Findings Of Fact Richard K. Stander is the owner of Tom's Harbor Key located in the Florida Keys between Duck Key and Grassy Key. Petitioner seeks a permit to construct a private, non-income producing fishing camp for personal acquaintances and guests. The construction includes a wood dock 80 feet long by six feet wide with nine finger piers two feet wide and 15 feet long running from this dock to provide boat slips, and 1350 linear feet of elevated walkway six feet wide running from the dock area across the mangrove area to seven cottages to be constructed on the upland area of Tom's Harbor Key. Piling across the mangrove area will be implanted by hand auger or water-jetted in. If jetted, appropriate turbidity screens will be used. The pilings for the dock will be driven or implanted with a mechanical auger. The Department of Natural Resources reviewed the application and determined that since the proposed project is a private, non-income producing facility, a lease [from DNR] is not presently required. (Exhibit 3) The submerged lands where the dock and boat slips are to be constructed contain patchy turtle grass growth on an open sandy bottom. (Exhibit 4) Construction of the dock and finger pier boat slips as proposed will have no adverse impact on the flora or fauna in the area. The proposed walkway will cover approximately 2400 square feet (0.06A) of wetlands consisting primarily of red and black mangroves. Constructing this walkway over these wetlands will have no adverse effect on the plants other than the pruning which will be needed to keep the walkway clear. The proposed caretaker's house will be built over the wetlands area and it, like the walkway, will be elevated and will have no adverse effect on the plant or animal life. The cottages will be built on the upland area, and they, too, will be built on pilings with the bottom of the structures some ten feet above mean sea level. Petitioner proposes to use dry toilets in these cottages and remove all wastes to the mainland. Accordingly, no waste will be discharged into the waters adjacent to Tom's Harbor Key. Intervenor contends the proposed project is commercial in nature rather than private but presented no evidence to support this contention. Objections to Intervenor's attempts to infer error in the DNR determination made in Exhibit 3 were sustained as not relevant to the issue before this tribunal. Intervenor also inferred that the application was false because Petitioner stated in the application that the pilings would be implanted using a hand auger or water jet, while at the hearing it was learned the dock piling would be driven or implanted with a mechanical auger. This difference was satisfactorily explained by the testimony of the individual who prepared the application. Moreover, the harm to the environment by implanting the dock pilings by driving or mechanical auger would be less than if these pilings were jetted. It is Intervenor's position that because Petitioner erred in stating in the application how the pilings were to be implanted perhaps he erred in other parts of the application, and therefore the application should be returned to Petitioner for resubmission. Tom's Harbor Key is a pristine area accessible only by water. The wetlands adjacent to this site consist of flourishing mangrove forests, and the area is highly productive. Those opposing the permit applied for are residents of Duck Key, a larger key adjacent to Tom's Harbor which is accessible by land, and which, before its development and occupancy, was also a pristine wetland habitat. Although these witnesses opined that the proposed development would have an adverse impact on the marine habitat and on the birds at the site, no factual evidence to support those conclusions was presented.
The Issue The issue in these cases is whether the Department of Environmental Protection should grant an environmental resourced permit and a variance from the provisions of Rule 40C-4.032(c), Florida Administrative Code, for a project proposed by J.B.'s Fish Camp.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Respondent, J.B.'s Fish Camp (hereinafter referred to as "J.B.'s"), consists of a restaurant and aquaculture facility. J.B.'s is owned by John Bollman. J.B.'s is located on an unnamed branch of the Indian River (hereinafter referred to as "Indian River North "), near Bethune Beach, Volusia County, Florida. J.B.'s is located approximately eight miles south of Ponce de Leon Inlet, which provides access to the Atlantic Ocean. Respondent, the Department of Environmental Protection (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is an agency of the State of Florida. The Department is charged with the responsibility for, among other things, reviewing environmental resource permit applications for certain docks, applications for sovereign submerged lands leases, and variance applications for construction of structures which potentially may pollute waters designated as Aquatic Preserve. Petitioners, William and Jill Crouthers, reside at 6828 Engram Road, Bethune Beach, Florida. Their residence is approximately 300 feet south of J.B.'s. Mr. Crouthers operates a sailboat, and a motorized boat in Indian River North, adjacent to J.B.'s. Petitioner, Paul Tyre, resides at 6820 Engram Road, Bethune Beach, Florida. His residence is approximatley 250 feet south of J.B.'s. Mr. Tyre has often boated in Indian River North, adjacent to J.B.'s. J.B.'s Existing Facility. At the time of the formal hearing of these cases, J.B.'s operated a resturant on the shore of Indian River North. J.B.'s owns approximately 308 feet of shoreline. The waters in which J.B.'s docks are located have been approved by the Department for conditionaly restricted shellfish harvesting. The waters have been designated Class II waters, an Aquatic Preserve, and an Outstanding Florida Water. J.B.'s has two existing docks in Indian River North and connected to the shoreline of J.B.'s property. One dock is "L" shaped and is located adjacent to the restaurant (hereinafter referred to as the "Existing Restaurant Dock"). J.B.'s other dock is "T" shaped, and is located near a bait shop operated by J.B.'s south of the Existing Restaurant Dock (hereinafter referred to as the "Existing Bait-Shop Dock"). The Existing Restaurant Dock is used by patrons of the restaurant and by J.B.'s to unload shellfish which are raised and harvested by J.B.'s. Passengers are also loaded from the Existing Restaurant Dock on tour boats operated by J.B.'s. Boats are docked at both docks by partons of the restaurant. At times as many as 40 boats may be docked at J.B.'s. The Existing Restaurant Dock is only designed to reasonably dock less than 10 boats. More boats are docked at the Existing Restaurant Dock because they are "rafted". "Rafting" is the docking of a boat at a dock and then tying other boats to the side of the docked boat. Additional boats are then tied to the outside boat. Boats are also anchored on the bottom around the docks and the immediate area. The existing docks are in relatively shallow water. As a consequence, prop dredging takes place at low tide near the docks. J.B.'s Proposed Project. In June of 1989 J.B.'s filed an application with the Department seeking a permit which would allow it to replace the existing docks with a ten-slip dock to replace the Existing Restaurant Dock, a concrete boat-launching ramp adjacent to J.B.'s existing bait shop, and six-slip dock to replace the Existing Bait-Shop Dock. On or about September 16, 1996, J.B.'s requested a variance from the requirements of Rule 40C-4.302©, Florida Administrative Code. The proposed facilities were described in the application, in part, as follows: The proposed docking facility will consist of a primary dock 24-feet wide by 75-feet long attached to an existing concrete patio. An 8- foot wide walkway will extend from the north end of the main dock, extending 80-feet to the north. Three finger piers will be constructed perpendicular to and extending waterward from the walkway. One will be four feet wide, the other two will be 2'6" wide. They will extend waterward sixteen feet. . . . . . . . Another existing dock, in a "T" shape is located 35' north of the applicants' south property line. The existing dock extends waterward 73'6" and is 4' wide. The top of the "T" section is 46'6" by 4' wide. Four finger piers 2/6" wide by 16' long will be constructed waterward from this dock and one finger pier 2'6" wide by 10' long will be constructed parralell to the shore line. . . . J.B.'s represented in the application that the dock be constructed to replace the Existing Restaurant Dock (hereinafter referred to as the "Proposed Restaurant Dock"), would be used by boaters visiting the restaurant, and to unload shellfish. J.B.'s respresented in the application that the dock to replace the Existing Bait Shop Dock (hereinafter referred to as the "Proposed Bait Shop Dock"), would be used as rental spaces for six boats. Due to concerns raised by the Department about J.B.'s initially proposed project, J.B.'s modified its proposal: The width of the Proposed Restuarant Dock was reduced from 24 feet to 10 feet, except where the dock will intersect with an existing platform; The Proposed Restaurant Dock was moved further from shore and into deeper waters; The proposed boat ramp was eliminated completely; and The Proposed Bait-Shop Dock was eliminated and the Existing Bait-Shop Dock is to be completely removed. As finally approved by the Department, the project will consist of the following sixteen-slip Proposed Restaurant Dock (hereinafter referred to as the "Proposed Project"): A 10-foot long walkway running waterward of the existing concrete deck, will be built over the Existing Restaurant Dock; The walkway will connect with a 10-foot walkway running parallel to the shoreline for a distance of approximately 224 feet; Sixteen slips will extend waterward of the parallel walkway, for a total width of walkway and slips of 26 feet; Two slips will be roofed for use for J.B.'s commercial fishing activites. The roof will be peaked, rather than flat; and A railing of a minimum of 3-feet high will be constructed along the landward side of the Proposed Restaurant Dock in an effort to discourage boats from mooring in locations other than the 16 approved slips. A number of conditions on the issuance of the variance sought by J.B.'s have been imposed by the Department on the Proposed Project: This variance is validonly if a wetland resource management permit is issued for this project, and is subject to any and all conditions on the permit. The granting of this variance does not guarantee the issuance of the permit. This variance shall be valid through the life of the permit, if one is issued. Where necessary, proper turbidity controls shall be used to prevent violations of the State Water Quality Standard for turbidity. Further details of turbidity control may be specified in the permit, if one is issued. There shall be no more than sixteen boats moored at the structure. No overboard discharges of trash, human or animal waste, or fuel shall occur at the dock. Any non-water department structures, such as gazebos or fish cleaning stations, shall be located on the uplands. Further design details may be specified in the permit. Any proposed or anticipated boat shelter shall not have enclosed sides. The mooring area shall be located in waters sufficiently deep to prevent bottom scour by boat propellers. Any structures located over grassbeds shall be designed so as to allow for the maximum light penetration practicable. Further design details may be specified in the permit, if one is issued. The boat ramp shall be peermanently closed. Given good cause by either party, the District Director may alter the terms and conditions of the variance. The following conditions on the permit being sought by J.B.'s designed to protect manatee have been accepted by J.B.'s: The number of slips available for boat usuage be limited to 16. Rafting, anchoring or pulling boats ashore shall be prohibited; The existing boat ramp shall be closed; The standard manatee construction conditions are followed for all in water construction; Manatee caution signs and/or information displays are installed and maintained; Distribute copies of "Volusia County Manatee Protection Zones" booklets available free of charge from the Florida Inland Navigation District. J.B.'s also agreed to establish a conservation easement over an area of approximately 224-linear feet of shoreline (excluding an area dedicated as a public easement). The area of the conservation easement must be planted by J.B.'s with littoral vegetation. J.B.'s has agreed to plant mangroves. J.B.'s will use pilings for the Proposed Restaurant Dock of a type approved by the Department with regard to potential leaching of preservatives into the surrounding waters. J.B.'s Applications. On or about June 7, 1989 J.B.'s filed an application with the Department for what was then referred to as a "wetlands resource or dredge and fill permit". On or about September 16, 1996 J.B.'s applied for a variance from Rule 40C-4.302(1)(c), Florida Administrative Code. This Rule requires that a permit application be denied if a project will result in damage to areas in Class II Waters and areas approved for shellfish harvesting. In support of its Proposed Project, J.B.'s submitted the following: A hydrographic study prepared by a civil engineer. J.B.'s Exhibit 4; An Aquatic Preserve Report prepared by an environmental consultant. J.B.'s Exhibit 14; and A shoreline planting plan for mangroves prepared by the environemantl consultant that prepared the Aquatic Preserve Report. J.B.'s Exhibit 15. J.B.'s also applied for a submerged lands lease in conjunction with its permit application and request for variance. The evidence, however, proveed that the Department has not yet given notice of its intended action on the submerged lands lease. Whether the submerged lands lease should be granted