Findings Of Fact Evidence reveals that the Karatinos family originally purchased this property in 1957 and Title has been within that family unit continuously until the present time. When originally acquired, the desire was to build a motel east of the roadway fronting the beach; however, because of various events, including the death of the Father (Petitioner Aphrodite Karatinos husband), the plans were postponed over the years until 1982 when the original petition was filed with DNR for a permit to build. Based on a discrepancy between the Town of Juno Beach's zoning and town comprehensive plan, Petitioners were unable to get local approval until such time as they could in essence, obtain a variance from Juno's comprehensive plan. Petitioners' obtained local approval from the Town of Juno Beach to construct a 2-unit family structure. (Petitioners' Exhibit 3). On February 18, 1982, DNR received an application from Theodore B. Jenson, P.E., on behalf of Mrs. Aphrodite Karatinos and Nicholas Karatinos, for construction of a two-family residence and sea dune protection wall. On March 13, 1986, Petitioners' application was determined to be complete (Respondent's Exhibit 1). DNR made timely request for additionally information from Petitioners. On May 20, 1986, Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the head of DNR, considered and approved the staff recommendation for disapproval of Petitioners' CCCL permit application, PD-108 (Respondent's Exhibit DD). On the Governor and Cabinet agenda item, the staff concerns For the proposed project were summarized as follows: The staff is concerned about the adverse impact of this project on the beach-dune system and adjacent properties. The coastal dune ridge, on which Ocean Boulevard (formally A1A) is located in the vicinity of this property, provides a narrow protective barrier for upland development landward of Ocean Boulevard. Seaward of Ocean Boulevard, 3 Multifamily dwellings exists within 1300 feet south of the project area, and one multifamily dwelling exists three miles north of the project area. The cumulative impact of constructing additional buildings sited seaward of the frontal dune on the vegetated storm beam of the beach will result in the destruction of the barrier dune system along this stretch of coast. Further, the Governor and Cabinet agenda item contained the following staff assessments: The project will have a substantial adverse impact on the beach-dune system. The project will have a significant adverse impact on the adjacent properties because construction activities on the proposed structure may be expected to induce substantial dune slope instability and deflation adversely impacting the dune system on this and adjacent properties. Additional adverse impact can be expected on this and adjacent properties due to the substantial reinforced concrete wall located between 16 and 26 feet seaward of the control line. The coastal dune on which Ocean Boulevard (Old A1A) is located provides a narrow barrier of the upland development. The cumulative impact of constructing dwellings along the undeveloped coast to the north and seaward of Ocean Boulevard is expected to result in the destruction of the coastal barrier dune system. The damage to the dune system is expected to threaten Ocean Boulevard, which is an important evacuation route in the area. The dwelling structure is not designed in accordance with Subsection 15B-33.07(3) and (4), Florida Administrative Code to resist adequately the natural forces associated with a 100 year return interval storm event. The landscaping is not consistent with Chapter 16B- 33, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioners's property is located in a tidal coastal area along the sandy beaches of the Palm Beach County coastline. Petitioners's property is part of the beach-dune system. Natural Littoral Process A natural seasonal littoral process affects beach-dune systems such as that upon which Petitioners' property is located. During the summer season when the natural littoral process is progressing, offshore sediment is transported to the active beach where it is deposited and forms sand bars. This dried sediment is then windborne inland and trapped by dune vegetation, thereby naturally nourishing the dunes. During the winter season, heightened wave activity transports sediment from the active beach to an offshore location where a sand bar is formed. This sand bar serves as a buffer to reduce the erosion effect of the heightened wave activity. As this heightened wave activity subsides, sediment from the sand bar is again transported inland and eventually is redeposited and trapped upon the dunes. These dunes provide protection to upland properties from the impact of severe storm events. Interference with any portion of the cycle of sediment transport results in destabilized and stunted dunes. A destabilized and stunted dune will be more severely impacted by erosion events, thereby increasing the risk of harm to adjacent properties and threatening the entire beach-dune system. During an erosion event the winter cycle is exaggerated. In a major erosion event such as a hurricane, tropical storm, northeasterly, and the like, the dramatically heightened wave activity transports large amount of sediments from the beach-dune system to an offshore location where a sand bar formed. The sand bar serves as a buffer to reduce the erosion effect of the storm. The presence of a layer of non-erodible material enhances the zone of erosion scour in a landward direction. Salt-Resistant Dune Vegetation Salt-resistant dune vegetation such as sea oats, sea grape and yucca are particularly suited to the task of trapping wimdborn sand and stabilizing the dune face. These types of vegetation thrive in areas of low fresh water availability, high salt content, and low soil nutrient conditions, by virtue of their strong reliance on the photosynthetic process. These types of vegetation will not survive under reduced light or shaded conditions. There exists no substitute which can perform the dune stabilizing and sustaining functions under the reduced sunlight which would exist under an elevated structure such as proposed. These types of vegetation are also dependent on a complex microbiological relationship which is not easily, if at all, reestablished following a disturbance such as the proposed construction. Effect of Site Disturbance Construction of the proposed structure by Petitioners will involve significant site disturbance and excavation. Disturbance includes destruction of the dune vegetation. The construction activities will not only destroy the existing dune vegetation but also will disrupt the dune existing microbiological relationship making re-vegetation difficult even where adequate sunlight is available. Loss of dune vegetation terminates and destabilizes dune leaving it extremely vulnerable to erosive forces. In addition to the initial disturbance and destruction of dune vegetation caused during construction, the presence of man made structures sited and located on the seaward face of the dune, decreases or excludes direct sunlight to the area below the structure. This reduction or exclusion of sunlight further results in the inability of dune stabilizing and sustaining vegetation to reestablish and maintain itself. Structures which are built below grade within the erosion scour zone, such as seawalls, inhibit the landward progress of the erosion scour. The erosion scour on either side of the inhibiting structure will proceed further landward than the unobstructed zone of erosion scour resulting in increased erosion on any adjacent proper ties to the inhibiting structure. Cumulative Impact Although an individual construction activity or structure, as is here proposed, may not have an adverse impact on the beach-dune system, a number of similar structures or activities along the coast may have a significant cumulative impact resulting in the general degradation of the beach-dune system along that segment of the shoreline. Zone of Erosion Scour In order to evaluate the impact of a proposed structure on the beach- dune system it is necessary to determine the depth and landward extent of erosion scour during a 100 year storm event. Petitioners' determination of erosion scour was not based upon a particular formula, model, or methodology. Additionally, Petitioners' engineer made no further study to determine the accuracy of this or any preceding estimates. The model used by DNR is a precise mathematical calculation of the depth and landward limit of erosion attributable to a 100 year storm event. Additionally, DNR's model has been calibrated utilizing the known erosional effects of actual storm events. DNR's model has been subjected to a blind, hands-off test of its reliability, which demonstrates its accuracy for predicting depth and width extent of erosion scour during a 100 year storm event. DNR's model is the most accurate model available for determining the depth and landward extent of erosion scour during a 100 year storm event. The Balsillie model, which was developed after Petitioners engineer made his estimate of erosion scour, is a model which estimates the volume of erosion scour. That model does not estimate the landward extent of erosion scour. However, the Balsillie model does contain a mathematical formula which will estimate the percentage of the volume of erodible material which will be eroded above the storm surge elevation. Application of the Balsillie model to Petitioner's proposed project demonstrates that the erosion scour from a 100 year storm event would extend landward of the proposed structure. Impact of the Proposed Structure The site disturbance necessary to construct the proposed structure will destroy virtually all salt-resistant dune vegetation on the site. Site disturbance will also disrupt the microbiological relationship that exists in the displaced sediment. Both these factors will likely result in a permanent destruction of dune stabilizing and sustaining vegetation creating enhanced vulnerability and eventual destruction of the dune system at the construction site. As a result of this destabilization, the adjacent properties also will exhibit an enhanced vulnerability to erosion. Petitioners propose to construct a retaining wall on the landward side of their proposed structure. The retaining wall is a substantial wall and is proposed to be located below the level of the first finished floor of the structure and seaward of the CCL. The erosion scour from a 100 year storm event will proceed landward of the retaining wall. This retaining wall will therefore act as a seawall. The effect of the retaining wall during a 100 year storm event will result in enhanced erosion scour on the Petitioners' and adjacent properties, unless and until the wall is totally undermined by erosion. The enhanced landward extension of erosion scour on either side of the retaining wall will breach Ocean Boulevard, an important evacuation route in the event of a severe storm event. Ocean Boulevard (Old A1A) lies on the crest of the same dune upon which Petitioners propose their structure and proceeds parallel to the shoreline in the area of Petitioners' property. The cumulative impact of siting the proposed and similarly located structures would be the destabilization of the entire seaward face of the dune upon which this evacuation route proceeds. The cumulative impact of the siting of structures in this area in locations similar to that proposed by Petitioners enhances the risk of destroying the evacuation route during a severe storm event. Petitioners' proposed structure is to be pile elevated. The pilings for elevated structures must penetrate to a sufficient depth to support the structure during the onslaught of the horizontal force (wind and water) generated during a 100 year return storm event. Determination of the depth of pile penetration requires knowledge of the substrata underlying the property. This determination also requires a simultaneous forces calculation which takes into account the combined effect of maximum aerodynamic (wind) and hydrostatic (wave) forces. The soil study report commissioned by Petitioners is inadequate to evaluate whether rock exists in any substrata underlying Petitioners' property. For this reason, good engineering practices require the assumption that no rock underlies Petitioners' property and Petitioners' failure to proceed on that assumption has resulted in Petitioners' submission of an inadequate pile penetration proposal. Petitioners' engineer failed to perform a simultaneous forces calculation which resulted in his submission of an understatement of required depth for pile penetration. Petitioners' engineer relied upon an inaccurate estimate of the depth of erosion scour which resulted in his submission of understatements of the required depth of both pile penetration and the pile caps. DNR made a determination of the correct depth of pile penetration utilizing a simultaneous forces calculation and the correct depth of erosion scour. The result of DNR's calculation was a determination that the depth of pile penetration should be -17 N.G.V.D. as opposed to -10 NGVD proposed by the Petitioners. DNR has not permitted any adjacent structures under the existing statutory and regulatory provisions. All of the structures immediately adjoining Petitioners' property were constructed prior to the impact of the four (short incident) hurricanes and therefore those structures have not sustained the impact of a 100 year return storm event.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED: Respondent, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Beaches and Shores, issue a Final Order denying a Coastal Construction Control Line permit, PD-109, to Theodore B. Jenson, on behalf of Petitioners Nicholas E. Karatinos and Aphrodite E Karatinos, for construction of a six-unit condominium and walkover and for landscaping and placement of sand fill material in Palm Beach County, Florida. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of February, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of February, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-2168 Motion rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraph 4, rejected as irrelevant to a determination of the issues posed for decision herein. Paragraph 5, rejected as being either irrelevant to the issues posed for decision with the latter Proposed Findings in Paragraph 5 being rejected as contrary to other evidence of record. Paragraph 11, first two sentences rejected as irrelevant. The remaining portion of paragraph 11 is rejected based on the determination that one test bore was insufficient to determine the substroto substrata of Petitioner's property. Paragraph 12, rejected as contrary to other evidence of record and as is more particularly set forth in the section of the Recommended Order entitled "zone of erosion scour". Paragraph 13, rejected as contrary to other evidence which indicates that during the 100 year event conditions, erosion is expected to reach the structure and the Petitioner proposed to provide a pile depth of only-10 n.g.v.d. Paragraph 14, rejected based on the determination herein that revegetation efforts will not meet with much success and the impact of the proposed construction would be devastating to the beach-dune system. Paragraph 15, first part accepted with the latter part rejected, based on the absence of any evidence indicating that Petitioner's proposed to replace the soil and other dune vegetation with landscaping materials acceptable under DNR's rules. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraph 21, rejected as unnecessary to determine the issues proposed herein. Paragraph 26, rejected based on the lack of credible evidence to determine the efforts of the owners and/or residence of the surf condominium to assist in the stability of dune vegetation under restricted light conditions. Paragraph 59, rejected as being conclusionary. Paragraph 73, rejected as being conclusionary. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Facts contained in Paragraphs 85 thru 138 were rejected as being argumentative, irrelevant or unnecessary to determine the issues posed for decision herein. COPIES FURNISHED: H. Laurence Cooper, Jr., Esquire 400 Royal Palm Way Palm Beach, Florida 33480 Dean C. Kowalchk Assistant Attorney General The Capitol, Suite LL04 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Andrew S. Grayson Assistant General Counsel Department of Natural Resources 1003 Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Dr. Elton Gissendanner Executive Director Executive Suite 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue The issue is whether the Department of Environmental Protection should approve Petitioner’s application for a coastal construction control line permit.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts2 Petitioner, Beach Group Investments, LLC (Beach Group), is a limited liability corporation under Florida law. Its address is 14001 63rd Way North, Clearwater, Florida 33760. On December 19, 2005, Coastal Technology Corporation (Coastal Tech) on behalf of Beach Group submitted to the Department an application for a CCCL permit pursuant to Chapter 161, Florida Statutes, to construct 17 luxury townhome units in two four-story buildings, a pool, a dune walk-over, and ancillary parking and driveway areas (hereafter “the Project”). The Department designated the application as File No. SL-224. The property on which the Project is proposed (hereafter “the Property”) is located between the Department's reference monuments R-34 and R-35, in St. Lucie County. The Property’s address is 222 South Ocean Drive, Fort Pierce, Florida. The Property is located seaward of the CCCL line established in accordance with Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 62B-33. On April 21, 2006, the application was determined to be complete. By letter dated June 5, 2006, the Department notified Beach Group that the Project appeared to be located seaward of the 30-year erosion projection of the seasonal high water line (SHWL), and that in accordance with Section 161.053(6), Florida Statutes, the staff could not recommend approval of the Project since major structures are seaward of the estimated erosion projection. By letter dated July 7, 2006, and subsequent submittals, Beach Group requested a waiver of the 90-day time period for processing completed applications pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, until October 31, 2006. On August 30, 2006, Beach Group submitted a certified engineering analysis of the 30-year erosion projection of the SHWL for the Department's consideration pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B-33.024(1). Beach Group's analysis determined that the proposed major structures associated with the Project were located landward, not seaward, of the 30-year erosion projection. The Department also performed its own 30-year erosion projection of the SHWL, and determined that the proposed major structures were located seaward, not landward, of the 30-year erosion projection. The Department asserts that the proposed structures are located between 87 feet and 68 feet seaward of the Department's determination of the 30-year erosion projection. The Department disagreed with Beach Group's analysis because the analysis appeared to be inconsistent with Section 161.053(6), Florida Statutes, Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B-33.024, and the Department's own analysis. The Property is located just south of the Fort Pierce Inlet, and landward of a federally maintained beach restoration project that had approximately 14 years of life remaining under the existing Congressional authorization when the permit was submitted to the Department. By proposed Final Order dated November 1, 2006, the Department provided to Beach Group notice of its intent to deny the permit application. The proposed Final Order was received by Beach Group on November 8, 2006. Beach Group's petition for hearing was timely filed with the Department. Since the Department proposes to deny Beach Group's CCCL permit application, its substantial interests are clearly at issue, and it has standing to maintain this proceeding. On December 11, 2006, the Department issued an environmental resource permit for the Project. The Department denied Beach Group’s permit application because the Project extends seaward of the 30-year erosion projection calculated by the Department and because the Project’s impacts to the beach-dune system had not been minimized. The permit was not denied on the basis of the existence, or absence, of a line of continuous construction in the vicinity of the Project. The 30-year Erosion Projection (1) Background Fort Pierce Inlet (hereafter “the inlet”) was constructed by the Army Corps of Engineers in the 1920’s. The channel of the inlet is protected by two jetties that extend several hundred feet into the Atlantic Ocean. The jetties act as a barrier to the littoral transfer of sand from the north to south that would otherwise occur along the beach in the vicinity of the Property. The jetties cause accretion on the beach to the north of the inlet and erosion of the beach to the south of the inlet. The inlet channel beyond the jetties also restricts the littoral transfer of sand in the area. The deepening and widening of the channel in 1995 likely contributed to the increased erosion observed south of the inlet in recent years. The beach to the south of the inlet, including that portion on the Property, is designated as a “critically eroded beach” by the Department. The inlet is the primary cause of the erosion. Congress first authorized beach nourishment south of