The Issue The issues for determination are whether the dock modification approved by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), Permit No. 41-01935093-001, adversely affects the public health, safety, or welfare or property of others and navigation. § 373.414(1)(a) 1. and 3., Fla. Stat.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Bridge Tender Inn (Inn) is a restaurant and a Green Bay Packer bar located at 135 Bridge Street, Bradenton, Florida. Dr. Fred Bartizal is a medical doctor and the president of the Bridge Tender Inn, Inc. and the owner of the Inn. Petitioners are adjacent landowners who object to the proposed permit issued to Brown. The general public uses the Inn’s two existing docks. (The southernmost dock is adjacent to the Brown dock that is the subject of this proceeding.) Petitioners are in the process of obtaining a submerged land lease (from DEP) for the southern dock. Petitioners are substantially affected persons. DEP has the statutory authority to issue Environmental Resource Permits (ERP) for the construction of docks such as the modification proposed by Brown. Respondent, Harry K. Brown (Brown), owns the property at Section 4, Township 35 South, Range 16 East, Manatee County Florida.1 The property is located in and on Anna Maria Sound off of Bay Drive South, between Third and Fourth Streets South, in Bradenton Beach, Florida. Brown owns the property upland to the proposed dock extension. See Endnote 1. The existing dock, as proposed for modification, is located in Sarasota Bay, a Class II Outstanding Florida Water. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-302.400(12)(b)41. The Gulf of Mexico is west of Anna Maria Sound and Sarasota Bay. Brown’s Original Application for Permit Authorization to Construct a Dock In 1994, Brown filed an application with the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) for a permit “to perform work in and affecting navigable waters of the United States.” On December 19, 1994, the Corps authorized Brown “to construct a T-shaped dock with four boat slips (one covered) in Anna Maria Sound” at the above-described property, in accordance with the “drawings and conditions which are incorporated in, and made a part of, the permit.” There are two drawings attached to the Corps permit. Joint Exhibit 4. The first shows the proposed Brown T-shaped dock with four identified boat slips, two on the south and two on the north sides of the portion of the dock running perpendicular to the shore. The approach to the “T” portion of the proposed dock extended 120 feet waterward (to the east.) The described “T” end of the dock measured 10’x60’. The proposed covered slip was adjacent to the northern portion of the “T,” with a boat slip adjacent to the west. (There are also two mooring pilings shown on the north side that indicate the boundaries of the covered and uncovered boat slips.) Joint Exhibit 4. This drawing also shows part of the existing and adjacent boat dock to the north of the Brown dock that runs perpendicular to the shoreline and has a T-shape at the end, running in a north and south direction. The drawing indicates that the southeastern portion of the dock to the north is “20’” from the mooring piling that forms the western boundary for the covered boat slip. Based on the “20’” designation, it appears that the second mooring piling to the west is also shown approximately 20 feet from the southeastern portion of the other boat dock. (Part of the explanation portion of this drawing was not copied.) Another, hand-drawn drawing (identified as “Exhibit 1 D,” dated April 25, 1995, prepared by Florida Permitting, Inc., and stating “REVISED APPLICATION”) shows the location of the two docks. The distance between the southeastern corner of the northern boat dock (the Bartizal dock) and the eastern mooring piling (on the north side of the Brown dock and the western boundary for the covered boat slip (slip 1)) is shown as approximately “40’.” There is no measurement shown for the distance between the southeastern corner of the Bartizal boat dock and the western mooring piling for slip 2 on the north side of the Brown dock. The distance appears to be less than 40 feet but more than 35 feet from the southeast corner of the Bartizal “T” shaped dock. On September 14, 1994, Brown also filed an application with DEP to construct a dock with four slips. (Fred Bartizal and Barbara Lohn are listed as adjacent property owners.) The Brown project was “revised to ensure adequate water depths and minimal impacts, and to maintain reasonable access to both the proposed dock and the existing dock to the north” as reflected in three drawings (Sheets A-C-dated April 25, 1995, and prepared by Florida Permitting, Inc.) that are a part of the application. Joint Exhibit 5. (Sheet C is the same as “Exhibit 1 D,” described in Finding of Fact 7. See also DEP Exhibit 7, Sheet A.) The three sheets are similar and provide the same locations for the proposed Brown and built Bartizal docks, including the “40’” measurement. Also, as revised, the approach to the Brown dock “T” is shown to be 130 feet long and the “T-end” of the dock is reduced by 12 feet, for a total length of 48 feet, and the width reduced from 10 to 8 feet, or 48’x 8’. On August 8, 1995, DEP issued Permit No. 412576623 authorizing the construction of a four slip private docking facility consisting of 904 square feet, with a conservation easement granted to DEP. Brown was required to submit “as- built” drawings to DEP within 30 days of completion of the authorized work. “Record drawings shall include the controlling elevations of all permitted structures, including final elevations as shown in the permit drawing(s)” in the “Plan View” “Sheet A,” which shows the “40’” measurement. Based on the weight of the evidence, “Sheet A” depicts the 1995 DEP approved location of the Brown dock. See DEP Exhibit 7, stamped approved by DEP, August 8, 1995, and Joint Exhibit 5, Sheet A. 2 It appears that the original Brown dock, as revised and approved by DEP Permit No. 412576623 in 1995, was actually constructed such that there is 33.4 feet between the northwestern corner of the Brown “T” portion facing north, and the southern portion of the adjacent Bartizal dock, rather than approximately 43 feet. Compare Joint Exhibits 1, 20, and 23 and Petitioners’ Exhibit J with Joint Exhibit 5, Sheet A and DEP Exhibit 7, which are the same document. See Finding of Fact 24. The mooring piling on the west side of slip 1, as depicted on DEP Exhibit 7, was constructed approximately 27 to 30 feet from the southeastern corner of the Bartizal dock (not approximately 40 feet as shown on DEP Exhibit 7) and the second mooring piling to the west was approximately 25 to 28 feet from the southeastern corner of the Bartizal dock. These are rough approximations. The ultimate finding is that the two western mooring pilings on the north side of the Brown dock and the main walkway of the Brown dock were originally constructed closer to the Bartizal dock than authorized by DEP in 1995.3 The 2002 Application Requesting Approval for Modification of the Existing Dock On or about January 3, 2002, Sherri Neff, Environmental Specialist with Florida Permitting, Inc., and Melvin Rector, president of Florida Permitting, Inc., on behalf of Brown, filed an application with DEP requesting approval of an Environmental Resource Permit for a modification of the dock previously authorized pursuant to Permit No. 412576623. Bartizal and Gregory Ellis Watkins are listed as adjoining property owners. The dock modification requested the replacement and extension of an existing structure to accommodate the dockage of 11 boats. DEP Exhibit 1. The “Project Narrative” included with this application stated in part: The egress to the proposed recreational pier currently falls along the 187' shoreline located along Bay Drive South. Access to the structure is provided by an easement from the City of Bradenton Beach. If permitted, the egress associated with the modified structure will remain at the current length of 121' beyond the jurisdiction line. The northern extension of the existing T-shaped structure, currently measured at 9.9' by 21.5', will be eliminated, and the southern extension will be reduced in width to six foot with a 28' length. In addition, an L-shaped extension is proposed to extend beyond the existing pier linearly approximately 27' into Sarasota Bay while maintaining four-foot width. A 43' by two-foot perpendicular arm would extend north at the terminus of this structure. Eleven mooring slips of specified size (Table l) are proposed in areas of suitable water depth around the structure. The modified pier would encompass an estimated 846 square feet, a reduction of 58 square feet, in relation to the originally permitted 904 square foot structure (the existing structure measures approximately 965 square feet). The application included, among other documents, a plan view of the dock modification and a cross section; a summary of structures over wetlands and other surface waters; an aerial of the area; a photograph of the existing Brown T-shaped dock and the two mooring pilings and part of the Bartizal dock to the north, including the two mooring pilings on the south side of the Bartizal dock, see also DEP Exhibit 8 and Joint Exhibit 20; water depth data; and a document showing the proposed structure and the location of the local channel. See also DEP Exhibits 2 and 4. In part, Brown granted DEP a perpetual conservation easement for 0.12 (submerged) acres as shown on an attached survey which is a rectangular area south of the Brown dock, running parallel to the shoreline and Bay Drive South. See Joint Exhibit 3, diagram identified as P 16 and DEP Exhibit 6. This diagram also shows what purports to be the pre-existing Brown T-shaped dock, the portion on the south side that is to be removed, and the location of the proposed addition, with the main portion of the dock extending east of the existing “T” and to the north. The location of the 11 boat slips is shown with the mooring pilings. Bartizal’s dock is not shown on this diagram, although it is shown on an aerial of the area dated March 1, 2002, DEP Exhibit 3. DEP employee George Molinaro reviewed the Brown modification and recommended approval. He no longer works for DEP and did not testify. On June 2, 2002, DEP issued Environmental Resource Permit, DEP Project No.: 41-01935093-001 for the construction of a 846 square foot multi-slip docking facility that would accommodate the mooring of 11 vessels. The approved dock configuration was: “a 4 ft. x 121 ft. access walkway (484 sq. ft.), a 28 ft. x 6 ft. southern extension (168 sq. ft.), a 4 ft. x 27 ft. extension (108 sq. ft.) and the 2 ft. x 43 ft. northern finger pier (86 sq. ft.).” The Challenge to the Modification An Amended Petition was filed on behalf of Petitioners. See Finding of Fact 1. The southern Bartizal dock extends out from the upland property, and is north of the Brown dock. The Bartizal dock is a four-foot wide dock that extends east into the water approximately 95 feet. There is a “T” extension at the easterly portion of the dock that extends to the north and south. There are two mooring piles that are west of the southern portion of the “T” extension. See Joint Exhibits 1 and 23; DEP Exhibit 8; and Petitioners’ Exhibit J. Boaters have moored their boats at the southern Bartizal dock, which has two southern slips for purposes of docking. In this manner, these patrons can access the Inn. Bartizal contends that boaters will be reluctant to use these slips because they are too close to the Brown mooring pilings as built. Prior to the completion of the Brown modification requested in 2002, i.e., when the Brown dock had a “T” portion, depending on the tidal currents, Bartizal and others would travel south, hugging the eastern portion of the Brown “T” following an unmarked portion of the waterway. In this manner, he and other boaters could access the inter-coastal waterway leading to the Gulf of Mexico. See Joint Exhibit 2. Now, Bartizal contends that he and an uncertain number of others are unable to travel in this manner because of the eastward extension of the Brown dock and mooring pilings and the depth of the water in this location. Id. Resolution of the Controversy One issue to be resolved is the distance between the Bartizal dock and the westerly mooring pilings north of the Brown dock and whether the placement of the Brown mooring pilings (and boats using these slips) interferes with and is potentially hazardous to boats that enter and exit from the southern portion of the Bartizal dock and boats moored at the Brown dock. See Endnote 3. The other issue to be resolved is whether the modification and extension of the Brown dock adversely affects navigation. There is no “as built” survey of the originally permitted and constructed Brown dock. However, there is a “sketch”4 drawn by Jeffrey L. Hostetler, P.S.M. (Joint Exhibit 1) and an “as built” survey by Leo Mills, P.S.M. dated October 16, 2003, (Joint Exhibit 23),5 which indicate that the distance from the southern portion of the Bartizal dock to the northwestern corner of the old “T” portion of the Brown dock was 33.4 feet. See also Joint Exhibit 13 and Petitioners’ Exhibit J. Based on all of the available information of record, it appears that the western-most mooring piling of the previously constructed Brown dock was approximately 25 to 28 feet from the southern portion of the Bartizal “T” dock. The two originally constructed mooring pilings to the north of the Brown dock were constructed closer to the Bartizal dock than originally permitted in 1995. See Finding of Fact 11. Based on a later, February 16, 2004, “as-built” survey by Leo Mills, Jr., P.S.M., Petitioners’ Exhibit J, it appears that the two western-most mooring piles that extend northerly from the now-constructed Brown dock are 26.6 feet (west side of slip 3 (DEP Exhibit 6)) and 27.1 feet (west side of slip 4, id.) from the southeastern corner of the Bartizal “T” dock, which appears to be in close proximity to the two mooring pilings previously constructed. See also Findings of Fact 11 and 24. But, as noted herein, they are not located 40 feet from the Bartizal dock. See DEP Exhibit 7. The water between the Bartizal dock and the Brown dock is very shallow. Bartizal stated that he could probably wade out