is, therefore, not issue in this proceeding. The Department's Proposed Approval and the Challenges Thereto. The Department decided to enter a notice of intent to issue the permit and variance sought by J.B.'s. On January 6, 1997, notice of the Department's decision was published in a local newspaper. On or about January 17, 1997 Paul Tyre filed a letter challenging the Department's proposed decision. The letter was not filed within 14 days of the date notice of the Department's decision was published. Therefore, the Department dismissed Mr. Tyre's request for hearing. The Department subsequently discovered that the published notice indicated that challenges could be filed with 21 days of the date of publication. When the Department discovered this fact, it accepted Mr. Tyre's request for hearing. On or about Janaury 23, 1997 William and Jill Crouthers filed a Joint Petition challenging the Department's proposed decision. The Impact on Water Quality. There will be some turbidity during the construction of the Proposed Project. That turbidity will be temporary. Steps will be taken to minimize the amout of turbidity through the use of reasonably available turbidity controls. By moving the Proposed Restaurant Dock into deeper water than the water in which the Existing Restaurant Dock is located, turbidity caused by boats which frequent the dock will be reduced. This impact is a positive benefit which will be realized from the project over existing conditions. The evidence also proved that tidal flow in the area is sufficient to adequately disperse any pollutant discharges. There are impacts to the quality of water surrounding the existing facilities as a result of boats using the existing docks, fish cleaning on the docks, and the boat ramp. These impacts would continue regardless of whether the Proposed Project is approved. At issue, therefore, is whether the Proposed Project will worsen those impacts. The evidence proved that the Proposed Project will not result in a worsening of the impacts to water quality. In fact, the Proposed Project should lessen those impacts. The Proposed Project will reduce existing impacts to water quality by improving the depth at which boats will dock, the elimination of fish cleaning on the docks, the elimination of the Existing Bait Shop Dock, and the elimination of the existing boat ramp. Impacts to water quality may also be lessened if J.B.'s adheres to the conditions imposed by the Department on the docking of boats at the Proposed Restaurant Dock. J.B.'s has represented to the Department that the conditions designed to reduce the number of boats that can be moored at the Proposed Restaurant Dock are acceptable and will be adhered to. At the formal hearing, Mr. Bollman indicated some doubt about his ability to insure that conditions concerning the number of boats moored at the Proposed Restaurant Dock are always carried out. Whether Mr. Bollman believes that the conditions are capable of enforcement by J.B.'s, Mr. Bollman and J.B.'s have indicated agreement to the issuance of the permit with the conditions. Therefore, whether Mr. Bollman believes the conditons can be carried out, he is bound to carry them out. The evidence presented by Petitioners concerning the impact on water quality failed to address the impacts from the Proposed Project. Petitioners presented evidence of an anecdotal nature. That evidence related to the existing docks and not the Proposed Project. Petitioners also presented evidence in the form of documents which relate to the Indian River Lagoon generally. Those documents constituted hearsay and did not address impacts on water quality from J.B.'s Proposed Project. The weight of the evidence proved that the proposed facilities will not cause a violation of water quality standards. Impact on the Public Health, Safety and Welfare and the Property of Others. The evidence in this case proved that the Proposed Project will not adversely impact the public health, safety, and welfare. Considering the permit with the conditions imposed, the impact on the public health, safety and welfare of the area should be slightly improved over existing conditions. Petitioners suggested that the Proposed Restaurant Dock will cause an increase in the number of boats that frequent J.B.'s. This suggestion is based upon the size of the new dock and their assumption that the conditions of the permit concerning the limitation on the number of slips and the manner in which boats may be moored will not be enforced. That is an assumption that cannot be made for purposes of this review. Reviewing the permit with its conditions, the number of boats that moor at the Proposed Restaurant Dock should be reduced. J.B.'s has agreed to be bound by the conditions. That is all that is required for purposes of this review. Failure to adhere to the conditions, if that occurs, is an enforcement issue. The evidence proved that the Proposed Project should not have an adverse impact on the property of others. Impact on Conservation of Fish and Wildlife, Including Threatened or Endangered Species, of Their Habitat. The depth of water in the area of the Proposed Restaurant Dock is approximately three feet. There is no vegetation at the footprint of the dock. Benthic organisms are present in the footprint area, but their numbers and diversity should not be adversely affected by construction, and operation of the dock. Due to the lack of vegetation in the area, fish and other wildlife are not attracted to the area around the Proposed Restaurant Dock. The shoreline area of J.B.'s is also devoid of significant emergent vegetation. The Proposed Project should not disturb grasses or vegetation that do exist. There are mangroves located at the north end of J.B.'s They will not be impacted by the construction or operation of the dock. The parties stipulated that at least 16 manatee utilize Indian River North. They travel to and from foraging, mating and resting areas in Indian River Lagoon. The evidence failed to prove that the Proposed Project will increase any negative impacts to manatee in the area. The evidence failed to prove that the area of the Proposed Restaurant Dock constitutes a feeding, mating or resting area for manatee. Although little specific evidence concerning manatee was presented, it appears that the most serious danger to the manatee are associated with boats striking manatee. The evidence failed to prove the extent, if any, to which manatee mortality or injury is associated with boats utilizing the docks at J.B.'s. The evidence also failed to prove that the Proposed Project will increase any such negative impact that may already be taking place. The conditions imposed on J.B.'s concerning the protection of manatee may lessen any current impact on manatee from boats utilizing J.B.'s. These conditions provide greater protection than currently exists. The evidence presented by Petitioners concerning the impact on fish and wildlife, including threatened and endangered species, or their habitat, failed to address impacts from the Proposed Project. Petitioners presented evidence of an anecdotal nature. That evidence related to the existing docks and not the Proposed Project. Petitioners also presented evidence in the form of documents which relate the Indian River Lagoon generally. Those documents constituted hearsay and did not address impacts from J.B.'s Proposed Project. The evidence proved that the impact on fish and wildlife, including threatened or endangered species, or their habitat, will be minimal. Impact on Navigation, the Flow of Water, Erosion and Shoaling. Water depths in the area of J.B.'s increase gradually away from the shoreline to approximately five feet. There is no central, dredged channel in Indian River North. The distance between the most waterward edge of the Proposed Restaurant Dock and the opposite shoreline is approximately 250 feet. The Proposed Project will extend over approximately 18 percent of the total width of Indian River North at J.B.'s. The navigable channel of Indian River North is located to the east of the center of the water body adjacent to J.B.'s. It is slightly closer to J.B.'s than it is to the opposite shore. There is sufficient water depth and area between the most waterward side of the Proposed Restaurant Dock and the opposite shore for the passage of manatee and boats. If the conditions of the permit relating to the number of boats that may dock at the Proposed Restaurant Dock are adhered to, the proposed facility should slightly improve navigation because of the elimination of rafting of boats. Currently, shoreline erosion in the area of J.B.'s is caused from landward activities and not boat wakes. The evidence failed to prove that the amount of erosion that does occur from boat wakes will be any greater as a result of the Proposed Project. The conservation easement and the shoreline plantings agreed to as a condition of the Department's approval of the proposed facility will add protection to the shoreline at J.B.'s, and should reduce erosion. The permit condition prohibiting boats from mooring outside of designated moorings should reduce prop scouring near shore. Moving the Proposed Restaurant Dock further from shore should also reduce prop scouring. These conditions will result in a positive benefit over current conditions. The evidence presented by Petitioners concerning the impact on navigation, the flow of water, erosion and shoaling failed to prove that there will be negative impacts from the Proposed Project. Petitioners presented evidence of an anedotal nature. That evidence related to the existing docks and not the Proposed Project. The evidence proved that there will be no negative impacts to navigation, or the flow of water as a result of the Proposed Project. The evidence also proved that the Proposed Project will not cause erosion or shoaling. Impact on Fishing, Recreational Values, and Marine Productivity in the Vicitnity of the Project. The Proposed Project will result in a slight increase in recreational values in the vicinity of J.B.'s. The evidence failed to prove that the Proposed Project will have an adverse impact on fishing or marine productivity in the vicinity of J.B.'s. Temporary or Permanent. The Proposed Project will be permantent in nature. Impact on Historical and Archaeological Resources. The Proposed Project will have no impact on historical or arcyhaeological resources. Impact on the Current Condition and Relative Value of Functions Being Performed by Areas Affected by the Proposed Activity. The evidence proved that the Proposed Project will not adversely affect current conditions, or the relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the Proposed Project. Because of shoreline plantings, the conservation easement and the increased depth of water where boats will be docked, the areas affected by the docks at J.B's will be slightly improved.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department of Environmental Protection granting the permit and variance sought by J.B's Fish Camp with the conditions agreed to by J.B.'s Fish Camp, and dismissing the petitions filed by William and Jill Crouthers and Paul Tyre in these cases. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert J. Shields, Qualified Representative 6863 Engram Road New Smyrna, Florida 32169 Paul Tyre 6820 Engram Road New Smyrna Beach, Florida 32169 Thomas I. Mayton, Jr., Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Mary D. Hansen, Esquire STORCH, HANSEN and MORRIS, P.A. 1620 South Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 300 Daytona Beach, Florida 32119
Findings Of Fact Sea Isles Condominium Association (Petitioner) is the riparian owner of lands at 25714 Hickory Boulevard, Bonita Springs, Florida 33923. The Petitioner's lands lie along the Broadway Channel connecting the Gulf of Mexico to Estero Bay. There are 84 upland units in the condominium. Some condominium residents without docking slips have requested that the Petitioner apply for expansion of the existing facility. The waters adjacent to Petitioner's upland property are located within the Estero Bay Aquatic Preserve (pursuant to Section 258.39(28), Florida Statutes) and are designated as Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW) by the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER). At some point in approximately 1982, the condominium developer sought approval for the construction of docking facilities. By letter of January 25, 1982, Richard P. Ludington, then Director of the Division of State Lands of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), indicated that there was no objection to the proposed dock project. The parties to this case have jointly stipulated that the Ludington opinion was based on the fact that the proposed project was a private non-income producing facility (a lease therefore not being required) and was not in conflict with any existing rules. The DER issued permit number 36-42521-5E, dated February 9, 1982, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued general permit number SAJ-33, both approving and authorizing the construction of the docking facility. Although the water body had been designated as an aquatic preserve, there were no adopted administrative rules regulating such projects at the time of the initial dock construction. The approved sixteen slip docking facility was constructed along the margin of the shoreline in 1983 by the developer of the condominium. Due to extremely shallow water depths, only two of the slips were accessible. At some point thereafter, the Petitioner began efforts to remedy the unusable slip situation. Initially, the Petitioner desired to dredge the area, but was unable to secure approval to dredge from regulatory agencies. The Petitioner then began to consider additional solutions. The solution upon which the Petitioner decided was removal of the existing slips and construction of an extended boardwalk and dock located in navigable water. On March 28, 