the inlet in 1965. That authorization expired in 1986. Congress “reauthorized” beach nourishment south of the inlet in 1996. That authorization expires in 2021, but St. Lucie County has requested that the authorization be extended for “another 50 years.” The first “major” beach nourishment south of the inlet occurred in 1971. Subsequent “major” nourishments occurred in 1980, 1999, 2003, 2004, and 2005. Another “major” nourishment is planned for 2007. There was a “moderate” nourishment of the beach in 1995, which included the placement of geotextile groins on the beach just to the north of the Property. “Small” nourishments occurred in 1973, 1978, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1997, and 1998. Cumulatively, the nourishments that occurred between the “major” nourishments in 1980 and 1999 involved approximately 419,000 cubic yards of sand, which is more than the volume involved in several of the “major” nourishments. Beach nourishment south of the inlet has been an ongoing effort since it started in 1971. The more persuasive evidence establishes that the nourishment project that is authorized through 2021 is a continuation of the project started in 1971 rather than a separate and distinct project. Various erosion control efforts have been used south of the inlet in conjunction with the beach nourishment efforts. For example, geotextile groins (which are essentially massive sandbags) have been installed and removed on several occasions since the mid-1990’s in order to “temporarily stabilize the shoreline until such measures could be taken to design, permit and construct a long-term solution”; concrete rubble and other riprap has been placed on the beach over the years (without a permit from the Department) to protect upland structures from erosion; and a "spur jetty" was constructed on the south jetty in an effort to reduce erosion south of the inlet. These efforts have not slowed the pace of the erosion or minimized the need for beach nourishment south of the inlet. Indeed, the need for and frequency of “major” nourishments south of the inlet have increased in recent years. Beach erosion south of the inlet will continue to be a serious problem so long as the inlet exists and the jetties remain in place. There is no reason to expect that the inlet or the jetties will be removed in the foreseeable future and, as a result, beach nourishment south of the inlet will continue to be necessary. The Department has recognized the need for continuing nourishment of the beach south of the inlet, as reflected in both the Strategic Beach Management Plan for the St. Lucie Beaches and the Ft. Pierce Inlet Management Study Implementation Plan. Those plans acknowledge the long-term need for continued nourishment of the beach at a rate of at least “130,000 cubic yards on an average annual basis.” The plans do not, however, guarantee that future beach nourishment in the area will occur at that, or any, rate. (2) Rule Methodology Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B-33.024 contains the methodology for determining the 30-year erosion projection, which is the projected location of the SHWL 30 years after the date of the permit application under review. Where, as here, the beach at issue is subject to an ongoing beach nourishment project, the methodology requires consideration of “pre-project” conditions -- i.e., the conditions that existed before the beach nourishment efforts started -- because those conditions are used to project how the beach will migrate landward in the periods over the next 30 years when there may not be any beach nourishment activity. The coastal engineering experts presented by the parties -- Michael Walther for Beach Group and Emmett Foster for the Department -- used essentially the same methodology to determine the location of the 30-year erosion projection. However, the variables that they used in each step of the methodology differed. Step 1: Locate the Pre-Project MHWL The first step in determining the 30-year erosion projection is to locate the pre-project MHWL. If a pre-project erosion control line (ECL)3 has been established in the area, it is to be used as the starting-point for the determination of the 30-year erosion projection. Otherwise a pre-project survey of the MHWL is to be used as the starting-point. Mr. Walther used a 1997 ECL as the starting point for his analysis. Mr. Foster used a March 2002 survey of the MHWL as the starting point for his analysis because he did not consider the 1997 ECL to be an appropriate pre-project ECL. The March 2002 survey of the MHWL is not itself an appropriate starting point for the analysis. The survey is not a “pre-project” survey, no matter how the project is defined; the survey occurred more than 30 years after the nourishments started in 1971, and three years after the first “major” nourishment pursuant to the Congressional reauthorization of the project. Moreover, as discussed below, there is an appropriate pre-project ECL in the area. There are two lines that might be considered to be a pre-project ECL in this case -- (1) the ECL established in 1997, and (2) the South Beach High Tide Line (SBHTL) established in 1968. The 1997 ECL was established based upon a survey of the MHWL performed on May 5, 1997. The survey occurred two years after a “moderate” beach nourishment and the placement of the geotextile groins on the beach. There was also a “small” nourishment in 1997, but the record does not reflect whether that nourishment occurred before or after the survey. The SBHTL was established based upon a survey of the MHWL between 1966 and 1968, prior to the initial nourishment of the beach south of the inlet. It is approximately 65 feet landward of the 1997 ECL. The SBHTL is the functional equivalent of an ECL, and it roughly corresponds to the “best fit line” for the March 2002 survey used by Mr. Foster as the starting point for his determination of the 30-year erosion projection in this case. The Department contends that the 1997 ECL is not based upon a “pre-project” survey of the MHWL because the applicable beach restoration project south of the inlet began in the 1970’s and has been ongoing since that time. Beach Group contends that the applicable project is the current one that is authorized through 2021, and that the 1997 survey preceded the start of the nourishments authorized by that project. The Department has used the 1997 ECL as the starting- point for determining the 30-year erosion projection in several prior permits in the vicinity of the Project,4 and in an April 9, 1999, memorandum discussing the 30-year erosion projection in the vicinity of monuments R-35 and R-36, Mr. Foster stated that “the ECL represents the pre-project [MHWL].” Mr. Foster no longer considers the 1997 ECL to be the appropriate pre-project MHWL for purposes of determining the 30- year erosion projection south of the inlet. He testified that had he been aware of “the complete background” of the 1997 ECL and the extent of the nourishments in the 1980’s and 1990’s, he would have brought the issue to the Department’s attention so that the Department could consider whether the 1997 ECL or “an earlier prenourishment line” was the appropriate pre-project MHWL. Although it is a close question, the more persuasive evidence presented at the final hearing establishes that the 1997 ECL is not an appropriate pre-project MHWL because the applicable “project” includes the beach nourishment efforts started in 1971 that have continued through the present, even though those efforts were intermittent at times. Thus, the appropriate starting point for determining the location of the 30-year erosion projection is the SBHTL, not the 1997 ECL used by Mr. Walther or the March 2002 MHWL survey used by Mr. Foster. Step 2: Locate the Pre-Project SHWL The second step in determining the 30-year erosion projection is to determine the location of the pre-project SHWL. Mr. Walther located the pre-project SHWL 26.4 feet landward of the 1997 ECL. That is the surveyed distance between the MHWL and SHWL in June 2005. Mr. Foster located the pre-project SHWL at the most landward location that the SHWL was surveyed in March 2002. The line is between 50 and 75 feet5 landward of the “best fine” line used by Mr. Foster as the pre-project MHWL, and it is as much as 25 feet landward of the surveyed location of the SHWL in some areas. Mr. Foster used “an average [of] 50 feet” as the MHWL- to-SHWL distance in his analysis of several prior permits in the vicinity of the Project.6 Mr. Foster testified that the distance between the MHWL and SHWL in this area varies “from the 20s in the immediate post-nourishment situations . . . all the way up to 70-some feet” and that the “the averages gravitate towards 40 feet.” Consistent with that testimony, the distance between the surveyed locations of the MHWL and SHWL depicted on Department Exhibit 6 is approximately 40 feet, on average. The MHWL-to-SHWL distance calculated by Mr. Walther is not a reasonable projection of the pre-project distance because it was based upon survey data taken immediately after a “major” beach nourishment when the shoreline was unnaturally steep and, hence, not representative of “pre-project” conditions. The SHWL located by Mr. Foster is also not a reasonable projection of the pre-project SHWL because it was based upon a March 2002 survey (which is clearly not "pre- project"); because it used the most landward surveyed location of the SHWL rather than a “best fit” line or an average of the distances between the surveyed MHWL and SHWL; and because it runs across areas of well-established dune vegetation. In sum, the MHWL-to-SHWL distance calculated by Mr. Walther (26.4 feet) is too low, whereas the distance resulting from Mr. Foster's siting of the SHWL based on the March 2002 survey (50 to 75 feet) is too high. Those distances are essentially endpoints of the range observed in this area, as described by Mr. Foster. A more reasonable estimate of the pre-project MHWL-to- SHWL distance is approximately 40 feet. See Findings 51 and 52. Thus, the pre-project SHWL is located 40 feet landward of and parallel to the SBHTL. That line is not depicted on any of the exhibits, but on Petitioner’s Exhibit 37, it roughly corresponds to a straight line between the points where the red- dashed line intersects the Property’s north and south boundaries. Step 3: Calculate the Erosion Rate The third step in determining the 30-year erosion projection is to calculate an erosion rate. The erosion rate used by Mr. Foster was -7 feet per year (ft/yr). That rate was calculated based upon an average of the shoreline change data for monument R-35 for the period from 1949 to 1967. The rate would have been higher had Mr. Foster averaged the rates for the nearby monuments.7 The erosion rate used by Mr. Walther was -4.9 ft/yr. That rate was calculated based upon an average of the shoreline change data for monuments R-34 to R-39 over the period of 1930 to 1968. An erosion rate of -7 ft/yr south of the inlet was referenced in permit applications submitted by Mr. Walter’s firm, Coastal Tech, for several shore protection structures south of the inlet; was used by Mr. Foster in his review of several prior CCCL permit applications south of the inlet; and was included in reports on the inlet prepared by the Army Corps of Engineers over the years. An erosion rate of -3.3 ft/yr was used and accepted by the Department in its review of another permit application in the general vicinity of the project.8 That erosion rate was based upon data from the period of 1972 to 1994, which is after the beach nourishment started south of the inlet. It is not entirely clear why Mr. Foster chose to use a data set starting in 1949, particularly since his report stated that the “1928-30 survey already shows significant erosion occurring south of the inlet.” His testimony did not adequately explain the choice of that data set. The use of a longer data set is typically more appropriate when calculating a historical rate. In this case, however, the use of the shorter period of 1949-68 is reasonable because the 1930-49 erosion rate was considerably lower than the 1949-68 rate,9 which has the effect of skewing the erosion rate calculated for the longer period of 1930-68. The higher erosion rate calculated by Mr. Foster also better takes into account the increased frequency of the nourishments in recent years as well as the continued need for shore stabilization in the area. In sum, the higher erosion rate of -7 ft/yr calculated by Mr. Foster using the 1949-68 data set better reflects the historical post-inlet, pre-nourishment erosion rate than does the lower erosion rate calculated by Mr. Walther. Step 4: Determine the Remaining Project Life The fourth step in determining the 30-year erosion projection is to determine the “remaining project life” of the “existing” beach nourishment project. It was stipulated that there are 14 years remaining until the currently authorized federal beach restoration project expires. It is reasonable to expect that beach nourishment south of the inlet will continue well beyond the expiration of the current federal project, but there were no other funded and permitted projects in place at the time Beach Group’s permit application was filed. Potential future beach nourishment projects are not considered “existing” under the rule methodology in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B-33.024 unless they are funded and permitted at the time the application at issue is filed. Mr. Walther used the 14-year remaining life of the existing federal project in his calculation of the 30-year erosion projection, as did Mr. Foster. The “remaining project life” applicable to this case is 14 years, notwithstanding the likelihood of continued beach nourishment in the area beyond the expiration of the existing project. Step 5: Calculate the 30-year Erosion Projection The final step in determining the location of the 30- year erosion projection is a calculation using the variables determined in the previous steps. The calculation is as follows: first, the remaining project life determined in step four is subtracted from 30; then, that result is multiplied by the erosion rate determined in step three to get a distance; and, finally, the SHWL is moved that distance landward of its pre-project location determined in step two. Subtracting the remaining project of 14 years from 30 equals 16 years. Multiplying 16 years by the erosion rate of -7 ft/yr equals 112 feet, which means that the 30-year erosion line is located 112 feet landward of the pre-project SHWL (or 152 feet landward of the SBHTL). That line is not depicted on any of the exhibits, but it roughly corresponds to a straight line than runs across the Property parallel to the SBHTL just landward of the “conc. pad” and “existing conc. Pile caps (typ)” shown on Petitioner’s Exhibit 37. The line is 25 to 30 feet seaward of Mr. Foster’s 30-year erosion projection depicted on that exhibit. (3) Ultimate Finding Regarding the Location of the Proposed Structures in Relation to the 30-year Erosion Projection The Project includes major structures seaward of the 30-year erosion projection, as determined above. Impacts of the Project on the Beach-Dune System The Project includes 17 luxury town home units in two four-story buildings, a pool and spa, landscaping, and an elevated dune walkover. The units will range from 2,700 to 4,400 square feet of living space and are projected to be offered for sale in the $1.5 to $2.5 million range. Beach Group’s principal, Harold Seltzer, testified that the Project is sited as far landward as possible to allow for the development of all 17 units while still complying with the local setback and height restrictions; that the Project’s financial viability depends upon it being developed as proposed; and that the Project cannot be redesigned and remain financially viable. The CCCL permit application included a letter from the City of Ft. Pierce confirming that the Project is consistent with the applicable local development codes. Mr. Seltzer testified that the Project’s local development approvals expired in September 2006 because the CCCL permit had not been issued, and that Beach Group is having to go back through the local permitting process. The seaward extent of the Project is the 1978 CCCL, which is approximately 250 feet seaward of the current CCCL. The buildings on the adjacent properties are also located on the 1978 CCCL. The Project does not extend further seaward than the nearby development, including the structures authorized by the Department in File Nos. SL-162 and SL-173.10 The seaward boundary of the Property is the SBHTL. That line is approximately 295 feet landward of the MHWL established in June 2005, and as noted above, it is approximately 65 feet landward of the ECL established in 1997. The adjacent properties are developed with multi-story residential buildings. There is a densely vegetated dune feature in front of the building to the south of the Property. There is some vegetation, but no discernable dune in front of the building to the north of the Property. The Property as a whole is sparsely vegetated, but there are areas of “prolific vegetation” on the Property. The seaward extent of the vegetation on the Property roughly corresponds to the location of the 1978 CCCL. There are several mature sea grape clusters in the vicinity of that line. The beach in front of the Property is devoid of vegetation. It has a steep slope immediately landward of the water line; a wide (approximately 270 feet) expanse of relatively flat beach; and a gently sloping dune feature that starts just landward of the Property’s seaward boundary, crests approximately 30 feet farther landward, and then gradually slopes downward across the Property all of the way to State Road A1A. The dune feature on the Property is the frontal dune. It is the first mound sand located landward of the beach that has sufficient vegetation, height, continuity, and configuration to offer protective value. The crest of the frontal dune is seaward of the vegetation line on the Property, and ranges in height from +9.7 to +12.2 feet NAVD.11 The seaward toe of the dune is shown on the topographic survey for the Property at elevations ranging from +7.27 to +7.85 feet NAVD. Similar elevations occur on the landward side of the dune crest, just landward of the 1978 CCCL. The vegetation on the Property extends landward of the 1978 CCCL and landward of the line shown on the topographic survey of the Property as the “approximate location of sparse grass and ground cover.” The landward extent of the vegetation does not in and of itself define the landward extent of the dune; changes in the slope of the ground must also be considered. The more persuasive evidence establishes that the landward toe of the frontal dune is landward of the 1978 CCCL, but not as far landward as suggested by Department witness Tony McNeal.12 The landward toe of the dune on the Property is best defined by the elevations landward of the dune crest similar to the elevations shown for the seaward toe of the dune. The Project extends into the frontal dune on the Property, and it will requires minor excavation of the frontal dune, primarily in the area of the proposed pool. All aspects of the project, except for the proposed dune walkover, will be landward of the crest of the frontal dune and the mature sea grape clusters located on the dune. There will be no net excavation on the Property as a result of the Project. The sand excavated for the pool will be placed on-site, and additional beach-compatible sand will be used as fill for the site. Overall, the Project will result in the net placement of approximately 66 cubic yards of sand on the Property. The proposed structures will be elevated on piles, which will allow the beach-dune system to fluctuate under the structures during storm events. The finished floor elevation of the proposed structures is approximately +8 feet NAVD, which is slightly higher than the elevations associated with the toes of the frontal dune. The Project will not destabilize the frontal dune, even though it will encroach into the dune. The impacts of the Project on the beach-dune system will be mitigated by the placement of additional sand into the beach-dune system, as described above. The Project’s impacts will be further mitigated by the enhancements to the frontal dune described in the permit application. Mr. Walther testified that the frontal dune on the Property could “very easily” be enhanced to be of comparable height and magnitude of the dunes on the adjacent properties. The permit application proposes enhancements to the frontal dune as part of the Site Landscaping Plan for the Project. The proposed enhancements include increasing the crest of the dune to a height of +15 feet NAVD, and extensive planting of the dune with sea grapes, beach morning glories, and sea oats. The plantings would extend from the 1978 CCCL to the seaward toe of the existing frontal dune. The dune enhancements proposed in the permit application should be included as a specific condition of the CCCL permit for the Project, if it is approved.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order denying Beach Group’s application for a CCCL permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of April, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 19th day of April, 2007.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) should grant the application filed by the DeVries for a coastal construction line (CCCL) permit to build a house (with dolomite drive, septic tank, and drain field) and a dune walkover seaward of the CCCL on their property on the St. Joe Peninsula in Gulf County (Permit GU- 501).