to his southern dock at mean low tide. (Bartizal owns another dock to the north that also provides boat slips for access to the Inn.) Bartizal testified that the previous configuration of the mooring pilings on the north side of the Brown dock allowed easier ingress to and egress from the south side of his dock. However, Bartizal further stated that the two western mooring pilings that now exist on the north side of the Brown dock have a greater impact on ingress and egress than the prior pilings. Bartizal believes that the two western-most mooring pilings are not in the same location as previously constructed, although he is not sure. The two as-built Brown slips (3 and 4) measure 21 feet in length to the north and nine feet in width. According to the document (Joint Exhibit 3, P 16 and DEP Exhibit 6) that is stamped approved by DEP, slip 3 was approved to measure 18’x 8’ and slip 4 was approved to measure 21’x 8’, which means that the slip 3 western mooring pile is off by three feet. Also, the actual width of all of the northern slips (slips three through seven) is greater than what was approved. Compare Joint Exhibit 3, P 16 and DEP Exhibit 6 with Joint Exhibit 13 and Petitioners’ Exhibit J. (DEP Exhibit 6 shows the DEP-approved distances between the pilings next to the Brown dock. It appears that the distance between the out pilings is the same.) The two Bartizal slips facing the Brown dock are 22.4 feet in length by 12 feet. The southeastern corner of the Bartizal “T” dock is 51.6 feet from the northwestern corner of the Brown extended and constructed “L” shaped finger-dock. The two western-most Brown mooring pilings concern Bartizal. See Petitioners’ Exhibit J. There are two videotapes of record that show boats entering, docking, and exiting from the slips at the Bartizal dock, on the south side facing the Brown dock. There are also photographs of the Brown-Bartizal docks. Boat captains, navigating the area in and around the Brown-Bartizal docks, described their adventures in docking their boats. For the purpose of a video, Captain Claire operated a 21.6-foot Wellcraft center console sport fishing boat with a 2.5-foot draft and an 8-foot wide beam and an outboard motor. During the docking procedure at the Brown/Bartizal docks, at times, Captain Claire trimmed his motor to avoid contacting the bottom with the propeller and lower portion of the engine. Coming from the north, he pulled the boat in between the Brown and Bartizal docks, backing the boat into the Bartizal boat slip, which is closest to the Brown western-most mooring piling. According to Captain Claire, he “had very little problem backing into that slip” which is 12 feet wide and 22.4 feet deep. If he had a choice, Captain Claire would not dock a 21-foot boat in this area. Smaller vessels with shallow drafts are more suitable for this location given the tidal influences and the shallow water depth. Captain Claire was able to dock his boat at the same Bartizal boat slip by going forward into the slip. Captain Claire stated the distance of 26.6 feet between the Brown western-most mooring piling and the southeast portion of the Bartizal dock was “[v]ery typical.” (The two western-most Brown boat slips were empty when Captain Claire docked his boat, although there was a boat in the third slip that extended past the mooring piling which did not impact his ability to dock his boat in the Bartizal slip.) Captain Claire also stated he would not proceed south of the Brown dock in a large vessel unless the tide “was extremely high.” Darrell Konecy holds a U.S. Coast Guard license for an uninspected passenger vessel. He operates a parasailing operation and keeps his boat moored off of Bartizal’s northern dock. His boat is 28 feet in length and roughly a 9.5-foot beam and a 3.5-foot draw, at the “lowest part of the scag.” For the video, he had difficulty maneuvering his boat into Bartizal’s boat slips and between the Bartizal and Brown pilings. With difficulty, he was successful when he backed in. The two western-most Brown dock slips were not occupied at this time. Prior to the Brown extension, leaving the Bartizal dock area to the north, Captain Konecy would travel to the east of the Brown dock mooring pilings, then south out to Longboat Pass. Now, he states that he cannot travel east of the new pilings because the water is too shallow. Captain Konecy does not navigate his boat south of the Brown dock during low tide. Mike Greig holds a U.S. Coast Guard, “six pack license.” He has been boating in the waters around the Inn for approximately 20 years. He runs a 24-foot Robin, center console boat. He had difficulty docking his boat at the Bartizal dock in light of the Brown dock and mooring pilings. Prior to the modification, he did not use the south side of Bartizal’s dock. Prior to the construction of the modified Brown dock, Captain Greig was able to pass “pretty close” to the east of the Brown dock and travel south. He stated that there is a southern unmarked channel that runs from Longboat Pass up past the Brown dock. He agreed that an unmarked channel such as this is highly dependent on the tides and that the area would not be accessible to some boats at mean-low tide if the water were a very low spring tide. (He said most boats in the area are “small runabouts” which can get through the area.) He agreed that he could navigate his boat east of the existing Brown dock mooring pilings and through 4.5 feet of water as depicted on DEP Exhibit 4. He did not believe a boat that draws more than 3.5 feet could skirt east of the Brown pilings. Captain Greig also agreed that a boat with a 3.5-foot draw would have difficulty in waters as shallow as Sarasota Bay outside of the marked channel. Based on the weight of the evidence, including but not limited to consideration of the tidal variations in and around the docks, the varying sizes of the boats that may enter and exit from the Bartizal/Brown docks, the size of the slips for both docks, and the varying skill of the boat captains, the two as-built western-most mooring pilings on the north side of the Brown dock (slips 3 and 4, see DEP Exhibit 6) are potentially hazardous to incoming boats attempting to dock at the Bartizal dock on the south side and potentially hazardous to boats docked in slips three and four of the Brown dock. These mooring pilings should be removed. See Endnote 3. The next issue is whether the extension of the Brown dock to the east, including the “L” shaped extension to the north and the mooring pilings to the east, adversely affects navigation. The local channel begins just south of the Brown dock and travels in a north, northeast direction. DEP Exhibits 2 and 4; Joint Exhibits 7 and 15. Most of Bartizal’s customers utilize the northern channel to access his docks and Inn. The water depths south of the Brown dock are shallower than north of the Brown dock. The weight of the evidence indicates that there is no defined channel that extends any further than approximately 20 feet south of the Brown dock. Bartizal and others have traveled east and close to the old Brown “T” dock and then south of the Brown dock prior to the construction of the “L” extension. (The largest boat used by Bartizal to travel to the south of the Brown dock prior to the extension was 28 feet.) In this manner, they were able to access Longboat Pass via a shorter route. Boaters from the south could access the Inn without going around and entering the Bartizal docks from the north. Depending on the size of the boat and draft and the tide, it would not have been prudent to proceed south of the Brown dock without having first-hand knowledge of the water depths even prior to the extension. With the construction of the eastern extension of the Brown dock, when the tide makes passage possible, the depth of the water is sufficient east of the new Brown dock mooring pilings, i.e., east of the new northern “L” shaped finger-dock, to permit passage to the south, depending on the size of the boat and draft. Boaters to the south of the Brown dock can still proceed in a southeasterly direction through the Sound and out through Longboat Pass, subject to the caveat noted above. Joint Exhibit 2. Larger boats leaving the Bartizal docks can proceed north, east, and then south to access Longboat Pass. Joint Exhibit 2. While it may be inconvenient to proceed in this fashion, the eastward extension of the Brown pilings and the “L” shaped finger dock do not adversely affect navigation.
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 adopting this Recommended Order and ordering Respondents, Harry Brown and David Teitelbaum, to remove the two western-most mooring pilings on the north side of their dock which border slips three and four. See DEP Exhibit 6 and Petitioners’ Exhibit J. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of May, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES A. STAMPELOS 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 27th day of May, 2004.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Harbour Pointe of Perdido Key Condominium Association, Inc. (Respondent or Condominium Association), violated the Florida Fair Housing Act, sections through 760.37, Florida Statutes,1/ by engaging in discriminatory housing practices.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, James Henkel (Petitioner), is a full-time resident of unit 609 within Harbour Pointe of Perdido Key Condominium. Petitioner is wheel-chair bound. He is physically disabled and protected for the purposes of the Florida and Federal Fair Housing Acts. Respondent is a condominium association charged with operation of the Harbour Pointe of Perdido Key Condominium (Condominium). The Condominium was developed by Harbour Pointe Land and Finance, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability company. Respondent is the successor in interest to the developer. Respondent now manages and maintains the Condominium common areas through its board of directors. Although Respondent has made subsequent changes with regard to security gates for the pool and dock, Respondent had no role in the design or development of the Condominium. The subject entrance and exit doors have opening pressures that vary, but are usually out of compliance with applicable Florida and Federal standards for handicap access. However, despite Petitioner’s allegations, the evidence does not support a finding that any of the door closers that are out of compliance have been altered since ownership of the Condominium was transferred and Respondent became responsible for management and operation of the Condominium. At one point in time, Respondent altered the pool gate in a manner inconsistent with the Federal Housing Authority (FHA) Design Manual. Respondent, however, has since made alterations to the pool gate to make it compliant and has a pending work order for additional changes, at Respondent’s expense, designed to make the pool gate’s key pad even more accessible to Petitioner. Access to the boat slip portions of the Condominium dock is a “Limited Common Element” that has always been limited to Condominium unit owners with assigned rights to one or more dock slips. See sections 3.20, 4.1, and 8.1B of the Condominium’s Declaration of Condominium. Petitioner’s unit does not have an assigned dock slip. Petitioner, however, along with other residents without boat slips have historically had access to the dock through a gate and key pad, the combination of which was provided to all unit owners. Initially, access to the dock for Petitioner and other residents who did not own boat slips was not a problem because there was only one gate to the dock and, once through the gate, Petitioner and other residents could proceed to the end of the dock where there was ample room to turn around a wheelchair. Although not officially designated as a common area, in essence, all residents, including Petitioner, with permission of the boat owners, enjoyed access to the dock, except for the boat slip areas. Later, however, security issues arose regarding the dock. Non-residents were going around the single security gate to get on the dock. With the goal of increasing security, Respondent installed a second gate further down on the narrow walkway portion of the dock before the end. Even after that, non-residents were accessing the dock by breaking the lock on the second gate or climbing around and jumping up on the other side of the pier. Respondent repaired the gate locks on more than one occasion, and has since made additional changes to the second gate to make it more difficult to get through or around. Petitioner agrees that dock security was a problem that needed to be addressed. The problem is that Petitioner cannot get through the second gate and the width of the dock between the gates is inadequate for Petitioner to turn around his wheelchair. If the area between the gates was common area, it would not meet the Federal Housing Authority (FHA) Design Manual standards. At the time of hearing, however, the dock area between the gates was not common area, and the evidence was insufficient to show that the dock was ever common area. Specifically, after assessing the issues and receiving two legal opinions that the entire dock was a “Limited Common Element” with access limited to condominium unit owners with assigned boat slips, Respondent’s board voted to change the condominium document with an amendment for improvements that would allow access for residents without boat slips, including access that would meet the needs for wheelchair access. That amendment, however, made it clear that, until the improvements were completed, access between the first and second gates is a Limited Common Element restricted to boat slip owners. In other words, the evidence failed to show that Petitioner or any other non-boat slip owners are entitled to access to the dock during the dock improvement design and construction. While Petitioner may have a claim if the ultimate improvements do not comply with applicable FHA standards, that claim is not ripe for consideration. In sum, Petitioner failed to show that Respondent discriminated against him because of his disability.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Complaint and Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III 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 31st day of March, 2015.