1985, the DNR notified the Petitioner that the project would require approval in the form of a submerged land lease from the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund ("Board"). On August 20, 1985, the DER issued permit number 361011295, authorizing the removal of the existing structure and the construction of a 22 slip docking facility as proposed by the Petitioner. On behalf of the Board, the DNR reviews applications for leases of sovereignty submerged lands. In reviewing such requests, the DNR calculates the maximum amount of sovereignty submerged lands which may be preempted by a proposed facility. According to administrative rule, the area of sovereignty submerged land preempted by a private residential multi-slip docking facility may not exceed the total square footage equal to ten times the riparian waterfront footage of the affected waterbody. DNR's calculation of the affected shoreline indicated that the Petitioner's riparian waterfront measured 433 feet. Application of the 10:1 ratio would indicate that the area of sovereignty submerged land preempted by the proposed multi-slip docking facility could not exceed 4330 square feet. As early as 1986, a surveyor employed by the Petitioner believed the DNR shoreline calculation to be erroneous and determined the Petitioner's riparian shoreline to be 601 feet. After discussing the discrepancy between measurements, the DNR representative informed a representative of the Petitioner that Sea Isles could obtain a mean high waterline survey to determine the actual shoreline footage if it disagreed with the DNR calculation. Although there is testimony that a survey provided to the DNR established the mean high waterline, the greater weight of the evidence establishes that the survey was not identified as a mean high waterline survey, but as a safe upland line survey. No credible mean high waterline survey was provided to the DNR by the Petitioner at that time. Abutting the Petitioner's property to the south is a man-made channel which results in an unnatural extension of the shoreline. Such extensions are not included in computing the allowable square footage of sovereign submerged lands because the man-made shoreline does not abut sovereign submerged lands. It is unclear whether the calculations of shoreline were affected by this consideration. Despite the discrepancy, the Petitioner reduced the size of the requested docking facility to include a boardwalk and dock of ten slips totalling approximately 4300 square feet and extending 208 feet into the waterbody (approximately 35 percent of the waterbody's width). The length of the extension violates administrative rule provisions governing extension into a waterbody which are addressed elsewhere herein. On July 23, 1986, Lee County passed a resolution of approval for the proposed docking facility land lease and granted a variance to Lee County Ordinance 85-25. The resolution of approval contained additional requirements, included a provision restricting the approval to not more than ten slips. The Petitioner asserts that the determination of shoreline was incorrect and was the result of "mutual mistake". The evidence fails to establish that the Petitioner's acceptance of the DNR's shoreline determination was based upon "mutual mistake." The evidence establishes that the Petitioner's representatives were aware of the discrepancy. The fact that the Petitioner agreed to deed a 575 foot conservation easement to the Board (to offset the potential adverse impact on manatee habitat as discussed elsewhere herein) would suggest that the parties were aware that the 433 foot measurement was inaccurate. For whatever reason, the Petitioner agreed to the DNR shoreline and dock calculation which formed the basis for the lease approved by the Board. Prior to approval of the lease, the Board reviewed a written "public interest" assessment which indicates that the length of the boardwalk to the proposed docking facility exceeded standards set by administrative rules. Pursuant to rule, exceptions to length restrictions may be made only where the applicant demonstrates that such exception is necessary to insure reasonable riparian ingress and egress. The Petitioner apparently demonstrated that, given the location of the existing sand flat, such exception was necessary to provide ingress and egress. According to the written analysis, the proposed project adversely impacted the manatee habitat located in the aquatic preserve. The analysis states that 575 foot conservation easement to the Board would offset the potential adverse impact on manatee habitat. The Petitioner committed to the conservation easement in order to meet the public interest test required of all docking facilities within an aquatic preserve. Special lease condition paragraph 5 requires the Petitioner to record a conservation easement for approximately 575 linear feet of shoreline in perpetuity to run with the land. The provision requires that documentation of the recording of the easement be provided to the Board within thirty days of the Board action and prior to execution of the lease. The lease conditions clearly indicate that the Petitioner will not seek authority to expand the docking facility. Special lease condition paragraph 5 prohibits any additional docking facilities or any other such development along the lessee's shoreline. Review of proposed special lease condition paragraph 6 (as compared to the staff recommendation and a subsequent affidavit executed by the Petitioner's representative on June 6, 1987) indicates that the paragraph appears to contain a typographical error in deleting the word "not" from the condition. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that the Petitioner agreed not to request authorization to dredge the docking area or channel or to request additional expansion of the facility. On April 21, 1987, the Board, apparently acting against the staff recommendation, voted to grant to the Petitioner a submerged land lease for the construction of a ten slip facility. Representatives of the Petitioner appeared before the Board during consideration and approval of the lease. On June 6, 1987, a representative of the Petitioner executed an affidavit on behalf of the Petitioner which sets forth the language of special condition paragraph six as originally proposed. In the affidavit, the Petitioner's representative agrees not to apply for authorization to dredge the dock or access channel, or to request expansion of the facility. A deed of conservation easement dated October 21, 1985, and signed by a representative of the Petitioner, was attached to the materials submitted to the Board for the April 21, 1987 meeting. Contrary to the lease requirement, the attached deed of conservation easement was never recorded. In 1986 or 1987, a conservation easement was recorded by the Petitioner in favor of the Board, but the easement contained no legal description of the subject property. However, the recorded easement does prohibit additional docking facilities and waives the Petitioner's rights of ingress or egress related to any such additional facilities. In early 1991, the Petitioner requested approval to expand the existing dock from 10 to 14 slip. The expanded structure would preempt 5620 square feet of sovereign submerged land. On May 15, 1991, the DER granted approval of the four slip expansion. On November 27, 1991, the DNR, by letter signed by Michael E. Ashley, Chief of the Bureau of Submerged Lands and Preserves, denied the requested four slip expansion. The letter was prepared at the direction and with the approval of the Director of the Division of State Lands. Mr. Ashley cites two reasons for the denial. First, the request violated the terms of the existing lease which provides that there will be no expansion requested. Second, the Petitioner had failed to record the 575 foot conservation easement which was required by the terms of the original lease. The request for extension was not presented to the Governor and Cabinet for consideration, but was reviewed by the "agenda review committee" of the DNR. The committee includes the Deputy Director, two Deputy Assistant Executive Directors, the General Counsel, and the Cabinet Coordinator for the DNR. The committee reviews matters which are identified as potentially requiring Board action to resolve. Where issues exist related to existing sovereignty submerged land leases, the DNR attempts to resolve the matter without referral to the Board. The authority to conduct business in this manner has not been reduced to writing, but is based on verbal direction from the Board and from Cabinet assistants. Subsequent to the letter of denial issued by Mr. Ashley, the Petitioner on or about December 30, 1991, filed a conservation easement granting to the Board, a perpetual interest in a parcel of land lying ten feet landward of the Safe Upland Line as described in the deed recorded in the records of Lee County, Florida, (OR 2268, Page 0401) with the Clerk of Court for Lee County. The parcel of land identified in the deed runs along the shoreline for a distance of 601 feet. The easement provides for modification by the signed agreement of the parties. Because the Petitioner seeks to expand an existing lease, it is required to demonstrate an additional public benefit would result from approval of the request. The Petitioner has proposed to plant an area of mangroves in the shallow "sand bar" area located behind the existing slips. There is no additional public benefit related to the request. The evidence fails to establish that granting the request to expand the docking facility is in the public interest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund enter a Final Order denying the request of Sea Isles Condominium Association to modify the existing sovereignty submerged land lease to provide for four additional boat slips to their existing ten slip docking facility. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 15th day of April, 1993 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of April, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-1077 The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 17. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. 19. Rejected as to comments by Miller, irrelevant. 20-21. Rejected, irrelevant. Rejected as to 6,010 square feet of permissible preemption. Based upon shoreline calculation which is not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. Rejected, irrelevant. The manatee information was required under the conditions of the existing lease, and do not constitute a benefit to be considered in addressing the request to modify the lease. Respondent The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 16. Rejected, unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: The Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund c/o Kenneth Plante, General Counsel Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station #10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000 Robert Routa, Esquire Post Office Drawer 6506 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6506 L. Kathryn Funchess, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station #35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at the evidentiary hearing on the Department's Motion, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: In October of 1995, Petitioners, who desired to construct a single-family, concrete dock in the Hillsboro Canal (in Broward County, Florida) for their 171-foot yacht and to perform dredging adjacent to the dock (Project), filed with the Department a Joint Application for Environmental Resource Permit/Authorization to Use State Owned Submerged Lands/Federal Dredge and Fill Permit (Application). In the Application, Petitioners indicated that their mailing address was: c/o Flynn Enterprises 676 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 4000 Chicago, IL 60611 Flynn Enterprises, Inc., is a business owned by Petitioner Donald Flynn. The Application listed "Jeff Adair, Project Manager" of "Keith and Schnars, P.A., 6500 N. Andrews Avenue, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309," as the "agent authorized to secure permit" for Petitioners. The application form that Petitioners used to submit their Application contained the following signature page: By signing this application form, I am applying, or I am applying on behalf of the applicant, for the permit and any proprietary authorizations identified above, according to the supporting data and other incidental information filed with this application. I am familiar with the information contained in this application and represent that such information is true, complete and accurate. I understand this is an application and not a permit, and that work prior to approval is a violation. I understand that this application and any permit issued or proprietary authorization issued pursuant thereto, does not relieve me of any obligation for obtaining any other required federal, state, water management district or local permit prior to commencement of construction. I agree, or I agree on behalf of my corporation, to operate and maintain the permitted system unless the permitting agency authorizes transfer of the permit to a responsible operation entity. I understand that knowingly making any false statement or representation in this application is a violation of Section 373.430, F.S. and 18 U.S.C. Section 1001. Typed/Printed Name of Applicant (if no Agent is used) or Agent (if one is so authorized below) Signature of Applicant/Agent Date (Corporate Title if applicable) AN AGENT MAY SIGN ABOVE ONLY IF THE APPLICANT COMPLETES THE FOLLOWING: I hereby designate and authorize the agent listed above to act on my behalf, or on behalf of my corporation, as the agent in the processing of this application for the permit and/or proprietary authorization indicated above; and to furnish, on request, supple- mental information in