Findings Of Fact The Neighbors Mark and Rita DeVries own 0.163 acre in Block 6 of Peninsular Estates, which is on the St. Joe Peninsula in Gulf County. The St. Joe Peninsula is oriented approximately north and south, with the water of the Gulf to the west. DEP Monument R-83 is on the DeVries' property. Linda McAlpin also owns property in Block 6 of Peninsular Estates seaward of the DeVries' property. She and her husband, Dr. Glenn Mark McAlpin, bought the property in 2001. The dunes on the property had been cleared prior to 1973 for construction of a beach house and driveway. The prior owner's beach house was then damaged by major storms. In 2001 and 2002, the McAlpins got a CCCL permit to build a pile- supported 5,000 square foot, three-story house over a concrete slab used as a parking area, with a dolomite driveway, on her property. There is no private property to the west (i.e., seaward) of her property. In 2006, Dr. McAlpin quitclaimed his legal interest to his wife to insulate it from his potential professional liabilities. Except for the legal consequences of the quitclaim deed, the McAlpins continue to treat the property as a marital asset. Dr. McAlpin continues to handle practically all matters relating to the maintenance of the house, including repairs necessitated by major storms and beach erosion. The Beach and Dune System Besides the McAlpins, there are beach houses to the east (landward) and to the north of the DeVries' property. The house to the north was moved landward from its original location after it suffered major storm damage in 2005. It used to be north of the McAlpin house. There is a house to the south of the McAlpin house. Except for the house that was moved, there is a continuous line of construction seaward of the CCCL to the north and south along the line between the McAlpin house and the house to the south. The McAlpin house also suffered damage from the storms of 2004 and 2005. Sand sediment under the seaward side of the house was scoured out and undermined, and part of the frangible concrete slab and some of the plumbing under that part of the house dropped to the new, lower sand surface. The McAlpins had sand brought in to place under the house and began to build a seawall around the pilings and new sand until the seawall project was halted for failure to obtain a permit. In 2008 and 2009, a beach restoration project was installed on the peninsula, which added sand to the beach and formed a dune immediately seaward of the McAlpin house. There is a dispute whether the DeVries propose to build on a frontal dune. The McAlpins contend that the seaward toe of the frontal dune is seaward of their house, that its crest is on the DeVries' property just east of their common boundary, and that the frontal dune extends landward approximately to the DeVries' common boundary with the property to the east. Michael Dombrowski, P.E., gave expert coastal engineering testimony in support of McAlpins' contention. The DeVries and DEP contend that the beach restoration project re-created the frontal dune that was seaward of the McAlpins' house before the major storms of 2004 and 2005 and that the McAlpins' house sits on a separate primary dune landward of the primary dune. Michael Walther, P.E., and Tony McNeal, P.E., gave expert coastal engineering testimony in support of the contention of the DeVries and DEP. The beach restoration project created a dune, i.e., a mound or bluff of sand, that is landward of the beach, parallel to the shoreline, and continuous in the vicinity. The dune has been planted with native vegetation that is thriving and spreading. Since its installation, the dune has been stable, and sand has been accreting on the dune. The dune is of sufficient vegetation, height, continuity, and configuration to offer protective value up to a major, 40- to 60-year return storm. As such, it is a frontal dune. See § 161.053(5)(a), Fla. Stat. There is a trough between the dune created by the restoration project and dune on which the McAlpins' house sits. (The trough is the landward toe of the frontal dune and the seaward toe of the dune under the McAlpin house). The latter dune system crests at approximately 18 feet North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD) on the DeVries' property a little landward of the common boundary between the two properties. It is a significant dune in that it has sufficient height and configuration and vegetation (especially on the DeVries' property, which is heavily vegetated) to provide protective value. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B-33.002(17)(a). The alterations made to the McAlpin property by the prior owner adversely affected the alongshore continuity of the dune system, but it still is a primary dune in that it affords a measurable level of protection to upland property and structures from the predictable erosion and storm surge levels associated with coastal storm events. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B- 33.002(17)(b). The Proposed Beach House The DeVries' application is to build a pile-supported 3,000 square foot, two-story house over a concrete slab used as a parking area, with dolomite drive and a dune walkover. The house would be up to approximately 110 feet seaward of the CCCL, landward of the adjacent McAlpin house, and landward of the 30- year erosion line (DEP's projection of the seasonal high-water line 30 years in the future). It is undisputed that the proposed construction will conform to the requirements of the Florida Building Code. The DeVries' proposed house would be on 18 one-foot square piles, with two eight-inch square piles supporting the wooden deck. This construction method, which is standard, minimizes impacts from erosion and scour. The DeVries propose a septic tank and drain field between the house and the common boundary with their neighbor to the east (i.e., the landward side of the property). This optimal location for the septic tank and drain field is made possible by the orientation and dimensions of the proposed house (a relatively narrow rectangle with the longer sides in the north-south direction). Petitioners contend that impacts should be minimized by requiring construction of a narrower, taller structure. The footprint already is smaller than the footprint of the McAlpins' house. Requiring a further reduction would create problems in the design of the interior space of the house. It was proven that the dimensions of the house proposed by the DeVries is reasonable and sufficiently minimizes impacts. There will be no net excavation of in situ sand for the construction authorized in proposed Permit GU-501. Sand excavated for the septic tank and drain field, along with additional sand brought to the construction site, will be used to fill a bowl-like feature in the middle of the DeVries' property and level the ground for the concrete slab under the DeVries' proposed house. There will be a net addition of sand to the site. The concrete slab beneath the DeVries' proposed house is designed to be partially cut so as to break into smaller pieces in a catastrophic storm event and not cause collapse, displacement, or other structural damage to the elevated portion of the building or supporting foundation system. Cf. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B-33.002(9). The concrete slab proposed beneath the house was reduced in size to eliminate a roughly seven-foot by 16-foot rectangle in the northwest corner and not to disturb a higher dune feature that exists in that location. Petitioners contend that the DeVries' concrete slab could be further reduced in size to minimize impacts to the primary dune. However, it was proven that the size of the concrete slab is reasonable and sufficiently minimizes impacts. The driveway authorized by proposed Permit GU-501 will narrow from approximately 30 feet wide at the house to approximately 12 feet at the County right-of-way, which reduces impacts (and is narrower than the McAlpins' driveway). Petitioners contend that the driveway should be narrower to minimize impacts. It was proven that the width of the proposed driveway is reasonable and sufficiently minimizes impacts. Frangible curbing is proposed along both sides of the driveway. This will prevent or discourage driving elsewhere on the lot. The Proposed Dune Walkover The DeVries' proposed dune walkover would be connected by stairs to a wooden deck off the northern end of the first story of the house. From the stairs, the dune walkover proceeds for a short distance in a northerly direction, then proceeds in a westerly direction towards the beach within a 10-foot wide access easement. It would be four feet wide and at least two feet above the ground surface and would pass within ten to 20 feet of the north side of the McAlpins' house. It would be supported by four-inch by four-inch wooden piles. Petitioners contend that the DeVries' proposed dune walkover should be denied because there is a public beach access off White Sands Drive approximately 500 feet to the south. The purpose of the dune walkover would be to avoid the impacts that would occur if people staying at the DeVries' beach house use the beach access easement instead of the public access. The existence of the public access is not a ground to deny private beach access via a dune walkover that meets CCCL permitting criteria. Petitioners also contend that the proposed dune walkover should be denied because a ground-level foot path was not considered. Since the purpose of the dune walkover is to avoid the impacts of an on-grade footpath, that option was considered and rejected. Petitioners contend that the proposed dune walkover should be reduced to three feet. But it was proven that the proposed four-foot width is standard and reasonable; that the construction method already minimizes impacts; and that the impacts from a three-foot wide walkover would not be much less than the proposed walkover. Petitioners also contend that the DeVries' dune walkover should use rounded piles, not square ones as proposed. They base this contention on DEP's Beach and Dune Walkover Guidelines (Dune Walkover Guidelines), which state that rounded piles are preferred. Rounded piles are not mandatory, and it was proven that the proposed piles are reasonable and sufficient. Petitioners contend that the proposed dune walkover actually is wider than four feet overall because the application drawings make it appear that the wooden piles are outside the walkway. However, it was proven that the drawings are in error to that extent and that the maximum width of the dune walkover actually will be four feet, as required by special condition 8 of proposed Permit GU-501. Petitioners contend that the proposed dune walkover must be denied because the site plan depicts it as terminating on the frontal dune created by the 2008 beach restoration project, which is contrary to the Dune Walkover Guidelines. Petitioners also contend that, while the Dune Walkover Guidelines require adequate elevation to clear the vegetation on the dunes, every part of the proposed walkover may not clear the dune entirely, according to the elevations in the site plan and construction drawings in the DeVries' application. Special condition 8 of proposed Permit GU-501 addresses Petitioners' contentions. It requires the proposed dune walkover to extend up to (but more than ten feet seaward of) the existing line of vegetation (not the line of vegetation at the time of the survey included as part of the DeVries' application) and requires that "the deck of the walkover structure shall maintain an elevation above the existing dune vegetation canopy . . . ." Also, under special condition 8, "[t]he optimum siting of the walkover structure shall be determined by the [DEP] staff representative during the preconstruction conference to provide maximum protection to the existing dune topography and vegetation located on the site." This will ensure compliance with the Dune Walkover Guidelines, which defines optimal siting. Petitioners contend that the proposed dune walkover must be denied because the DeVries' beach access easement does not extend to the existing vegetation line. Proposed GU-501 does not authorize a trespassing. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B-33.0155(4). If additional access easement is required to reach the beach, it will have to be acquired. Otherwise, the proposed dune walkover cannot be built. To mitigate for the minimized impacts from the DeVries' proposed construction, special condition 5 of proposed Permit GU-501 requires the DeVries to "plant a mix of a minimum of three native salt-tolerant species within any disturbed areas seaward of the control line, including the septic tank and drain field area." Obviously, there will not be mitigation planting where the concrete slab and dolomite driveway will be. The plants must be indigenous species or approved by DEP, and "a minimum of 80 percent of the planted areas shall be covered with the selected species." Sod and planting invasive nuisance species are not authorized. In addition, the site plan, which is part of the application, has a proposal to "maintain [planted native vegetation] adequate by temporary irrigation." Petitioners contend that the GU-501 conditions are not sufficient because the indigenous plants are not specified. However, the evidence provided reasonable assurance that appropriate species would be planted. Petitioners also contend that the GU-501 conditions are not sufficient because the success criteria are inadequate. Specifically, Petitioners compare the 80 percent coverage requirement in special condition 5 with the 90 percent success rate after 180 days and after 360 days required by the conditions of the beach restoration project. The beach restoration project's conditions could be viewed as less strict than the GU-501 conditions. In any event, the GU-501 conditions provide reasonable assurance of mitigation of the impacts. Petitioners contend that temporary impacts are not mitigated. However, temporary impacts will be minimized by special conditions 1 (pre-construction conference) and 3 (requirement of optimal construction fencing, including to protect the dune feature at southwest corner of the DeVries' property), 4 (only minimum disturbance required for construction allowed), and 9 (requirement to remove all rubble and construction debris to a location landward of the CCCL). This small level of risk from temporary disturbances during construction and before mitigation plantings take hold is unavoidable. It does not warrant the denial of a CCCL permit. In accordance with DEP's requirements, the proposed dune walkover is designed as a minor, expendable structure, and partitions of the house are designed to break away or be "frangible"—i.e., to "collapse from a water load less than that which would occur during a 100-year storm event without causing collapse, displacement, or other structural damage to the elevated portion of the building or supporting foundation system." See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B-33.002(9). These designs help prevent larger, unmitigated storm damage to the beach and dune system. Due to its proximity, the McAlpins' house could sustain additional damage from the frangible parts of the DeVries' construction during such a storm. However, those risks are contemplated by DEP's frangibility requirements and are relatively small. Those risks do not warrant the denial of a CCCL permit. The County Right-of-Way There is a paved road called White Sands Drive that approaches the McAlpins' dolomite driveway and the proposed location of the DeVries' dolomite driveway from the east. The McAlpins' driveway extends from their house in a southeasterly direction, crosses the County right-of-way for Blue Water Circle (which has not been built), and connects with the paved surface of White Sands Drive in the curve between its east-west segment and its north-south segment. The DeVries' proposed dolomite driveway would terminate at the County right-of-way for Blue Water Circle to the northeast of the McAlpins' driveway, where the elevation is approximately 13 to 14 feet NAVD (similar to the elevation of the McAlpins' driveway). There is a relatively narrow dune feature between the McAlpins' driveway and the DeVries' proposed driveway that rises to an elevation of approximately 19 feet NAVD in the center of the dune feature. This dune is significant in that it has sufficient height and vegetation to provide protective value. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B-33.002(17)(a). In itself, it is not a primary dune because it does not have the configuration and alongshore continuity to afford a measurable level of protection to upland property and structures from the predictable erosion and storm surge levels associated with coastal storm events. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B-33.002(17)(b). This dune feature extends into the County right-of- way. Depending on the route taken, a car using the DeVries' proposed driveway might drive over or through a small part of the extreme southeastern end of this dune feature. It might be possible to avoid the dune feature entirely by hugging the eastern side of the driveway and, to the greatest extent possible, using the part of the County right-of-way that is used by the neighbor to the east to access their dolomite driveway from White Sands Drive. If not entirely avoiding the dune feature, it would be possible to drive over or through only a very small part of the dune feature where elevations are no greater than 14 to 15 feet NAVD. DEP and the DeVries contend that impacts to the County right-of-way should not be considered because they were not timely raised. However, Petitioners' allegations were broad enough to include consideration of those impacts. DEP and the DeVries also contend that impacts to the County right-of-way are prohibited by general and special conditions. General permit conditions include: Construction traffic shall not occur and building materials shall not be stored on vegetated areas seaward of the control line unless specifically authorized by the permit. If the Department determines that this requirement is not being met, positive control measures, such as temporary fencing, designated access roads, adjustment of construction sequence, or other requirements, shall be provided by the permittee at the direction of the Department. . . . * * * The permittee shall not disturb existing beach and dune topography and vegetation except as expressly authorized in the permit. Before the project is considered complete, any disturbed topography or vegetation shall be restored as prescribed in the permit with suitable fill material or revegetated with appropriate beach and dune vegetation. * * * (j) Any native salt-tolerant vegetation destroyed during construction shall be replaced with plants of the same species or, by authorization of the Department, with other native salt-tolerant vegetation suitable for beach and dune stabilization. Unless otherwise specifically authorized by the Department, all plants installed in beach and coastal areas - whether to replace vegetation displaced, damaged, or destroyed during construction or otherwise - shall be of species indigenous to Florida beaches and dunes, such as sea oats, sea grape, saw palmetto, panic grass, saltmeadow hay cordgrass, seashore saltgrass, and railroad vine, and grown from stock indigenous to the region in which the project is located. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B-33.0155(3). In addition, special condition 4 of proposed Permit GU-501 states: "Existing vegetation shall be disturbed only to the minimum extent necessary to complete work within the authorized construction limits." Finally, proposed permit GU-501 does not authorize the construction of a driveway through the County right-of-way. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B-33.0155(4) (permit does not authorize trespass). Notwithstanding the conditions and limitation of proposed GU-501, it is reasonable to foresee that, to use the proposed driveway, cars will drive through the County right-of- way between the DeVries' proposed driveway and White Sands Drive. The extent to which the dune feature would be impacted must be considered in this case. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B-33.002(33) (impacts can be direct or indirect). It appears possible to use the DeVries' proposed driveway and avoid any parts of the dune feature in the County's right-of-way above the 14-foot NAVD elevation by using the part of the right-of-way currently being used for access by the DeVries' neighbor to the east. To minimize impacts, this should be required as an additional condition of GU-501. Construction of the proposed beach house and dune walkover on the DeVries' property will not alter the coastal system by measurably affecting the existing shoreline change rate, significantly interfering with its ability to recover from a coastal storm, disturbing topography or vegetation such that the dune system becomes unstable or suffers catastrophic failure or the protective value of the dune system is significantly lowered. As such, there will be no significant impacts. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B-33.002(33)(b).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that DEP enter a final order issuing GU-501, with an additional condition to use the part of the County's right-of-way currently being used for access by the DeVries' neighbor to the east and avoid any parts of the dune feature in the right-of-way above the 14-foot NAVD elevation to access the DeVries' proposed driveway. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of November, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of November, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Ross Stafford Burnaman, Esquire 1018 Holland Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301-4508 Kelly L. Russell, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection The Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 E. Dylan Rivers, Esquire Ausley and McMullen, P.A. 123 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1517 Herschel T. Vinyard, Jr., Secretary Department of Environmental Protection The Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Tom Beason, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection The Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection The Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue Whether the permit application of Clifford S. and Maria Ray (the "Rays") meets the statutory and rule requirements for the Department of Environmental Protection ("DEP" or the "Department") to issue to the Rays a permit to construct a multi- family dwelling and related structures seaward of the coastal construction control line ("CCCL") on their property in Brevard County?