Findings Of Fact On August 13, 1984, Dax and Trin filed an application with DER, pursuant to Chapters 253 and 403, Florida Statutes, for a permit and water quality certification to construct a 28-slip docking facility in Canal No. 8 in Mashes Sands, Panacea Shores, Wakulla County, Florida. Dax and Trin's application was complete on September 19, 1984. On December 14, 1984, DER issued its letter of intent to issue the requested permits for a "20-slip docking facility," and requested that Dax and Trin publish notice of the proposed agency action as required by Section 403.815, Florida Statutes. Notice was published December 24, 1984. The notice advised the public of DER's intent to issue the requested permits to "construct a 20-slip dockage facility," and advised substantially affected persons of their right to a Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, hearing on DER's proposed agency action. Petitioner, Jean McMillan, timely filed a petition for formal administrative proceedings. Petitioner is a resident of Wakulla County, Florida, and is the record owner of real property adjacent to that of Dax and Trin and claims a right of access to Canal No. 8. Petitioner has used, and continues to use, the waters of Canal No. 8 and of Ochlockonee Bay for boating, fishing and recreation. The Marina The permit sought by Dax and Trin would allow it to construct a 28-slip docking facility consisting of a 357 foot long by 2 foot wide floating pier parallel to an existing concrete bulkhead on the west side of Canal No. 8, up to fourteen 12 foot by 2 foot wide floating finger piers extending 60 degrees from perpendicular into the canal, and 14 mooring pilings centered between the outer limits of the finger piers. The floating pier and finger piers would be constructed of pressure treated wood resting on styrofoam, and would be secured to pressure treated pilings. No fueling, electrical or water hookups, or other service-type amenities are proposed for this facility. The boats to be docked at the facility would be less than 30 feet in length. The 28 slips proposed by Dax and Trin in this proceeding are part of a larger marina development of at least 48 slips, which Dax and Trin proposes to develop in the canal adjoining a 27-unit condominium development it is presently constructing. Dax and Trin proposes to construct the additional 20 slips, with the same means of construction, immediately adjacent to the proposed 28 slips and parallel to the existing bulkhead, under a claimed exemption for reconstruction and restoration. Additional slips, beyond the first 48, are contemplated by Dax and Trin's development plans. In connection with the 20-slip facility Dax and Trin proposes to provide the following services and amenities: bait and tackle shop, upland fish cleaning stations, public boat fueling facilities, sewage pump-out station, picnic tables, gazebo, snack bar, and restrooms. All services and amenities will be available to the public, including the users of the adjacent 28 slips which are the subject matter of these proceedings. DER's December 14, 1984, Letter of Intent proposed to issue the permit subject to the following conditions: A dockmaster shall: supervise dockage and vessel operations; ensure that all dockage users are familiar with dockage rules, especially those pertaining to vessel discharges; and, be responsible for the clean-up correction of all unauthorized discharges; There shall be no discharges into the canal or bay waters of fish carcasses, food wastes, litter, sewage, fuel, oil, grease, paint or thinner, varnish or other materials other than clean water; Waste containers shall be located along the dockage and emptied regularly to prevent their spill-over; Any fish cleaning stations shall be located on the uplands and all fish carcasses shall be placed in upland containers, and shall not be disposed of in the canal or bay; The dockage user agreement shall contain and stipulate the operational controls. Dax and Trin has agreed to comply with all conditions established by the DER Letter of Intent and at final hearing, agreed to comply with the following additional conditions: OPERATIONAL CONTROLS. The following operations controls shall be implemented immediately after construction of the dockage and shall be applicable to the 28 slip docking facility which is the subject of this permit and the adjoining 20 slip docking facility. Dockmaster. There will be a responsible dockmaster on duty at all reasonable hours who will supervise dockage and vessel operations, ensure that all dock users are familiar with dockage rules and be responsible for proper operation. Fuel Storage and Equipment. The fuel storage area shall be located on the upland site. The fuel tanks shall be provided with automatic cut off valves and each dispenser will be equipped with an automatic knock off valve. In the event a dispenser is knocked off the dock or the fuel line ruptured, the automatic valves will minimize fuel spill. Any time the docks are not attended, the fuel lines will be shut off at the tanks. Fuel Spill. Any time fueling opera- tions are under way they will be continuously attended by docking personnel. This will not be a self-service fueling operation. Fueling procedures include the following: The quantity of fuel desired or required to fill each vessel will be determined prior to fueling. Extreme caution will take place as tanks approach full to prevent overfilling. A nozzle soak up ring will be used with this operation. Any over-fill or slop-out will be wiped up, not washed off. The spill containment and clean-up plan shall be posted at the fuel and supply shed. All fuel spill equipment and material will be located on the dock facilities in the fuel and supply shed for ready access and quick deployment. The spill equipment will include absorbent material that responds to fuel products. All staff shall be trained in the use of the equipment, and shall be instructed to notify any affected agencies (Department of Natural Resources, Marine Patrol, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Environmental Regulation). Trash Disposal and Removal. Overboard discarding of trash in the dock or canal area shall be prohibited. Trash receptacles will be placed throughout the docking facility and maintained in a clean and sanitary condition. These receptacles will be secured so as to prevent accidental dumping or tipping during inclement weather. Dock personnel will monitor these receptacles so that they do not have the opportunity to become over full. The full or partially full containers will be removed from the docking facility area. This trash will be taken upland and disposed of in an approved manner. Any trash noted on docks will be removed at once. Discharge of Bilge Water. Discharge of bilge water into the dock or canal area shall be prohibited. Waste Holding Tank Storage and Pump Out Procedures. Overboard pumping or dis- charge of waste into the docking or canal area shall be prohibited. A portable sewage pumpout will be installed and utilized. The expense of this service will be covered by regular assessments. The portable sewage pumpout will be made available to the general public. The service will be provided as follows: User will notify dock personnel that pumpout is desired. When dock personnel advise they are ready, the vessel will be moved to the designated area in the service area. The vessel will be adequately secured to the dock in the service area before pumpout will be hooked up. The sealed pumpout equipment will be properly hooked up to the vessel prior to turning on the equipment. This system will empty directly into lift station then to sewer system. This equipment will be attended to at all times to ensure proper operation during pumpout. Once equipment has been removed from the vessel, the vessel will be allowed to continue on. Fish Cleaning. Fish cleaning in the docking area shall be prohibited, and the placement or construction of fish cleaning facilities on the docks shall be prohibited. A designated cleaning area shall be provided upland. This area will provide rinse water that goes directly to the sewer system of the adjoining condominium. A macerator will grind up fish parts so that the system will not be clogged. Larger fish remains will be packaged for removal by sanitation personnel as part of normal trash removal services in connection with the condominium operation upland. Boat Cleaning. Detergent cleaning of boats in the dock or canal area shall be prohibited. Discharges. Discharges of fish carcasses, food wastes, litter, sewage, fuel, oil, grease, paint, thinner, varnish or other materials into the canal or the docking area shall be prohibited. Restroom Facilities. Restroom facilities shall be located upland in an area convenient to the docking facilities. Operation of Boats. Operating boats in a careless, reckless or negligent fashion shall be prohibited. Maintenance and Repair. There will be a requirement that all boats and equipment be kept and maintained in good order. The painting, repair or maintenance of any vessel hull or engine within the docking or canal area shall be prohibited. Boat Size. The restrictions will provide that no slip will be used to store a vessel that, because of its size, would extend or encroach over a storage or stern line established to provide a 27 foot traffic lane that is consistent with the property rights of third parties having an interest in the canal. Liveaboard Vessels. The use of vessels for living quarters, temporarily or otherwise, shall be prohibited. ENFORCEMENT. Restrictions. All boat slips will be subjected to covenants, conditions and restrictions that will be binding upon and run with the property. The restrictions will incorporate all prohibitions and controls set forth in Section I above. Association. The restrictions will require all boat owners to be members of an Association that will be primarily responsible for enforcement of all restrictions. Addi- tionally, any individual owner will have the right to individually enforce restrictions. Fines and Penalties. The restrictions will establish a system of fines and penalties for any violations. Penalties will include the suspension of rights to use the facilities. Assessments. The restrictions will provide for monthly and special assessments against all boat slip owners in order to pay the expenses incurred in connection with the operational controls and provide funding for deferred maintenance, the replacement of equipment used in the operational controls, the repair and maintenance of such controls and dock personnel wages and salaries. Liens. The restrictions will provide for lien rights of the Association to enforce assessments and penalties. Injunctive Relief. The restrictions will provide for the right to seek and obtain injunctive relief to prevent continuing or repeated violations or the failure to abide by penalties imposed, e.g., suspension of rights to use facilities. Responsible Party. The restrictions will provide that the boat slip owner will be responsible, and be subject to fines, penalties and assessments, for the acts of the owner's lessees, guests or invitees who may use the boat slip. Notice. Each purchaser of a boat slip will be provided a copy of the restrictions at or prior to the closing of the sale. Leases. Any lease of a boat slip which is not sold to a condominium owner shall incorporate the restrictions and provide that any violation of any restriction shall constitute a default under the lease by the lessee. Right of First Refusal. The restrictions shall provide that the Applicant, the Association and the remaining boat slip owners will have the right of first refusal in the event an owner of a boat slip desires to sell the boat slip to someone other than the Applicant or another condominium owner. Dax and Trin's plans for the marina complex were still at an evolutionary stage at final hearing. Dax and Trin's owner, Clay Harris, contemplates owning and operating the bait and tackle shop, snack bar and public fueling facilities. He, and Dax and Trin, contemplate selling 47 slips to condominium owners. The remaining slip will be used in conjunction with the fueling operations. If the slips are not sold, they will be leased to the general public. If sold, there are no restrictions on subleasing. The developer reserves the right of first refusal on slips offered for resale, and the right to lease those slips. The marina complex, apart from a desire to sell slips to condominium owners, has none of the characteristics of a private docking facility for residential owners. Instead, it has all the indicia of a public marina, with the attendant traffic such a facility would produce. The Marina Site Canal No. 8 of Panacea Shores (canal) is a man made navigable water body which opens into Ochlockonee Bay, a Class II water body, at a point where shellfish harvesting is prohibited. The canal is a Class III water body. The canal is one of a series of similar residential canals in the area. The east side of the canal is totally developed with single family residences. Dax and Trin and Petitioner plan to develop the west side of the canal. The canal is a dead-end canal. It is approximately 52 feet wide where it opens into Ochlockonee Bay. From the mouth of the canal, it runs in a northerly direction for approximately 240 feet, with widths varying from 65 feet to 80 feet, then north-northeast for approximately 270 feet, with a width of approximately 90 feet, and then an additional 420 feet to the canal's terminus, with widths of 66 feet to 77 feet. The depths of the canal are irregular; a result of imprecise dredging. A substantial portion of the canal bottom has been dredged below -5 feet mean low water, with the deepest portions lying towards the terminus of the canal; the site of the proposed 28 slips. Canal depths vary from areas exposed at mean low water (-0.5 feet NGVD) to depths of -8.1 feet mean low water (-8.6 feet NGVD). The lack of continuity in the canal bottom, especially in light of the fact that depths at the mouth of the canal are less than those at its terminus, combined with the poor flushing rate exhibited by the canal, raise serious questions regarding the propriety of the site for a marina. The hydrographics of the canal, under its present physical configuration, establish the existence of quiescent areas where materials suspended in the water column could settle out and cause or contribute to water quality degradation in the canal. The flushing rate of the canal is poor. The evidence establishes that the rate at which the canal flushes would range from one to two days at its mouth, and up to 30 days at its terminus. Such a slow flushing rate would aggravate the problem of suspended particles settling out onto the canal bottom, and could contribute to a deterioration of dissolved oxygen in the water column. The biological community in the canal is in good health, in a stable equilibrium, and similar to that in the adjacent waters of Ochlockonee Bay. Shrimp, barnacles, and several types of encrusting, filtering organisms as well as sheepshead, killfish, Fundulus, mullet and redfish are found in the canal. In addition, juvenile crustaceans including blue crab are present. Given the hydrographics of the canal, the issue presented is whether reasonable assurances have been given that the short and long term effects of the proposed facility will not impact adversely on water quality or marine resources. Areas of Concern The major areas of concern raised by Petitioner regarding the proposed facility and its operation are dissolved oxygen (DO), bacteriological quality, oils and greases, and heavy metals associated with copper leaching from antifouling paints. Petitioner voices concern with bacteriological quality predicated on evidence that if one boat were to flush its toilet in the facility, a violation of fecal coliform and total coliform standards would result. Petitioner's concern is legally unpersuasive. It is unlawful to discharge wastes into the waters of the state. It is presumed that people will observe and abide by the law. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Mack, 57 So.2d 447 (Fla. 1952). Further, Dax and Trin has agreed that overboard pumping or discharge of waters or bilge waters into the dock or canal area be prohibited. Oils and greases, and heavy metals, in light of the hydrographics of this canal, raise a serious question. The best maintained boats will seep small amounts of oils and greases into the waters. Copper bottom paints, used by virtually all boat owners who permanently moor their boats as opposed to trailering them, will leach minute quantities of copper into the waters over the course of the paint's life expectancy. Twenty-eight boats moored in the canal, much less 48, even assuming their regular usage outside the canal, may be reasonably expected to inject oils and greases, and copper, into the canal's waters which, because of its hydrographics, will not be dissipated. Because of the canal's quiescent nature, operation of the proposed facility will violate state water quality standards for copper. Dissolved oxygen (DO) degradation is an additional concern. Because of the lineal area of the canal occupied by the proposed facility, and because of oils and greases which could be expected to eventually mix with the bottom sediments and scavenge oxygen from the water column, violations of the DO standard can be reasonably expected. DO in the water column of a water body such as the canal comes principally from the atmosphere. Reaeration occurs at the surface of the waters, and is intensified as the air circulates over the waters causing turbulence. The proposed 28-slip facility would preempt about 10 percent of the surface area of the canal. The additional 20 slips proposed would, if all 48 slips were occupied, preempt 30 percent of the canal's surface area. Because the boats and docks will screen off the winds from the surface of the canal, air circulation near the surface will be reduced and reaeration impeded to such an extent that degradation of DO may be reasonably expected. Dax and Trin has failed to affirmatively provide reasonable assurances that the construction and operation of the proposed facility will not violate state water quality standards for DO and copper. Dax and Trin's reasonable assurances assumed a uniform canal depth of -5 feet MLW, which would assure a good flushing rate for the canal. The evidence clearly establishes that a substantial portion of the canal has been dredged well below -5 feet MLW, and that the flushing characteristics of the canal are poor. Dax and Trin's reasonable assurances further relied on two water quality samples which are totally unreliable. The first water quality sample, taken November 1983, lacks reliability since the equipment was not shown to have been calibrated, and temperature and salinity measurements were not reported to correspond to DO readings. The second sample, taken April 12, 1985, lacks reliability because the DO levels reflected are 17 percent higher than the thermodynamic equilibrium value that could be obtained at the reported temperature and salinity levels if there were no BOD in the water. In fact, the same sample reflects a BOD level in the range of violations of DER Class III standards. Petitioner presented competent evidence that, based on the hydrographics of the canal, frequent violations of the state's DO standards could be reasonably expected during the months of May through October. The construction and operation of the proposed facility would contribute to and exacerbate the DO violations. Dax and Trin has presented no evidence with regard to anticipated public benefits of the proposed facility that might tend to offset the expected adverse impacts of the project. The additional areas of concern raised by Petitioner; erosion of the opposite bank of the canal and resultant resuspension of particulate caused by boat operation, navigational problems, and reliability of Dax and Trin to carry out its management plan, are without merit.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Consolidated Environmental Resource Permit No. 50-0126380-005-EI and State- owned Submerged Lands Lease No. 500729109 for the Sailfish Marina, North Dock, should be issued as proposed in the June 30, 2017, proposed agency action issued by the Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”), in its own capacity, and in its capacity as staff to the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (“BTIITF”).