support of the appli- cation. In addition, I authorize the above- listed agent to bind me, or my corporation, to perform any requirement which may be necessary to procure the permit or authorization indicated above. I understand that knowingly making any false statement or representation in this application is a violation of Section 373.430. F.S. and 18 U.S.C. Section 1001. Typed/Printed Name of Applicant Signature of Applicant Date (Corporate Title if applicable) Please note: The applicant's original signature (not a copy) is required above. PERSON AUTHORIZING ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY MUST COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING: I either own the property described in this application or I have legal authority to allow access to the property, and I consent, after receiving prior notification, to any site visit on the property by agents or personnel from the Department of Environ- mental Protection, the Water Management District and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers necessary for the review and inspection of the proposed project specified in this application. I authorize these agents or personnel to enter the property as many times as may be necessary to make such review and inspection. Further , I agree to provide entry to the project site for such agents or personnel to monitor permitted work if a permit is granted. Typed/Printed Name Signature Date (Corporate Title if applicable) The name "Jeff Adair" appears on the "Name of Applicant (if no Agent is used) or Agent (if one is so authorized below)" line under the first paragraph on the signature page of Petitioners' Application; however, neither Adair's signature, nor any other signature, appears on the signature line under this paragraph. Petitioner Donald Flynn's signature appears on the signature lines under the second (agent designation and authorization) and third (access to property) paragraphs on the page. By letter dated November 17, 1995, the Department informed Petitioners of the following: Preliminary evaluation of your project leads staff to the conclusion that the project as proposed cannot be recommended for approval. While this is not final agency action or notice of intent, it does represent the staff review of your application based on consider- able experience in permitting matters. We are sending you this letter at this stage of the processing to allow you to assess fully the further commitment of financial resources for design dependent on permit issuance. . . . In summary, please revise plans to: (1) reduce the amount of dredging; (2) reduce impacts to natural resources; (3) reduce the size of the dock; (4) reduce encroachment on navigational channel; (5) reduce encroachment on adjacent properties; and (6) after minimization, offer mitigation plans that would address the loss of seagrass in the vicinity (watershed or basin) of the project site. Your application is currently "incomplete" and Final Agency Action will not occur until a reasonable amount of time is allowed for the submittal of a revised plan. A completeness summary has been sent under separate cover, addressing the items that are still outstanding. Staff will continue to process your application in the normal manner; however, I suggest you contact Tim Rach of this office . . . to discuss these possible alternatives regarding your project. The Department's November 17, 1995, letter was addressed to Petitioners "c/o Jeff Adair, Project Manager, Keith and Schnars, P.A., 6500 North Andrews Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309-2132," as were subsequent requests for additional information made by the Department and other correspondence from the Department concerning the Project. Adair responded to the Department's requests for additional information and otherwise corresponded and communicated with the Department on behalf of Petitioners. In July of 1996, Adair participated in a telephone conference call during which the Department advised him that, if the Application was not withdrawn, it would be denied. On August 13, 1996, Adair sent the following letter to the Department concerning the Project: Pursuant to our recent discussions pertaining to the proposed mitigation plan and final review and processing of the Flynn Dock application, we have been advised via Mr. Flynn's attorney not to withdraw the application. Therefore, we await the Department's final decision relative to the permittability of this project. As you have indicated, we are anticipating the Depart- ment's response toward the end of this month. In making your decision, we strongly urge you to consider the merits or our innovative and "no risk" mitigation plan. We believe our mitigation plan more than compensates for proposed impacts and provides substantial net benefits to the environment and the research community. In particular, information obtained from our proposed research effort would not only benefit our project, but would also facilitate scientific analysis and review of similar applications and issues. As always, please do not hesitate to call should you have any questions or concerns. On August 19, 1996, the Department sent the following letter to Petitioners "c/o Flynn Enterprises, 676 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 4000, Chicago, IL 60611," the address that Petitioners had indicated in the Application was their mailing address: We have reviewed the information received on May 31, 1996 for an Environmental Resource Permit and authorization to use sovereign submerged lands. The Department has deemed the application complete as of this date. Final action on your application for an Environmental Resource Permit and sovereign[] submerged lands authorization will be taken within 90 days of receipt of your last item of information unless you choose to waive this timeclock. If you have any questions, please contact me at . . . . A copy of this August 19, 1996, letter was sent by the Department to Adair. On August 27, 1996, the Department issued a Consolidated Notice of Denial (Notice) in which it announced its preliminary decision to deny Petitioners' Application. The Notice contained the following advisement: A person whose substantial interests are affected by the Department's action may petition for an administrative proceeding (Hearing) in accordance with Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. Petitions filed by the permittee and the parties listed below must be filed within 14 days of receipt of this letter. Third party Petitioners shall mail a copy of the petition to the permittee at the address indicated above at the time of filing. Failure to file a petition within this time period shall constitute a waiver of any right such person may have to request an administrative determination (hearing) under Section 120.57, F.S. The Petition must contain the information set forth below and must be filed (received) in the Office of General Counsel of the Department at 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000: The name, address, and telephone number of each petitioner, the permittee's name and address, the Department Permit File Number and county in which the project is proposed; A statement of how and when each petitioner received notice of the Depart- ment's action or proposed action; A statement of how each petitioner's substantial interests are affected by the Department's action or proposed action; A statement of the material facts disputed by petitioner, if any; A statement of facts which petitioner contends warrant reversal or modification of the Department's action or proposed action; A statement of which rules or statutes petitioner contends warrant reversal or modification of the Department's action or proposed action; and A statement of the relief sought by petitioner, stating precisely the action petitioner wants the Department to take with respect to the Department's action or proposed action. If a petition is filed, the administrative hearing process will constitute a renewed determination of the Department's decision on the application. Accordingly, the Department's final action may be different from the position taken by it in this letter. Persons whose substantial interests will be affected by any decision of the Department with regard to the permit have the right to petition to become a party to the proceeding. The petition must conform to the requirements specified above and be filed (received) within 14 days of receipt of this notice in the Office of General Counsel at the above address of the Department. Failure to petition within the allowed time frame constitutes a waiver of any right such person has to request a hearing under Section 120.57, F.S., and to participate as a party to this proceeding. Any subsequent intervention will only be at the approval of the presiding officer upon motion filed pursuant to Rule 28-5.207, and 60Q-2.010, F.A.C. This Notice constitutes final agency action unless a petition is filed in accordance with the above paragraphs or unless a request for extension of time in which to file a petition is filed within the time specified for filing a petition and conforms to Rule 62-103.070, F.A.C. Upon timely filing of a petition or a request for an extension of time this Notice will not be effective until further Order of the Department. . . . The Notice was mailed (by certified mail, return receipt requested) to Petitioners "c/o Flynn Enterprises, 676 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 4000, Chicago, IL 60611." Although the Notice's certificate of service reflected that a copy of the Notice had been mailed to Adair "before the close of business on AUG 27 1996," in fact, as a result of inadvertence on the part of Department staff, a copy of the Notice had not been mailed to Adair. On September 3, 1996, the Notice sent to Petitioners was received by a Flynn Enterprises, Inc., employee at the address to which it was mailed. The employee executed a return receipt upon receiving the Notice. The Notice was referred to Victor Casini, Esquire, the general counsel of Flynn Enterprises, Inc., on September 4, 1996. Casini set the document aside for filing. He did not believe that there was any immediate action that he or anyone else in the Flynn Enterprises, Inc., office in Chicago needed to take in response to the Notice. Casini noted that Adair's name was listed in the Notice as among those who purportedly had been furnished copies of the Notice. He knew that Adair was handling all matters relating to the permitting of the Project for Petitioners. He therefore assumed that any action that needed to be taken in response to the Notice would be taken by Adair on behalf of Petitioners. Inasmuch as it appeared (from his review of the Notice) that the Department had already furnished Adair with a copy of the Notice, he saw no reason to contact Adair to apprise him of the issuance of the Notice. In taking no action in response to the Notice other than setting it aside for filing, Casini acted reasonably under the circumstances. Adair first learned of the issuance of the Notice during a telephone conversation he had on September 9, 1996, with an employee of Broward County, who mentioned to him, in passing, that the Department had denied Petitioners' Application. 2/ Adair thereupon immediately telephoned the Department to confirm that the Application had been denied. The Department representative to whom he spoke confirmed that the Notice had issued, apologized for the Department's failure to have sent him a copy of the Notice, and promised to rectify the error by sending him a copy of the Notice as soon as possible. Keith Skibicki, the vice president of Flynn Enterprises, Inc., in charge of its day-to-day operations, served as the liaison between Adair and Petitioners. On September 12, 1996, Adair telephoned Skibicki to inquire (for the first time) if Petitioners had received a copy of the Notice. Skibicki, who previously had neither seen nor heard about the Notice, asked around the office and learned that the Notice had been received and was in Casini's files. Skibicki related this information to Adair. Later that same day, September 12, 1996, Adair received the copy of the Notice that the Department had sent him. He then faxed a copy of the Notice to Harry Stewart, Esquire, the Florida attorney who had been retained by Petitioners to assist them in their efforts to obtain favorable action on their Application. Shortly thereafter Adair telephoned Stewart to discuss what they should do in response to the Notice. During their conversation, Stewart expressed the opinion that the 14-day period for filing a petition for an administrative proceeding began to run only upon Adair's receipt of the Notice and that therefore Petitioners had until September 26, 1996, to file their petition. During the two-week period that followed their telephone conversation, Adair and Stewart worked together to prepare such a petition. The petition was filed with the Department on September 26, 1996 (which was 23 days after the Notice had been delivered to the Chicago office of Flynn Enterprises, Inc., but only 14 days after Adair, Petitioners' designated agent in their dealings with the Department, had received a copy of the Notice). The actions taken on behalf of Petitioners in response to the Notice were intended to preserve Petitioners' right to challenge the proposed denial of their Application. At no time was there any knowing and intentional relinquishment of that right.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter an order finding that Petitioners' petition challenging the proposed denial of their Application is not time-barred and remanding the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings for a Section 120.57(1) hearing on the merits of Petitioners' challenge. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 6th day of February, 1997. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of February, 1997.