Findings Of Fact Legislative Intent re: Beaches and Coastal Barrier Dunes The Legislature has declared that the beaches and the coastal barrier dunes in this state, subject by their nature to severe fluctuations, represent one of the most valuable resources of Florida. See § 161.053(1)(a), Fla. Stat. The Legislature has further declared that it is in the public interest to preserve and protect the beaches and dunes from imprudent construction because it can "jeopardize the stability of the beach-dune system, accelerate erosion, provide inadequate protection to upland structures, endanger adjacent properties, or interfere with public beach access." Id. The Legislature has therefore directed the Department of Environmental Protection "on a county basis along the sand beaches of the state fronting the Atlantic Ocean [and other salt water bodies]" to "establish coastal construction control lines." Id. The "Coastal Construction Control Line" A line of jurisdiction, rather than a line of prohibition, the Coastal Construction Control Line (the "CCCL or the "Control Line") is defined in Chapter 62B-331 of the Florida Administrative Code. The Control Line is: the line established pursuant to provisions of Section 161.053, F.S., and recorded in the official records of the county, which defines that portion of the beach-dune system subject to severe fluctuations based on a 100-year storm surge, storm waves, or other predictable weather conditions. Fla. Admin. Code. R. 62B-33.002(12). The Department's Office of Beaches and Coastal Systems has regulatory authority to permit or deny construction seaward of the Control Line pursuant to statutory and rule criteria. This proceeding concerns the exercise of that authority in the form of issuance of a permit for activity seaward of the Control Line in Brevard County. Brevard County's Control Line The Control Line in Brevard County was established by the Department of Natural Resources, an agency of the state and a predecessor of DEP, in 1981 (the "1981 CCCL"). A second Control Line in Brevard County was established in 1986, again by the Department of Natural Resources. It is approximately 150 feet landward of the 1981 CCCL. It will be referred to in this order as "the CCCL" or "the Control Line." The line established in 1981 will be referred to as the "1981 CCCL," to distinguish it from the Control Line established in 1986, the Coastal Construction Control Line applicable to this proceeding. The Parties Mrs. Pope Petitioner, Carole C. Pope, owns with her husband James M. Pope, oceanfront property located at Wilson Avenue, Brevard County, Florida, where the Popes reside part time. The Popes' property has a Cocoa Beach mailing address, but is not within the city limits of Cocoa Beach. Littoral to the Atlantic Ocean, the Popes' property was identified in the pre-hearing stipulation in the Rule-related Cases (discussed in this Order's Preliminary Statement) as "Lot 11, Block 101, Avon by the Sea as described in Plat Book 3, page 7 [presumably the Official Records of Brevard County] and east to Ocean, except the west 13 feet of Lot 11." See Final Order, Pope v. Department of Environmental Protection et al., Case No. 03-3860RX, paragraph 7, page 9. The Popes have two duplex units on their property. Built in the 1950's, they consist of concrete foundations, block walls, and 10-foot-high flat roofs. Mrs. Pope and her husband have retained the native, salt-tolerant vegetation that surrounds the duplexes. Protective of the property because it serves to enhance and stabilize the primary/frontal dune, it also adds to Mrs. Pope's enjoyment and use of her property. She enjoys the native flora, an integral part of the habitat of native fauna (gopher tortoises and indigo snakes, for example) that she enjoys watching. She particularly enjoys feeding and interacting with the sociable scrub jay. The Department and its Office of Beaches and Coastal Systems The Department is responsible for the administration of Parts I and II of Chapter 161, Florida Statutes, the "Beach and Shore Preservation Act." § 161.011, Fla. Stat. The Act confers on the Department the authority "to adopt rules related to the following provisions of this section [§ 161.053]: establishment of coastal construction control lines; activities seaward of the coastal construction control line; exemptions; property owner agreements; delegation of the program; permitting programs; and violations and penalties." § 161.053 (21), Fla. Stat. Pursuant to its rule-making authority in Section 161.053 (together with other specific authority), Florida Statutes, the Department promulgated Rule Chapter 62B-33: "Office of Beaches and Coastal Systems - Rules and Procedures for Coastal Construction and Excavation (Permits for Construction Seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line and Fifty-Foot Setback)." The Office is in the Department. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B-33.002(11). Permits for construction or other activities seaward of the construction control line, such as the permit in this case, are issued pursuant to Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, by the Program Administrator of the Bureau of Beaches and Wetland Resources on behalf of the Department. See Respondents 1, Vol. 2, Tab 22. The Department has not delegated Chapter 161 permitting authority to Brevard County. The Rays Clifford and Maria Ray are the owners of the property adjacent to Petitioner's property and the holders of Permit No. BE-1083, preliminarily issued by the Department in its final order of September 19, 2003. The property consists of four 50-foot-wide lots, Lots 12, 13, 14 and 15 in Avon by the Sea. Lot 12 is immediately adjacent to Mrs. Pope's property. Some of the native vegetation on the property has been disturbed by the planting of sod and installation of an irrigation system seaward of the Brevard County coastal setback line and the Control Line. The activity is the subject of administrative enforcement actions by the County and DEP. Although government claims of violations had not been resolved finally as of the date of hearing, the Rays have not resisted the claims. The Permit was issued to the Rays under the authority of Section 161.053, Florida Statutes. It authorizes activities on the Ray property seaward of the CCCL. This activity includes the construction of an eight-story, multi-family dwelling, a swimming pool and deck, a wooden beach/dune walkway, a parking area, masonry wall and an exfiltration trench, as described in more detail in the section of the Permit entitled "PROJECT DESCRIPTION." Respondents Ex. 1, Vol. 2, Tab 22, Permit No. BE- 1083, p. 2-3. The Department was not aware of the claims of violations made against the Rays referred-to above at the time that Mr. Tammisetti, the engineer assigned to review the permit file initially, recommended that the permit be issued. Had Mr. Tammisetti been aware of the claims he still would have recommended issuance of the permit. Coastal Systems and Fixed Coastal Cells The term "Coastal System" is defined by the Department in its rules: "Coastal System" is the beach and adjacent upland dune system and vegetation seaward of the coastal construction control line; swash zone; surf zone; breaker zone; offshore and longshore shoals; reefs and bars; tidal, wind, and wave driven currents; longshore and onshore/offshore drift of sediment materials; inlets and their ebb and flood tide shoals and zones of primary tidal influence; and all other associated natural and manmade topographic features and structures. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B-33.002(13). Within the coastal system are "fixed coastal cells," also defined by Department rule: "Fixed Coastal Cell" is a geomorphological component of the coastal system which is closely linked internally by active physical processes and is bounded by physical features which exercise a major control on refraction patterns or which compartmentalize or severely limit longshore sediment such as headlands or inlets. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B-33.002(24). Within and adjacent to a fixed coastal cell of Florida's coastal system lie sea, shore, beach, dune system, vegetation, uplands and structures with which this proceeding is concerned. The Beach and Dune System within the Fixed Coastal Cell The Ray property and the Pope property are located in a fixed coastal cell that extends from Canaveral Inlet (north of R014, one of a series of coastal monuments installed by the state) southward to Monument R050. The community in which the property is situated is a "Coastal Uplands: Beach Dune" community characterized by a beach and dune system. There is one primary/frontal dune with a height at the top of the bank of about 13.4 feet NGVD seaward of the proposed project. The portion of property on which the project is sited is between 7.3 and 10.7 feet NGVD. The most recent DEP design wave height elevation for R015 is 14.2 feet NGVD, higher than the existing dune elevation at the Ray property. Much of the Ray property behind the dune is lower in elevation than the elevation of contiguous properties, the likely result of persistent cutting of native vegetation that acts to intercept wind-blown sand as it moves along the shoreline. Beach and Dune Data in DEP File BE-1083 In the application review process, Mr. Tammisetti submitted a memorandum dated May 24, 2001, to Mr. McNeal. The memorandum appears to have been a form with blanks into which information was inserted or handwritten close to the appropriate blank. For example, under Section I., of the form "PROPOSED PROJECT" is "A. Project Location:", followed by a description with blanks left for number of feet, direction (north, south, east, west) reference monument number, county and project address. Handwriting close to the blanks leads one to understand or gather that it intends to communicate the following statements: The location of this project is approximately 100 feet N to 103 feet S of the Department of Environmental Protection's Reference Monument R-15, in Brevard County. Project Address: Harding Ave, Cape Canaveral. This is within the local jurisdiction of Brevard County. Respondents 1, Vol. 2, Tab 13. The form also contains Section II., "CHARACTERIZATION OF BEACH/DUNE SYSTEM". The section calls for three categories of characterization: A., a general description; B., beach topography in terms of shoreline alignment, berm width in feet, berm elevation in feet (NGVD), direction of net littoral transport, volume of net littoral transport in cubic yards per year, and general conditions; and C., Primary Dune/Bluff Topography with dune width in feet. None of the information called for by this section has been filled in on the form. At hearing, Mr. Tammisetti testified2 that berm width was 220 feet and the berm elevation ranged from 3 to 10 feet NGVD. He testified that the direction of littoral transport was north to south but he did not know the volume of net littoral transport. He stated that the "general site condition" was an eroding shoreline. He estimated the dune width at between 30 to 40 feet. These facts and figures exist under an overarching consideration. The beach near R015 that fronts the Pope and Ray property is critically eroding.3 Vegetation on the Ray Property There is a sea grape cluster and numerous palm trees on the Ray property. The seaward most continuous line of native salt-resistant vegetation or the "vegetation line" is near the line at the toe of the slope of the dune bank depicted on the topographic survey drawing submitted as part of the application. Nanette Church, at the time an employee of Brevard County, visited the site on July 1, 2003. She documented the presence of fresh sod and a new irrigation system installed seaward of the County's coastal setback line, a line parallel to and 25-feet landward of the 1981 CCCL. Two days later, DEP Inspector Gene Verano conducted a site inspection and documented the placement of sod and the installation of an extensive irrigation system. On July 31, 2003, the Department under the signature of Jim Martinello, an Environmental Manager in the Bureau of Beaches and Wetland Resources, issued a warning letter to Mr. Ray with regard to "POSSIBLE UNAUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES SEAWARD OF THE COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINE." The letter reads, in part, Pope 3. [I]t appears that you have again been engaged in unauthorized activities on your property located approximately 100 feet north to 100 feet south of the Department of Environmental Protection's reference monument R-15, in Cocoa Beach, in Brevard County, Florida. The possible violation consists of the destruction/removal of native vegetation and placement of sod and an irrigation system seaward of the coastal construction control line without benefit of a permit from the [department.] The sod seaward of the CCCL has a negative effect on the stability of the dune system. A weakened dune system allows for storm surge and overwash to breach the dune and cause washout on the landward side of the dunes. Brevard County has not yet issued a land clearing or landscape permit to the Rays. A "Brevard County Land Development Site-Plan Approval" with an approval date of December 30, 2003, warned, "[i]t is the responsibility of the Owner/Engineer of Record to contact Office Natural Resources for a Land Clearing/Landscaping Permit." Respondents' 1, Vol. 1, Tab 12. The Rays are not contesting County or DEP enforcement actions relative to the land clearing, sod placement, and irrigation system installation. Project Description The project proposed by the Rays is to be located on their property in the unincorporated area of Brevard County known as "Avon-by-the-Sea," in the vicinity of Department monument R-015. The project is known by Brevard County as the Ray Condos and also as the Michelina Condominium. The location of the multi-family dwelling relative to the Control Line is "[a] maximum of 105.56 feet seaward." Id. Its exterior dimensions are "209.67 feet in the shore normal direction by 84 feet in the shore-parallel direction." Id. The type of foundation is "Pile." Id. There is no mention in the Permit of the height of the building. The swimming pool is described in the Permit in detail with regard to its dimensions and location (a maximum of 101.49 feet seaward of the control line), the type of construction and its maximum depth: six feet. Excavation/Fill for the project is described in terms of volume of excavation, its location, volume of fill as replacement, and location of fill. The Excavation/Fill description is subject to Special Permit Condition 6. Among other provisions of the condition, the fill is to be "from a source landward of the control line and shall consist of sand which is similar to that already on the site in both grain size and coloration." Id., p. 4. Other permitted structures and activities are listed and described in the Permit with reference to special permit conditions: A wooden beach/dune walkway structure of dimensions 174 feet shore-normal by 4 feet shore-parallel is to be located seaward of the control line. See Special Condition 7. A 4-foot to 14-foot swimming pool deck attached to the periphery of the swimming pool is to be located a maximum of 105.96 [feet] seaward of the control line. See Special Permit Condition 2.1. Paver-block parking area on the south side of the proposed dwelling. Masonry walls along the north and south property lines to extend a maximum of 105 feet seaward of the control line. See Special Permit Condition 2.2. An exfiltration system trench on the south side of the proposed dwelling. Among nine special conditions in the Permit are that no work can be conducted until a DEP "notice to proceed" has been received by the Rays. Another is that prior to the issuance of such a notice "two copies of detailed final site and grading plans and specifications" shall be submitted including two sets of landscape drawings. Id., p. 3, Special Permit Condition 2. See id., 2.3. The landscape plan must be submitted to Brevard County for approval under the Permit's special conditions. Given Brevard County's requirement that the Rays secure a Land Clearing/Landscaping Permit, there will be an ongoing process that poses the potential to ensure that the Rays' project will be designed to minimize the impact on native vegetation. The process also may require a restoration plan, as well, for the impact to native vegetation caused by the sod and the irrigation system. The Rays have submitted such a plan to the County. Relationship of the Proposed Project to the Pope Property The proposed multi-family dwelling is sited 10 feet south of the northern property line (the line that serves as the southern boundary of the Pope property). Ten feet is the minimum setback from adjacent property allowed by the county. The duplexes on the Pope property are situated in a range from 3.5 to 4.5 feet from the property line (the border with the Ray property.) The project, therefore, is proposed to be as close as 13.5 feet of the Pope duplexes. If built, running the length of the duplexes, it would create a relatively narrow space between the proposed structure and the Popes' duplexes that ranges from 13.5 feet to 14.5 in width. The Application The Rays submitted their CCCL permit application to the Department through their agent, Joyce Gumpher. On January 24, 2003, Ms. Gumpher executed a certification "that all information submitted with this application is true and complete to the best of [her] knowledge." Respondents Ex. 6, APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION SEAWARD OF THE COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINE OR FIFTY-FOOT SETBACK. The application was received by DEP on January 27, 2003. Additional information was requested by the Department. On April 21, 2003, the Department deemed the application complete. During the application process, several plan sheets were revised. Revised plan sheets were submitted after the application was deemed complete (see Respondents' Ex. 6, July 29, 2003 plans and September 5, 2003 plans) and once prior to DEP's determination of its completeness. (see id., April 7, 2003 plans). Review of the Application On August 26, 2003, Mr. Tammisetti submitted a memorandum to Mr. McNeal that recommended approval of the application with special permit conditions. The memorandum, similar in form to the memorandum submitted on May 24, 2001, except for the lack of Part II., is entitled "Description of Beach and Dune System Fronting the Subject Property and an Analysis of Impacts to be Expected From the Proposed Construction." Respondents 1, Vol. 2, Tab 20. It describes the proposed project but, lacking Part II., it neither characterizes nor describes the beach/dune system. Nor does it analyze the impacts of the proposed project other than to provide the "final comment" that "[t]he proposed project is landward of line of construction and 30-year erosion project. Impactive shore- parallel coverage is approximately 72%." Id., p. 3. Under its rules, after reviewing all information required, the Department is mandated to: Deny any application for an activity which either individually or cumulatively would result in a significant adverse impact including potential cumulative effects. In assessing the cumulative effects of a proposed activity, the Department shall consider the short-term and long-term impacts and the direct and indirect impacts the activity would cause in combination with existing structures in the area and any other similar activities already permitted or for which a permit application is pending within the same fixed coastal cell. The impact assessment shall include the anticipated effect of the construction on the coastal system and marine turtles. * * * Require siting and design criteria that minimize adverse impacts and mitigation of adverse or other impacts. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B-33.005(3). As found earlier, the file in BE-1083 does not contain any documentation that the Department conducted the impact assessments required by the rule. Nonetheless, the Department based its evaluation on the portion of the fixed coastal cell from just north of R013 to approximately 400 feet south of R017 depicted on Respondents' 7. Respondents' 7 Respondents' 7 is an aerial photograph of developed uplands and off shore waters of the Atlantic Ocean in between which is the shore line and a stretch of beach in Brevard County. The sandy beach in the photo runs from north to south from Monument R013 to approximately 400 feet south of Monument R017, five monuments in a series set by the state along the Brevard County coast. The photograph is data the Department reviewed to determine if existing structures established a "reasonably continuous and uniform construction line closer to the mean high water line than [the coastal construction control Line]." § 161.053(5)(b), Fla. Stat. (This "reasonably continuous and uniform construction line" will be referred to as the "Construction Line" in this order.) The Pope property and the Ray property both straddle the Construction Line. The photograph shows four structures (the "Four Structures") that were determined by DEP to establish the Construction Line. Two are to the north of the Ray property; two are to the south. Of the two structures to the north, the closest is between 400 and 450 feet north of the northern boundary of the Ray property. It sits between Monument R015 and R014. The other structure to the north used to establish the Construction Line lies between Monument R014 and R013. Its southernmost corner is approximately 1200 feet to the north of the northern boundary of the Ray property. The roof of the closest of the Four Structures to the south, lying between Monument R015 and R016, viewed from the air above is rectangular indicating the structure to have a rectangular footprint. Positioned at an angle to the coast, its southeastern corner is along the 1981 CCCL. That corner is approximately 400 feet south of the southern boundary of the Ray property. The second structure to the south sits between R016 and R017. Its northernmost corner is roughly 850 feet south of the southern boundary of the Ray property. The Application Rule Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B-33.008(4), entitled "Permit Application Requirements and Procedures" (the "Application Rule"), requires that the Rays' application contain certain specific information, including that identified in subsection (f): Two copies of a topographic survey drawing of the subject property. The topographic information depicted in the drawing shall be from field survey work performed not more than six months prior to the date of the application. The rule further calls for the topographic survey drawing to include specific information such as "[t]he location of any existing vegetation line on the subject property." Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B-33.008(4)(f)9. The topographic survey drawing submitted as part of the application in January of 2003 reveals a survey date of "7/17/02." Respondent's Ex. 1, Sketch of Boundary and Topographic Survey, Lots 12-15, Block 101, Avon by the Sea, Brevard County, Florida. Other than the date of the survey, the evidence at hearing did not reveal when the fieldwork in support of the survey was conducted.4 In all likelihood the fieldwork was conducted close to July 17, 2002, but obviously prior to July 17, 2002. Whether the date of the application is considered to be the date of Ms. Gumpher's certification (January 24, 2003), or the date of its receipt by DEP (January 27, 2003), it does not depict "field survey work performed not more than six months prior to the date of the application." January 24, 2003, is six months and one week after July 17, 2002. January 27, 2003, is six months and 10 days after the date of the survey. The Vegetation Line The topographic survey drawing submitted as part of the application did not meet precisely the requirements of the Application Rule in several other ways. For one, it did not label the location of "any existing vegetation line on the subject property." At hearing, the Rays submitted a revised copy of the topographic survey drawing (still dated "7/17/02"). The revision labels a line indicated on the originally submitted topographic survey drawing as "TOE OF SLOPE" (within a few feet of the top of the dune bank) as "TOE OF SLOPE AND VEGETATION LINE." Thus, it is apparent that the originally submitted topographic survey drawing depicted the vegetation line; it merely failed in its labeling of the vegetation line. The Department, once it became aware of the omission of a reference to a vegetation line in the original submission, waived the requirement for one. At hearing, Mr. McNeal testified that the waiver was authorized by subsection (7) of the Application Requirements and Procedures Rule: The Department recognizes that the requirements specified in paragraphs 62B- 33.008(4). . . (f) . . ., F.A.C. may not, due to the project circumstances, be applicable or necessary to ensure protection to the beach and dune system. In such cases, the applicant shall, as part of the application, identify those requirements and state the reason why they are inapplicable. The Department shall waive requirements that do not apply. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B-33.008(7). There is no evidence of record that the Rays informed DEP of a position that the "location of the vegetation line" on the topographic survey drawing was a requirement inapplicable or unnecessary to ensure protection to the beach and dune system.5 Nonetheless, construing its waiver authority to be broader than authority limited to cases in which identification of inapplicable and unnecessary requirements had been made by those seeking DEP waivers, the Department waived the requirement. The waiver was based on knowledge gained from the experience of DEP employees. The employees (Mr. Tammisetti and Mr. McNeal) knew that the vegetation line would be close to the top of the dune bank line and the toe of slope line, both of which were located on the topographic survey drawing.6 Respondents' 2 supports the Department's waiver since it labels the vegetation line where the Department roughly expected it to be. Complete Dimensions and Distance Perpendicular The Application Rule further demands that the topographic survey drawing contain: 15. Accurate dimensions and locations of the foundation outlines of any structures in the immediate contiguous or adjacent areas that the applicant contends have established a reasonably continuous and uniform construction line if the permit is requested under the provisions of Section 161.053(5)(b) or 161.052(2)(b), F.S., and the distance perpendicular [the "Distance Perpendicular"] from the CCCL or 50-foot setback to the seaward corners of the foundations of any major structures . . . . Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B-33.008(4)(f). The application contained the dimensions and locations of the two (2) duplexes located on the Pope property, that is, the adjacent area to the north of the Ray property. With regard to the adjacent area to the south of the Ray property, the application contained the seaward dimensions and locations of the major structure that makes up the Discovery Beach Resort structure. The topographic survey drawing did not contain the dimensions of the complete footprint of the Discovery Beach Resort. Nor did it contain the distance perpendicular from the CCCL or 50-foot setback to the seaward corners of the foundations of all major structures depicted. Mr. McNeal noticed that required elements were missing from the application. When he made the permitting decision, he waived them pursuant to a delegation of authority from the Office of Beaches and Coastal Systems. Delegations of Authority Office of Beaches and Coastal Systems The Director of the Office of Beaches and Coastal Systems has delegated certain authority to subordinates in the Office of Beaches and Coastal Systems with respect to the CCCL permitting program. The delegations, as reflected in a document entitled "Delegations of Authority, OFFICE OF BEACHES AND COASTAL SYSTEMS" (Pope Ex. 1), is to "the Director of Office of Beaches and Coastal Systems, or his/her designee." Id., 3.a. As the administrator of the CCCL program within the Bureau of Beaches and Wetlands Resources, Mr. McNeal has been delegated authority under Delegation "OBCS-9" (id., p. 14 of 24), to "[t]ake final agency action on permit applications . . . pursuant to Sections . . . 161.053 . . ., Florida Statutes, and Rule 62B-33, F.A.C., [subject to exceptions immaterial to this proceeding.]" Id. The authority so delegated is not without limitation. Among limitations enumerated and express in the Delegations of Authority document is that "[t]the exercise of any delegated authority shall conform with all statutes and rules applicable to the DEP." Id., 3.a. Waivers Pursuant to Delegated Authority Pursuant to the authority over final agency action on CCCL permit applications, Mr. McNeal, as the head of the CCCL Program in the Office of Beaches and Shores, waived the depiction of the location of the vegetation line on the topographic survey drawing, the full dimensions of the Discovery Resort in the adjacent area to the south of the Ray property and the notation of the Distances Perpendicular. He did so because the information contained on the topographic survey drawing was sufficient, in his view, to allow the Department to perform the calculations and analyses as part of the application process that would be served by a review of the topographic survey drawing. An example has been alluded to in this order. Based on years of collective experience, Mr. McNeal and Mr. Tammisetti concluded it was reasonable to assume the vegetation line would be very near the toe of the slope line in relation to the dune bank. Their assumptions were proved correct at hearing. The dimensions and locations of the major structures located immediately north and south of the proposed project (the Pope duplexes and the Discovery Resort structure) and the Distances Perpendicular were required to be included on the topographic survey drawing, but they were not intended by the Rays to establish a Construction Line. Establishment of any such line is governed by Section 161.053(5)(b), Florida Statutes: If in the immediate contiguous or adjacent area a number of existing structures have established a reasonably continuous and uniform construction line closer to the line of mean high water than the foregoing [the CCCL], and if the existing structures have not been unduly affected by erosion, a proposed structure may, at the discretion of the department, be permitted along such line on written authorization from the department, if such structure is also approved by the department [and other conditions are met]. A Construction Line The Rays contend in their application and DEP agrees that the Four Structures establish a Construction Line. Once such a line is established provided the structures are not duly affected by erosion, the Department is conferred with the discretion to permit a proposed structure along the line seaward of the CCCL under certain circumstances. See § 161.053(5)(b), Fla. Stat. Among those circumstances, the permit "shall not contravene setback requirements or zoning or building codes established by a county or municipality which are equal to, or more strict than, those requirements provided [by statute.]" § 161.053(5)(b), Fla. Stat. Furthermore, by rule of the Department, written evidence from local government must be provided that the location of the proposed structure along a Construction Line seaward of the CCCL is consistent with the Local Comprehensive Plan. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62b-33. Written evidence that Brevard County regards the Rays' proposed site to be consistent with Local Comprehensive Plan and not contrary to local setback requirements or zoning codes was provided by Brevard County to the Department. Establishment of a Construction Line Whether a Construction Line can be established for a proposed project is unique to the project and its coastal location. To establish such a line, the Office of Beaches and Coastal Systems may rely exclusively on information provided by the applicant for a permit to construct along such a line. The Office may also refer to its own database of aerial photographs (as it did in this case) and other data with regard to the State's coastal systems. The Construction Line running across the Ray property accepted by DEP is nearly identical to the 1981 CCCL. In contesting the establishment of the Construction Line, Mrs. Pope makes a number of points, several of which are worthy of discussion. For one, in 1993, the Department considered an administrative challenge brought by Mrs. Pope to the CCCL permit for the construction of the Days Inn Tower (now Best Western) hotel (one of the structures used by the Rays to establish a Line of Continuous Construction). See, OR-1, Pope v. Department of Environmental Protection et al., Agency Final Order dated May 9, 1994, DOAH Case No. 93-4560 (the "1993 Pope Case.) The Pope duplex had been found to be three or four blocks north of the property for which the permit was sought. If her property had been found immediately adjacent to the Days Inn Tower property, Mrs. Pope would have been accorded standing to contest issuance of the permit to the Days Inn Tower applicant. The hearing officer had recommended that Mrs. Pope not be accorded standing under the rule because her duplex property was not "immediately adjacent" to the Days Inn Tower parcel. Since Mrs. Pope's parcel was separated by at least what has been identified in this proceeding as the Ray property and the property of the Discovery Resort, she did not qualify for standing under the DEP Rule. Nevertheless, Mrs. Pope was afforded the opportunity to acquire standing by proving that her substantial interests would be affected by issuance of the permit. The hearing officer concluded that her attempt in this regard failed.7 The Department accepted the hearing officer's recommendation that Mrs. Pope be determined to have no standing, in part because her property was not "immediately adjacent" to the Days Inn Tower property. Mrs. Pope also asserts that the Four Structures along the 1981 CCCL do not establish a Construction Line on the basis of the testimony of her witness, Dr. Harris. Dr. Harris opined that the structures to be used to establish the Line of Continuous Construction, if one exists, are not the four used by DEP that are in the area of the Ray property but the structures on the two pieces of property closer to the Ray property, that is, immediately adjacent: the Pope property to the north and the Discovery Resort property to the south. The easternmost point of the structure on the Pope property is approximately 50 feet landward of the 1981 CCCL and extends approximately 100 feet seaward of the Control Line. The structure on the Discovery Resort property to the south is along the Control Line. See Respondents' 7. The line that Dr. Harris would establish does not run parallel to the shore line, the 30-year erosion line, the 1981 CCCL or the Control Line. It would run at an angle of approximately 15 degrees from the easternmost point of the Pope duplexes (the "point of beginning") about 425 feet to the easternmost point of the Discovery Resort structure. The point on the Discovery Resort structure (at the end of the line) is approximately 100 feet seaward of the point of beginning. If these structures are to be considered in the determination of whether a Construction Line exists as Mrs. Pope argues, then continuing the line to include the Four Structures would yield broken lines rather than a reasonably "uniform" and "continuous" line. The Department did not consider the structures in the property immediately adjacent to the Ray property to break the line it determined is established by the Four Structures. It ignored other structures as well between the northernmost and the southernmost of the four structures. Mrs. Pope, therefore, describes the Construction Line established by the Department as "imaginary" and without a factual basis. This point is one of opinion. The Construction Line is neither imaginary nor without a factual basis. It has a factual basis in precisely the data used by DEP: the aerial photograph that shows four major structures between Monuments R013 and R017, Respondents' 7, along the 1981 CCCL. The disregard for the Pope duplexes and the Discovery Resort structure as well as other structures in the areas north and south of the Ray property is a matter that falls within professional opinion and Department expertise. The establishment of the Construction Line is justified by the data DEP examined: Respondents' 7 (on which the Four Structures were identified and circled by Mr. Tammisetti at hearing.) The greater weight of the evidence is that DEP's determination of the establishment of the Construction Line should not be disturbed. It is, moreover, not surprising that such a line exists. One would expect that structures built after 1981 but before 1986 would be located along the 1981 CCCL and that structures that followed (such as the Discovery Resort structure) would be built along that Construction Line. Post-establishment of a Construction Line Establishment of a Construction Line does not entitle an applicant to a permit to build along that Construction Line. After a Construction Line is accepted by DEP as established, an applicant must satisfy three remaining sets of conditions expressed in Section 161.053(5)(b), Florida Statutes. Section 161.053(5)(b), Florida Statutes A discretionary exercise Once a Construction Line is established, an application for a permit to allow a proposed structure is subject to the discretion of the Department: "a proposed structure may, at the discretion of the department, be permitted along such line on the written authorization of the department, if such structure is also approved by the department." ii. Local Requirements The Department has no such discretion, however, if the construction or activity would "contravene setback requirements or zoning or building codes established by a county or municipality which are equal to, or more strict than . . . requirements [in chapter 161]." Id. To this list, the Department, by rule, has added consistency with state-approved Local Comprehensive Plans. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B- 33.008(4)(d). Before exercise of department discretion and inquiry into compliance with local requirements, there is a more fundamental condition that must be demonstrated by the applicant: the existing structures that establish the Construction Line must not have been unduly affected by erosion: If in the immediate contiguous or adjacent area a number of existing structures have established a [Construction Line], and if the existing structures have not been unduly affected by erosion, a proposed structure may, at the discretion of the department, be permitted along such line . . . [h]owever, the department shall not contravene [local requirements] . . . equal to, or more strict than, those requirements herein. § 161.053(5)(b), Fla. Stat. Unduly Affected by Erosion The parties differ in their view of the testimony and evidence introduced at hearing with regard to whether structures that establish the Construction Line "have not been unduly affected by erosion." Id. Neither DEP employees nor the Rays' witnesses visited the shoreline between R0-13 and R-017 to evaluate the four structures that establish the Construction Line and the effects of erosion, if any.8 Mrs. Pope asserts in her Proposed Recommended Order, "[n]o evidence or testimony was offered as to whether the structures considered by DEP were affected by erosion." Petitioners' Proposed Recommended Order, p. 24. In contrast, Respondents cite to the testimony of Mr. Boehning and Respondent's 7 with the assertion, "[t]he existing structures, which form the line of continuous construction, have not been unduly affected by erosion." Respondents' 7 supports the claim of Respondents. It reveals a distance perpendicular from the Construction Line to the dark, wet sand along the shore to be approximately 275 feet. This distance encompasses white sandy beach that is approximately 175 feet and a vegetated area that is approximately 100 feet. The finding that the structures that establish the Construction Line are not unduly affected by erosion does not mean that there are not erosion problems in the area. In fact, as found earlier in this order, the beach depicted on Respondents' 7 is "critically eroding." The stretch of beach depicted in the aerial photograph that is Respondents' 7 has undergone considerable fluctuation since 1963 through erosion and beach nourishment. From 1972 to 2002, for example, the location of the mean high water line at R-015, the monument closest to the Pope and Ray properties, has varied by 206 feet from a low in September of 1972 to a high of 369.3 feet in April of 2001. Dr. Harris wrote this in a report introduced into evidence: The beach profile data show that at R-15 the beach and dune are subject to erosion. From 1972 to 2002 the variation in the MHW shoreline position was 206 feet. Beach nourishment and inlet sand by-passing operations were performed between some of the time periods, and are largely responsible for the periodic beach and dune widening. Even with the beach nourishment project, dune erosion continues to be a problem, and although the recent beach nourishment project greatly widened the beach, the position of the dune remained the same. The FDEP design wave height elevation for a 100-year storm is 14.2 feet NGVD for R-15, which is higher than the existing dune elevation. This means that the upland properties would experience storm surge, flooding and wave action during a 100-year storm. Pope 16. Projects of beach nourishment (placement of sand through human activity) were performed in 1972, 1986 and 2001. The need for beach nourishment and re-nourishment reinforces the status of the beach near R-015 as "critically eroding" and underscores the importance of protecting as much of the dune system as possible. That the beach is critically eroding is not inconsistent with a finding that the structures that establish the Construction Line are not unduly affected by erosion. Whether or not due to the 1986 and 2001 nourishment projects, the evidence of record is that, despite the status of the beach as critically eroding, the structures that establish the Construction Line are not unduly affected by erosion. Not Contrary to Local Requirements On December 30, 2002, a site-plan approval was issued by Brevard County with regard to "RAY CONDOS aka MICHELINA CONDOMINIUM" with a site address of "420 Harding Avenue, Cocoa Beach, FL 32931." Respondents' 1, Vol. 1, Tab 12, second page. Signed by the designee of the Director, Permitting and Enforcement, the development order is entitled, "BREVARD COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT SITE-PLAN APPROVAL" and contains the following: The site plan to which this approval is attached has been reviewed by affected County divisions, departments and agencies and has been determined to comply in general with the Brevard County Code of Ordinances and Comprehensive Plan Elements. * * * It is the responsibility of the Owner/Engineer of Record to contact Office of Natural Resources for a Land Clearing/landscaping Permit Two (2) sets of As-Built drawings must be provided to Land Development prior to the Issuance of a C.O. Id. The development order concludes with a statement related to the vested right of the Rays to develop in accord with the site plan: If a Certificate of Occupancy has not been issued for the principal structure by Dec. 30, 2005 the three (3) year vesting period, beginning with the date of site development plan approval, expires and said site plan shall become Null and Void. Only those phases of the development that have an active and valid building permit may be completed after the three-(3) year time period. Id. The reference in the site-plan approval to the "Brevard County Code of Ordinances" does not include building codes. The reference covers local setback requirements and zoning codes. Mrs. Pope appealed the issuance of the site-plan approval to the Brevard County Board of County Commissioners (the "Board"). Her appeal was heard over three meetings of the Board on May 6, 2003, June 8, 2003, and August 12, 2003. At the conclusion of the August 12, 2003, proceedings on the appeal, the Board voted unanimously to accept the staff recommendation to deny the appeal. An unnumbered resolution of the Board "DENYING THE APPEAL OF JAMES AND CAROLE POPE . . . PERTAINING TO THE MICHELINA CONDOMINIUM SITE PLAN" was produced by Mrs. Pope at the hearing together with the following statement of a Deputy Clerk for the Board: This is to advise that the Office of the Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners does not have any correspondence indicating a copy of the Findings of Fact on Michelina Condominium was forwarded to Mr. or Mrs. Pope. Pope 7. The resolution is signed by the Chairperson of the Board. Immediately below the signature block there appears the following: "(As approved by the Board on August 12, 2003)." Pope 8. The document is not stamped received by the Clerk of the Board or the County Clerk's Office, nor is there other clear indicia that the order has been rendered through a filing with the Clerk's office. On its face, however, appears an undated attestation of a deputy clerk under a seal of Brevard County that appears to attest to the Chairperson's signature. As of the dates of the final hearing in this proceeding, Mrs. Pope had not sought judicial review of the decision of the Board. At hearing, on the strength of the signed resolution denying Mrs. Pope's appeal of the site-plan approval and the site-plan approval, itself, and the apparent finality of the approval, Mrs. Pope was ruled estopped from presenting evidence that the Permit contravened local setback or zoning requirements or was inconsistent with the Local Comprehensive Plan. The establishment of a Construction Line, that the structures establishing the line are not unduly affected by erosion, and the collateral estoppel of Mrs. Pope's claim that construction or activity seaward of the Control Line along the Construction Line is contrary to local requirements, clears the way for the exercise of Department discretion as to whether to issue the permit. Department Discretion The Department's exercise of discretion must, of course, take into consideration the beach and dune system within the fixed coastal cell in which Ray property and the Pope property are located. No other conclusion could be gathered from the statements of legislative intent and the statutory scheme. Lest there be any misunderstanding, the Department has codified its policy statement on such matters: (1) The beach and dune system is an integral part of the coastal system and represents one of the most valuable natural resources in Florida, providing protection to adjacent upland properties, recreational areas, and habitat for wildlife. A coastal construction control line (CCCL) is intended to define that portion of the beach and dune system which is subject to severe fluctuations caused by a 100-year storm surge, storm waves, or other forces such as wind, wave, or water level changes. These fluctuations are a necessary part of the natural functioning of the coastal system and are essential to post-storm recovery, long term stability, and the preservation of the beach and dune system. However, imprudent human activities can adversely interfere with these natural processes and alter the integrity and functioning of the beach and dune system. The control line and 50-foot setback call attention to the special hazards and impacts associated with the use of such property, but do not preclude all development or alteration of coastal property seaward of such line; Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B-33.005, Department Policy Statement on Permits. The exercise of this discretion is guided by criteria under rule. Among those criteria are those found in 62B- 33.005(4)(g): The construction will not cause a significant adverse impact to marine turtles, immediately adjacent properties, or the coastal system unless otherwise specifically authorized in this rule chapter. Chapter 62B-33, Florida Administrative Code, defines the term "Impacts" to include separate definitions for the terms "Adverse Impacts," "Significant Adverse Impacts," "Minor Impacts," and "Other Impacts": "Impacts" are those effects, whether direct or indirect, short or long term, which are expected to occur as a result of construction and are defined as follows: "Adverse Impacts" are impacts to the coastal system that may cause a measurable interference with the natural functioning of the system. "Significant Adverse Impacts" are impacts of such magnitude that they may: Alter the coastal system by: Measurably affecting the existing shoreline change rate; Significantly interfering with its ability to recover from a coastal storm; Disturbing topography or vegetation such that the system becomes unstable or suffers catastrophic failure; . . . * * * (d) "Other Impacts" are impacts associated with construction which may result in damage to existing structures or property or interference with lateral beach access. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B-33.002(30). Minimization of Impacts and No Significant Adverse Impacts The site selected on the Ray property for the proposed project poses impacts to Mrs. Pope's duplexes during a storm event such as a 100-year storm. Because of the shore- parallel dimension of the proposed structure (84 feet), storm- generated waves and storm surge would be concentrated into the relatively narrow gap between the proposed structure and the duplexes. The resulting hydrodynamic load would cause scouring of the foundations of the duplexes. The proposed project has "frangible" or "breakaway" ground level walls. They would pose the potential for generating waterborne missiles that, hydro-dynamically propelled, would damage the duplexes. The proposed project was designed in accordance with the American Society of Civil Engineers 7 Code ("ASCE-7") and most pertinently (since referenced in the Construction Line Statute), the Florida Building Code. But the Building Code does not take into consideration a proposed structure's design or proposed site on an adjacent property or the adjacent property's structures. The proposed project, moreover, is not designed and sited to mitigate aerodynamic loading on Mrs. Pope's duplexes. During high-wind conditions, there will be a number of wind effects on the duplexes caused by the proximity of the proposed project: gust loading, high turbulence shedding, and vortex shedding among others that can be reasonably expected to cause structural impacts to the duplexes such as suction loads on roofs and eaves, flying debris and window breakage. The proximity of the proposed structure to the Pope property will have a shading effect that will cause adverse impacts on the growth of native coastal vegetation on the Pope property. As a result, there will be a reduction in the interception of wind-driven sand by the vegetation that enables it to develop healthy, deep root systems that add to dune stability.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: an impacts assessment be conducted as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 33.005(3)(a); that the proposed project be re-sited to mitigate the impacts that its siting now poses to the Pope Property and the Popes' duplexes; that the proposed project be permitted to be constructed up to the Construction Line, provided that the permit is supported by both the impacts assessment and a re- siting of the proposed project to mitigate wind, water and shading impacts; and if the proposed project is not supported by an adequate impacts assessment, or if it cannot be re-sited to mitigate the impacts to the Pope Property, that the permit be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DAVID M. MALONEY 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 2nd day of March, 2004.
The Issue The issue is whether the Department of Environmental Protection should issue a permit to the Browns authorizing construction on their property, which is seaward of the coastal construction control line.
Findings Of Fact Property Descriptions (1) The Browns’ Property The Browns own Lots 5, 6, 7, 15, and 16 of a platted subdivision known as the First Addition of Anna Maria Beach Subdivision, Block 35 (the Subdivision). The Subdivision is on Anna Maria Island in the City of Anna Maria, which is in Manatee County. All of the Browns’ lots are seaward of the CCCL established by the Department for Manatee County. The parties stipulated that the construction authorized by the permit at issue in this proceeding is landward of the 30- year erosion line. Indeed, according to the analysis of the permit application prepared by the Department’s staff, the 30- year erosion line is approximately 111 feet seaward of the proposed construction. See Browns’ Exhibit 6, at 3. Lot 5 is the most landward lot owned by the Browns. Lot 6 is adjacent to and seaward of Lot 5, and Lot 7 is adjacent to and seaward of Lot 6. Lots 15 and 16 are seaward of Lot 7, and they are separated from Lot 7 by a 10-foot wide “vacated alley.” The Subdivision was platted in 1912. The plat of the Subdivision, Exhibit P6, shows the seaward edge of Lots 15 and 16 bordering on a road named Gulf Boulevard, which appears to be some distance inland from the Gulf of Mexico.2 Gulf Boulevard no longer exists, and all of Lots 7, 15, and 16 are now located on the sandy beach between Lot 6 and the Gulf of Mexico. The seaward edge of Lot 6 is approximately 176 feet landward of the mean high water line (MHWL) of the Gulf of Mexico. See Exhibit P5B. There are no structures or improvements located on Lots 7, 15, or 16. There are also no structures or improvements located on Lots 8, 9, and 10, which are to the north of Lots 7, 6, and 5, respectively. See Exhibit P4. Lot 10 was the subject of a CCCL permit application denied by the Department in 2000 based upon the Recommended Order issued in DOAH Case No. 99-3613, which is referred to by the parties as “the Negele case.” See Exhibit P30. There is an 850-square-foot single-family residence on Lots 5 and 6 that was constructed in the 1920’s and is used by the Browns as a vacation home. The property’s address is 104 Pine Avenue. All of the enclosed living area of the residence is on Lot 5. A wooden deck attached to the residence extends approximately 17 feet onto Lot 6, and at its most seaward point, the deck is 262.41 feet seaward of the CCCL. See Browns’ Exhibit 9. There are no structures on Lot 6 other than the wooden deck. More than half of Lot 5 has been previously disturbed. In addition to the Browns’ residence, there is a small wood “tool shed” located on that lot. The disturbed areas on Lot 5 between the residence and the shed and between the shed and Pine Avenue (see Exhibit P5C, areas marked with a yellow “1” and “2”) are used by the Browns for, among other things, parking and storage of boats. Those areas have very little vegetative cover. The northwest portion of Lot 5 is undisturbed and, as more fully discussed below, that area is densely vegetated with sea oats, sea grapes, and century plants. (2) Schrutt’s Property Schrutt owns Lot 4 of the Subdivision, which is adjacent to and immediately landward of the Browns’ Lot 5. The property’s address is 108 Pine Avenue. There is a two-story single-family residence on Lot 4 that Schrutt uses as a vacation home. Schrutt’s vacation home extends farther to the northwest than does the residence on the Browns’ lot. As a result, Schrutt currently has an unimpeded view of the Gulf of Mexico over the Browns' shed and across the undisturbed portion of the Browns’ lot from her second-floor deck. See Exhibits P2F and P5A. (3) The Youngs’ Property The Youngs own Lot 3 of the Subdivision, which is adjacent to and immediately landward of Schrutt’s lot and approximately 50 feet landward of the Browns’ Lot 5. The property’s address is 110 Pine Avenue. There is a three-story single-family residence on Lot 3 that the Youngs use as a vacation home. The Young’s vacation home is set farther back from Pine Avenue than are the residences on the Browns’ lot and Scrutt’s lot. As a result, the Youngs currently have an unimpeded view of the Gulf of Mexico across Schrutt’s lot and the undisturbed portion of the Browns’ lot (as well as across Lot 10) from their second- and third-floor decks. See Exhibits P2F and P5A. The Proposed Project and its Permitting History On March 30, 2004, the Browns submitted to the Department an application for a CCCL permit to allow them to construct an addition to their existing residence on Lots 5 and 6 (“the Project” or “the proposed construction”). The Project will include the renovation of the existing residence, additional residential space in an elevated structure on a pile foundation that will be connected to the existing residence, an elevated swimming pool and deck on a pile foundation, and a driveway made of pavers. There will be a concrete slab under a portion of the new elevated structure in the vicinity of the existing shed that will be enclosed and used as a two-car