Findings Of Fact Based upon the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, the stipulations of the parties, and the evidentiary record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Parties The Buccaneer Condominium is a Florida condominium association established pursuant to and governed by chapter 718, Florida Statutes, and subject to the Declaration of Condominium recorded within the public records of Palm Beach County, Florida. The Buccaneer Condominium is a mixed-use condominium facility located at 142 Lake Drive, West Palm Beach, Florida 33404. The Buccaneer Condominium offers, as an amenity of its 18 condominium units, the 18-slip Buccaneer Dock that is part of the condominium property as a common element of the Buccaneer Condominium. The unit owners, as members of the Buccaneer Condominium, each own an undivided interest in the common elements of the condominium, and, therefore, own an undivided interest in the Buccaneer Dock. The Buccaneer Condominium designates and licenses a dock space to each condominium owner, and each owner has the irrevocable and exclusive right to use of a dock space. Pursuant to section 718.111(3), the Buccaneer Condominium has the non-exclusive right to file suit on behalf of the members of the Association relative to claims which involve common elements and reserving the statutory and common law right for unit owners to bring any action without participation by the Buccaneer Condominium. Mr. Sharfi is the President of the Buccaneer Condominium and is authorized to act on its behalf pursuant to the Declaration of Condominium and associated corporate bylaws. In addition to being President of the Buccaneer Condominium, Mr. Sharfi is a member of the Buccaneer Condominium by virtue of his ownership of multiple condominium units, along with the irrevocable and exclusive right to use Buccaneer Dock slips nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, all of which face the proposed North Dock. BUCC18 owns title to Unit 18 at the Buccaneer Condominium, along with the irrevocable and exclusive right to use Buccaneer Dock slips no. 9, which faces the proposed North Dock. Great American is the owner of real property located at 98 Lake Drive, Palm Beach Shores in Palm Beach County, Florida, known as the Sailfish Marina and Resort (“Sailfish Marina”). Great American purchased the Sailfish Marina in 2004 and has continued to operate the property as a commercial and recreational marina, resort, and restaurant. Great American is the Applicant and proposed recipient of the ERP and SSL Authorization at issue in this proceeding. The DEP is an agency of the State of Florida pursuant to section 20.255, Florida Statutes. The DEP is the permitting authority in this proceeding and issued the Permit at issue in this proceeding to Great American. The BTIITF is a collegial body whose existence is reaffirmed by section 253.001, Florida Statutes. The BTIITF holds title to the sovereignty submerged lands within the State in trust for the use and benefit of the public pursuant to Article X, Section 11 of the Florida Constitution. The DEP performs staff duties and functions on behalf of the BTIITF related to the review of applications for authorization to use sovereignty submerged lands necessary for an activity regulated under part IV of chapter 373 for which the DEP has permitting responsibility. § 253.002(1), Fla. Stat. The DEP has been delegated the authority to take final agency action, without any action by the BTIITF, on applications for authorization to use sovereignty submerged lands for any activity for which the DEP has permitting responsibility. § 253.002(2), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-21.0051(2). Standing Mr. Sharfi testified that the proposed North Dock will adversely impact Petitioners’ interests in two ways. First is “the value of the house itself the unit itself since it’s associated with the dock size that it can support and the boats that you can put in it, so smaller boat smaller revenue that it generates and the lower value of the house itself.” In other words “[t]he rental income from the slip.” Second is safety, in that “[t]he boats that are docked at the south facing going in and out can be damaging A, the other boats as well as the dock and marina itself.” However, as to the issue of safety, neither the Buccaneer Condominium nor Mr. Sharfi owns any vessel moored in slip nos. 2 through 8. Rather, the slips are rented to third parties. BUCC18’s manager, Craig Doyle, testified that its interests will be adversely impacted because the proposed North Dock narrows the fairway and increases the potential for collisions and injury to property or people. In addition, Mr. Doyle indicated that each condominium unit “is proportional to the size of the slip and the size of the vessel that it can accommodate,” and that restricting the size of vessels that could use slip no. 9 “would reduce significantly the value of my unit.” Mr. Doyle also testified that he has a “big concern” relative to possible fuel spills, which might occur if there was a collision at the Buccaneer’s T-Dock. However, as previously indicated, environmental concerns are not at issue. Issues for Disposition The only facts and law related to the ERP and SSL Authorization at issue in this proceeding are those related to whether the proposed North Dock adversely impacts navigation, otherwise creates a navigational hazard, or unreasonably infringes upon Petitioners’ riparian rights, such that the Permit ought to be denied. The location of the riparian line between Great American’s property and the Buccaneer Condominium (the “riparian line”) is as depicted on the proposed ERP and SSL Authorization and is not in dispute. Local Conditions The Sailfish Marina and Buccaneer Dock are located just to the north of the Lake Worth Inlet. The average tidal current in the vicinity of the proposed North Dock is one knot, with the potential to run at three to four knots during peak high and low tides, and with seasonal variability. In addition, prevailing winds, generally from the north during the winter and from the south during the summer, can affect vessel maneuverability. Sailfish Marina Existing North Dock Great American currently leases 235,616 feet of sovereignty submerged land from the BTIITF pursuant to Sovereignty submerged Land Lease BOT File No. 500729109, PA No. 50-0126380-004 (the “SSLL”). The SSLL authorized the construction of a “93-slip commercial docking facility to be used exclusively for commercial and recreational vessels in conjunction with an upland commercial marina facility, with fueling facilities,” and includes a requirement that a minimum of 90 percent of slips be available and open to the public on a first-come, first-serve basis. The existing north dock was built in 1986 as a 3,909-square-foot fixed concrete dock with finger piers and associated wood and metal mooring pilings. Of the 32 existing north dock slips, 16 face the Buccaneer Dock. In addition, there is room for at least one vessel to moor parallel to the end of the existing north dock T-head. The existing north dock extends 300 feet from Great American’s upland property into Lake Worth, terminating at the eastern edge of the Lake Worth navigation channel. The western boundary of the current SSLL is located 20 feet west of the existing north dock’s T-Head, to accommodate mooring of vessels on the T-Head. The western boundary of the SSLL is not changed by the Permit. The northern boundary of Great American’s current SSLL runs in a straight line commencing at a point roughly 35 feet south of the riparian line at the seawall and angling northward toward the Lake Worth navigational channel to a point 25 feet south of the riparian line at the seaward end of the existing north dock.1/ The slips on the north side of the existing north dock are double-loaded slips, each accommodating two boats and bounded by finger piers on each side. Each double-loaded slip is 33 feet wide. The slips are approximately 30 feet in length, measured from the center pier to the outermost mooring pilings. The mooring pilings associated with the 10 most landward-existing north dock slips, which slips directly face the nine slips of the Buccaneer Dock, are in a line roughly 52 to 53 feet south of the riparian line. The mooring pilings associated with the six slips at the waterward end of the existing north dock start at approximately 32 feet south of the riparian line, and extend in a line to the west towards the Lake Worth navigation channel at a slight northerly angle to an end point approximately 25 feet south of the riparian line. Thus, the westernmost six slips are well in excess of 30 feet in length. At present, the space between the Buccaneer Dock’s outermost pilings and the pilings associated with the 10 most landward-existing north dock slips is approximately 93 feet. Boats mooring in the north-facing slips of the existing north dock are typically in the range of 38 to 42 feet in length. Boats mooring in these slips extend 12 feet or more beyond the line of mooring pilings. The open-water distance between the Buccaneer Dock’s outermost pilings and the existing “bow line” of boats docked at the existing north dock and facing the Buccaneer Dock on the date that Joint Exhibit 1 was taken was from roughly 81 to 82 feet. Since the current Great American SSLL extends well beyond the “bow line,” there is nothing to prevent longer boats from mooring at the Sailfish Marina slips. Boats mooring in the north-facing slips of the existing north dock use the open water between the Sailfish Marina and the Buccaneer Dock to access the Lake Worth navigation channel. The Buccaneer Dock The Buccaneer Dock was constructed in 1958, prior to any regulatory rules being in place, and is, therefore, determined to be a grandfathered structure. From a regulatory perspective, it is a “private residential multi-family dock or pier” as defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-21.003(47), exclusively serving the 18-unit Buccaneer Condominium. It consists of 18 dock spaces, nine of which face south towards the Sailfish Marina and nine facing north. Dock spaces are reserved to their assigned unit and limited in use to the unit owner or persons renting the unit from the owner. There is no use of the Buccaneer Dock by the public. Only those slips on the south side of the Buccaneer Dock facing the Sailfish Marina, numbered sequentially starting at the seawall with slip 1 and ending at slip 9, were alleged to be affected by the ERP and SSL Authorization. The Buccaneer Dock extends 162 feet from the seawall. It terminates 15 feet east of the point at which the proposed North Dock will “jog” 10 feet to the north. The Buccaneer Dock includes a fueling facility at its seaward end. The proposed Great American SSLL facing the Buccaneer Dock will be set back feet from the riparian line. The Buccaneer Condominium’s Sovereignty Submerged Land Lease (“The Buccaneer SSLL”) boundary is set back approximately feet from the riparian line at a point closest to the seawall and approximately 39 feet from the riparian line at its westernmost point. Thus, there is approximately 71 to 74 feet between the Great American SSLL (in either its current or proposed configuration) and the Buccaneer SSLL. The Buccaneer Dock south slips, particularly those towards the seaward side, are between 67 to 70 feet in length, measured from the center pier to the outermost mooring pilings. The slip length is largely governed by the placement of the pilings, with the finger piers extending from the center pier being much shorter in comparison, generally 25 feet or less in length (as roughly scaled from Joint Exhibit 19). The outermost mooring pilings are set at the southernmost edge of the Buccaneer SSLL. Thus, the Buccaneer Condominium has used all of its preempted SSLL area structures, including pilings, associated with the Buccaneer Dock. Boats using slips 1 through 9 of the Buccaneer Dock vary in size and routinely include sport-fishing boats from 60 to 65 feet in length. Vessels using slips 1 through 9 (as is the case with vessels using the Sailfish Marina existing north dock) back into their berths, and exit moving forward. In order to maneuver a vessel exiting the Buccaneer Dock, the stern of an outgoing vessel must clear the outermost mooring pilings. Thus, 65-foot vessels maneuvering in the space between the Buccaneer Dock and the Sailfish Marina regularly use the Sailfish Marina’s SSLL area, and even enter empty Sailfish Marina slips in order to maneuver in and out of south-facing slips of the Buccaneer Dock. The Proposed North Dock Construction of the proposed North Dock includes removal of the entire existing north dock and its mooring pilings. The ERP authorizes Great American to replace the existing north dock with a 6,004-square-foot floating dock containing 12 south-facing slips, which includes one slip at the T-head. The proposed North Dock will have no north-facing slips. The proposed North Dock extends 300 feet westward into the waterway from the seawall, which is the length of the existing north dock. The western boundary of Great American’s current SSLL remains unchanged by the SSL Authorization. The proposed North Dock will not encroach into a marked or customarily used navigation channel. Commencing at the seawall and extending seaward for 175 feet, which exceeds the Buccaneer Dock’s 162-foot length, the proposed North Dock will be set back 35 feet from the riparian line. The northern edge of the proposed North Dock will be approximately 72 to 74 feet from the Buccaneer Dock’s outermost pilings. At a point 175 feet seaward (west) of the seawall, the proposed North Dock “jogs” 10 feet to the north, and is, thus, set back 25 feet from the riparian line for the remaining 125-foot length of the dock. There is no “facing” dock for that remaining 125 feet. The proposed North Dock complies with the 25-foot setback requirement from the riparian line as required by rule 18-21.004(3)(d). Despite the modification, the current and proposed SSLL boundaries are not substantially or substantively different. There being no northward-facing slips at the proposed North Dock, boats using the Sailfish Marina will no longer use the open space between the Buccaneer Dock and the Sailfish Marina. No mooring will be permitted on the north side of the North Dock. “No-mooring” signs are to be posted along the northern edge of the North Dock, along with handrails to prevent mooring. Great American has round-the-clock staff to monitor the marina and prevent boaters from mooring on the north side of the proposed North Dock. Great American also agreed to not place cleats on the north side of the proposed North Dock to further discourage mooring. Affects on Navigation Petitioners challenge to the ERP was limited to whether it adversely