point pond continues to function as a viable part of Lake Worth. This is a result of the pond being connected to the lake through the culvert system. The edges of the pond are populated by mangrove and cord grass communities. Marine species such as mullet are easily observable. Wading birds roost in surrounding vegetation and feed in the pond. The Harbor Point pond is basically a shallow, tidal water body. Water quality in the Harbor Point pond basically mirrors water quality in areas of Lake Worth to the west of Highway A-1-A. The Harbor Point pond has an eastern and western lobe connected by a narrower area, forming an approximate hourglass configuration. The eastern lobe is farthest from the connection to Lake Worth. Water quality in the eastern lobe is generally poorer than water quality in the western lobe and in Lake Worth. The deepest portion of the Harbor Point pond is in the eastern lobe. Wind action cannot serve to fully flush the waters of this area because of its relative isolation from the western lobe. Runoff from the Harbor Point condominium to the east of the pond and from a fire station parking lot to the west enters directly into the Harbor Point pond. It is filtered only by the action of grasses over which it flows. There is no ex-filtration drainage system. The culvert which connects the Harbor Point pond with Lake Worth runs from the western lobe of the pond under Highway A-1-A into Lake Worth. Lake Worth is a Class III water body under the Department's rules. The Parties' Proposals 1. The Casetta Application Casetta is proposing to construct a high-rise condominium on the eastern portion of its property. There is insufficient land on the property as it is presently configured to accommodate needed parking spaces. Casetta proposes to fill in 1.8 acres, or approximately 60 percent of the Casetta pond in order to construct parking facilities. Casetta has proposed to construct a culvert system that would connect the remaining portion of the pond with Lake Worth. The remaining portion of the pond would be regraded and configured. The northern and western boundaries would remain basically in their present configuration The remainder of the pond would be completely modified. A meandering shoreline would be created for an "L"- shaped pond. The bottom would be recontoured so that broader, shallow areas along the shoreline would be created. With the culvert system installed, the reconfigured pond would receive tidal waters from Lake Worth. The pond would effectively become, as the entire area once was, a portion of the littoral zone of Lake Worth. With the meandering shoreline and a gradually sloping bottom, the reconfigured pond would have as much area for littoral zone vegetation to establish itself as the present pond. Casetta proposes to commence construction activities by filling in a portion of the pond and regrading the remainder. The pond would be drained so that the algae that presently exists in large quantities would die and be removed. Clear fill material would be used to grade the pond. An exfiltration system would be created so that runoff that would reach the pond from upland areas would be filtered before it could enter the pond, thus reducing the impact of pollutants from upland runoff. The proposed culvert system would be in three sections. There would be a 35-foot section leading from the pond and slanting gradually downward to a point approximately eight to nine feet under Highway A- 1-A. The second section would be 110 feet long, lying vertically under Highway A-1-A. The third section would be 95 feet long, gradually rising from the second section to the bottom of Lake Worth. The bottoms of the open ends of the culvert in the Casetta pond and in Lake Worth would be at the ordinary low-tide marks. The top would be below the ordinary high-tide marks. Thus, the culvert openings would be exposed at low tide and submerged at high tide. The portion of the culvert under A-1-A would be filled with water at all times. It is necessary to place the culvert at least eight feet under Highway A-1-A in order to avoid utility pipes and cables that lie under the highway. The portion of the pipe under A-1-A would be installed through a boring technique known as "jack and bore." This technique would obviate any need for the closing of traffic on Highway A-1-A. The portion of the culvert in the Casetta pond and in Lake Worth would be installed by digging trenches, laying the pipe, then filling the trenches. Two openings would be made in the pipe at either end of the deep sections. These would be "manhole-type openings that would allow for periodic maintenance. Installation of the portion of the pipe in Lake Worth would be accomplished by building a work platform into the lake from material that is dredged from the trench. Once the pipe is laid, the material from the work platform would be placed back on top of the culvert, and any extra material would be removed from the site. Turbidity screens would be used to surround the project to reduce the short-term impacts of turbidity caused by construction. Once