garage. See Browns’ Exhibit 14, sheet 9; Transcript, Volume 2, at 163-64. The finished floor elevation of the garage slab will be 7.0 feet above sea level/NGVD,3 which is slightly lower than the 8.4-foot finished floor elevation of the Browns’ existing residence. The elevated portions of the proposed construction will be 19.2 feet above sea level/NGVD, with a finished floor elevation between 20.2 and 20.7 feet. The “footprint” of the proposed construction is predominately on Lot 5, but it does extend 10 to 15 feet onto Lot 6. See Exhibit P5B, blue cross-hatched area. The seaward extent of the Project is in alignment with the existing residence and deck on the Browns’ property. After completion of the Project, the Browns’ vacation home will include approximately 2,500 square feet of enclosed space. The Browns’ permit application did not mention Schrutt, whose lot is adjacent to the lots on which the Project will be located, even though the application form requires the applicant to list “[t]he name and mailing address of the owners of the immediately adjacent properties . . . .” The reason for this omission is not entirely clear. The permit application included a letter from Kevin Donohue, Building Official, on the letterhead of the City of Anna Maria, which states that “[a] review of the proposed activity described in the seventeen-page plan package for an addition and alternation to an existing single family dwelling does not contravene the City of Anna Maria Code of Ordinances, Comprehensive Plan, and the Florida State Building Code.” The “seventeen-page plan package” referenced in Mr. Donohue’s letter is the same set of plans that the Browns submitted to the Department with their application. Those plans were received into evidence as the Browns’ Exhibit 14. The parties stipulated that the City of Anna Maria building and zoning codes require structures to be set back at least 10 feet from the property line. The site plan for the Project shows the new elevated portion of the Browns’ residence exactly 10 feet from Schrutt’s Lot 4, and exactly 10 feet from the “alley” that runs between Lot 5 and Lot 10 to the north.4 Mr. Brown testified that the City prohibits on-street parking on Pine Avenue, which explains (at least in part) why the Project includes driveway pavers and a concrete slab/enclosed garage under a portion of the new elevated structure for parking. There have been no material modifications to the Project since the date of Mr. Donohue’s letter and, as discussed below, no material modifications will be necessary for the Project to satisfy the special permit conditions imposed by the Department. Thus, it is appropriate for the Department to continue to rely on the letter as proof that the Project does not contravene the applicable local codes. The survey submitted with the Browns’ permit application was dated September 4, 2002, which is approximately 18 months before the date of the application. The survey identified a “vegetation line” along the seaward edge of Lot 6 behind an area designated as “rocks,” and its also included the notation “sea oat existing” in the area between the vegetation line/rocks and the Browns' existing home as well as in the area of the Project. Neither the survey, nor any other information provided to the Department with the permit application showed the extent of the vegetation and dune features in the area of the Project with the same level of detail as is shown on Exhibits P5A, P5B and P5C and the Browns’ Exhibits 30A and 30B. By letter dated April 21, 2004, the Department requested additional information about the project, including a “topographic survey drawing of the subject property . . . from field survey work performed not more than six months prior to the date of the application.” By letters dated May 3, 12, and 13, 2004, the Browns provided additional information about the Project pursuant to the Department’s request. They did not provide a more current survey than the September 2002 survey included with the application, although they did provide a signed and sealed copy of the 2002 survey. Notwithstanding the Browns failure to provide a more current survey, the Department apparently considered the Browns’ application to be complete because on July 29, 2004, the Department advised the Browns that their CCCL permit application for the Project was approved. The Browns’ failure to comply with the technical submittal requirements relating to the survey is not material as a result of the more current and more detailed survey information presented at the final hearing. The Department’s approval of the Browns’ permit application was subject to the general permit conditions in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B-33.0155, as well as a number of special permit conditions, including: No work shall be conducted under this permit until the permittee has received a written notice to proceed from the Department. Prior to issuance of the Notice to Proceed, the permittee shall submit two copies of revised site plan depicting the swimming pool and deck extending a maximum distance of 265 feet seaward of the coastal construction control line. (Italics in original). * * * All vegetation located seaward of the coastal construction control line shall be preserved except for that disturbance which is necessary for dwelling construction. Prior to completion of construction activities authorized by this permit, the permittee shall plant a mix of a minimum of three native salt-tolerant species within any disturbed areas seaward of the authorized structures. Plantings shall consist of salt-tolerant species indigenous to the native plant communities existing on or near the site or with out native species approved by the Department . . . . As permitted, the various components of the Project are to be located as follows: the new elevated portion of the residence, a maximum of 259.4 feet seaward of the CCCL; the addition to the existing residence, a maximum of 249.4 feet seaward of the CCCL; and the elevated swimming pool and deck, a maximum of 265 feet seaward of the CCCL. On August 16, 2004, the Browns provided a revised site plan to the Department in purported compliance with special permit condition No. 2. The revised site plan was received into evidence as the Browns’ Exhibit 9. The revised site plan does not comply with special permit condition No. 2. It continues to show the pool and deck extending 268.41 feet seaward of the CCCL and it also shows a “pool security fence” extending 272.41 feet seaward of the CCCL. By letter dated August 25, 2004, the Department advised the Browns that the distances shown on the revised site plan were not consistent with the special permit conditions, and directed the Browns to “fulfill the conditions as per the approved [permit].” The location of the Project shown on the revised site plan (Browns’ Exhibit 9) is identical to the location of the Project on the original site plan (Browns’ Exhibit 14, sheet 3). The only difference between the two site plans is that the revised site plan includes two measurements not included on the original site plan showing the seaward corners of the new elevated deck 258.41 feet and 268.41 feet seaward of the CCCL. In order to comply with special permit condition No. 2, the plans will have to be revised to eliminate those portions of the Project that extend more than 265 feet seaward of the CCCL. The Project cannot be shifted farther landward because it already abuts the 10-foot setback line. The necessary revisions to the plans can be done without shifting the Project landward by eliminating a relatively small area of the deck and portions of the pool security fence. The Browns’ ability to satisfy the Department's special permit conditions by making minor modifications to the Project and not encroaching into the 10-foot setback distinguishes this case from the Negele case.5 Dunes, Generally A dune is a mound of sand lying upland of the beach that has been deposited by natural or artificial means and that is subject to fluctuations in configuration and location. It is not necessary for a mound of sand to be covered with vegetation to be considered a dune. However, vegetation promotes the growth of dunes and helps to stabilize dunes by trapping wind-blown sand. The expert testimony in this case (e.g., Transcript, Volume 1, at 147-48, and Volume 3, at 26-28) identified three different types of dunes -- significant, primary, and frontal -- and described each type consistent with the statutory and rule definitions quoted below. A “significant dune” is a dune that has “sufficient height and configuration or vegetation to offer protective value.” Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B-33.002(17)(a) (emphasis supplied). A “primary dune” is a significant dune that has “sufficient alongnshore continuity to offer protective value to upland property.” Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B-33.002(17)(b). A “frontal dune” is the “first [dune] which is located landward of the beach and which has sufficient vegetation, height, continuity, and configuration to offer protective value.” § 161.053(6)(a)1., Fla. Stat. (2004) (emphasis supplied).6 Thus, a primary dune need not have vegetation so long as it has sufficient height, configuration, and continuity to offer protective value, but a frontal dune must have vegetation in addition to height, configuration, and continuity that offers protective value. The Browns’ contention to the contrary (e.g., Browns’ PRO, at 18) is rejected based upon the unambiguous statutory and rule language. Dunes in Southwest Florida are generally lower in height than are dunes in other parts of the state. However, the dunes on Anna Maria Island, including the dunes on and in the vicinity of the Browns’ property, are substantial for Southwest Florida. The Beach-Dune System on and in the Vicinity of the Browns’ Property The beach on and in the vicinity of the Browns’ property has been relatively stable over at least the past several decades. In recent years, the stability of the beach is due in part to several beach nourishment projects undertaken by Manatee County pursuant to a shore protection plan authorized by the federal government in 1975 for Anna Maria Island. The most recent project, completed in 2002, included the beach on the Browns’ property and advanced the MHWL approximately 200 feet seaward. The shore protection plan is scheduled to continue through 2025, which will help to ensure the continued stability of the beach on and in the vicinity of the Browns’ property. It is undisputed that a primary dune runs across the Browns’ property. The parties disagree, however, as to whether that dune is also the frontal dune. The location of the primary dune on the Browns’ property is best shown on Exhibit P5B by the highlighted yellow lines. The seaward toe of the dune is in the vicinity of the six-foot contour line on Lot 6, and the landward toe of the dune is in the vicinity of the six-foot contour line on Lot 5. The dune is several hundred feet in length. It continues to the north of the Browns’ property onto Lot 10, and it continues to the south of the Browns’ property seaward of Pine Avenue. See Exhibit P5C and the Browns’ Exhibit 30B. The dune runs in a more northwesterly direction than does the shoreline. As a result, the portion of the dune that is seaward of Pine Avenue (to the south of the Browns’ property) is further seaward than the portion of the dune on the Browns property, which in turn, is further seaward of that portion of the dune on Lot 10. Id. The width of the dune varies. In the area of the proposed construction on the Browns’ property, the dune is 20 to 45 feet wide. The dune’s highest point on the Browns’ property is 7.8 feet. Its highest point on Lot 10 is 8.3 feet, and its highest point in the area seaward of Pine Avenue is 9.4 feet. The dune is vegetated with sea oats, sea grapes, and century plants, all of which are native salt-tolerant species. The vegetation on that portion of the dune on the Lots 5 and 6 is dense and mature. It is undisputed that the dune, in its current state, offers some protective value to upland properties, including the Petitioners’ properties. The evidence does not quantify the extent of the protection currently provided by the dune or the degree to which that protection will be diminished after the Project is constructed on the dune. Neither Petitioners’ expert coastal geologist nor the Browns’ expert coastal engineer did any modeling regarding the level of storm (e.g., 5-year, 10-year, etc.) that the dune provides protection against. The experts agreed, however, that the dune would likely not provide any significant protection against a 25-year or 50-year storm, which would have storm surges that exceed the height of the dune. There are dune features on the Browns’ property seaward of the primary dune described above. Those features, which were characterized as "incipient dunes" by Petitioners' expert coastal geologist, are delineated with red shading on the Browns’ Exhibit 30B and can be seen in several of the photographs received into evidence (e.g., Exhibits P2C and P2L, and Browns’ Exhibit 17L). Those dune features do not qualify as frontal dunes because they are sparsely vegetated (if at all), small in height (generally six inches or less), lack continuity, and offer no real protective value. Because the primary dune described above is the most seaward dune on the Browns’ property that has sufficient vegetation, height, continuity, and configuration to provide protective value, it is the frontal dune.7 Assessment of the Project’s Impacts An applicant for a CCCL must demonstrate that the impacts of the project have been minimized and that the project will not destabilize a primary or frontal dune or cause a “significant adverse impact,” as that phrase is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B-33.002(31)(b). The proposed construction at issue in this proceeding will be located on the frontal dune and will result in the removal of all of the existing vegetation on that dune within the “footprint” of the new structure. The evidence was not persuasive that the removal of that vegetation, although extensive, will destabilize the dune or result in a “significant adverse impact” to the beach-dune system due to increased erosion by wind or water. Indeed, there will still be dense vegetation seaward of and to the north and south of the new structure, and any vegetation outside of the “footprint” of the Project that is impacted by construction must be mitigated in accordance with the special permit conditions quoted above. The Project, as permitted, will not interfere with the beach-dune system’s recovery from coastal storms or cause the dune to become unstable or suffer a catastrophic failure such that its protective value to upland properties is significantly lowered. Indeed, there was no credible evidence that the Browns’ existing on-grade residence, which has existed since the 1920's on the same dune that the proposed structure will be located, has adversely impacted the recovery of the beach-dune system or the dune’s protective value. It is not necessary to evaluate the cumulative impacts of the Project because there was no evidence of any similar projects in the vicinity of the Browns’ property that have been permitted or for which a permit application is pending. Indeed, the only credible evidence related to this issue involved the Department’s denial of a permit for construction on the adjacent Lot 10, which generates no cumulative impact concerns and does not establish “precedent” in this case because the Department evaluates each CCCL permit application on its own merits. The Project, as permitted, will not result in a net removal of in situ sandy soils from the beach-dune system. The 33 cubic yards of soil that will be excavated for the Project will be spread on the Browns’ seaward lots and, therefore, will remain in the impacted beach-dune system. The Project will be elevated above the projected 100- year storm surge height and will meet applicable building code requirements. As a result, structure-induced scour will be minimized and will not cause any significant adverse impacts to the beach-dune system or the upland properties. The Project will be constructed in accordance with the Florida Building Code, which will minimize the potential for wind and waterborne missiles. The depth of the swimming pool is limited to 4.5 feet and its bottom elevation will be 3.8 feet above sea level/NGVD, which will minimize the amount of excavation necessary for the pool. The permit requires the excavated material to be placed “[i]n and around the proposed swimming pool area,” so there will be no net loss of material from the immediate area of the pool. Even though the proposed construction will be located on the frontal dune (rather than a sufficient distance landward of it), the Project will not have a significant adverse impact on the stability of the beach-dune system or preclude natural shoreline fluctuations. Indeed, the fact that the Browns’ existing residence has apparently not adversely impacted the stability of the beach-dune system or natural shoreline fluctuations over the past 80 years undermines Petitioners’ contentions regarding the potential adverse impacts of the proposed structures. The line of continuous construction identified by the Department during its review of the Browns’ permit application was 244 feet seaward of the CCCL, which is consistent with the findings in the Negele case. See Exhibit P30, at 14. The line of continuous construction is not a line of prohibition, but rather it is only a factor that must be considered in conjunction with all of the other permitting criteria in the statutes and the Department’s rules. There is evidence indicating that the line of continuous construction is more than 244 feet seaward of the CCCL. For example, the aerial photograph received into evidence as the Browns’ Exhibit 18A shows that the existing structures on the adjacent properties (particularly those to the south of Pine Avenue and those to the north of Elm Avenue8) are farther seaward than the Browns’ residence, which itself is more than 244 seaward of the CCCL. Consistent with the aerial photograph, the Browns’ Exhibit 30A depicts what is referred to as the “existing line of construction established by major structures in the area” seaward of the Browns’ deck, which as note above, is approximately 262 feet seaward of the CCCL. The Project, as permitted, extends to a maximum of 265 feet seaward of the CCCL and, as reflected on Exhibit P5B, a majority of the proposed construction is seaward of the 244-foot line. However, the Project (as proposed and as permitted) is landward of the line depicted on the Browns’ Exhibit 30A. The location of the proposed construction is not contrary to the Department’s rules even if the 244-foot line identified by the Department is correct because the Project is in alignment with the Browns’ existing residence and because there was no credible evidence that the existing residence has been unduly affected by erosion. The native salt-tolerant vegetation (e.g., sea oats, sea grapes, and century plants) impacted by the Project are dense and mature, and the degree of disturbance is significant. However, as noted above, there will still be dense vegetation seaward of and to the north and south of the proposed construction that will not be impacted and that will continue to provide protective value for the dune system and upland properties. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B-33.005(11) requires disturbances to the existing native salt-tolerant plant communities to be “limited.” That rule also requires construction to be located “where possible” in previously disturbed areas. Locating the Project in the previously disturbed areas of Lot 5 rather than on the frontal dune would not increase adverse impact to the beach-dune system and, indeed, may reduce the impact by limiting disturbances to the existing native salt- tolerant plant communities. However, the Project could not be relocated into the disturbed areas because those areas are considerably smaller than the “footprint” of the proposed construction, particularly when the set-backs required by the local code and the on-street parking restrictions are taken into account. In sum, the preponderance of the evidence establishes that despite the its location on a portion of the densely vegetated frontal dune, the Project satisfies the permitting criteria in the Department’s rules and will not result in “significant adverse impacts” to the beach-dune system or upland properties. In making the foregoing findings, the undersigned did not overlook the contrary opinions of Petitioners’ expert coastal geologist. However, the undersigned found his testimony regarding the impact of the Project on the beach-dune system to be less persuasive the testimony of the Browns’ expert coastal engineer on that issue. Other Considerations The Project will not interfere with the public's lateral beach access, nor will it interfere with public access to the beach from Pine Avenue. The parties stipulated that the Project does not raise any concerns relating to sea turtles. The Project will effectively block Schrutt’s view of the Gulf of Mexico from her vacation home, and it will impair the Youngs’ view of the Gulf of Mexico from their vacation home.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order approving the Browns’ permit application subject to the general and special permit conditions referenced in the Department’s July 29, 2004, letter and permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of August, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 15th day of August, 2005.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondents Daniel and Donna Grace; Joseph and Linda Oftell; Paul and Debra Linger; Ann Pastore; Thompson and Dana Fillmer; Joseph and Dottie Scruggs; Stephen Frey; and Lindsey Bramlitt and Jacqueline Porter, Trustees of the Land Trust dated May 1, 2005 (collectively referenced herein as "Applicants") qualify for an exemption from the requirements of coastal construction control line ("CCCL") permitting pursuant to section 161.053(11)(b), Florida Statutes, for their proposed activities in regard to a dune walkover structure seaward of the CCCL at the end of Milliken Lane in St. Johns County, as provided in the Amended Exemption Determination issued by the Department of Environmental Protection ("Department") on September 8, 2011.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of the proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The proposed project site is located at the seaward end of Milliken Lane, in the development known as "Milliken's Replat," in Crescent Beach, Florida. The development consists of 10 lots between State Road A1A and the Atlantic Ocean. The privately maintained Milliken Lane runs west to east, perpendicular to A1A. Milliken Lane bisects the 10 lots, i.e., five lots are on each side of the lane. Lots 1 through 5 are on the north side of Milliken Lane, and Lots 6 through 10 are on the south side. Lots 5 and 6 are the largest lots and are the lots nearest the ocean. Petitioner Anastasia, Inc., owns Lot 5 and Petitioner Amanda Pope owns Lot 6. The sole officer and shareholder of Anastasia, Inc., is Kenneth Pfrengle. The remaining eight lots are owned by Applicants, as follows: Steven Frey owns Lot 1; Daniel and Donna Grace own Lot 2; Paul and Debra Linger own Lot 3; Ann Pastore owns Lot 4; Lindsey Bramlitt and Jacqueline Porter, Trustees of the Land Trust dated May 1, 2005, own Lot 7; Joseph and Linda Noftell own Lot 8; Joseph and Dottie Scruggs own Lot 9; and Thompson and Dana Filmer own Lot 10. Milliken's Replat was duly recorded on October 11, 1983, in the Public Records of St. Johns County, Florida, Map Book 15, Page 100. The Milliken's Replat graphic representation of the development shows a line between Lots 5 and 6 and indicates that it is a "6' WIDTH WALKWAY FOR WALKWAY TO BEACH." The indicated walkway begins at the end of Milliken Lane and extends at least to the CCCL.2/ The walkway straddles Lots 5 and 6, the two lots owned by Petitioners. Milliken's Replat is also subject to a Road Maintenance Agreement recorded by the original developers on January 28, 1994, in the Public Records of St. Johns County, O.R. 1034, Page 1596. The Road Maintenance Agreement provides for the continuing maintenance of Milliken Lane and "That certain six foot wide walkway reflected on the plat running between the cul-de-sac at the end of Milliken Lane to the Atlantic Ocean, including existing dunes walk-over structure." The Road Maintenance Agreement goes on to provide as follows, in relevant part: Such road and walkway shall be maintained by the parties to this agreement, their heirs, successors and assigns in a condition so as to make it free and passable in perpetuity. The costs of the maintenance of said road and walkway shall be shared to the end that each lot owner shall pay one-tenth of the cost associated with maintenance costs. Owners of multiple lots shall be responsible for one-tenth of the cost for each lot owned. * * * 5. In the event that sixty percent of the lot owners determine that maintenance work is necessary and contract to complete same, they shall have the right to maintain a lien against any lot owner who refuses to pay the assessment pursuant to the provisions of this agreement. Unless waived, each lot owner shall be given a minimum of ten (10) days' written notice of the proposed meeting to determine assessments.... Petitioners purchased their respective lots subject to the terms of Milliken's Replat and the Road Maintenance Agreement. On March 11, 2011, Applicant Dan Grace sent a notice to the "Property Owners of Milliken Lane" stating that a meeting to discuss the maintenance of Milliken Lane would take place on March 24, 2011, pursuant to paragraph 5 of the Road Maintenance Agreement. The notice went on to state that the walkover "is in need of maintenance to maintain and preserve the integrity of the existing walkover," and that a proposal for the cost of repair would be presented at the meeting. Finally, the notice stated that a vote on the proposal would be taken at the meeting. Mr. Grace contacted Rick Powell, owner of Barefoot Marine Construction, to provide a quote for the repair and maintenance of the dune walkover. Mr. Powell visited the site, took measurements, and provided a quote to Mr. Grace prior to the March 24, 2011, meeting. On March 22, 2011, Daniel Mowrey, counsel for Applicants, had a telephone conversation with West Gregory, an attorney in the Department's office of general counsel, regarding the proposed repair and maintenance to the dune walkover. The next day, Mr. Mowrey followed up with a letter to Mr. Gregory