affects the public health, safety, or welfare, or property of others and whether it adversely affects navigation, as set forth on Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-330.302(1)(a)(1) and (3). Petitioners challenge to the SSL Authorization was limited to its alleged unreasonable interference with riparian rights and whether it creates a hazard to navigation, as set forth in rule 18-21.004(3)(c), (7)(f) and (g). Since 1985 to present, vessels from 60 to 65 feet in length have used the Buccaneer Dock south slips and the navigational fairway between the Buccaneer’s south slips and the Sailfish Marina’s existing north dock. There is some evidence to suggest that the average overall length of vessels has increased since 1986 (see Great American Exhibit 12).2/ The evidence demonstrates that vessels from the Buccaneer Dock routinely use waters not only within Great American’s riparian zone, but within Great American’s SSLL. Mr. Adams testified that when leaving the Buccaneer Dock in one of the larger boats, the vessel “crosses over where the proposed Sailfish north dock is,” and that he could shake the hand of a person standing on the bow of one of the sailboats moored at the Sailfish Marina. Mr. Fleming testified that in his experience maneuvering a 61-foot vessel out of the Buccaneer Dock, he would be “very close to the existing submerged land lease of the Sailfish Marina” before he could even begin to maneuver the vessel, partly due to the tightness of the Buccaneer Dock slip, and could not safely maneuver without utilizing the Sailfish Marina’s sovereignty submerged land lease area. The evidence further established that, in some instances, vessels from the Buccaneer Dock have had to pull partially into vacant Sailfish Marina slips in order to perform a three-point turn to exit the navigation fairway. Length of Vessel Maneuvering Ratio The parties spent a great deal of time and effort explaining the navigational ratios that come into play when maneuvering a vessel in tight quarters. Some experts relied upon the 1.5 rule, meaning that space equal to 1.5 times the length of a vessel is necessary to safely maneuver the vessel in confined areas. Another opined that space equal to two times the length of the vessel would be warranted in the space between the Buccaneer Dock and the Sailfish Marina due to local currents and winds. However, Mr. Cox testified as to his opinion that modern vessels with twin screws, bow thrusters, pod drives, and other modern equipment were capable of maneuvering in space equivalent to the length of the vessel, plus 20 feet. The 1.5 rule is the most commonly applied and appears in the American Society of Civil Engineers’ Manual and various other guides and handbooks. The vessel length, plus 20-feet rule, may well be a refinement of the 1.5 rule based on modern, up-to-date means of propulsion. However, it is unnecessary to make findings or conclusions regarding the preference for one rule over the other. The distance between the Buccaneer Dock pilings and the location of the proposed North Dock is 74 feet+/-. A preponderance of the evidence substantiates that vessels of 60 feet and greater will be unable to safely maneuver from the Buccaneer Dock without a significant risk of making contact with the proposed North Dock. Thus, under any of the guidelines, the space is inadequate to allow a 60-foot boat to maneuver. However, a preponderance of the evidence equally supports a finding that a 50-foot vessel could maneuver into and out of the Buccaneer Dock without incident if the proposed North Dock were to be constructed. Therefore, the issue for this proceeding can be boiled down to the following: does the right of a person to own and berth a vessel of a particular size that requires the use of its adjacent property owner’s SSLL to maneuver supersede the right of the adjacent property owner to make use of the sovereignty submerged lands that it has leased from the State of Florida? There is no question that in order for 60-foot vessels to safely maneuver from the Buccaneer Dock, it is necessary that they not only cross into Great American’s riparian space, but also into Great American’s SSL leased space in either its current or proposed configuration. If 60-foot vessels are allowed to berth at the Buccaneer Dock, the effect will be to essentially appropriate Great American’s sovereignty submerged lands for the benefit of the Buccaneer Condominium unit owners. Put in other terms, do the owners of units in the Buccaneer Condominium have the right to berth 60-foot vessels at the Buccaneer Dock, and by so doing, prohibit Great American from using its sovereignty submerged lands3/ on the ground that it will impede the Buccaneer Condominium’s private rights of navigation? The Boating Public The “navigational fairway” between the Buccaneer Dock and the existing north dock is not a marked or customarily used navigation channel. Although the navigational fairway is not barricaded, it is not a publicly used area, as is the Lake Worth navigation channel, or other areas that are customarily used by the public. The testimony of incidental use of the fairway by small boats and swimmers is not sufficient to transform the fairway into a navigational channel, and in any event, those uses will not be impaired by the proposed North Dock. The proposed North Dock will reduce boat traffic in the waters between the Sailfish Marina and the Buccaneer Dock by eliminating all 16 of the Sailfish Marina’s north-facing slips, leaving the waters for the exclusive use of the nine vessels using the Buccaneer Dock’s south slips. Thus, to the extent use of the fairway by small boats and swimmers is relevant, such use is made considerably safer by the construction of the proposed North 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 approving the Consolidated Environmental Resource Permit No. 50-0126380-005-EI and State- owned Submerged Lands Lease No. 500729109 for the Sailfish Marina, North Dock, subject to the general and specific conditions set forth therein. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of November, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY 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 2nd day of November, 2018.
The Issue Whether Sam Patterson’s proposed dock project is exempt from the need to obtain an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) from the Department of Environmental Protection (Department) under Florida Administrative Code Rules 40E-4.051(3)(c) and (d).
Findings Of Fact The Parties Mr. Scully resides at 941 Brookdale Drive, Boynton Beach, Florida, Lot 16, adjacent to and south-southeast of Mr. Patterson's residential property. The northern or rear portion of Mr. Scully's lot borders on an artificial canal that is designated a Class III water by Department rule. He does not have a dock per se; he moors his boat against and parallel to a narrow concrete area (and his lot line), separated by buffering material. Mr. Patterson, the applicant, owns the property at 930 Brookdale Drive, Boynton Beach, Florida, Lot 15. Lot 15 is north-northwest and adjacent to Mr. Scully’s property. This residential property is currently leased to others. The residential property (Lot 14) adjacent to and north-northeast of Mr. Patterson's lot is apparently owned by an individual named Meloche. The Department has the jurisdiction to determine whether the proposed project is exempt from ERP requirements. The Proposed Project On or about September 13, 2004, Mr. Patterson filed an application requesting an exemption to replace an existing five- foot by 21-foot (105-square feet) marginal dock in the same location, configuration, and dimensions as the existing dock. He also requested an exemption to install a five-foot by 16-foot (80-square feet) wooden finger pier extending perpendicular to and from the middle of the existing marginal dock. As of the final hearing, the project has been revised such that the wooden finger pier will extend 11.8 feet (rather than 16 feet) and perpendicular from the middle of the marginal dock. Mr. Patterson changed the length of the finger pier to comply with City regulations, which are not at issue in this case. The “Site Plan” is attached to the Department’s Notice of Determination of Exemption. (JE 1). The “Site Plan” shows a one-story residence on Mr. Patterson's Lot 15. The front of the lot measures 100 feet, whereas the rear of the lot (that abuts the canal on the easternmost portion of the lot) is 50 feet in length from south to north. The seawall is one-and-one-half feet in width. The existing marginal dock abuts the seawall running south to north and is 21 feet long and five feet wide. Small concrete platforms abut the marginal dock on the south and north. The Department reviewed the original application and on October 13, 2004, advised Mr. Patterson, in part, that his project was exempt from the need to obtain an ERP under Florida Administrative Code Rules 40E-4.051(3)(c) and (d). The Department had not reviewed the change to the project prior to the final hearing. See Finding of Fact 5. Lots 16, 15, and 14 are situated as a cul-de-sac (semi- circle) with the canal north of Lot 16, east of Lot 15, and south of Lot 14. Lot 14 is across the canal from Mr. Scully's Lot 16. There are five properties on each side of the canal, running west to east. The artificial canal runs directly east from Mr. Patterson’s property for an uncertain distance to the Intracoastal Waterway (ICW). Mr. Patterson’s property (Lot 15) is the western end-point for this canal. Mr. Patterson’s eastern property line (fronting the canal) is 50 feet in width. However, the precise width of the canal between Lots 14 and 16 is unclear. Ms. Smith reports (in her site inspection report of March 3, 2005 (JE 3)) that the canal is approximately 50 feet wide. Mr. Patterson testified that Karen Main with the City of Boynton Beach advised him that the consensus opinion of City employees reviewing the issue was that the canal measured 66 feet in width. There appears to be some widening of the canal east of Mr. Patterson’s property line and then the canal appears to straighten-out as it proceeds to the east to the ICW and past the easterly property lines for Lots 14 and 16. See (JEs 1-site plan; 5-aerial). The weight of the evidence indicates that the canal, between Lots 14 and 16, is approximately 60 to 66 feet wide. See, e.g., id. In the past, the prior owner of Lot 15 (Mr. Patterson's property) moored a boat at and parallel to the marginal dock, which means that the bow, for example, faced Lot 14 and the stern faced Lot 16. Mr. Patterson currently owns a 16-foot boat that he wants to moor at the marginal dock. However, he feels that it is unsafe to do so, particularly if Mr. Scully’s boat drifts. Meloche (Lot 14 to the north) has a fixed boatlift, which allows for the elevation of a boat out of the water, with the bow facing west toward and in front of the northern end of Mr. Patterson’s seawall. (JE 4). Mr. Scully moors his boat parallel to the shoreline of Lot 16 and perpendicular to Mr. Patterson’s 50-foot eastern seawall and property line. (JEs 4 and 6). Mr. Scully’s seawall intersects Mr. Patterson’s seawall such that when Mr. Scully’s 22-foot boat is moored at his seawall, it is also in front of the southern end of Mr. Patterson’s seawall. Id. When Mr. Scully’s boat is tightly moored at his seawall, it does not interfere with or block Mr. Patterson’s marginal dock. (JE 6). However, when Mr. Scully’s boat is loosely moored, it drifts toward the center of the canal in front of Mr. Patterson’s marginal dock. (JE 4). With no boat moored at the marginal dock, Mr. Scully is able to freely maneuver his boat to his seawall with limited “backing” of his boat required (stern first). With a boat consistently moored at Mr. Patterson’s marginal dock, Mr. Scully would have to back into his area beside his seawall in order to avoid colliding with that boat. Mr. Patterson’s finger pier would enable him to safely moor a boat perpendicular to the marginal dock. Centering the finger pier at the marginal dock is likely to make it easier for Mr. Patterson and Mr. Scully to navigate to their respective mooring areas, depending on the size of the boats moored by Mr. Patterson and Mr. Scully. (The Department, in reviewing similar exemption requests, does not consider the type and size of the boat(s) to be moored at the proposed dock or adjacent mooring site.) It is preferable for the boats to be moored, in this location, stern first, with the bow facing down the canal from the wake of the boats traveling in the ICW. Centering the finger pier at the marginal dock and mooring Mr. Patterson’s boat on the north side of the finger pier is likely to enable Meloche, Mr. Patterson, and Mr. Scully to moor their boats parallel to each other and avoid collisions.1 Placement of the finger pier at the northern end of the finger pier, while favored over the proposed location by Mr. Scully, is likely to interfere with Meloche’s use of his property and boatlift. With the finger pier centered on the marginal dock and a boat moored to the north, Mr. Scully can maneuver his boat to his seawall by “backing in” stern first. An experienced boater can accomplish this task in two to three maneuvers. Mr. Scully is an experienced boater and has lived on the canal for approximately eight years. Shortening the finger pier from 16 feet to 11.8 feet will not affect Mr. Patterson’s ability to safely moor a boat on the northern side of the finger pier. The Challenge Mr. Scully contends that the placement of the wooden finger pier and the mooring of a sizable boat on the proposed finger pier will interfere with his ability to navigate in and out of the canal in or around his property, and necessarily interfere with his ability to moor his boat adjacent to his property. He also contends that the marginal dock and the finger pier are two docks, not one. Resolution of the Controversy Replacement of the existing marginal dock will consist of replacing the decking and using the existing pilings. The existing marginal dock is currently functional. Reconstruction of the marginal dock and construction of the finger pier will be done by a licensed marine contractor. The licensed marine contractor will use best management practices to avoid water quality problems in the canal during construction. Construction of the proposed project is not expected to adversely affect flood control or violate water quality standards. The proposed project will not impede navigation. But see Endnote 1.
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 Mr. Patterson’s proposed dock project, as revised, is exempt from the need to obtain an ERP. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES A. STAMPELOS 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 14th day of April, 2005.