the pond is reconfigured and the culvert is installed, tidal flows would be introduced to the reconfigured pond on a gradual basis in order to observe any problems that might result. Shoreline grasses such as cord grass would be introduced in the shallow areas, and mangroves removed during filling operations would be replanted along the shoreline. This would serve to stabilize the shoreline and to provide the beneficial effects of littoral zone vegetation, including wildlife habitat and water quality benefits. The reconfigured Casetta pond would be approximately 33,000 square feet in area. If the culvert system functions as proposed, the reconfigured pond would become a part of Lake Worth. There are environmental and ecological advantages and disadvantages to the proposal. The disadvantages are rather obvious. One and eight-tenths acres of wetland habitat would be eliminated. While the present Casetta pond is only a marginally valuable wetland, it is not without its beneficent effects as have been described above. Furthermore, during construction, the habitat values of the Casetta pond would be lost, and short-term deleterious water quality impacts would occur in Lake Worth. There are trade-offs. The proposed filling, regrading, and connecting of the ponds to Lake Worth could have substantial positive impacts. The most apparent of these is that Lake Worth would regain 33,000 square feet of littoral zone. Construction activities have removed as much as 75 percent of the Shoreline vegetation that once Surrounded Lake Worth. The littoral zone has been replaced with developments that in ecological terms have negative impacts. Reconnecting the ponds to Lake Worth would be a slight reversal of that trend. Habitat for marine species would be increased, and the "kidney effect" that shoreline vegetation provides would be reestablished. Except during construction, Casetta's proposal would have no adverse water quality impacts upon surrounding waters. Adverse impacts during construction would be minimized by protective techniques that Casetta has proposed, including the use of turbidity screens. Long-term water quality impacts of the proposed project would be positive. Water in the present Casetta pond is of poor quality. The pond does not presently serve any water quality function for Lake Worth, since it is not connected to Lake Worth. Connecting the reconfigured pond to Lake Worth would allow waters from the lake to be purified through nutrient uptake by littoral zone vegetation. In habitat terms, the filling would reduce the total area of wetland habitat. The quality of the habitat would, however, be vastly improved. Rather than an unnatural, stagnant pond which provides habitat for only a few varieties of very common freshwater minnows, a marine habitat would be provided for all manner of creatures that survive in the littoral zone of estuarine water bodies. Bird habitats would not be reduced, since the shoreline of the lake would not be lessened. Thus, while the Casetta proposal would reduce the total size of wetland habitat, it would vastly improve it and would not have a detrimental effect that would be contrary to the public interest. In order for the reconfigured Casetta pond to offer an improved wetland habitat and a positive water quality impact for Lake Worth, it is essential that the proposed culvert system functions so as to allow an unimpeded interchange of water between the reconfigured pond and Lake Worth. If the culvert system does not operate, the result of the proposed project would be merely to lessen wetland habitat. Rather than a three-acre unnatural wetland habitat, there would be a 1.2-acre unnatural wetland habitat. Such an adverse impact upon wildlife habitat would be clearly contrary to the public interest. Furthermore, limited exchange of water between a eutrophic pond and Lake Worth could have an adverse impact upon water quality in Lake Worth so as to result in violations of the Department's water quality standards along the border of Lake Worth. The evidence does not establish that the proposed culvert system will properly function. Casetta had proposed a 36-inch culvert. Robert Snyder, a consulting engineer, was retained to determine the flushing characteristics of the culvert. Snyder calculated that maximum velocities associated with mean or average tides through the culvert system would be 1.89 cubic feet per second. Snyder calculated that this exchange rate would be sufficient to flush sediment and debris that would collect in the culvert. Thus, the culvert would be self- cleaning with only limited maintenance required to keep it open. In calculating the exchange rate, Snyder utilized the wrong formula. He overestimated the exchange rate by a factor of two. If the rate estimated by Snyder is reduced by a factor of two, it is apparent, that the exchange rate would not be sufficient to flush the culvert. Sediment and debris would collect in the pond, and rather regular maintenance would be required. Mechanical means can be utilized to clean a clogged culvert. A culvert of the length