that included copies of Milliken's Replat and the Road Maintenance Agreement. The Applicants' chief concern was Mr. Pfrengle's contention that the repair of the walkover was subject to his consent as the owner of the property on which the walkover sits. Mr. Mowrey stated his clients' position as follows: I believe the Department has taken the position this matter has to do with Title and/or Ownership to the property whereon easement lies. This matter is clearly not about ownership. The fact the easement lays on the property of Mr. Pfrengle and Amanda Pope is not a matter of contention. There is no authority I can find that forces the Department to obtain permission from Mr. Pfrengle or Ms. Pope to issue this permit. The Road Maintenance Agreement controls and is clear as to the rights of all owners in the Milliken Replat. Denial of a permit from the Department to maintain, repair and/or replace the existing walkover is unreasonable. All members of the Milliken Replat have sufficient title interest through the easement and Road Maintenance Agreement to make application based on recorded rights. It appears the Department has made the interpretation of title interest as meaning right of possession. This is clearly flawed. I am fully aware that this matter may end up in Circuit Court to resolve this dispute. I want to be clear in my representation of my clients. If the Department is going to deny this request for a permit, I would like to know the legal justification for doing so. The recorded documents are clear and speak for themselves. While Mr. Pfrengle may not want the walkover replaced, he agreed to the provisions of the easement and Road Maintenance Agreement when he purchased his home as shown on the recorded instruments. If my clients are required to fill out a formal written request for a permit, please notify me and provide the proper documentation for that request. . . . The owners' meeting was held on March 24, 2011, pursuant to the March 11 notice. All of the Applicants voted in favor of the repairs and maintenance to the dune walkover,3/ making an eighty percent majority for the work to proceed. Petitioners did not attend the meeting. Also on March 24, 2011, Mr. Gregory sent an email to Mr. Mowrey that read as follows, in relevant part: After discussing this matter with the Department's permit processor and Mr. Mowrey, it appears your proposed activity may be eligible for an exemption. If you would like to pursue an exemption determination, please send a letter requesting the exemption to the Bureau. The items to include in the request are listed in 62B-33.008(11). . . . Late on the afternoon of March 24, 2011, Mr. Mowrey on behalf of his clients emailed a written request for an exemption from the CCCL permit requirements to David Kriger, permit manager for the Bureau. On March 30, 2011, the Department issued the Exemption Notice quoted in the Preliminary Statement, supra. On April 14, 2011, Rick Powell of Barefoot Marine Construction provided a verbal description of the walkover project to Fritz Wettstein, environmental manager of the CCCL program. The project plans included the use of "sister" posts directly abutting and fastened to the existing posts to support the repaired structure. Robert Morgan, a licensed professional engineer whose company worked on the project for Barefoot Marine, testified that the timber in the existing walkover was old, possibly warped, and did not provide a pure nailing surface. However, the impact on the dune topography of pulling out the old posts for replacement would have been "tremendous." "Sistering" the new posts to the old ones would provide the needed support while minimizing environmental impact. On April 23, 2011, Mr. Morgan's company, RGM Engineering, Inc., provided the Applicants with two sets of structural drawings/engineering plans for the dune walkover, one of which was accepted and ultimately built. The plan that was built was designed and measured to be an exact duplicate of the existing walkover in all dimensions. The second plan would have lowered the rebuilt walkway, making it less visually obtrusive to Mr. Pfrengle and Ms. Pope. On September 8, 2011, the Department issued the Amended Exemption Determination quoted in the Preliminary Statement, supra. Based on Mr. Powell's project description, the Department determined that the project was exempt pursuant to section 161.053(11)(b), Florida Statutes. On September 16, 2011, Bureau field inspector Trey Hatch conducted a site inspection of the proposed construction area and beach dune system. Mr. Hatch's written inspection report stated that the existing walkover, "located within a 6' easement area used by local neighborhood," appeared to be in need of repair or replacement due to the age of the wood and support hardware. Mr. Powell testified that his company waited 21 days after the issuance of the Amended Exemption Determination before commencing work on the walkover. Mr. Powell's company performed all the work. The digging of postholes was done by hand, without the use of machines. Only two workers were on the ground at a time, and only those materials immediately required were carried to the walkover. Materials were passed up and down to the workers on the structure to minimize disturbance to the dune system. Mr. Morgan testified that the new posts were placed about five feet into the ground, to the depth of the old posts. Nearly every old post was sistered to a new post, and most of the walkover's structure was replaced. Mr. Morgan stated that the repaired walkway had a slightly larger east-west footprint due to the sistered posts, but that the north-south footprint was exactly the same as that of the old walkover. As noted above, the Department's Amended Exemption Determination found the Applicants' project exempt pursuant to section 161.053(11)(b), which provides: Activities seaward of the coastal construction control line which are determined by the department not to cause a measurable interference with the natural functioning of the coastal system are exempt from the requirements of subsection (4).4 Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B-33.008 implements section 161.053. Subsection (11) of the rule provides specificity to the exemption provided by section 161.053(11)(b) as follows: Requests for the Department to determine that the proposed activity is exempt from permitting pursuant to the provisions of Section 161.053(11)(b), F.S., shall include, at a minimum, a survey meeting the requirements of Rule 62B-33.0081, F.A.C., and the information requirements of paragraphs 62B-33.008(3)(l), (m), (n), (p), (r), and subsection 62B-33.008(5), F.A.C. The Department recognizes that the requirements specified above may not be necessary to make an exemption determination. In such cases, the applicant shall, as part of the request for exemption, identify those requirements and state the reason why they are inapplicable. The Department shall waive requirements that do not apply. The "information requirements" of rule 62B-33.008 referenced in the quoted portion of the rule are as follows, in relevant part: (3) Any person desiring to obtain a permit for construction seaward of the coastal construction control line (CCCL) or 50-foot setback from the Department. . . shall submit two (2) copies of a completed application form to the Bureau . . . The application shall contain the following specific information: * * * Two copies of a dimensioned site plan. The drawings shall be signed and sealed by an architect, engineer, landscape architect, or professional surveyor and mapper (as appropriate) licensed in the state of Florida. The site plan shall include: The locations and exterior dimensions of all proposed structures, including foundations and other activities, and the bearings and distances from the CCCL or 50- foot setback to the seaward corners of the foundations of any major structures or the seaward limit of any coastal or shore- protection structure. Dimensions and locations of the foundation outlines of any existing structures on adjacent properties and distances from the CCCL or 50-foot setback to the seaward corners of the foundations of any existing structures or the seaward limit of any coastal or shore-protection structure. These measurements shall include all structures that the applicant contends have established a reasonably continuous and uniform construction line for permits requested under the provisions of sections 161.052(2)(b) or 161.053(5)(b), F.S. Dimensions and locations of the foundation outlines of any existing structures on the subject property and distances from the CCCL or 50-foot setback to the seaward corners of the foundations of any major structures or the seaward limit of any coastal or shore-protection structure. The horizontal location of the erosion control line (if one exists), any contour lines corresponding to elevation 0.00, the approximate contour of mean high water and the seasonal high water, and the horizontal location of the seaward line of vegetation and outlines of existing natural vegetation. The horizontal location of the CCCL or the 50-foot setback (if no CCCL is established for the county in which the property is located) for the full width of the subject property, including the location and full stamping of the two nearest Department or published second order or higher horizontal control points. The location and dimensions of the property boundary, rights of way, and easements, if any. The property owner and project name, street address, scale, north arrow, sheet number, and date of drawings. The location of work limits, construction fences, and dune features and vegetation to be protected during construction. Two copies of a dimensioned grading plan. The drawings shall be signed and sealed by an architect, engineer, landscape architect, or professional surveyor and mapper (as appropriate) licensed in the State of Florida. The grading plan shall include: Existing and proposed elevations, contours and spot elevations. For any proposed excavation or fill: A table of all permanent, temporary, and net excavation and fill volumes seaward of the CCCL; The storage locations and description of handling methods for all temporary excavation and fill material; and Soil and geotechnical data for beach compatible imported or excavated material proposed for placement on the beach seaward of a frontal dune or on the sandy beach. Two copies of dimensioned cross- sections. The drawings shall be signed and sealed by an architect, engineer, landscape architect, or professional surveyor and mapper (as appropriate) licensed in the State of Florida. The cross-sections shall include a typical view from the mean high water line to the CCCL depicting all structures and building elevations, proposed and existing grades, subgrade construction, excavation, fill, and elevations for any proposed or existing rigid coastal structures. * * * (p) Details, including engineering design computations, for any proposed waste or storm water discharge onto, over, under, or across the beach and dune system, such as storm water runoff, swimming pool drainage, well discharge, domestic waste systems, or outfalls. . . (r) Two copies of detailed planting plans, including the location of proposed plants, existing native vegetation, and plants to be removed. Plans shall include a plant list with both scientific and common names. * * * (5) The staff shall require the applicant to provide other site specific information or calculations as is necessary for proper evaluation of the application. The dimensions for the plans referenced in this section shall be submitted in U.S. Customary System units. Structures shall be located with distances measured perpendicular to the control line, 50-foot setback line, or the mean high water line, as appropriate. All elevations in this rule shall be referenced to NAVD 88 (U.S. survey foot). Site, grading, drainage, and landscape plans as well as cross-sections shall be drawn to a scale no smaller than 1'' = 40' in the horizontal dimension. Mr. Morgan testified that a survey was not required for this project because the plan was simply to replace an existing walkover that was already on the ground. The existing footprint would be maintained during construction. Mr. Morgan testified that because the project was being undertaken within the confines of an existing structure, there was also no need for a dimensioned site plan or a dimensioned grading plan. Mr. Morgan testified that it was necessary to provide dimensioned cross-sections to ensure that the renovated walkover conformed exactly to the dimensions of the existing walkover. Those cross-sections were provided to the Department. Mr. Morgan testified that it was not necessary to provide details, including engineering design computations, for any proposed waste or storm water discharge onto or over the beach and dune system because no impervious surface was being added. Mr. Morgan testified that it was not necessary to submit planting plans because the dunes were not being disturbed. Mr. Morgan testified that no other site-specific information or calculations were necessary for the exemption application "because it was all straightforward. There again, it's an existing structure." Tony McNeal, the administrator of the CCCL program, testified as an expert in coastal engineering. Mr. McNeal also addressed the criteria for obtaining an exemption pursuant to rule 62B-33.008(11), and concluded that none of the items listed in subsection (11) were necessary for the Department to determine that the project would not cause a measureable interference with the natural functioning of the coastal system. Petitioners offered no evidence that the requirements of rule 62B-33.0081, paragraphs 62B-33.008(3)(l), (m), (n), (p), (r), or subsection 62B-33.008(5) were necessary to make an exemption determination pursuant to section 161.053(11)(b). The evidence demonstrated that the Applicants identified which of those requirements were inapplicable and why, and that the Department waived the inapplicable requirements. The unchallenged testimony of Mr. Morgan and Mr. McNeal established that the proposed project would not cause a measurable interference with the natural functioning of the coastal system, and that the criteria for the grant of an exemption from the CCCL permitting requirements were met in this instance. However, the finding that the proposed project would meet the exemption criteria of section 161.053(11)(b) does not end the inquiry. Petitioners contend that Applicants' project is simply not the kind of project to which the section 161.053(11)(b) exemption provision is intended to apply. Rather, this project was of the type contemplated by section 161.053(11)(a), which provides in relevant part: The coastal construction control requirements defined in subsection (1) and the requirements of the erosion projections in subsection (5) do not apply to any modification, maintenance, or repair of any existing structure within the limits of the existing foundation which does not require, involve, or include any additions to, or repair or modification of, the existing foundation of that structure.... Petitioners contend that because it included "additions to, or repair or modification of" the walkover foundation, the project should have been required to seek a CCCL permit. Petitioners argue that the project as a whole constituted a replacement of the existing walkover, not merely repairs and maintenance. As such, it was not the type of activity that the Department should have considered for exemption under section 161.053(11)(b). Petitioners offered documentation from the Department's files indicating that no beach walkovers have been granted exemptions from the need to obtain at least a field permit.5/ Trey Hatch, a senior field inspector for the Bureau, testified that he has never issued an exemption for a dune walkover. He stated that he issues "quite a few" field permits for walkover structures. These include permits for new walkovers, additions, and repair and rebuilding. Mr. Hatch stated that aboveground repairs to walkovers typically do not require permits. He testified that he has issued field permits for such repairs in order to assist homeowners in obtaining building permits from local authorities. However, foundation modification such as digging holes, replacing posts or modifying the structure outside its existing dimensions would require a permit. Mr. McNeal testified that the Department regularly issues permits for dune walkovers and has issued more than a thousand such permits over the years. To his knowledge, the Department has never granted an exemption under section 161.053(11)(b) for a walkover structure prior to the instant case. Despite this lack of precedent, Mr. McNeal, who has been the administrator in charge of the CCCL program since 1998, expressed confidence that a permit was not required for this project because the proposed activity would not cause a measurable interference with the natural functioning of the coastal system. Petitioners contend that the walkover was not "repaired" nor was it the subject of "maintenance." They assert that the walkover was replaced from the foundation up, and that such replacement makes the Applicants' project ineligible for exemption. Petitioners state that digging and setting of new posts constituted modification of the foundation that required a permit under section 161.053(11)(a). The Department replies that the exemption was not granted pursuant to section 161.053(11)(a) but under the standard set forth in section 161.053(11)(b). Therefore, Petitioners contentions regarding the repair or replacement of the walkover's foundation are irrelevant. In similar fashion, the Department dismisses Petitioner's contention that the sistered posts violated Florida Administrative Code rule 62B-34.050(19)(b), which provides: Elevated walkovers that provide access to the beach shall meet the following design criteria: * * * (b) The piles for the walkover structure shall not be greater that [sic] four by four inch posts and shall not be encased in concrete. Petitioners point out that by sistering the new four- by-four posts to the existing four-by-four posts, Applicants have created piles for the walkover structure that are now four inches by eight inches, in excess of the maximum allowed by the quoted rule. However, the Department points out that the quoted rule sets forth the conditions for general permits for activities seaward of the CCCL, in particular for a new dune walkover structure. As such, the rule is irrelevant to a consideration of whether the repairs to the already existing walkover meet the specific criteria for an exemption pursuant to section 161.053(11)(b) and rule 62B-33.008(11). Petitioners argue that a form of estoppel should apply to the Department's grant of an exemption in this case because of prior Department actions regarding the same walkover. In 2005, one of the Applicants in the instant case, Paul Linger, obtained a field permit to repair the stairs on the walkover and to install a cantilevered bench seat. Controversy ensued when both Ms. Pope and Mr. Pfrengle objected and insisted on removal of the bench seat. The Department ultimately decided that Mr. Linger had installed the bench seat farther seaward than the permit allowed, and that the seat extended beyond the easement onto Ms. Pope's property. Ms. Pope also raised the question whether Mr. Linger had the authority to obtain the permit without her permission. Jim Martinello, an environmental manager with the Bureau, wrote as follows in a letter to Timothy J. Perry, counsel for Ms. Pope, in a letter dated March 25, 2008: In Mr. Perry's letter dated March 17, 2008, he has advised Department staff that his client, Amanda Pope, would be amenable to remove the cantilevered seating area from her property. Pursuant to section 161.053(12)(c)(6), Florida Statutes,6/ the removal of any existing structures or debris from the upland, provided there is no excavation or disturbance to the existing topography or beach/dune vegetation is exempt from the Department's permitting requirements. The installation of the handrail would also be considered an exempt activity; however, be advised that if Ms. Pope proposes to install a wooden post into the ground, then the activity would no longer be exempt and a Department permit would be required. If, after removal of the cantilevered seating area and placement of the handrail, no additional compliance issues are identified by staff, the file on this matter will be closed. Since the subject dune walkover is within an easement, any future reconstruction or repairs to the subject dune walkover must be authorized with an administrative Coastal Construction Control Line permit. A Department field permit will not be available for any future proposed activities regarding the subject structure. (emphasis added). In a follow-up letter dated June 19, 2008, noting that the bench seat had been removed and the Department's file on the matter had been closed, Mr. Martinello reiterated: As previously stated, since the subject dune walkover is within an easement, any future reconstruction or repairs to the subject dune walkover must be authorized with an administrative Coastal Construction Control Line permit. A Department field permit will not be available for any future proposed activities regarding the subject structure. With reason, Petitioners question why the Department's representative cautioned Ms. Pope that the installation of a single wooden post would trigger the need to obtain a permit from the Department, but three years later the Department determined that the installation of more than 30 posts on the same walkover was exempt from permitting. The letters clearly state that any future reconstruction or repairs to this dune walkover would require an administrative CCCL permit rather than a mere field permit. However, three years later, no permit whatever was required for an extensive renovation of the same walkover. At the hearing, Mr. Marintello testified that the intent of his language regarding the need for a permit was "informational." He wanted to advise the parties that they could not obtain a field permit for reconstruction because the walkover was within an easement. Mr. Martinello stated that the Department had previously decided that it would be better to use the administrative CCCL permitting process where an easement was involved. The greater scrutiny of that process would insure that the applicant is eligible to obtain the permit. Mr. Martinello stated that he defers to the opinion of Mr. McNeal and the Bureau permitting staff as to whether an activity qualifies for an exemption. He testified that he had no intent for his letter to preclude anyone from ever obtaining an exemption to perform work on the walkover, and that in any event he lacked the authority to make such a conclusive pronouncement. The Department and Applicants strenuously argued that any evidence not strictly addressing the criteria for exemption under section 161.053(11)(b) is irrelevant to this proceeding. In so arguing, they seek to avoid the threshold question of whether section 161.053(11)(b) is the applicable provision for repair or replacement of an existing structure such as a dune walkover. The testimony and the statute itself lead to the finding that the specific provisions of section 161.053(11)(a), not the general exemption language of section 161.053(11)(b), should have been applied to the "modification, maintenance, or repair" of this existing structure. When Mr. Morgan testified to justify the lack of need for various items listed in rule 62B-33.008(11), he did so in terms of section 161.053(11)(a): it was unnecessary to provide a ground survey, dimensioned site plan, dimensioned grading plan, or other site specific information or calculations because the project was staying within the confines of the existing structure. The Department's own personnel made it clear that their long practice has been to apply section 161.053(11)(a) to alterations of dune walkovers. Mr. Hatch testified that he has never issued an exemption for a dune walkover, and that his common practice is to issue field permits for dune walkovers. In his experience, aboveground repairs to walkovers are exempt and foundation modifications require a permit. Mr. Hatch was obviously referencing section 161.053(11)(a) in stating these criteria. Mr. Martinello's letters cautioning Ms. Pope not to install a wooden post in the ground were plainly premised on the section 161.053(11)(a) limitation on changes to the foundation. Mr. Martinello's testimony regarding his intent in writing the letters was an unconvincing attempt to revise his views to reflect the Department's new interpretation of the statute. The Department's own expert, the head of its CCCL permitting program, Mr. McNeal, conceded the novelty of granting a section 161.053(11)(b) exemption for a dune walkover. He could point to over one thousand walkover permits but not a single walkover exemption during his long tenure at the Bureau. In summary, the Department misapplied the general exemption criteria in section 161.053(11)(b) to a situation that met the more specific criteria of section 161.053(11)(a). Applicants should have been required to obtain either a permit pursuant to section 161.053(11)(a) or a Department determination that such a permit is not required because of the nature of the work performed on the walkover. Finally, Petitioners raised the issue of whether Applicants had the authority to obtain an exemption from the Department. Petitioners contended that neither Millken's Replat nor the Road Maintenance Agreement authorized Applicants to effect repairs on the walkover without express permission of the property owners, Ms. Pope and Anastasia, Inc. The Department argued that it has no obligation to investigate ownership rights prior to issuing an exemption. Based on the foregoing finding that the exemption was improvidently granted, there is no need to address this issue at this time.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order denying the application of Daniel and Donna Grace; Joseph and Linda Oftell; Paul and Debra Linger; Ann Pastore; Thompson and Dana Fillmer; Joseph and Dottie Scruggs; Stephen Frey; and Lindsey Bramlitt and Jacqueline Porter, Trustees of the Land Trust dated May 1, 2005, for an exemption from the requirements of coastal construction control line ("CCCL") permitting pursuant to section 161.053(11)(b), Florida Statutes, for their proposed activities on a dune walkover structure seaward of the coastal construction control line at the end of Milliken Lane in St. Johns County. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of October, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 5th day of October, 2012.