The Issue The issue is whether ADR of Pensacola should be issued a wetland resource permit and sovereign submerged lands authorization allowing the construction of a 30-slip docking facility on Big Lagoon, Escambia County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background In this environmental permitting dispute, Petitioner, Michael L. Guttmann, who lives less than one mile from the project site, has challenged the proposed issuance by Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection (Department), of a Wetland Resource Permit (permit) and Sovereign Submerged Lands Authorization (authorization) which would allow Respondent, ADR of Pensacola (applicant), to construct a 30-slip docking facility on Big Lagoon, Escambia County, Florida. The facility will be part of a condominium project to be constructed on the upland portion of the property. As grounds for contesting the permit, Petitioner contended that the Department failed to consider "the long term health of Big Lagoon," navigational hazards created by the project, or public safety; failed to impose an adequate "monitoring program"; did not provide for a "contingency plan for hurricane activity"; failed to consider that the activity will degrade a nearby Outstanding Florida Water [OFW]; and failed to take into account "existing unused marina slips close by." The petition further alleged that the foregoing concerns constituted violations of Section 373.414, Florida Statutes (2000), and Rules 62-4.242, 62-302.300, 62-302.700, and 62- 312.080, Florida Administrative Code. The cited statute identifies "additional criteria" for issuing a permit while the first three rules pertain to OFWs. The last rule contains general standards for the issuance or denial of a permit. Petitioner raised no issues concerning the issuance of the authorization in his initial pleading. Until April 2000, the upland property was owned by the applicant. It was then sold to Harbour Pointe of Pensacola, Inc., which has subsequently entered into an agreement with the applicant allowing the applicant to construct the dock, operate the permit, and purchase a condominium unit. If the application is approved, applicant intends to construct a 442 feet x 4 feet access pier with seventeen 30 feet x 1.5 feet finger piers, thirteen 40 feet x 1.5 feet finger piers, and a 74 feet x 1.5 feet terminal platform, to form a 30-slip docking facility at 10901 Gulf Beach Highway on Big Lagoon, a Class III water in Escambia County, Florida. Approval to use the submerged lands is found in the authorization. The dock will be located in a "fairly pristine area" in Big Lagoon a few miles southwest of Pensacola, Florida. That body of water is six miles in length and is separated from the Gulf of Mexico by a slender coastal barrier island known as Perdido Key, which lies approximately one statute mile south of the project. Continuing west along the shoreline next to the project site are a string of single-family homes with small dock facilities, most of which are less than 1,000 square feet in size and thus exempt from Department permitting requirements. To the east of the undeveloped property are more undeveloped lots and a private yacht club with extensive docking facilities. The facility being challenged here will not be a public marina; rather, it will serve the residents of a proposed upland condominium (consisting of two buildings) to be constructed at the same location. The project is more commonly referred to as the Harbour Pointe Marina. It is fair to infer that Petitioner and adjoining property owners object not only to the dock, but also to the condominium project. The application and project When the application was originally filed with the Department in July 1995, it contained plans for a longer dock and more slips. Due to a reduction in the length of the pier and number of slips to conform to Department rules, other technical changes, and various requests by the Department for additional information, the draft permit was not issued by the Department until May 2000. The Department considers this a "major project" with "major [hydrographic and water quality] issues connected with it." In reviewing the application, the Department considered whether reasonable assurance had been given by the applicant that water quality standards would not be violated, and whether the additional criteria in Section 373.414(1)(a)1.-7., Florida Statutes (2000), had been satisfied. The Department concluded that water quality standards would not be degraded, and that the project, as designed and permitted, was not contrary to the public interest. In making the public interest determination, the Department typically assigns a plus, minus, or neutral score to each of the seven statutory factors. In this case, a neutral score was given to historical and archaeological resources [paragraph 373.414(1)(a)6.] since there were none, while the permanent nature of the project [paragraph 373.414(1)(a)5.] caused it to be rated "a little bit on the minus side"; all other factors were given a plus. Department witness Athnos then concluded that on balance the project "was a plus because it will not adversely affect any of these things." The access pier (dock) runs perpendicular from the shoreline and stretches out some 442 feet to where the water reaches a depth of seventeen feet, which is the deepest point in Big Lagoon. The unusual length of the dock is required so that the boat slips will begin past the seagrass colony (which lies closer to the shore), to prevent boat propeller blades from cutting the top of the seagrass, and to reduce the amount of sedimentation stirred up by the boat propellers. Aerial photographs confirm that when completed, the dock will probably be the largest in Big Lagoon, and much larger than the neighboring docks to the west. The use of boat slips will be limited to condominium owners. Only 19 slips will be constructed initially, since the applicant has secured approval at this time for only the first phase of the condominium project. When approval for the second phase is secured, the applicant intends to add an additional 11 slips. Water quality In his initial pleading, Petitioner made a general allegation that the Department failed to consider "the long term health of Big Lagoon"; there were no specific allegations regarding water quality standards. In his Proposed Recommended Order, however, he argues that the [a]pplicant failed to provide reasonable assurances that water quality standards would not be violated." Assuming arguendo that the issue has been properly raised, Petitioner has still failed to substantiate his allegation. That portion of Big Lagoon where the project will be located is a Class III water of the State. Studies on metals, greases, oils, and the like submitted by the applicant reflected that the "water quality [in that area] did not exceed the standards in Rule 62-302." To provide further reasonable assurance regarding water quality standards, the applicant has voluntarily agreed to use concrete piling and aluminum docks. Unlike wooden piling and docks, these types of materials do not leach toxic substances such as arsenic, copper, and acromiom into the water. In addition, special permit conditions require that sewage pumpout equipment be located at the site so that boats will not discharge raw sewage into the waters. Liveaboards are prohibited, and fueling will not be available at the facility. Finally, the cleaning of fish is not allowed, and boat owners cannot scrape their boat bottoms while docked at the facility. All of these conditions are designed to ensure that water quality standards will not be violated. Enforcement mechanisms for the above conditions are found in either the permit itself or Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. Also, one of the conditions in the draft permit expressly states that the applicant is not relieved of liability for harm or injury to humans, plants, or property caused by the construction of the dock. However, if a permit is issued, Condition 9 of the permit should be modified to require that trained personnel be available twenty-four hours per day, rather than just during standard business hours, to assist boaters with, and ensure that they use, the sewage pumpout equipment. Any permit issued should also require that boats be placed on lifts while using the docking facilities. This will prevent any leaching of paint from the boat bottoms into the waters. Otherwise, the paint would cause a degradation of the water. The more persuasive evidence supports a finding that, with the additional conditions, reasonable assurance has been given that the state water quality standards applicable to Class III waters will not be violated. Outstanding Florida Waters In his complaint, Petitioner has contended that "the proposed activity will degrade an [OFW] as a result of its close proximity to the Gulf Islands National Seashore," and that the"[D]epartment has made no analysis of this project['s] impact on the [OFW] which is adjacent to the proposed activity." The record discloses that the southern portion of Big Lagoon has been designated as an OFW. This area includes the waters around Gulf Islands National Seashore and Big Lagoon State Park; they begin approximately 650 to 700 feet south of the end of the dock. As noted earlier, the project is located within Class III waters. Because the Department found that no violation of state water quality standards in those waters would occur, it likewise concluded, properly in this case, that the project would have no impact on any OFW, even though such waters begin some 650 or 700 feet away. Under these circumstances, there would be no reason to assess the water quality in the OFWs or the projected impacts on those waters, as Petitioner suggests. In the absence of any credible evidence to the contrary, it is found that the project will not adversely impact an OFW. Hydrographic characteristics If a dock has more than ten boat slips, the Department routinely conducts a hydrographic (flushing) study to determine whether the structure will adversely affect the flow of the water in the area or cause erosion or shoaling on adjacent properties. In the summer of 1999, a Department engineer conducted a hydrographic study using a dye tracer and concluded that flushing characteristics were excellent and that there would be no adverse effects caused by the project. This conclusion has not been credibly contradicted. Therefore, it is found that the dock will not adversely affect the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. Navigational issues In his initial pleading, Petitioner raised a contention that the project will create "navigational hazards" because the dock "extends nearly into a navigation channel which routinely carries commercial towboats transporting hazardous material, the spill of which would adversely affect Big Lagoon." He also alleges that the rupture of a vessel could impact public safety. Channel markers placed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the Intracoastal Waterway (of which Big Lagoon is a part) define a navigational channel for boats approximately 400- 500 feet south of the end of the proposed dock. That channel is used by both recreational and commercial traffic, including barges and other large watercraft which regularly haul oil, chemicals, and other products through the Intracoastal Waterway to and from Pensacola, Panama City, and St. Marks, Florida. The water in the marked channel is only thirteen feet deep. Because the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has jurisdiction over the maintenance of the marked channel, the Department defers to that entity's judgment in determining whether a proposed structure will impede navigation in the marked channel. The proposed dock ends near the deepest part of the natural channel where the water reaches a depth of seventeen feet. Because of the deeper water to the north, which allows the boat captain to "get better steerage," the commercial boat traffic sometimes tends to follow the natural channel, rather than the marked channel formed by the navigational aids. When they do so, however, they are straying from the so-called "legal" channel. Petitioner's expert, a retired tugboat captain, opined that in a storm or squall, a commercial boat using the natural rather than the marked navigational channel might be blown extremely close to the dock or even strike it, thus causing a hazardous situation. He acknowledged, however, that he was not predicting more accidents because of the construction of the dock; he also admitted that the dock would not cause ships to "sudden[ly] have problems navigating that Big Lagoon." The location of the proposed dock was shown to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida Marine Patrol, and there were no adverse comments regarding this issue by either agency. In the absence of any negative comments by those agencies, and the acknowledgement by Petitioner's own witness that the dock will not cause accidents or create navigational problems for other boaters, the more persuasive evidence supports a finding that the project will not adversely affect navigation or public safety in Big Lagoon. Seagrass and monitoring Petitioner has alleged that Big Lagoon "is the healthiest body of water in Escambia County with a white sand bottom and abundant seagrass," and that the proposed project will adversely affect its "long term health." He also alleges that the Department has failed to provide a "remedy or punishment should the results [of the Department's monitoring plan] indicate that the seagrass has been harmed"; that the Department's monitoring plan is not "of sufficient duration to reasonably report the long-term effect of concentrated mooring and traffic" or "sufficiently specific to insure usable data"; and that the data relied upon by the Department [such as photographs] were not "sufficient" to determine the existing health of the seagrass. The evidence reflects that a "nice, healthy seagrass community" is found in the area where the dock will be constructed. It stretches out several hundred feet from the shoreline to where the water reaches a depth of around six feet. The Department considers seagrass to be a "most important resource" which should be protected. This is because seagrass is essential for "binding" the shoreline and stabilizing the sediments, and it serves as a nursery area for juvenile fish and shellfish. Indeed, due to these beneficial effects, far more species of shellfish are found in areas where seagrass thrives than in areas where no seagrass exists. To protect the seagrass, the dock has been extended out 442 feet from the shoreline so that the first boat slip begins at a depth of seven feet, or just past where the seagrass ends. This will prevent the scarring of the grass by boat propellers and reduce turbidity that is typically caused by propeller dredging and boat wakes. Thus, at least theoretically, no boat activity by condominium owners is contemplated in waters of less than seven feet. Because seagrass requires as much light as possible to survive, educational signs will be posted in the area to warn boaters that seagrass is found closer to the shoreline, and that mooring in that area is prohibited. There is, however, no enforcement mechanism to ensure that condominium owners or nonresidents comply with these warnings. Under the draft permit, the Department is allowed to access the premises at reasonable times for sampling or monitoring purposes. A special section of the draft permit includes a number of requirements pertaining to the monitoring of turbidity levels during dock construction while another section requires the applicant to take photographs of the existing seagrass beds at numerous locations before, during, and after construction of the dock. Condition 14 requires that the permittee maintain "records of monitoring information" for at least three years. The evidence supports a finding that if a permit is issued, a mapping of the seagrass should be made prior to construction of the dock and during the height of the growing season (September and October). When the photographing of the area is performed, the applicant should use a sampling protocol that is based on a scientifically determined method. Also, both affected and unaffected areas should be monitored to compare the effect of the additional boat traffic on the seagrass after the dock is constructed. All of these conditions should be incorporated into any issued permit. According to Dr. Heck, a marine biologist who specializes in the study of seagrass and testified as an expert on behalf of Petitioner, seagrass beds in Big Lagoon have been "shallowing up" or thinning out in recent years due to decreasing water clarity. In other words, as the water becomes cloudier from more and more boat activity, the sunlight cannot penetrate and the seagrass will not thrive. The seagrasses most susceptible to disappearing are those that are found at the deepest depth. Doctor Heck attributed the decline in seagrass to increased human activity in the area. This activity is related not only to the existing homeowners in the area, but also to the non-resident boaters (both recreational and commercial) who use the waters in that area. A Department study conducted in 1995 confirmed that the only seagrass area in North Florida "significantly affected" by propeller scarring was an area in Big Lagoon known as Scallop Cove, near Spanish Point. This study is consistent with those studies performed by Dr. Heck in the late 1990's, and one as recently as last year, that support a finding that seagrass in Big Lagoon is on the decline due to both propeller scarring and increased turbidity caused by wakes from larger recreational boats. For this reason, Dr. Heck concluded that the addition of thirty boats at the project site, some of which would be as large as 30 feet or so, would have a "negative effect" on the seagrass colony. This in turn will cause a negative effect on the marine productivity in the area, as well as the conservation of fish and their habitat. Doctor Heck's testimony on this issue is found to be the most persuasive. Other concerns Petitioner further contends that the Department failed to provide a "meaningful contingency plan for hurricane activity." This matter, however, is beyond the permitting jurisdiction of the Department. Petitioner has also contended that the Department failed to take into account "existing unused marina slips close by" which could be used by the condominium owners. Like the prior issue, this matter is not a consideration in the permitting scheme. Another issue raised by Petitioner, albeit untimely, was that the construction of this dock could lead to further development in Big Lagoon. There was, however, no evidentiary support for this contention. Indeed, there is no evidence that future permit applications with impacts similar to this application can reasonably be expected in the area. At hearing, Petitioner raised for the first time a contention that the applicant no longer owns the upland property and thus a permit/authorization cannot be issued to that entity. Aside from this issue being untimely, the fact that a permit holder does not own the upland property is not unusual. If this occurs, permits and authorizations (leases) are routinely transferred to the new owner once the Department receives the necessary title information. It is not a ground to defeat the application. Petitioner also raised for the first time at hearing a contention that the site plan approval for the condominium has expired under a provision of the Escambia County Land Development Code and therefore the permit should be denied. Again, the issue is untimely; more importantly, it should be addressed in another forum since the Department has no jurisdiction over this issue. Likewise, a legitimate concern by an adjoining property owner, witness Hobgood, and an area realtor, that Hobgood's single-family property would probably decline in value if the project is built is nonetheless beyond the Department's jurisdiction. Finally, a contention that the Department improperly calculated the maximum number of boat slips for an 88-unit condominium project has been rejected. The record contains a lengthy explanation by witness Athnos which shows that the Department's calculation under Rule 18-21.004(4)1., Florida Administrative Code, was correct. Those calculations are also detailed in Respondents' Exhibit 14.