Findings Of Fact On October 25, 1990, Respondent Eckert applied to Respondent DER for a permit seeking authorization to construct a 280-foot single-family recreational dock at 5766 Red Cedar Street in Pensacola, Escambia County, Florida. The dock would extend waterward from that address and lot into Russell Bayou in Escambia County, Florida, a class III water of the State. When objections were filed to the original application for the 280-foot dock, Respondent Eckert amended his permit application and now requests a permit to build a 265-foot dock, meaning that the dock would extend 265 feet waterward from the mean high water line and, therefore, the boundary of the Respondent/applicant's property. The Petitioners are all adjacent or nearby land owners who object to the project, pursuant to Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1990), asserting that the project is contrary to the public interest in terms of recreational values or navigation. Russell Cove is a relatively-shallow body of water enclosed on three sides, with access to open water on its western end. Its depth fluctuates somewhat. It is tidally influenced, including lunar tides, which cause shallower-than-normal low water. The bottom of the cove is sandy with areas of rolling contours and shifting sandbars. The deepest points in the vicinity of the proposed dock vary between four and five and one-half feet. A 300-foot dock exists on the outward or westward end of Russell Cove. The channel widens to such an extent by the time it reaches the vicinity of that dock, however, that a 300-foot dock poses no navigational problem to boats using the interior of the cove. The applicant contends that the Petitioners who live eastward and "up the cove" from him have plenty of room to navigate past his proposed dock because, as his chart indicates, an apparently wide channel of slightly deeper water traverses the cove, waterward of all the docks in the cove, including that which he proposes to construct, with sufficient width beyond the end of his proposed dock to allow any boats which typically use the cove to navigate by it safely. The Petitioners who live on the interior of the cove, eastward of his proposed dock, and who would have to navigate by it, contend, however, that the safest route for them to navigate is immediately in front of or intersecting the tip of the location of the proposed dock. Ms. Bass testified for Petitioner Wittig. Her boat is equipped with a depth finder, and over the years of navigating in and out of the cove, she has learned that the supposedly wide channel referenced by the applicant is not actually a uniform wide, deep channel. Rather, there are sandbars occurring at various intervals, which sometimes shift in location, which point into the channel from the more southerly part of it, thus constricting it so that the safest passage is really a much narrower route closer to the ends of the docks and the proposed dock jutting into the channel. The safest passage is a slender route directly intersecting the tip of the location of the proposed dock. Ms. Bass established that there is already a narrow margin of maneuverability in the cove due to the intermittently shallow water, and, in stormy or foggy weather, the extra length of the dock might be unsafe. Petitioner Ericson has a non- motorized sailboat which must tack back and forth to enter or leave the cove when sailing into the wind. Thus, he needs a wide area to navigate in or out of the cove under certain prevailing wind conditions. Although DER's expert witness, Mr. Harp, supported the relative depth measurements established by the applicant (adjusted for seasonal tidal variations), he conceded that he had not measured an east/west line in the sandbar area described by Ms. Bass on the southerly side of the channel and jutting into the channel. Rather, he measured a north/south line and an east/west line in the route which Ms. Bass indicated she uses close to the docks and the proposed dock but not an east/west line in the sandbar area. He further conceded that the bottom was uneven or rolling in some areas. The applicant desires the extra dock length, compared to the 210-foot length of the Jones and Johnson piers on either side of him, so that he will be able to cast into slightly deeper water for fishing purposes. However, the depth prevailing at the 210-foot mark waterward from the shoreline is four feet, and the depth at the end of the proposed dock would only be approximately two inches deeper, 55 feet waterward of the other docks. Even out at the 300-foot waterward mark from shoreline, the water would be less than six inches deeper than it is at the 210-foot mark. Consequently, it was not shown how the applicant would gain any particular fishing advantage, in terms of deeper water, by locating the end of his dock some 55 feet waterward of the adjacent docks. Mr. Harp of DER visited the site to determine the water depths referenced above and to determine whether the dock would comply with Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and the various pertinent rules concerning water quality contained in Chapter 17, Florida Administrative Code. Mr. Harp made a biological appraisal of the site to determine the location and density of seagrass beds and to determine whether the project would adversely affect water quality in Russell Bayou. Seagrasses exist at the site only between approximately 130 and 150 feet waterward of the mean high water mark. The remaining bottom substrate waterward of that point to, including, and beyond the end of the proposed dock is simply bare sand. The dock is narrow enough not to damage seagrasses by shading. Based upon Mr. Harp's uncontroverted expert testimony, it is found that the project will not result in a violation of class III water quality standards and, indeed, no Petitioner disputes that fact. Except indirectly, through navigational impact, the proposed dock does not pose a significant adverse affect on public health, safety, welfare or the property of others. It was not shown that the dock would adversely affect the conservation of fish or wildlife and, indeed, those elements of the "public interest criteria" are undisputed. The proposed dock is considered permanent in nature and will have no significant historical or archeological resource impact. It will not cause a significant adverse effect on fishing values aside from the incidental effect its navigational impact might have on those values. The proposed dock will have some impact on navigation. As shown by Respondent's Exhibit 3, the dock will extend approximately 55 feet more waterward than the existing 210-foot Johnson pier. Although a channel width of four times a boat's length is an adequate margin of safety for an average boat sailed in a competent manner, the fact that the proposed dock would extend 55 feet beyond the extent of the adjacent Johnson dock and the fact, established by Ms. Bass, that there are intermittent shallow sandbar areas which further narrow the channel from the southerly margin of it, reveal that the safe navigational channel is much narrower at the location of the end of the proposed dock, than in other nearby areas. The proposed dock would intersect this narrow "safe channel" at its most constricted point or "pinched area". For this reason, the proposed dock with its length constitutes an impediment to navigation to both the power boat and sailboat navigation described by the Petitioners' witnesses. The pier existing at the westward opening of the cove, although it is 300 feet in length, does not impose an impediment to navigation because the channel is much wider at that point than at the constricted point where the applicant's proposed 265-foot dock would intersect it. The dock would also pose some detrimental effect on the recreational values of the project site to the Petitioners in terms of their passive recreational interest in an unobstructed view. Further, the fact that the dock would infringe on a long-accepted course of travel for boats, which is located some 50 feet or so beyond the end of the existing docks would cause both a navigational and recreational adverse impact in terms of the "public interest criteria" of Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes. No other adverse impacts would be occasioned by installation of the dock, however, and these adverse impacts can be alleviated if the dock permit were conditioned upon an alteration so that the proposed dock does not extend more than 210 feet waterward of the mean high water mark. The proposed dock will not cause any significant, cumulative or secondary adverse impacts.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by DER granting the permit sought by Respondent Eckert on the condition that the dock proposed to be constructed, and for which the permit is sought, is restricted to a length of no more than 210 feet waterward of the mean high water mark at the Respondent/applicant's property, including that portion of the dock represented by the terminal platform. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of October, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of October, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 91-1181 Petitioner Richard J. and Judith A. Wittig's Proposed Findings of Facts 1-17. Accepted. Petitioner Robert E. and Suzanne E. Stoyer's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-7. Accepted. Rejected as speculative and not supported by preponderant evidence. Accepted. Respondent DER's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-12. Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as not entirely supported by preponderant evidence. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as not supported by preponderant evidence and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected as not supported by preponderant evidence and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted. Accepted but not itself materially dispositive. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as not entirely supported by preponderant evidence. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as not entirely supported by preponderant evidence. Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as not entirely supported by preponderant evidence. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Carol Browner, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esq. General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Richard Coates, Esq. Pat Comer, Esq. Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Steven E. Quinnell, Esq. JAMES L. CHASE, P.A. 101 East Government Street Pensacola, FL 32501 Robert E. and Suzanne E. Stoyer 5768 Red Cedar Street Pensacola, FL 32507 S.P. and P.A. Gallup 5660 Innerarity Circle Pensacola, FL 32507 E. P. Ericson 5652 Innerarity Circle Pensacola, FL 32507-8300 Philip E. Johnson 5794 Red Cedar Street Pensacola, FL 32507 Richard J. and Judith A. Wittig 11903 Autumnwood Lane Ft. Washington, MD 20744 Robert Eckert, Jr. 4817 Ravine Court Mobile, AL 36608
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: Respondent Laven owns a parcel of land at 1500 Bay View Drive, Sarasota, Florida on which he has a home. The property is approximately 180 feet by 100 feet, and is located on Sarasota Bay. A seawall has been constructed along the shoreline. Respondent Cloud owns a parcel of land at 2610 Cardinal Lane, Sarasota, Florida that is contiguous to Respondent Laven's property at 1500 Bay View Drive, Sarasota, Florida that is also located on Sarasota Bay. Approximately 100 feet of the property is located along the shoreline of Sarasota Bay. Sarasota Bay is currently designated as a Class III outstanding Florida waterbody. On or about June 28, 1991 Respondents Laven/Cloud filed an application to modify existing permit number 581885033 which had been previously issued to Respondent Laven for construction of a private dock consisting of an access pier 210 feet by 5 feet, with a terminal platform 20 feet by 4 feet on Laven's property located at 1500 Bay View Drive, Sarasota, Florida. Previous to the modified application being filed by Laven and Cloud, Laven had attempted to modify permit no. 581885033 by reducing the access pier from 210 feet by 5 feet to 175 feet by 5 feet. The Department concluded that the dock, as modified, would not reach water of sufficient depth to prevent damage to the seagrass, and considered this a major modification requiring a new application. Therefore, the Department denied the modified application, and Respondent Laven did not file a new application. The application filed by Laven/Cloud on or about June 28, 1991 to modify existing permit 581885033 proposed to construct a private dock on the property line between Laven's and Cloud's property. The private dock was proposed to consist of an access pier 4 feet by 210 feet, with two terminal platforms, each 25 feet by 6 feet. After review of the application to modify permit 58188503 the Department issued a Notice of Intent to issue a permit for the proposed construction of the private dock on August 2, 1991. The Notice of Intent included 18 specific conditions to which the proposed dock would be subject. Those relevant to this proceeding are as follows: 1) . . . . If historical or archaeological artifacts, such as Indian canoes, are discovered at any time within the project site the permittee shall immediately notify the district office and the Bureau of Historic Preservation, Division of Archives, History and Records Management, R.A. Gray Building, Tallahassee, Florida 32301. Turbidity screens shall be utilized, secured, and properly maintained during the permitted construction and shall remain in place until any generated turbidity subsides. Double turbidity screens, staked hay bales, staged construction and other additional measures shall be used as necessary to insure compliance with water quality standards in Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code. During construction, all areas of exposed soils shall be effectively isolated from waters of the state to prevent erosion or deposition. All exposed soils shall be stabilized with an appropriate ground cover within 72 hours of attaining final grade. 5) . . . . 6) . . . . The applicant is not permitted to conduct or construct the following activities or facilities in conjunction with this dock structure: Fish cleaning facilities. Fuel hoses or fueling facilities. The mooring of boats or vessels for live aboards. The mooring of boats utilized for com- mercial purposes such as fishing, scuba diving, boat rental, etc. Picnic tables or benches. Storage sheds or enclosed structures. Covered boat slips. Sanitary facilities. The rental of boat slips or mooring space. Turbidity screens shall effectively encom- pass each piling during installation and remain in place until any generated turbidity has subsided. Turbidity screens shall effectively encompass an area around each piling not to exceed 7 square feet. Any watercraft which may be utilized during construction activities shall only operate/moor in waters of sufficient depth so as not to cause bottom scour or prop dredging. The access pier shall be elevated a minimum of 5 feet above mean high water for the most waterward 150 linear feet of the access pier. The most waterward 150 linear feet of the access pier shall be constructed with the slated[sic] design indicated on sheet 4 of permit submittals. The most landward 60 feet of the access pier shall be constructed utilizing the 2 x 6 decking. The permittees shall construct 100 linear feet of rip rap along the existing vertical seawall as indicated on sheet 1 of permit submittals. Rip rap material shall consist of natural boulders or clean concrete rubble six inches to three feet in diameter or in average dimensions. The slope of the rip rap shall be no steeper than 2H:1V. There shall be no reinforcing rods or other similar protrusions in concrete rubble and all rubble or boulders shall be free of attached sediments. The rip rap shall be install concurrently with the construction of the permitted dock. The permittees shall grant the Department a conservation easement over the shorelines of the two subject parcels. A conservation easement shall be established over the seawall cap and 2 feet waterward of the seawall for the entire length of the seawall to 1500 Bay View Drive (Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 11, 12, 13, and 14 Block Q, Bay View Heights Addition). A conservation easement shall also be established between the limits of the mean high water linear and the landward extent of waters of the State (Pursuant to Section 170301.400[sic] FAC) for the entire length of the shoreline at 2610 Cardinal Place (Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 15, 16, 17 and 18, Block Q, Bay View Heights Addition). 14) . . . . 15) . . . . The following seagrass monitoring program shall be implemented and adhered to: Within 45 days of the issuance of this permit (and prior to initiation of dock con- struction) the permittee shall establish a preconstruction monitoring program consisting of one meter square grids within the area specified on sheet 1 A of permit attachments. A minimum of 10 random one meter square plots shall be selected within each area A and B and also along the centerline established along the length of the dock. The permittee shall measure percent areal coverage of seagrasses within each plot within the grid system. Each of the plots shall be monitored as specified in above a minimum of two times per year (July and January) over a three year monitoring period subsequent to dock construction. Reports shall include date, water depth, water clarity, species of seagrasses observed, percent areal coverage and representative height of seagrasses within each plot. Moni- toring reports shall be submitted to the Department within 30 days of the monitoring event. The first monitoring event shall occur during the first January or July (which ever occurs first) subsequent to completion of dock construction. Hand railing shall be constructed along the entire length of the access pier (on both sides). The temporary or permanent mooring of watercraft shall only occur at the terminal platform. 18) . . . . By imposing special conditions 3, 4, 8 and 9 it will ensure that the dock construction will have a temporary minimal impact on the water quality, and there will be no permanent water quality impacts as a result of this project. If this permit is not issued, it would be possible for each of the applicants to build an exempt dock on his property which would require two accesses or swaths through the seagrass beds. An exempt dock (500 square feet or less) may result in the dock terminating in seagrass beds and in water of insufficient depth to prevent damage to the seagrass beds or to prevent bottom scour or propeller dredging. The project site consists of a shoreline with a shoal area where Shoal grass (Halodule wrightii) and Turtle grass (Thalassia sp.) are growing, with the Turtle grass being the predominant species to a point further waterward to where there is a significant change in the water depth. Such point being approximately at the termination of the proposed dock. Beyond this point the seagrass beds are scattered. Therefore, any dock shorter than approximately 210 feet would terminate in the main seagrass beds and result in the seagrass beds being routinely disrupted or damaged by power boats. The proposed design of the most waterward 150 linear feet of the deck portion of the proposed dock has less solid surface than a normal deck, and, along with the proposed height of the most waterward 150 linear feet of the proposed dock, would allow substantially more light to penetrate the area and provide sufficient light for healthy existence of the seagrasses. The proposed impacts consists of disturbance of the seagrass beds. Requiring railing along the entire access pier on both sides will preclude mooring of motor craft in the area of the seagrass and in water depths insufficient to prevent damage to the seagrass, and to prevent bottom souring and propeller dredging. Because of the length, height and design of the dock there would be minimal impact, if any, on the seagrass beds. The design of the dock will ensure that the project will not adversely affect the functions being performed in the area intended for the dock. The conservation easement will ensure that a feeding ground for wading birds will be maintained, and along with the dock design will minimize any impacts that the proposed dock will have on the fish and wild life habitats. The construction of the 100 linear feet of rip rap along the existing vertical seawall on Sarasota Bay along Laven's property will reduce scouring and erosion at the base of the seawall, and provide beneficial habitat which will be an improvement of the seawall alone. There may be minimal impacts on recreation in that it may impose some inconvenience for those fishing and those attempting to access the bay for sailing. There may be some minimal impact on navigation in that the proposed dock will entend out approximately 35 feet further than any other existing dock in the area but due to the shallow water in this area boats presently have to travel at a reduced rate of speed, and for this reason the proposed dock would not adversely affect navigation. However, this should be mitigated by requiring lights on the dock as a safety feature. The project will not adversely affect the fishing, or recreational values, or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project. The proposed project will not adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or property of others. The proposed dock will be a permanent structure, notwithstanding that regular mainentaince will be required. The Respondents Laven/Cloud have provided reasonable assurances that the proposed project will be clearly in the public interest, notwithstanding the minimal impact it may have on recreation and navigation. Particularly, when all Special Conditions are considered, specifically Special Conditions 12 and 13 pertaining to rip rap along the vertical seawall on Laven's propertry and the granting of the Conservation Easement over both Laven's and Cloud's shoreline.