Findings Of Fact On 24 July 1979 the Board of County Commissioners of Palm Beach County adopted Resolution R-79-887 petitioning the TIITF to establish an erosion control line (ECL) extending from South Lake Worth Inlet to the northern city limits of Delray Beach in conjunction with a beach restoration project in the same area. The project as then proposed encompassed extension of the south jetty at the Inlet 170 feet, construction of eight groins at 400-foot intervals commencing just south of the Inlet, and widening the beaches by 500 feet with 150 feet above the mean high water and 350 feet below mean high water, for a distance of approximately 4.8 miles. The restoration project is proposed to be accomplished with sand from a borrow area located approximately one-half mile off shore. The project is designated "Ocean Ridge-Briny Breezes" beach restoration project. SLWID objected to the project and, following conferences between Palm Beach County, SLWID and DNR the County amended its project to exclude property owned by SLWID from the ECL and beach restoration projects with the restoration of the beach to commence 300 feet south of the Inlet and continue for 2.6 miles to the town of Briny Breezes. Extension of the jetty and installation of groins were deleted. Palm Beach County's proposed beach restoration project was authorized by the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in House Document 164 (Exhibit 5). The proposed "Ocean Ridge-Briny Breezes" beach restoration project was designed in accordance with the criteria set forth in Exhibit 5. The project is designed to restore the severe beach erosion that has occurred in the 2.6-mile project area and to provide the affected uplands protection against the ten-year design storm event. The ten-year design storm event implies a 3.8-foot storm surge with up to eight-foot waves superimposed thereon. The proposed ECL has been surveyed by Palm Beach County along the mean high water line in the proposed area. Over 60 percent of the ocean front property owners have approved the establishment of the ECL in conjunction with a beach restoration project by executing letters of consent. Following notice by DNR a public hearing was held on February 13, 1980, to receive evidence relative to the necessity and propriety of the proposed beach restoration project and the proposed location of the ECL. The Hearing Officer's report (Exhibit 28) concluded that there is a definite need to restore the proposed area where severe beach erosion has occurred and the establishment of the ECL would accomplish the purpose stated in Section 161.161, Florida Statutes. Approval of the project was recommended. The staff of DNR approved the project and prepared the agenda item for the next meeting of the TIITF in which this project was to be considered for final approval. Prior to this meeting of the TIITF, SLWID filed its initial Request for Formal Proceeding and the item was removed from the TIITF agenda and referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings. The beach erosion in the project area has been documented by Palm Beach County, DNR and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Much of the erosion in the northernmost mile of the project has involved the beach above high water, as well as the offshore beach, while the erosion in the southern 1.6 files of the project has predominantly been offshore. During the period 1955-1981 approximately 1.6 million cubic yards of sand has been lost in the project area. Beach erosion determinations are made by calculating both onshore and offshore changes in the beach profile. Significant offshore erosion will lead to onshore beach recession by storm-generated waves. A gradually sloping beach is a natural absorber of wade energy and the most effective. Since maximum wave height is a function of the depth of the water, waves rapidly dissipate when they reach shoal water. With offshore erosion and the resulting deeper water near the shore, incoming waves can be higher and will impact on the upland area with greater force than would occur with a gradually sloping beach. There is a net annual littoral drift of 200,000 cubic yards of sand southward in the project area. Prior to the construction of the Inlet this drift replaced sand lost during storms, thus creating a dynamic beach which receded and was augmented from time to time. The installation of the jetties disrupted this littoral flow and caused the sand to build up on the beach north of the jetty while starving the beach south of the jetty. This problem was partly corrected by the erection of a sand transfer plant on the north jetty which pumped some of this sand across the Inlet to the beach south of the Inlet. The sand transfer plant was not operated during WWII due to the fuel shortage and severe erosion occurred in the project area. Following WWII the sand transfer plant was replaced in operation, sand was dredged from the Inlet and deposited on the beach south of the Inlet and the beach in the project area was largely restored. In 1967 the north jetty at the Inlet was extended and the sand transfer plant was moved eastward some 130 feet. This plant is a fixed plant consisting of a suction line on a boom which dredges sand to be pumped south of the Inlet only from the area that can be reached by the boom. Although capacity of the plant is adequate to pump the sand needed to replace in the project area that sand intercepted by the jetty, due to the limitation of the plant to reach a larger area there is insufficient sand available for the plant to pump to capacity. As a result, even if the plant operated all the time and there was sand available to pump, there would still be a net loss of sand in the project area (Exhibit 21). During recent winter storms property-threatening beach erosion has occurred to beach property in the project area. Some of the property owners have erected bulkheads and seawalls and others are proceeding with plans to do so. In some places in the north portion of the project area there is no exposed beach at high water. In the southern portion of the project area the offshore erosion will, if left to continue, result in severe damage and loss of upland beach if impacted with seas commensurate with a ten-year design storm event. This erosion, both on and offshore, will, if uncorrected, result in a calculated total of 134 feet of beach recession for the ten-year design storm event. This could result in the inundation of S.R. A1A, which runs near the beach in the northern portion of the project area. S.R. A1A is the primary north-south highway east of the Intracoastal Waterway and the evacuation route to the bridges to the mainland in the event evacuation of the beach is necessary in a hurricane situation. The proposed beach restoration project is designed to replace sand lost offshore and onshore erosion in the the project area and provide a sloping beach to absorb wave impact. It will not accelerate erosion. The proposed restoration of the beach will protect property and structures in the project area against the forces associated with a ten-year design storm event. Addition of the 1.5 million cubic yards of sand in the project area will result in some sand infiltration of the Inlet. This was calculated at 8,000 cubic yards the first year, 6,000 cubic yards the second year and 4,000 cubic yards per year thereafter. This will result in insignificant shoaling in the Inlet but will require infrequent maintenance dredging. It will not adversely impact the tidal prism in the Inlet or materially increase the maintenance of the Inlet. Heavy storms result in immediate loss of sand from the upland beach. Most of this sand is deposited in the offshore beach and is returned to the upland beach by the normal action of waves and tides. Approximately ten percent of the sand so removed from the upland beach is not returned but is lost.
Findings Of Fact On December 12, 1988, Petitioners filed an application with Respondent for a permit to construct improvements to real property seaward of the coastal construction control line (CCCL). Petitioners' property is located at 2400 North Atlantic Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The parcel of land owned by Petitioners measures approximately 50' in width and 140' in depth and is located in a primarily residential area of beachfront property with high property values. On this parcel is a residence that is approximately 1600 square feet in size. The residence is constructed on reinforced concrete pilings. There are many other residential and commercial structures in this area which are also constructed on reinforced concrete pilings. The improvements to this property seaward of the CCCL that Petitioners desire to make and that Respondent finds objectionable is the construction of a poured monolithic reinforced concrete slab patio supported by twenty-one reinforced concrete pilings. The patio would be approximately 27' by 50' in size. On November 17, 1987, Respondent approved an application filed by a previous owner of this property for the construction of a patio to be constructed with concrete pavers. Petitioners arranged to have the previously approved permit transferred to their name. The project contemplated by the subject application employs a different method of construction than the one permitted in 1987 because Petitioners desire to have a patio that is more attractive and is easier to maintain. Petitioners are also concerned that concrete pavers will be hazardous during a storm since they may be subject to being swept along by high winds and water. Petitioners have valid reasons for preferring the method of construction reflected by the subject application based on aesthetic and maintenance considerations. However, Petitioners did not establish that the proposed method of construction was necessary as a safety measure. To the contrary, the greater weight of the evidence was that blocks the size of the pavers to be used for the construction that has been permitted would not be propelled by either hydrodynamic or aerodynamic forces during a major storm as Petitioners contend. Instead, these blocks would likely be undermined during a major storm and, because of their weight, fall as the beach is eroded. Respondent has regulatory authority over the property in question. Respondent's regulatory authority, which includes rule making authority, is conferred by statute. Respondent's responsibilities include the preservation of the beach-dune area within its jurisdiction. There is a relationship between the siting of a structure, in terms of its proximity to the shoreline, and the likelihood that the structure will have an impact on the beach and dune systems. The subject patio is to be located within the beach-dune system. The patio Petitioners propose to construct on concrete pilings would have more of an adverse impact on the beach-dune system than a patio constructed of concrete pavers. During a major storm, greater erosion on the site around the pilings will occur as a result of scour. Following a major storm, the ability of a dune to re-form will be more inhibited if the patio is supported by pilings. Considering the hundreds of thousands of pilings that are already in place along the beach, the effect of the twenty-one pilings proposed by Petitioners, whether considered individually or cumulatively, will be insignificant. A patio is usually considered by Respondent to be a "minor structure". "Minor structures" are non-habitable structures that are generally designed to be expendable during a major storm event. Dune walkovers, viewing platforms, and decks are examples of minor structures. A patio constructed of concrete pavers would be another example. The nature of their construction permits minor structures to be placed more closely to the shoreline than major structures. The patio as proposed Petitioners has been properly categorized by Respondent as being a "major structure" since it is designed to withstand a major storm event. Respondent has not to date permitted any major structure as far east of the CCCL in this area of Broward County as Petitioner's proposed project. All major structures constructed on pilings that are that far east of the CCCL were built before permits were required. Respondent is concerned that the granting of the subject permit will set a precedent that will require the issuance of permits for the construction of other major structures as far seaward of the CCCL as the Petitioners' proposed project, and that such construction would result in a cumulative adverse impact on the beach-dune system.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a final order which denies the subject permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of September, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of September, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Petitioners. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1-6 and 8-10 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 7 are rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 8 are rejected as being argument. The proposed findings of fact in the first sentence of paragraph 11 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in the second sentence of paragraph 11 are rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The proposed findings of fact in the third sentence of paragraph 11 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 12 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 13 are rejected as being conclusions of law that are unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 14 are rejected as being unsubstantiated by the evidence. While Petitioners' application included as a proposed condition to the issuance of the permit, a covenant running with the land that would require the property owner to reconstruct the beach-dune system in the event of destruction by a major storm, the evidence did not establish, as Petitioners proposed, that the covenant would "... protect the interests of DNR and its long term end of protecting the dunes and beaches". The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Respondent. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1-2, 5-6, 10-16, 24-27, 30-31, and 33 are adopted in material part by paragraph 1 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 3 and 4 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 21 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 7-9 and 28-29 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached or as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 17-20, 23, and 32 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. These proposed findings are incorporated in part as conclusions of law. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 22 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order, and are rejected in part as being subordinate to the findings made. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth G. Stevens 412 Northeast Fourth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Dana M. Wiehle, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Room 1003 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Tom Gardner Executive Director Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Ken Plante General Counsel Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue Whether Petitioners' application for a permit to construct a dwelling in Walton County, Florida, should be approved, pursuant to Chapter 161, Florida Statutes. In January of 1984, Respondent Department of Natural Resources provisionally denied Petitioners' application for a permit pursuant to Chapter 161, Florida Statutes, to construct a dwelling on their property in Walton County seaward of the existing coastal construction control line. Petitioners requested a hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), alleging that the denial of their application was unlawful on constitutional grounds and that it exceeded Respondent's discretionary powers under Chapter 161. The request for hearing was referred by Respondent to the Division of Administrative Hearings, Case No. 84-0508. Thereafter, Respondent's motion to strike those aspects of the petition alleging the unconstitutionality of the proposed denial was denied on the basis that Petitioners properly may preserve such matters for any appellate review. Thereafter, Petitioners sought to amend their petition to allege the invalidity of certain of Respondent's rules and, although such petition was granted, Petitioners were informed that any administrative determination of the invalidity of rules must be made the subject of a separate petition filed with the Director of the Division of Administrative Hearings. On June 11, 1984, Petitioners filed a petition with the Division challenging the validity of certain of Respondent's rules which were cited by Respondent as the basis for the proposed denial of Petitioners' application for a permit. The petition alleged that said rules were not appropriate to the ends specified in Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, that the effect of the rules was to establish a class of property owners who could be excluded from receiving permits to construct dwellings seaward of the coastal construction control line merely because their lots or parcels of land are larger than their neighbors or other adjacent owners, and that such rules are arbitrary and capricious as they relate to the petitioners because other property owners in Walton County had been permitted by Respondent to construct dwellings similar to hat proposed by the Petitioners beyond the coastal construction control line. DOAH Case No. 84-0508 and the case involving the rule challenge, DOAH Case No. 84-2053R, were consolidated for purposes of hearing. At the hearing, Petitioners presented the testimony of Brett Moore, a coastal engineer employed by the DNR Division of Beaches and Shores, Dennis Evans, an architect, and Petitioner Edward S. Coley. Petitioner submitted ten exhibits in evidence Respondent presented the testimony of Brett Moore, Deborah Flack, Director of the Division of Beaches and Shores, and Ralph Clark, Chief of the Bureau of Coastal Engineering and Regulation. Respondent submitted 21 exhibits in evidence. Posthearing submissions submitted by the parties in the form of Proposed Recommended Orders have been fully considered and those portions thereof not adopted herein are considered to be either unnecessary, irrelevant, or unsupported in law or fact.
Findings Of Fact In 1981 Petitioners Edward S. Coley and his wife, Juanita P. Coley, purchased lot 8, block A, Camp Creek Lake Subdivision, in Walton County, Florida. The lot is located on the beach at the Gulf of Mexico in a platted subdivision. Petitioners purchased the property for the purpose of building a beach house that would eventually be a retirement home. (Testimony of E. Coley, Petitioners' Exhibit 1, Respondent's Exhibit 1). At the time Petitioners purchased the lot, there were a number of existing dwellings to the east of the lot and several to the west. The habitable portions of these dwellings for the most part were located at or near the existing coastal construction setback line that had been established by Respondent in 1975 to provide protection to the dune area of the beach. Although Petitioners planned to locate their two-story dwelling approximately on the then-existing setback line, they had not done so at the time a new coastal construction control line was established in December 1982, which resulted in moving the setback line further landward for a distance of some sixty two feet. The county coastal construction control lines are established under the authority of Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, and are intended to define the portion of the beach-dune system which is subject to severe fluctuations based on a 100-year storm surge. Construction seaward of the line is prohibited unless a permit is obtained from Respondent. (Testimony of E. Coley, Moore, Clark, Petitioners' Exhibit 1, 5, Respondent's Exhibit 1, 20). On September 19, 1983, Petitioners filed an application with Respondent to construct a 2000 square foot two-story house on their lot. The dwelling was designed to have upper and lower decks facing the Gulf, with a dune walkover structure seaward, and a three-car garage attached to the main house by a breezeway. As planned, the seaward extent of the habitable portion of the house would be located some eight feet landward of the old setback line and approximately 62 feet seaward of the existing construction control line. After processing the application, Respondent's Chief of the Bureau of Coastal Engineering and Regulation advised Petitioners by letter dated January 5, 1984, that a staff recommendation to deny the application would be presented to the head of the Department, consisting of the Governor and Cabinet, on January 17, 1984, and advising Petitioners of their rights to a Chapter 120 hearing. By letter of January 11, 1984, Petitioners did request a hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, F.S., and, on January 17, Mr. Coley appeared before the Governor and Cabinet to support approval of his application. On March 20, 1984, the Governor and Cabinet approved the minutes of its January 17th meeting wherein the apparent basis for the proposed denial of Petitioners' application was stated as follows: The staff is concerned that the applicant is not effectively utilizing the property landward of the control line and that the proposed encroachment is unnecessary and not justified. Prior to the preparation of the structural plans, the staff recommended a 25 foot landward relocation of the structure in order to more effectively utilize the property landward of the control line and provide an effective, protective setback from the active dune area. Presently, there exists approximately 85 feet between the landwardmost portion of the proposed garage structure and the landward property line. The recommended 25 foot landward location represents a compromise that acknowledges the line of existing construction in the immediate area. . . . * * * Dr. Gissendanner stated that this was the first building permitted in this area. All the other buildings there had been built before a permit was required. Now it was necessary to take into consideration the new coastal construction line and the accumulative effect which the new law imposed. The problem was that the Department did not want to start a precedent to allow the house to be built out there and have other people come in and want to build along the same line. By letter of September 29, 1983, Respondent had advised Petitioners that any structure of the size proposed by Petitioners located within the dune region would adversely impact and limit the extent of dune recovery following severe erosion associated with a major storm event. The letter proposed a compromise in location of Petitioners' dwelling to a point approximately 25 feet landward of the desired location, thus placing the seawardmost portion of the habitable structure approximately 35 feet seaward of the construction control line. This was stated to be a viable compromise since there existed sufficient room to locate the entire structure, including garage, landward of the control line. Petitioners however declined to accept such a compromise in the belief that to do so would eliminate any view of the Gulf over the dune line except from the upstairs deck of the proposed structure. (Testimony of E. Coley, Moore, Clark, Petitioners' Exhibits 1-2, 9, Respondent's Exhibits 1-8, 13-16). The height of the dune line on Petitioners' lot is approximately 27 feet high, which is the same elevation as the first floor of the proposed dwelling at the desired site. The proposed second floor would be 9 feet above the crest of the dune. However, if placement of the structure was moved landward 25 feet, it would be impossible to see over the dune area from the ground floor of the house. Additionally, the view of the beach area would be obstructed by the homes to the east and west of Petitioners' lot. The proposed dwelling is designed for the maximum allowable height of 30 feet. Under dead covenants and restrictions, a variance would have to be obtained to build a taller structure. The value of Petitioners' property would undoubtedly be diminished to come extent if the house was built substantially behind the adjacent dwellings because of the restricted view of the beach and water area. (Testimony of E. Coley, Evans, Petitioners' Exhibits 1, 8). Although there would be no adverse impact on adjacent properties if Petitioners were permitted to build in the desired location, such proposed siting could have an adverse impact on the dune system as a result of a major storm event since the dwelling would be located on the seaward edge of existing vegetation at the landward toe of the dune. If the location were to be moved 25 feet further landward, there would be additional vegetation to facilitate recovery of the system after such a storm. Respondent's Chief of the Bureau of Coastal Engineering and Regulation also believes that the existing structures in that area would be demolished as a result of a major storm, but Petitioners' house, which is designed to withstand a 100-year storm event, would remain, thus impeding full recovery of the dune system. (Testimony of Moore, Flack, Clark, Respondent's Exhibits 9-12, 19, 21). Respondent has permitted several structures in the past which were located seaward of the coastal construction control line, but these were approved because the impact on the dune system was minimized in those locations, and also because the applicants had utilized all of the upland property possible on their lots. (Testimony of E. Coley, Moore, Clark, Petitioners' Exhibits 3-4, 6-7, 9-10). Although conflicting evidence was received as to whether or not the existing structures east of petitioners' lot constitute a "reasonably continuous and uniform construction line," it is found that although minor variations exist in the location of individual dwellings, they do meet the quoted statutory standard set forth in Section 161.053(4)(b), Florida Statutes. The existing structures have not been affected by erosion. (Testimony of E. Coley, Evans, Moore, Flack, Clark, Petitioners' Exhibit 1). Petitioners' structural design meets Respondent's technical requirements subject to standard conditions of the Department. (Testimony of Moore, Evans, Flack, Petitioners' Exhibit 2). The Departmental rules cited by Respondent as the authority for the proposed denial of Petitioners' application are Rules 16B-33.05(1), (2), (6), 33.06(2), and 33.07(2), Florida Administrative Code. (Petitioners' Exhibit 4).