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 denying the application of ADR of Pensacola for a wetland resource permit and sovereign submerged lands authorization. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (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 28th day of February, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Michael L. Guttmann, Esquire 314 South Baylen Street, Suite 201 Pensacola, Florida 32501-5949 Charles T. Collette, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 David A. Sapp, Esquire 1017 North 12th Avenue Pensacola, Florida 32501-3306 Teri L. Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact Patco proposes to build a dock offshore of a condominium it is now constructing on Anna Maria Key in Manatee County, Florida. At the proposed dock, condominium residents could moor 22 boats in Watson's Bayou, which opens onto Sarasota Pass (also known as Anna Maria Sound). A house owned by Mildred S. Mansfield, petitioner Peter's mother, sits on a waterfront lot on the north shore of Watson's Bayou. The main part of the proposed dock would parallel the edge of the bayou, running 248 feet in a north-south direction, 30 to 45 feet offshore. Some 47 marine pilings six inches in diameter would support the decking on the main part, which would be elevated four feet above mean sea level. At its mid- point, the main part of the dock would be joined to the land by a perpendicular- access walkway with the same open substructure and at the same height as the main part of the dock. Of the ten pilings planned as the foundation for the access walkway, six would be seaward of the mean high water line. Eleven catwalks or finger piers are planned to extend perpendicularly into the bayou from the main part of the dock, at intervals of 24 to 28 feet. Two six inch marine pilings would support each catwalk or finger pier at a height of slightly more than three feet above mean sea level. Between every pair of finger piers, two boat slips are planned; and slips are planned on either side of every finger pier. Between every pair of slips not separated by a finger pier, Patco proposes to place a mooring piling, equidistant from the two finger piers nearest it. These ten mooring pilings would stand seaward of the finger piers, but no more than 70 feet seaward of the mean high water line. Patco also plans to put in two pilings along each of two imaginary lines, running shoreward from either end of the main part of the dock, and perpendicular to the main part of the dock. The purpose of these pilings, which would be about eight feet apart, would be to discourage boat traffic between the main part of the dock and the shore. Two boulders would be placed in shallow water for the same purpose. A water system and electrical service are planned for the dock, but neither fuel nor lubricants are to be dispensed and no waste or sewage system is planned. Patco plans to operate the facility, including emptying containers it intends to provide for trash, until it sells the dock to an association of slip owners, who will take over its management. Patco will not allow people to live aboard boats moored at the dock and a condition of any sale to an association will be that the association not allow live-aboards. With occasional breaks, there is a fringe of black, white and red mangroves along the shore opposite the main part of the proposed dock. Louise Robertson testified without contradiction that mangroves bordering Patco's property have been trimmed and in some cases cut down. The access walkway is planned for one of the natural breaks in the mangrove fringe, however, a spot where there are no mangroves. Applicant's Exhibit No. 6. The waters of Watson's Bayou are Class III waters. Experience with a similar dock built by Patco near the proposed site some 15 months before the hearing indicates that the proposed dock would not violate DER's water quality standards. Shortly before the hearing, a biologist's superficial examination of waters in the vicinity of the dock that has been built revealed no water quality problems as a result of the dock. Increased boat traffic in the vicinity would result in additional oils and greases in the water but, after reasonable opportunity for mixture with the waters of Watson's Bayou, oils and greases would probably not exceed 15 milligrams per liter, or otherwise violate the criteria set forth in Rule 17-3.05(2)(r) Florida Administrative Code. Patco plans to engage a subcontractor to put the pilings in. The subcontractor would "jet" the pilings by using a pump mounted on a barge to force water down to the bottom through a hose. This process would result in sand being temporarily suspended in the water. Patco proposes to curtain off or "diaper" the area where pilings are to be jetted in, so as to contain the turbidity, and so as to keep silt out of an oyster bed nearby. The parties stipulated that the project would not violate turbidity standards, if such precautions are taken. The parties also stipulated that the proposed dock would not violate DER's dissolved oxygen or biochemical oxygen demand standards. The evidence established that DER has reasonable assurance that none of its water quality standards would be violated by the dock Patco proposes to build. At mean sea level, there is ample water at the site of the proposed slips to float any vessel capable of entering Watson's Bayou from the waters outside. The channel into Watson's Bayou from Sarasota Pass is only three feet deep at low tide. This shallow channel prevents boats drawing more than a few feet from entering the Bayou through the channel, but a 46 foot ketch once came in on a high tide. In the proposed slips, mean sea level depths would range from six or seven feet at the seaward end of the finger piers to three or four feet at the landward end of the slips. Mean low water depths are about seven/tenths of a foot lower. With a spring tide, the water may fall six inches below mean low water levels. There is virtually no danger that boats would run aground in the proposed slips. The bottom underneath the proposed dock is sandy and wholly devoid of grasses or other marine vegetation. Between the shore and the main part of the dock however, there is an oyster bed whose northern edge is approximately five or ten feet south of the site proposed for the access walkway. This oyster bed extends about 280 feet in a southerly direction, but does not extend as far west as the site proposed for the main part of the dock. Jetting in the proposed pilings would not result in the death of a single oyster. As long as boats stay on the seaward side of the main part of the proposed dock, the oysters would not be harmed by boat traffic. Other fauna at the site include some benthic polychaetes, tunicates and other arthropods. The jetting in of pilings would injure and displace any of these creatures who were in the immediate vicinity, but their mobility is comparable to that of fishes and they would soon reestablish themselves. Once in place, the pilings would afford a habitat for barnacles and related marine life. A public boat launching ramp is situated 150 to 200 feet from the southern end of the proposed dock. The ramp is far enough away from the proposed dock that construction of the dock would not interfere with launching boats. The water in this part of Watson's Bayou is deep enough that the proposed dock would not create a serious impediment to navigation. Under certain wind conditions, however, a sailboat beating into the main part of Watson's Bayou from the ramp might have to make an additional tack or two if the proposed dock is built. Conversely, with southerly winds, a boat under sail making for the ramp from the main part of Watson's Bayou might have to tack more often if Patco builds the dock it proposes. The dock Patco plans to build would not create a navigational hazard nor cause erosion of the shoreline. The parties stipulated that the dock would not substantially alter or impede the natural flow of navigable waters. The State of Florida owns the bottom into which Patco plans to jet pilings. Respondent DER contacted Florida's Department of Natural Resources about the proposed dock in October, 1978. By letter dated November 21, 1978, the Department of Natural Resources advised the DER that the project would "not require a lease . . . as this application is considered a private dock." DER's Exhibit No. 1. On the strength of biological and ecological surveys and repeated visits to the site by Linda Allen, an environmental specialist in DER's employ, the DER gave notice of its intent do issue the permit Patco seeks. The foregoing findings of fact should be read in conjunction with the statement required by Stuckey's of Eastman, Georgia v. Department of Transportation, 340 So.2d 119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), which is attached as an appendix to the recommended order.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That DER grant Patco's application for permit on the following conditions: That no submerged or transitional vegetation be destroyed in constructing the dock. That the construction area be diapered so as to restrict siltation to the smallest practicable space and, in any event, so as to separate the work area from the oyster bed. That no dredging by any method be used to gain access to the dock. That the owner of the dock allow no docking except in slips seaward of the main part of the dock. That the owner of the dock maintain lines and floats between the ends of the main part of the dock and the landward pilings; and take other appropriate steps to discourage boat traffic between the main part of the dock and the shore. That the owner of the dock forbid living on board boats moored at the dock; forbid the discharge of sewage and garbage into the water; and furnish trash receptacles for the dock. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of June, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 APPENDIX Paragraphs one through eleven, thirteen through seventeen and nineteen through twenty-two of respondent Patco's proposed findings of fact, have been adopted, in substance. Paragraph twelve of respondent Patco's proposed findings of fact has been adopted insofar as the plan for pilings and boulders. The evidence did not establish that this, without more, would suffice to protect marine life on the bottom between the shore and the main part of the dock. Paragraph eighteen of respondent Patco's proposed findings of fact reflects the evidence in that it was shown that the proposed dock would not degrade water quality below minimum standards for Class III waters; but degradation of water quality as a result of oils and greases can be expected, within lawful limits. COPIES FURNISHED: Dewey A. Dye, Jr., Esquire Patricia A. Petruff, Esquire Post Office Box 9480 Bradenton, Florida 33506 Alfred W. Clark, Esquire Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Peter W. Mansfield 1861 Meadow Court West Palm Beach, Florida 33406
Findings Of Fact Respondent Carter is the owner of real property located at 102 Hummingbird Lane, Crescent City, Putnam County, Florida, ("The Property") The Property has a shore length of 68.5 feet on Crescent Lake. Crescent Lake is a "water of the state" as defined in Section 403.031, F.S. The agency, now DEP, is the state agency charged with environmental concerns and permission to use submerged state lands. There are two types of authorization an applicant must receive in order to construct a dock on state owned submerged lands. The first is regulatory, which addresses issues concerning environmental impacts. The second is proprietary, which addresses issues concerning use of state owned submerged lands. Mr. and Mrs. Hageman, Petitioners herein, own property adjacent on the east of Mr. Carter's property. 1/ They have a 240 foot dock in place going out into Crescent Lake. Mr. Carter's westerly neighbor also has a shorter dock going into the lake. The Carters purchased the Property from an estate, with the announced intention to erect their own dock for water recreational purposes. Before closing the sale, they were warned off the property by Mr. Hageman who claimed his riparian rights would be violated if any dock were built on the Property. After inquiries to DEP and the Army Corps of Engineers, the Carters purchased The Property anyway. DEP has no jurisdiction to regulate docks under 1000 square feet. Mr. Carter received DEP Exemption 542504222 to construct a dock under 1000 square feet on The Property. Mr. Carter constructed a single family private use dock, including a boat shelter, extending from The Property into Crescent Lake. The dock was built approximately 35 feet from Hagemans' property line, straight out into the water, and 25 feet from the property line of his neighbor on the other side. This placed the Carter dock roughly perpendicular to the approximate center of Mr. Carter's shoreline. Petitioners conceded that Mr. Carter honored his westerly neighbor's property line, but asserted that he should have, and had not, honored his easterly property line, the line dividing his and Petitioners' property, waterward beyond the shoreline. In all, Petitioners Hageman have filed three formal petitions against the Carter dock. See Findings of Fact 16, 18, and 33, infra. All three petitions herein oppose the Carter dock as constructed upon a theory that it crosses Petitioner's riparian rights line and therefore violates the setback criteria found in Rule 18-21.004(3)(d) F.A.C.; that it blocks a channel exclusive to Petitioners' use and poses an impediment to navigation of all boats, particularly Petitioners' sailboat; that its boat shelter is enclosed contrary to rule; that it does not meet the ten-to-one rule; and that it blocks Petitioners' view and lowers their property value. The Hagemans initially filed a complaint with the DEP in regard to the dock. In response to the Hagemans' complaint, Steven Biemiller, an environmental specialist in the dredge and fill compliance/enforcement section of DEP's northeast district, and John Hendricks of the Army Corps of Engineers visited the Property on July 25, 1994. They found that the Carter dock as built exceeded 1,000 square feet in surface area. It was, however, consistent in length, width, and alignment with other docks in the area, including Petitioners' dock. Mr. Biemiller calculated Carter's dock to be 1,400 square feet. It therefore exceeded the state exemption criteria and required a state permit. Mr. Carter had constructed his dock without a valid permit from the state agency, and DEP responded by issuing him a warning letter. Carter and DEP thereafter entered into Consent Order O.C.G. 94-2443 to address the unpermitted dock construction. Testifying as an expert in the agency's enforcement and compliance procedures, Mr. Biemiller established that negotiated consent orders of this type are a standard agency procedure to resolve minor permitting violations. His testimony is accepted on that issue and to the effect that the purpose of all consent orders, including the one at issue here, is to return