and configuration proposed by Casetta is difficult to clean through mechanical processes, however, and the processes themselves increase turbidity in the area. The evidence does not establish that regular maintenance would be sufficient to keep the culvert free of sediment and debris so that there would be a free exchange of water between Lake Worth and the reconfigured pond. When engineer Snyder was made aware of his miscalculations, he proposed reducing the size of the culvert to 24 inches. He testified that this would adequately increase the exchange rate so that the culvert would be selfmaintaining. Snyder's testimony in this regard has not been deemed credible. Given the witness's use of an erroneous formula in calculating exchange rates and another error that he admitted making in calculating scour potential, the witness cannot be considered competent to give expert testimony in these areas. If the culvert system proposed by Casetta allowed for the free exchange of waters between Lake Worth and the reconfigured Casetta pond, the water quality and habitat impacts of the proposed Casetta project would be, on balance, positive. The evidence does not, however, establish that the culvert system would function. It appears likely that the culvert system as proposed would be frequently clogged with sediment and debris, thus preventing the exchange of waters between the reconfigured pond and Lake Worth. The result of the proposed project would therefore be a reduction of wildlife habitat with potentially adverse water quality impacts upon the waters of Lake Worth. 2. The Harbor Point Proposal Harbor Point has proposed to install a culvert system that would connect the Casetta pond in its present configuration with the Harbor Point pond. Since the Harbor Point pond is connected through a culvert system with Lake Worth, the Harbor Point proposal would result in opening the Casetta pond to tidal influences from Lake Worth. Harbor Point has presented no evidence as to construction techniques that would be utilized and has provided no assurance that the construction itself would not result in water quality violations in the Harbor Point pond and in Lake Worth. Opening the Casetta pond in its present configuration to tidal influences would have the positive impact of allowing an exchange of water from the Casetta pond. Water quality in the Casetta pond would inevitably be improved. Given the configuration of the bottom of the Casetta pond, with its deep troughs, a complete exchange of waters would not occur, and water quality in the Casetta pond would be likely to remain poor, albeit improved. The Harbor Point proposal would have short-term and long-term negative impacts upon water quality in the Harbor Point pond and in Lake Worth. Simply opening the Harbor Point pond and Lake Worth to exchange of poor-quality water with the Casetta pond would have a negative impact. As water quality in the Casetta pond improves, this impact will be lessened, but will remain. Furthermore, the proposed culvert would result in poorer flushing of the waters from the eastern extremity of the Harbor Point pond. This would occur as a result of increased water velocities in the western extremity. Water quality in the eastern extremity of the Harbor Point pond is already stressed, and reducing the flushing characteristics of the pond would be likely to result in violations of the Department's water quality standards in the eastern portion of the Harbor Point pond. While the Harbor Point proposal would have the ecologically positive impact of opening the Casetta pond to tidal flows, it would have the negative impacts of reducing water quality in the Harbor Point pond and potentially along the shoreline of Lake Worth. Water quality in the Casetta pond would thus be improved at the expense of water quality in the Harbor Point pond and in Lake Worth. Riparian Rights Harbor Point owns a narrow fringe of the northern border of the Casetta pond. The precise amount of the Casetta pond that is owned by Harbor Point cannot be determined from the evidence, but it is clear that Harbor Point owns some portion of the Casetta pond which may be at one point as much as six feet of the northern portion of the pond. The Casetta pond offers minimal amenity to Harbor Point. The pond is unsuitable for boating, bathing, swimming, or any commercial enterprise. The pond is largely blocked from view by Harbor Point residents by abundant mangrove and upland vegetation. Reconfiguration of the pond as proposed by Casetta would not change the northern boundary of the pond, and it would remain largely blocked from view by Harbor Point residents. To the extent that the Casetta pond provides a view for Harbor Point residents, it is only minimally attractive given the configuration of the pond and given the fact that a high-rise condominium has been constructed on property to the south of the pond. There is no evidence in the record from which it could be concluded that the value of Harbor Point property would be in any way reduced as a result of the projects proposed by Casetta.