Recommendation Accordingly, in view of the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, recommended that the Department enter a Final Order issuing Permit Number 581885033 to Respondents Robert Laven and John Cloud as set forth in the Department's Intent To Issue dated August 2, 1991 provided that the grant of the subject permit should include the general and specific conditions in the Intent To Issue as well as the condition requiring lights on the dock for safety purposes as set forth in Finding of Fact 20 above. RECOMMENDED this 21st day of November, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of November, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-3988 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120- 59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in the case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Both paragraphs regarding Respondent Cloud's testimony at the hearing go to his credibility as a witness and are not stated as a finding of fact and are therefore rejected. Paragraphs 1 and 2 regarding Rose Poynor's testimony appear to be supported by documents or testimony not received at the hearing and are therefore rejected. Paragraph 3 regarding Rose Poynor's testimony is either immaterial or irrelevant or goes to her credibility as a witness or is supported by facts not in the record. The paragraph regarding Roy R. Lewis' testimony goes to his credibility as a witness and is not a statement of fact. Paragraphs 1 and 2 regarding Robert Patten's testimony is more of a restatement of his testimony than a finding of fact. But in any event, are neither material or relevant. The next to the last paragraph is not supported by the record but see Finding of Fact 20. The last unnumbered paragraph is not supported by the record. See Finding of Fact 24. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent Department of Environmental Regulation 1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parenthesis is the Finding(s) of Fact which adopts the proposed findings of fact: 1 (1, 2, 3); 2 (4, 6); 3 (5); 4 (11); 5 (11); 6 (13); 7 (7, 8); 8 (7, 8); 9 (7, 8); 10 (7, 8); 11 (7); 12 (7); 13 (12, 15); 14 (7); 15 (12); 16 (7, 14); 17 (15); 18 (7, 16); 19 (17); 20 (7); 21 (7); 22 (7, 18); 23 (18); 24 (20); 25 (7, 17); 26 (23); 27 (19); 28 (21); 29 (22); 30 (7); 31 (17); 32 (7); 33 (9); 34 (9, 10); 35 (7, 8, 11, 12, 14-22); and 36 (7). Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondents Laven and Cloud Respondents Laven and Cloud have divided their findings into two groups (1) Findings of Fact and (2) Ultimate Findings. Since the Findings of Fact are duplicative of the Ultimate Facts or are only restatements of the witnesses testimony, I will respond only to the Ultimate Facts. 1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parenthesis is the Finding(s) of Fact which adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1 (1); 2 (3); 3 (2); 4 (4, 6); 5 (3); 6 (7, 12); 7 (7, 17, 18); 8 (7); 9 (7); 10 (7, 24); 11 (7, 24); 12 (22); 13 (17); 14 (is a duplication of paragraph 13); 15 (20); 16 (21) and 17 (16). COPIES FURNISHED: Alan S. Dorrill 1726 Floyd Street Sarasota, FL 34239 F. Craig Richardson, Esquire Icard, Merrill, Cullen, Timm, Furen, & Ginsbrug, P.A. 2033 Main Street, Suite 600 Sarasota, FL 34237 Carol Forthman, Esquire Maureen A. Eggert, Certified Legal Intern 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Carol Browner, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) should issue a letter of consent to use State-owned submerged lands (SL) and an environmental resource permit (ERP) (which are processed together as a SLERP) for the single-family dock proposed by Pamela C. Damico, which would extend 770 feet into the Atlantic Ocean from her property on Plantation Key in Monroe County (DEP Permit 44-0298211-001).
Findings Of Fact Pamela C. Damico owns property at 89505 Old Highway on Plantation Key in the Upper Florida Keys in Monroe County. Her property includes submerged land extending between 212 and 233 feet into the Atlantic Ocean, which is an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW). She applied to DEP for a permit to build a dock and boat mooring at her property. In its final configuration, the proposed docking structure would have an access pier from the shoreline that would extend across her submerged land, and then farther across State-owned submerged lands, for a total distance of 770 feet from the shoreline. A primary goal of the application was to site the mooring area in water with a depth of at least -4 feet mean low water (MLW). Mrs. Damico’s consultants believed that this was required for a SLERP in Monroe County. In addition, they were aware that -4 feet MLW would be required to get a dock permit from Islamorada, Village of Islands. The beliefs of Mrs. Damico’s consultants regarding the depth requirement for the mooring site were based in part on incorrect interpretations of DEP rules by certain DEP staff made both during Mrs. Damico’s application process and during the processing of other applications in the past. Those incorrect interpretations were based in part on ambiguous and incorrect statements in guidance documents published by DEP over the years. (Similarly, certain DEP staff made incorrect interpretations of DEP rules regarding a supposedly absolute 500-foot length limit for any dock in Monroe County.) See Conclusions of Law for the correct interpretations of DEP rules. Petitioner owns oceanfront property to the south and adjacent to Mrs. Damico’s. As expressed by Petitioner’s owner and operator, Dr. William Carter, Petitioner has concerns regarding impacts of the proposed docking structure on navigation, boating safety, and natural resources, including seagrasses, stony corals, tarpon, and bonefish. Several changes were made to the proposed docking structure to address concerns raised by Petitioner. In the earlier proposals, the access pier would have been supported by 10-inch square concrete piles, which must be installed using a construction barge and heavy equipment. In its final form, to reduce the direct impacts to the seagrasses and stony corals, it was proposed that the first 550 feet of the access pier from the point of origin on the shoreline would be installed using pin piles, which are made of aluminum and are 4.5 inches square inside a vinyl sleeve five inches square, and can be installed by hand. Instead of the planks originally proposed for the decking of the access pier, a grating material was substituted, which would allow greater light penetration to the seagrasses below. The orientation and length of the proposed docking structure was modified several times in an effort to achieve the optimal siting of the mooring platform. Handrails were proposed for the access pier, and no tie-up cleats are provided there. In combination with the elevation of the decking at five feet above mean high water (MHW), the handrails would discourage use of the pier for mooring by making it impractical if not impossible in most cases. Railing also was proposed for the north side of the mooring platform to discourage mooring there, and a sign was proposed to be placed on the north side of the platform saying that mooring there is prohibited. These measures were proposed to restrict mooring to the south side of the mooring platform, where a boat lift would be installed, which would protect the large seagrass beds that are on the north side of the terminal platform. (Mooring an additional boat along the end of the 8-foot long mooring platform, which faces the prevailing oceanic waves, is impractical if not impossible.) To make the docking structure less of a navigation and boating safety hazard, it was proposed that a USCG flashing white light would be installed at the end of the terminal platform. In its final configuration, the docking structure would preempt approximately 2,240 square feet of State-owned submerged land, plus approximately 200 square feet preempted by the proposed boat lift. In addition, it would preempt approximately 900 square feet of Mrs. Damico’s privately-owned submerged land. Mrs. Damico’s private property has approximately 352 linear feet of shoreline. Dr. Lin testified for Petitioner that the proposed docking structure would preempt a total of 3,760 square feet. This calculation included 520 square feet of preemption by the boat lift, but the proposed boat lift is for a smaller boat that would preempt only approximately 200 square feet. Intending to demonstrate that the proposed docking structure would wharf out to a consistent depth of -4 feet MLW, Mrs. Damico’s consultants submitted a bathymetric survey indicating a -4 MLW contour at the mooring platform. In fact, the line indicated on the survey is not a valid contour line, and the elevations in the vicinity do not provide reasonable assurance that the mooring area of the docking structure in its final configuration is in water with a consistent depth of -4 feet MLW, or that there is water of that depth consistently between the mooring area and the nearest navigable channel. The evidence does, however, provide reasonable assurance that the proposed mooring platform is in water with a consistent depth of at least -3 feet MLW, and that there is water of that depth consistently between the mooring area and the nearest navigable channel, which would avoid damage to seagrass bed and other biological communities. The evidence was not clear whether there is another possible configuration available to Petitioner to wharf out to a mooring area with a consistent depth of at least -3 feet MLW, not over seagrasses, and with water of that depth consistently between the mooring area and the nearest navigable channel, that would not require as long an access pier, or preempt as many square feet of State-owned submerged land. A noticed general permit (NGP) can be used for a dock of 2,000 square feet or less, in water with a minimum depth of -2 feet MLW, and meeting certain other requirements. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-341.215 and 62-341.427. The evidence was not clear whether an NGP can be used in an OFW in Monroe County in water less than -3 feet FLW, according to DEP’s interpretation of its rules. Cf. Fla. Admin. Code Ch. 62-312.400, Part IV. Initially, mitigation for impacts to natural resources was proposed. However, DEP’s staff determined that no mitigation was required because there would not be any adverse effects from the docking structure, as finally proposed. For the same reason, DEP staff determined that there would be no significant cumulative adverse impacts and that no further analysis of cumulative impacts was necessary. Actually, there will be adverse impacts to natural resources. The biologist for Mrs. Damico determined that there are some seagrasses and numerous stony corals in the footprint of the access pier, in addition to other resources less susceptible to impacts (such as macro-algae and loggerhead sponges). These organisms will be disturbed or destroyed by the installation of the access pier. The biologist quantified the impacts to round starlet corals by assuming the placement of two supporting piles, four feet apart, every ten feet for the length of the pier, and assuming impacts to the stony corals in a quadrat centered on each pile location and three times the diameter of the pile. Using this method, it was estimated that approximately 1,505 square centimeters of the stony corals would be destroyed by the installation of the docking structure. The impacts assessed by Mrs. Damico’s biologist and DEP assume that construction would “step out” from shore and, as construction proceeds, from already-built segments of the pier, until water depths allow for the use of a construction barge without unintended damage to the natural resources in the area. This construction method is not required by the proposed SLERP. It would have to be added as a permit condition. Petitioner did not prove that the impacts to a few seagrasses and approximately 1,505 square centimeters of the stony corals would damage the viability of those biological communities in the vicinity of the proposed docking structure. Direct and indirect impacts to other species from the installation and maintenance of the docking structure would not be expected. Impacts to listed species, including manatees and sawfish, would not be anticipated. Manatees sometimes are seen in the vicinity but do not rely on the area for foraging or breeding. Sawfish are more likely to frequent the bay waters than the ocean. Migratory tarpon and bonefish use the area and might swim out around the docking structure to avoid passing under it. Resident tarpon and some other fish species might congregate under the docking structure. The proposed docking structure does not block or cross any marked navigation channel and is in a shallow area near the shore where boats are supposed to be operated at reduced speeds. Nonetheless, the proposed structure poses more than a casual navigation hazard, especially due to its length, which is significantly greater than any docking structure in the vicinity. In conducting its staff analysis of the impacts on navigation and boating safety, DEP understood that the closest marked navigation channel is at least two miles away from the proposed docking structure. Actually, there also is a marked channel at the Tavernier Creek, which is less than half a mile north of the site. It is not uncommon for boaters to leave the marked Tavernier Creek channel to motor south in the shallow water closer to shore; they also sometimes cut across the shallow waters near the site to enter the Tavernier Creek channel when heading north. There