the non-complying structure to compliance with the applicable state rules and statutes. The consent order provides, in pertinent part, that Mr. Carter will (a) pay the agency $300.00, which amount includes a $200.00 civil penalty and $100.00 for agency costs and expenses; AND (b) reduce the size of his dock to under 1,000 square feet or obtain an after-the-fact permit whereby the agency would authorize the 1400 square foot dock to remain in place as already constructed. The Hagemans timely filed a petition challenging the consent order. The consent order herein addressed DEP's environmental concerns by jump-starting the permit process through which the agency could examine the environmental impacts posed by the dock project. In Mr. Biemiller's expert opinion, this consent order accomplished the agency's statutory and regulatory goals at that point because Mr. Carter paid his fine and applied for a dredge and fill permit. Agency permit 542558842 was issued to Mr. Carter on November 16, 1994. It approved the proposed project and authorized construction of a private use dock having a 4.75-foot wide plus 230-foot long access walkway, a 10.3-foot wide and 20.3-foot long covered boat shelter, plus an 8.5-foot long and 12.8-foot wide waterward "L" platform, within Crescent Lake, Putnam County. The Hagemans timely filed a petition challenging the permit. The Hagemans' concerns about the Carter dock and boat shelter blocking their view and diminishing their property value were raised by their petitions, but no evidence or argument was presented on the latter issue. "View" and market value concerns are not addressed by the jurisdiction or authority conferred upon DEP by either statute or rule, and may not be considered here. In determining whether or not to issue dredge and fill permits, the agency examines a project's impact on water quality, its biological impacts, whether the project is contrary to the public interest and how it impacts, if at all, on wetlands. The agency does not look at riparian rights. Those rights are addressed, if at all, by agency review of applications for consents of use and the rules applicable thereto. Thomas Wiley was the field inspector for the dredge and fill permit which is at issue. He visited Mr. Carter's property with another agency employee, Erica Robbins, to conduct a site assessment. Mr. Wiley prepared the Permit Application Appraisal. Mr. Wiley has a Bachelor of Science degree in environmental biology and twelve hours towards his Masters degree in the same discipline. He has been employed by the agency for four and a half years as a environmental specialist. During that time, he has reviewed approximately 300 dredge and fill applications. He was accepted as an expert in the agency's environmental resource permitting procedures and the impacts of dredging and filling projects on wetlands. Mr. Wiley recommended issuance of the permit in part based on his determination that the long term adverse impacts of the Carter dock on water quality are minimal and that the long term adverse impacts of the project on submerged resources also are minimal. His expert opinion on these issues is accepted, as is his unrefuted mixed fact and opinion testimony that the project site contains submerged beds of eelgrass (vallisnaria). These eelgrass beds end approximately 20 feet landward of the Carter boat shelter and dock. Carter's boat shelter and dock do not pose a significant impact to the eelgrass and will not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife. The Carter boat shelter has one almost closed side, one side which descends to about one and a half feet above the water and two open ends. It is not substantially different from other local boat shelters. There are water hyacinths in the same area as the eelgrass and nearer to the shoreline. DEP has issued a permit to Mr. Hageman to clear such water hyacinths from a 25-foot swath in front of his property so as to keep clear the channel to his dock and boat shelter. The greater weight of the credible evidence is that Mr. Hageman has been zealous in his removal of water hyacinths and has exceeded the 25-foot limitation. Existence of this permit allowing Mr. Hageman to remove hyacinths and existence of this larger cleared swath of water/shoreline is not dependable evidence of the Hagemans' riparian rights claim and does not alter or affect DEP's determination that no aquatic plants will be seriously endangered by the Carter dock and boat shelter. The parties stipulated that the construction of Carter's dock has not, and will not, degrade the water quality of Crescent Lake and that the water quality standards set forth in Chapter 62-302 F.A.C., are not violated because of the construction of the dock. The parties stipulated that the Carter dock as constructed will not adversely affect the fishing or recreational value or marine productivity on Crescent Lake. The parties stipulated that the dock as constructed will not adversely affect any historical or archaeological resources under the provisions of Section 267.061 F.S. In determining whether a dock poses a navigational impediment, DEP looks for the presence of marked navigational channels and the proximity of the dock to other docks in the area. The credible competent evidence as a whole shows that the Carter dock is similar to the Hagemans' dock and is located about 100 feet west of the Hagemans' dock. The Carter structure also conforms with the prevailing alignment of all docks in the immediate area and its distance from neighboring structures is sufficient so that the Carter dock will not present a hindrance to navigation. The greater weight of the credible evidence is that the Hagemans have sailed in and out from their adjacent dock without any obvious problems occasioned by the Carter dock. There is plenty of room between the Carter and Hageman docks so that the Carter dock has not so far obstructed the Hagemans' ability to navigate their sailboat. Mr. Carter has provided reasonable assurances that his dock is not contrary to the public interest under Section 373.414 (1)(a) F.S. In determining the cumulative impacts a project may have, the agency looks at the total impact of past, present and future projects on water quality and function in wetland systems. Mr. Wiley determined it is reasonable to expect other lakefront property owners will construct docks into the lake, but based on his experience and expertise, he concluded that Mr. Carter's project's long-term impact still will continue to be minimal. The permit is appropriate and insures compliance with all applicable statutory and rule guidelines for dredge and fill permits. Mr. Carter also applied to the agency for a consent of use for submerged state lands. This was appropriate because Crescent Lake is a "water of the state". A consent of use is generally a letter of authorization for minor projects, such as single family docks, bulkheads and dredging that occur on state owned land and submerged land. The ten-to-one ratio found in Rule 18- 21.005(1)(a)2 F.A.C. allows an applicant to have ten square feet of preempted area for every linear foot of the shoreline that he owns. If an applicant meets the rule criteria, he is issued a consent of use. Generally, if an applicant exceeds the criteria, he would be issued a lease, as opposed to a consent of use. The agency issued a consent of use to Mr. Carter on December 5, 1994. The Hagemans filed a petition challenging the consent of use. DEP acts as staff for the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund. The authority to issue consents of use has been delegated to a planning manager. In the instant situation, that planning manager was Russell Price. Russell Price is employed by DEP as planning manager of the submerged land section and has served in that capacity for two years. Mr. Price holds a Bachelor of Science degree in biology, has a year of education towards his Master's degree in biology, and has reviewed approximately two to three hundred applications for consents of use. Mr. Price was accepted as an expert in state lands determination and regulation. In issuing the consent of use to Mr. Carter, Mr. Price relied on his education, training and experience in state lands regulation, and considered the application, the drawings, the agency's regulatory permit section's field report, comments from staff of the Army Corps of Engineers and a memorandum from the agency's Bureau of Surveying and Mapping. See Finding of Fact 40. Mr. Price opined, on behalf of the agency's interpretation of its own statute and rules, that the agency does not uniformly require a lease where the ten-to-one rule is minimally exceeded; that the agency will issue a consent of use if the applicant's structure is still relatively small and is configured in the minimum way possible to obtain access at reasonable water depths; that in its discretion, the agency does not apply the ten-to-one rule to require leases; 2/ and that consents of use are issued to single docks that are the minimum length necessary to reach reasonable access to navigable waters. Mr. Price issued the consent of use in this case after determining that Mr. Carter's dock as constructed was a single family dock configured in the minimum size and length necessary to achieve reasonable access to navigable waters and that the nearshore area located adjacent to Mr. Carter's upland property required that his dock exceed the ten-to-one ratio in order to access reasonable water depths for navigation. In so doing, Mr. Price relied on the DEP Permit Application Appraisal measurement of the water depth at the end of Carter's dock as 4.5 feet deep and analyzed the configuration and angle of the other docks in the area. This was in accord with the specific language of Rule 18-21.005(1)(a)1 F.A.C. 3/ Evidence adduced at formal hearing suggests that there has been some erosion, possibly due to the removal of the water hyacinths and that shows that it is environmentally desirable to avoid recreational contact with the eelgrass, especially by boats. These factors also support the reasonableness of Carter's dock configuration, even though it minimally exceeds the ten-to-one rule. Petitioners Hageman contended that their riparian rights may be determined by projecting a line straight waterward from the upland fence line between their lot and Mr. Carter's property. If that is the appropriate determination of their riparian rights, then the Carter dock does cross that projected line, but that projected line has not been placed by a surveyor or determined by a court of competent jurisdiction. At best, there has been a post erected by Mr. Hageman as the result of a prior lawsuit concerning easements. Respondent Carter's property is narrower than Petitioners' property and somewhat wedge-shaped. Petitioners assert that because the lake curves, Mr. Carter's riparian rights form a narrow pie slice-shaped area in the water. However, without a legal determination to that effect, there is only the foregoing unsupported assertion concerning either landowner's riparian rights. Although the agency's rules require a 25-foot setback of a dock (10- foot setback for marginal docks) from the applicant's riparian rights line, 4/ the agency does not measure the setback of a dock by that rule unless there has already been a determination of a riparian rights line by a court of law. DEP witnesses clearly enunciated and explicated agency policy that DEP does not affirmatively take it upon itself to determine riparian rights as between private land owners because the agency has no constitutional or statutory jurisdiction to do so. To Mr. Price's knowledge, the agency has never determined the riparian rights line of two private property owners. The agency relies on circuit courts to resolve those types of disputes. In response to the Hagemans' concerns about encroachment on their asserted riparian rights and in an abundance of caution, Mr. Price sent aerial photographs, the county plat map, and the drawings submitted with Mr. Carter's application to the DEP's Bureau of Surveying and Mapping. He requested that the Bureau make a guesstimation of the common riparian rights line based on a methodology it has developed for estimating riparian rights lines. The memorandum constitutes little more than legal research discussing various methodologies courts have used in the past for determining riparian rights. It reaches no definite conclusion with regard to the riparian rights between the Hagemans and Carter. Beyond explaining and supplementing the direct evidence of the agency policy to rely on courts to determine riparian rights, its contents and conclusions are unreliable hearsay which is outside the parameters of Section 120.58(1)(a) F.S., because no one connected with the preparation of that report testified at formal hearing. No reliable determination of the riparian rights line dividing the Petitioners' property and the property of Applicant/Respondent Carter was presented as evidence at formal hearing. DEP is not aware that any court determination specifically setting out the boundaries of the parties' riparian rights exists. DEP did not require Mr. Carter to institute a lawsuit to establish riparian boundaries before considering his application. This also appears to be common agency procedure. The agency addressed the absence of a clear showing of riparian rights and implemented its policy directed thereto in the standard language of the consent of use, which provided in pertinent part, as follows: 2. Grantee agrees that all title and interest to all lands lying below the historical mean high water line or ordinary high water line are vested in the Board, and shall make no claim of title or interest in said lands by reason of the occupancy or use thereof * * * 5. Grantee agrees to indeminity, defend and hold harmless the Board and the State of Florida from all claims, actions, lawsuits and demands arising out of this consent. * * * 12. In the event that any part of the structure(s) consented to herein is determined by a final adjudication issued by a court of competent jurisdiction to encroach on or interfere with adjacent riparian rights, Grantee agrees to either obtain written consent for the offending structure from the affected riparian owner or to remove the interference or encroachment within 60 days from the date of the adjudication. Failure to comply shall constitute a material breach of this consent and shall be grounds for its immediate termination.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED That the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order that dismisses the three petitions, ratifies the consent order, and issues the after- the-fact permit and consent of use with the safeguards already contained therein to protect the Petitioners' riparian rights in case the Petitioners hereafter obtain a circuit court determination of those riparian rights. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 7th day of July, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 7th day of July, 1995
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.