also are other unmarked or unofficially-marked channels even closer to the proposed docking structure. In good weather and sea conditions, the proposed docking structure would be obvious and easy to avoid. In worse conditions, especially at night, it could be a serious hazard. To reduce the navigational hazard posed by the dock, reflective navigation indicators are proposed to be placed every 30 feet along both sides of the access pier, and the USCG flashing white light is proposed for the end of terminal platform. These measures would help make the proposed docking structure safer but would not eliminate the risks entirely. The light helps when it functions properly, it can increase the risk if boaters come to rely on it, and it goes out. Both the light and reflective indicators are less effective in fog and bad weather and seas. The risk increases with boats operated by unskilled and especially intoxicated boaters. It is common for numerous boaters to congregate on weekends and holidays at Holiday Isle, which is south of the proposed docking structure. Alcoholic beverages are consumed there. Some of these boaters operate their boats in the vicinity of the proposed docking structure, including “cutting the corner” to the Tavernier Creek pass channel, instead of running in deeper water to enter the pass at the ocean end of the navigation channel. This increases the risk of collision, especially at night or in bad weather and sea conditions. DEP sought comments from various state and federal agencies with jurisdiction over fisheries and wildlife. None of these agencies expressed any objection to the proposed docking structure. No representative from any of those agencies testified or presented evidence at the hearing. Area fishing guides and sports fishermen fish for bonefish and tarpon in the flats in the vicinity of the proposed docking structure. If built, the proposed docking structure would spoil this kind of fishing, especially bonefishing, or at least make it more difficult. The more similar docking structures installed in the area, the greater the difficulties in continuing to use the area for this kind of fishing. On the other hand, resident tarpon and some other fish species could be attracted by such docking structures. Mrs. Damico’s application initially offered a money donation to the Florida Keys Environmental Restoration Trust Fund if mitigation was required. The proposed permit includes a requirement to donate $5,000 to the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS), before construction begins, for the maintenance of mooring buoys to reduce recreational boater impacts at the coral reef areas. The reefs are miles from the site of the proposed docking structure, and the donation does not offset project impacts. Rather, as stated in the proposed permit, its purpose is to “satisfy public interest requirements.” As a federal agency, the FKNMS does not accept donations directly. Donations would have to be made to the Sanctuary Friends of the Florida Keys (SFFK) for use by the FKNMS for buoy maintenance. A condition would have to be added to the ERP to ensure that the donation would be used for the intended purpose. In a bid to defeat Mrs. Damico’s attempt to satisfy public interest requirements, Petitioner offered to donate $10,000 to SFFK for the buoy maintenance if DEP denied the permit. Petitioner’s offer should not affect the evaluation of the proposed docking structure under the public interest criteria. DEP staff evaluated the proposed ERP under the public interest criteria to be essentially neutral and determined that the $5,000 donation would make it clearly in the public interest. This analysis was flawed. With or without the $5,000 donation, the proposed docking structure would have an adverse effect on the public health, safety, and welfare; an adverse effect on navigation; an adverse effect on fishing or recreational values in the vicinity; and an adverse effect on the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. It would not have any positive public interest effects. Its effects would be permanent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that DEP enter a final order denying a permit for the proposed docking structure; if granted, there should be a condition requiring construction to “reach out” from shore and, as construction proceeds, from already-built segments of the pier, until water depths allow for the use of a construction barge without unintended damage to the natural resources in the area. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of October, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of October, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Patricia M. Silver, Esquire Silver Law Group Post Office Box 710 Islamorada, Florida 33036-0710 Brittany Elizabeth Nugent, Esquire Vernis and Bowling of the Florida Keys, P.A. at Islamorada Professional Center 81990 Overseas Highway, Third Floor Islamorada, Florida 33036-3614 Ronald Woodrow Hoenstine, III, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Herschel T. Vinyard, Jr., Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Tom Beason, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact Dredge And Fill Permit And Consent Order 1.01 Background On December 10, 1992, the Department issued a dredge and fill permit pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 17-312. 1/ The permit was issued to Hubbard in care of Dock Masters of Homosassa, Inc. ("Dock Masters"). Dock Masters is the entity responsible for the project. The project is located in a lagoon off Kings Bay, in the Crystal River in Citrus County, Florida. It is in a man-altered Class III waterbody in Section 28, Township 18 South, Range 17 West, on Lot 15, West Baywater Court. The permit authorized construction of an 883 square foot single family dock and 70 foot retaining wall. The permit required Hubbard to create 346 square feet of wetlands as mitigation and to dedicate all remaining wetlands on the site as a conservation easement to the Department. The dock is constructed several feet east of the permitted location and is built in a slightly different configuration. The permitted square footage over the water is reduced in the dock actually constructed by approximately 20 feet. About 10 feet of fill is added to wetlands. Hubbard notified the Department of the discrepancy between the permitted dock and the dock actually constructed. In July, 1993, the Department inspected the site and determined that the dock was not constructed in accordance with the permit. The Department determined that there was a violation of the permit. The location and configuration of the dock actually constructed did not comply with the permitted plans. However, the Department determined that the dock actually constructed was permittable. The Department entered into a Consent Order with Dock Masters approving the dock actually constructed. The Consent Order imposed civil penalties of $932 and costs of $150 but required no corrective action. During the formal hearing conducted on March 8-9, 1994, Hubbard requested that the dock actually constructed be shortened 3.5 feet and that a four foot section of the west side of the dock be removed (the "as-built dock"). Modifications included in the as-built dock are minor. They merely reduce the size of the dock and do not create additional adverse impacts. Petitioner is an adjacent land owner to the as-built dock. Petitioner's dock is configured, more or less, parallel to the shore line. The as-built dock on Hubbard's property is configured, more or less, perpendicular to the shore line. The as-built dock extends farther into the lagoon than does Petitioner's dock. In addition, the as-built dock is situated between Petitioner's dock and the confluence of the lagoon and King's Bay. Navigation The as-built dock does not adversely impact navigation. The as-built dock extends approximately 37 feet into the lagoon. The lagoon is approximately 197 feet wide at the project site. There is 160 feet of open water in which to navigate past the as- built dock. Depths in the open water beyond the end of the as-built dock are adequate for navigation. During low tide, depths in the lagoon at the project site are: 3.5 feet at the end of the as- built dock; 5.0 feet, 40 feet from the end of the dock; 4.4 feet, 80 feet from the end of the dock; and 3.0 feet, 120 feet from the dock. The as-built dock does not adversely affect boaters' ingress and egress into and out of the lagoon. The center of the navigational channel in the lagoon is approximately 40 feet from the edge of the as-built dock. In extremely low tides, areas around the as-built dock will go dry before the center of the navigational channel goes dry. Boat traffic in the lagoon is sparse at the project site. Boats using the lagoon are required to travel at idle speed. The speed limit is posted on signs in the lagoon. The as-built dock does not present a navigational hazard. The dock is easily seen and is lighted at night. Manatees The as-built dock will not adversely impact manatees. The area around the project site is not a core area for manatees. The as-built dock is a single family dock with a berth for one boat. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department's Threatened and Endangered Species Section have responsibility for protecting manatees. Both agencies were contacted regarding the Hubbard dock. Neither agency objects to the as-built dock. Manatees congregate around large springs. There are no large springs near the project site. The two nearest manatee sanctuaries are approximately 2,000 feet from the as-built dock. No boating or snorkeling is allowed in the manatee sanctuaries during manatee season. Boat traffic in the lagoon where the as-built dock is located is limited to idle speed. Manatees feed on hydrilla. Hydrilla is the predominant submerged plant around the project site. The as-built dock has no significant adverse impact on hydrilla in the area. Even if the as-built dock had an adverse impact on hydrilla, the as-built dock will not significantly reduce the amount of hydrilla available for manatee feeding. Hydrilla is an exotic plant that crowds out native plants. Hydrilla is harvested or treated with herbicides by Citrus County to try to control the growth of hydrilla. Citrus County attempted to control the growth of hydrilla by harvesting or treating approximately 666 acres of hydrilla in 1992 and approximately 580 acres in 1993. Other Potential Impacts The as-built dock will not cause any other adverse impacts to the public interest. The as-built dock does not adversely affect the property of others living on the lagoon and does not prevent reasonable access to any other property on the lagoon. The as-built dock does not adversely affect public safety. The dock is highly visible and is lighted at night. The project is located in an area in which boat traffic is limited to idle speed. The as-built dock does not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife species, including threatened or endangered species, or the habitats of such fish and wildlife species. Aquatic habitat around the as-built dock is functioning normally. Shoreline vegetation is relatively natural and includes sawgrass, arrowhead, cedars, and red bay trees. The mitigation area has been correctly initiated and is now tending toward success as plantings mature. Use of the as- built dock avoids damage to shoreline and submerged vegetation that otherwise may occur if a boat were brought to shore in the absence of the dock. Various species of fish use the area, but the primary species is mullet. The retaining wall will benefit fish and wildlife habitat by preventing fertilizer and other yard chemicals from draining directly into the lagoon and causing water quality problems. Fish and wildlife habitat is further protected from adverse impacts by permit conditions. Permit conditions prohibit live-aboard boats, fueling facilities, and fish cleaning facilities at the dock. Cumulative Impacts The as-built dock and similar facilities in the area will not have a cumulative adverse impact on fish and wildlife habitat, endangered species, or navigation. Hubbard conveyed a conservation easement to the Department covering the remaining 400 feet of her shoreline. No future permitted or permit exempt docks can be built on Hubbard's shoreline. Remaining wetlands on-site will be preserved in perpetuity. Few docks and seawalls can be constructed in the area in the future. Substantially all of the residential lots in the area along the lagoon have: already been built out; already have water dependent facilities such as docks and slips; and already are sea-walled or rip-rapped. The state's land acquisition program (the "P-2000 Program") is seeking to acquire major tracts along the Crystal River in nearby areas. Those acquisitions will prevent similar future development in areas farther from the as-built dock. Benefits To The Public Interest The as-built dock has resulted in benefits to the public interest including the conservation easement over 400 feet of shoreline and wetlands. The conservation easement will benefit the public interest by permanently preserving fish and wildlife habitat. The as-built dock helps prevent prop dredging that may otherwise occur if a boat were kept on the shoreline in the absence of a dock. The retaining wall will reduce fertilizer and yard chemical runoff into the lagoon. Consent Of Use Background The Department notified Hubbard on September 2, 1994, that the as-built dock and retaining wall are located on sovereign submerged lands. Hubbard applied for an after-the-fact consent of use pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Chapter 18-21. On September 20, 1994, the Department issued an after- the- fact consent of use on Project No. 091923403 to allow Hubbard to maintain and use the dock on sovereign submerged land. Review Of The Dock The as-built dock was reviewed by Mr. Todd A. Vandeberg, Planning Manager for the Department's Southwest District, Mr. Henry Michaels, and Mr. Matt Clements in accordance with Rule 18- 21 and the Department's guidelines and policies for issuing consents of use for single family docks. See, Submerged Lands Environmental Resources Program Operations and Manual, Volume III (the "Operations Manual"). Mr. Michaels and Mr. Clements performed an on-site compliance check with respect to the as- built dock in accordance with Rule 18- 21 and the Operations Manual. The as-built dock is not contrary to the public interest. The dock preempts less than 1,000 square feet of sovereign land for each 100 linear feet of shoreline owned by Hubbard. The dock meets the 25 foot setback requirements of the Board. The dock extends only to a depth of three feet rather than the four foot depth allowed. The dock extends across only 19 percent of the width of the lagoon. Intent And Purpose Of The Board The as-built dock insures maximum benefit and use of sovereign submerged lands for all citizens of Florida. The dock does not prevent the continued enjoyment of traditional uses of the lagoon by the public including navigation, fishing, and swimming. The as-built dock extends into the lagoon only as far as necessary. 2/ The as-built dock does not constitute a navigational hazard. The as-built dock provides maximum protection for the management and use of sovereign submerged lands including public recreation and fish and wildlife propagation and management. Hubbard provided a conservation easement along the majority of her shoreline. The easement is being well maintained. Issuance of the consent of use was coordinated with the Department's regulatory staff. The as-built dock minimized or eliminated the cutting, removal, and destruction of wetland vegetation. The as-built dock will not adversely impact manatees or their habitat. The as-built dock aids in the implementation of the State Lands Management Plan. It is consistent with the state's overall management plan for the management of all sovereign lands. The as-built dock is consistent with the Board's specific standards and criteria for siting docking facilities. 3/ The consent of use contains terms, conditions, and restrictions sufficient to protect and manage sovereign lands. The consent of use contains general conditions established by the Department pursuant to Chapter 253, Florida Statutes, 4/ and Rule 18-21. The as-built dock is a water dependent facility. It is not enclosed or climatized for human habitation. The primary purpose of the dock is to moor a vessel. Secondary uses include fishing and recreational activities such as swimming and sun bathing. 5/ The primary purpose and secondary uses for the as-built dock are consistent with the Board's stated goal that all sovereign lands are single use lands which should be managed for traditional recreational uses such as fishing, boating, and swimming. The dock provides ingress and egress to the lagoon and provides a safe place to moor a boat. No significant adverse impacts will result from Hubbard's use of sovereign lands and associated resources, including fish and wildlife habitat and endangered and threatened species. A conservation easement along a majority of the Hubbard shoreline protects existing resources beyond the area of the dock. The as-built dock was designed and constructed to minimize or eliminate cutting, removal, and destruction of wetland vegetation. 6/ No dredging of sovereign lands was required to construct the as-built dock. The as-built dock protects the riparian rights of adjacent property owners. The as-built dock meets applicable setback requirements.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a Final Order granting Hubbard's application for a permit and consent of use, approving the consent order entered into between the Department and Hubbard, and denying Petitioner's request for attorney fees. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of May, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 31st day of May, 1995.
Findings Of Fact On February 9, 1984, Respondent Fernandina Marine Terminals, Inc., by its agent Harbor Engineering Company, filed a joint application with the Department of the Army/Florida Department of Environmental Regulation for the rehabilitation of its existing marine facility located on the Amelia River at Fernandina Beach, Florida. The application was subsequently amended several times and eventually included the construction of a 1,000 foot dock to be constructed on the applicant's property parallel to the shoreline. (Testimony of Ray, FMT Exhibits 1-3, DER Exhibit 2) An environmental supervisor of the Department of Environmental Regulation inspected the site on March 17 and April 17, 1984, and prepared a permit application appraisal on May 21, 1984, in which he determined that the Department had permitting jurisdiction under Chapter 253, Florida Statutes, due to the fact that the Amelia River constitutes navigable waters of the state. He found that the proposed dock would extend some 42 feet farther into the river than a previously existing dock which presently consists mostly of old pilings. He further determined that from a navigational standpoint, the proposed dock should present no problem. This view was concurred in by his supervisor Dr. Marvin Collins, III, who recommended issuance of the permit. On September 6, 1984, the Department issued a Notice of Intent to issue the requested permit. Thereafter, by letter of September 14, 1984, Petitioners requested a hearing to contest the issuance of the permit. On July 9, 1984, the Department of the Army/Corps of Engineers had issued a permit to the applicant to perform the requested work. (Testimony of Deuerling, Collins, DER Exhibits 1, 3, FMT Exhibit 4) Petitioner A. B. Cook, Jr., Seafood Company is located immediately to the south of the proposed site. Shrimp boats unload at the north end of Petitioner's dock. The boats average from 60 to 70 feet in length. Petitioner is concerned that the cement pilings of the applicant's proposed pier will interfere with and prohibit the dockage of the shrimp boat due to the fact that a strong current is generated at the site where the Bells River joins the Amelia River. Petitioner therefore believes that the proposed placement of the applicant's dock would constitute a navigational hazard and that therefore it should be constructed further to the north or closer to the shoreline. (Testimony of Mrs. Cook, Petitioner's Exhibit 1) Applicant's design engineer took cognizance of the need for shrimp boats to unload at the Cook dock. At the time the project was designed he conducted surveys of the uplands to ensure that adequate land was available for the proposed facility. In his expert engineering opinion, which is accepted, the proposed site is ideal for a marine terminal since no maintenance dredging will be required and because the river curves at the site, thus making it the widest place of the river in the vicinity. The planned length of the dock is sufficient to enable the docking of two vessels at the same time. If the proposed dock were to be placed further north, it would he unable to berth two vessels. If it were placed closer to shore, it would be necessary to utilize the adjoining marsh area and-would require constant dredging. Although the dock will extend some 42 feet into the Amelia River on the southwest end, it is almost in line with the applicant's property because of the bend in the river. The dock will be located approximately 115 feet from the Cook dock. The existing dilapidated dock is only approximately 50 feet from the Cook dock, although it is more in line or more parallel to the Cook dock. (Testimony of Ray, Cavanaugh, E. Cook, DER Exhibits 1 (photos), 2, FMT Exhibits 1-3) Expert testimony from riverboat captains presented by both the applicants and petitioners is in conflict as to the extent of difficulty that will be encountered in docking shrimp boats at the Cook pier after the applicant's dock is built, and as to whether it will constitute a navigational hazard. The proposed dock will be put on pilings to avoid eddies which would be caused by a bulkhead, and will prevent change in existing currents. It is acknowledged even by the applicant's experts that a problem would exist with a falling tide and a west wind, and also in conditions of fog. However, the president of Johnson Petroleum Company which operates what is known as the "Gulf" dock located 100 feet south of the Cook dock, is familiar with the tide in the area and testified that the tide is used to spring vessels in and out of the docking area. In light of all the evidence presented, it is found that although the alignment of applicant's proposed pier will to some degree make it more difficult for boats to dock at the Cook pier, it nevertheless constitutes an appropriate use of the applicant's property and sufficient evidence has been presented to show that it will not constitute a navigational hazard or a serious impediment to navigation. (Testimony of Ray, Thompson, Ferguson, Mrs. Cook, E. Cook, Little, Johnson, Cavanaugh)
The Issue Whether Wayne Zimmet's proposed single-family boat dock and lift project is exempt from the need to obtain an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) from the Department of Environmental Protection (Department) under Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.051(3)(c).1
Findings Of Fact Both Wayne Zimmet and Scott Rosenblum own property in Tequesta, Florida, in a community known as North Passage, which has a man-made navigation and drainage easement canal that terminates at its eastern end at Mr. Rosenblum's property, which is Lot 74, at 8738 Riverfront Terrace. Mr. Zimmet's property, which is Lot 75, at 8750 Riverfront Terrace, is south of the eastern terminus of the canal. The Rosenblum and Zimmet properties are adjacent and share a common boundary. There is an existing dock extending from Mr. Rosenblum's property into the canal. The existing dock is perpendicular to, and extends west from the middle of, the shore of the eastern terminus of the canal. There is a wooden walkway leading from the residence on Mr. Rosenblum's property to the existing dock. However, there also has been a wooden walkway leading from Mr. Zimmet's property to the existing dock. As indicated in the Preliminary Statement, there is a dispute between Mr. Zimmet and Mr. Rosenblum as to who is entitled to access and use the existing dock--and in particular the south side of the existing dock. That dispute will be resolved in state circuit court.2 For purposes of this proceeding, it will be assumed that Mr. Rosenblum has the right to use the existing dock. On or about May 25, 2006, Mr. Zimmet filed an application requesting an ERP exemption to install an eight-foot by twenty-foot (160-square feet) marginal dock with a two-pile elevator lift to designed to accommodate his boat, which is approximately 24.5 feet long (22 feet at the waterline) and eight feet wide. According to documentation submitted with the application, the proposed dock would be centered along the waterfront of his property and extend approximately four feet into the canal. The proposed boat lift would be skewed toward the western end of the proposed marginal dock with the intent being to dock his boat with the bow facing the west so that proposed dock could be used to enter and load the boat from the stern. This positioning of the proposed lift and boat at the proposed dock would skew a boat on the lift at the proposed dock about three feet to the west, away from the existing dock. Based on the evidence, it is found that Mr. Zimmet did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his proposed boat dock and lift, even if skewed to the west as indicated in the application drawings, would not "impede navigation" to and from the south side of the existing dock. (Otherwise, Mr. Zimmet's proposed dock and lift would not "impede navigation" in the canal.) This impediment to navigation to and from the south side of the existing dock is not a mere inconvenience. Although Mr. Rosenblum now only owns and uses a raft at the existing dock, he testified that he plans on purchasing and using a boat. Boats in the range of approximately 24.5 feet in length with a beam of 8 to 8.5 feet are common in the North Passage canal. A boat of that size docked at the south side of the existing dock would barely fit alongside Mr. Zimmet's boat, whether docked or on the lift, and there would not be a reasonable amount of clearance for navigating a boat of that size commonly to or from the south side of the existing dock if Mr. Zimmet's boat were docked at the proposed dock or on the proposed lift. (Likewise, if a boat of that size were docked on the south side of the existing dock, there would not be a reasonable amount of clearance for Mr. Zimmet to use his proposed dock and lift.) There was no evidence of any impediment to navigation to and from the north side of the existing dock.
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 concluding that, absent a circuit court determination that Mr. Rosenblum does not have the right to access and use the south side of the existing dock, Mr. Zimmet's proposed dock and lift project is not exempt from the need to obtain an ERP. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of October, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of October, 2007.
