The Issue Whether the application of Respondent Gulf County (County) for permit to install a beach access road, constructed of oyster shell or dolomite, at the stumphole area on Cape San Blas should be granted.
Findings Of Fact On April 11, 1996, the County applied for a permit from DEP to install a beach access road constructed of oyster shell or dolomite over an area 275 feet in length by 12 feet wide at the stumphole area on Cape San Blas. The County owned the property at the site where a crude road bed to the beach already existed. On that same date, County Manager Donald Butler met with a DEP field engineer, William Fokes, on the site to determine the linear footage that would be necessary for the access road at the stumphole area. Fokes then issued the field permit for the access road to be constructed of oyster shell or dolomite over an area 275 feet in length by 12 feet wide. Since beach driving is permitted by the County in the area, the access road aids in preventing illegal crossing of beach dunes by motorists to get to the beach. Prior to issuance of the field permit and construction of the access road, the only legal motorist access to the beach was seven miles away. Permits to drive on the beach are issued by the County. DEP rules require that all applicants proposing to conduct permitted activities on a beach use a designated beach access. This road will allow access to conduct permitted activities, thereby preserving and enhancing public beach access. DEP will not permit a project that is expected to adversely impact the beach dune system. Although seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) in the County, the area which is the subject of this field permit contained no dunes or vegetation since Hurricane Opal had flattened the area. Such a project cannot be permitted if the project will adversely impact existing upland property or property of others. In the instant case, neither the Petitioner’s property, which is located two miles away from the project site, or property of other owners in the area will be adversely impacted. The road is designed to be a non-rigid, pervious structure which causes less impact to any existing dune system. The road site is located on County property and provides logical and appropriate access. The construction of the road did not violate DEP prohibitions on permitting activities having adverse impact to marine turtles since the construction permit expired prior to the turtle nesting season. A requirement of field permit issuance is that the applicant and the DEP area engineer meet on site and review the project. This event occurred on April 11, 1996, when Butler and Fokes met on the site. Fokes determined that the project was within field permitting guidelines and issued the permit. Fokes was authorized to issue the field permit because the project fell in DEP’s category of a driveway or similar activity. Expected impacts of construction of the access road and a driveway are deemed similar by DEP. Subsequent review by DEP staff of Fokes’ issuance of the field permit determined that sufficient information had been provided to him for issuance of the permit, that the project falls in the category of minor activity and that no adverse impact to dunes, property of others, beach access or nesting marine turtles is expected.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and the conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered confirming the grant of the field permit which is the subject of this proceeding. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of May, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of May, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Lynette L. Ciardulli, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000 Michael Paulsson, Pro Se Route 1, Box 347B Port St. Joe, FL 32456 Timothy J. McFarland, Esquire Post Office Box 202 Port St. Joe, FL 32457 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000 Perry Odom, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact James R. Gray owns Lots 10, 11, 12 and 13, Clearwater Beach Park, as recorded in Plat Book 10, p. 42, of the official Records of Pinellas County. These lots are located on Clearwater Beach in an area zoned CTF-28. For the past several years beach chairs, umbrellas and cabanas have been rented for use in the vicinity of these lots and a portable 4' x 8' building standing on these lots has been used to store the chairs, umbrellas and cabanas when not rented. Gray proposes to replace the 4' x 8' building with an 8' x 10' portable aluminum shed from which to operate the business of renting beach equipment and expand it to include the sale of suntan lotion, soft drinks, and related items. The business will be operated by Roy Pearl, a co-applicant with Gray in these proceedings. Gray and Pearl applied for a building permit to erect the portable shed and their application was rejected by the City of Clearwater Building Department on the basis that the proposed use of the property was not in conformity with the Building and Zoning Regulations and did not fit the special exceptions provided by Section 131.099 of the Zoning Regulations. The latter determination was made by the Clearwater Planning Department. Gray then submitted on a City of Clearwater form an Application-- Request for Special Exception to the Clearwater Board of Adjustment and Appeal on Zoning, which, as noted above, approved the application. The area in question comprises a private beach; and businesses in the vicinity consist of motels, hotels, apartments and restaurants. An 8-unit motel occupies part of the site involved. The location of the proposed portable aluminum shed is on Lots 12 and 13, approximately 150 feet seaward of the seawall which separates the beach from the business establishment seaward of Gulf View Boulevard. Approximately 150 feet south of this proposed location is a similar storage shed operated in conjunction with a sailboat rental business. Some of the hotels and motels on Clearwater Beach rent umbrellas, chairs and cabanas, some of which are stored when not in use in storage sheds located more than 100 feet from the main building. On the public beach the City of Clearwater operates a concession which provides the same services proposed by applicant. The chairs, umbrellas, and cabanas are utilized by guests of the motels and apartments located in the vicinity and by tourists who are using this area of the beach for sunbathing or swimming.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is what costs, if any, are recoverable by petitioner as a consequence of its successful prosecution of an appeal from the agency's final order heretofore rendered in the above-styled matter.
Findings Of Fact Background On January 14, 1988, respondent, Key Biscayne Limited partnership, formerly known as Biscayne Beach Hotel Association, Ltd. (the "Hotel") , filed an application with Respondent, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), for a coastal construction control line (CCCL) permit authorizing it to conduct construction activities seaward of the Dade County CCCL on Key Biscayne, Florida. As proposed, the Hotel, which currently owns the Sonesta Beach Hotel on Key Biscayne, sought authorization to construct a nine-story 124-unit habitable addition and a one-story non habitable addition, with understructure parking, to its existing facility. Incident to such construction, the Hotel also sought authorization to construct a deck and jacuzz-type hot tub south of the addition, and authorization to excavate approximately 1,400 cubic yards of fill for the pile foundation and caps, and to deposit such fill seaward of the CCCL. Excavation for the foundation would extend a maximum of 177 feet seaward of the CCCL and placement of the excavated material would extend a maximum of 300 feet seaward of the CCCL. On August 11, 1988, DNR issued a notice of intent to approve the Hotel's application and to is sue a CCCL permit subject to the following special conditions: The issuance of the permit placard shall be withheld pending staff receipt and approval of: Two sets of specifications and final certified construction plans accurately dimensioned with elevation referenced to NGVD. Details of the foundation of the 9-story and single- story addition, pile/pile cap/column connections, column/floor slab and roof slab connections, cantilevered balconies, garage floor slab, breakaway walls, storm drainage and domestic waste disposal, and fences shall be included in the plans. Two sets of certified dimensioned site plans showing the location of the control line, existing sea grape trees, the placement of excavated material seaward of the control line, and species of salt-resistant vegetation. The site plans shall be subject to review and acceptance by the Bureau staff. Evidence that written notice has been recorded in the deed covenants and restrictions for the subject property that: The construction of any future rigid coastal protection structures on the property shall be prohibited. The deed covenants and restrictions shall be recorded in the public records of Dade County. Such deed covenants and restrictions shall be enforceable and shall not be altered unless approved by the Department of Natural Resources. The use of gravel or other similar materials or structures with the potential for becoming aerodynamically propelled missiles shall not be included in the construction of the roof. Salt-resistant vegetation such as sea oats, sea grape, panic grass, salt jointgrass, and/or other approved salt- resistant species shall be planted on the fill area. In addition, the permittee shall irrigate and apply fertilizer as appropriate for the particular species planted until the vegetation is established. A 75 percent survival rate of the vegetations shall be ensured and replanting shall be conducted until a 75 percent overall survival rate is attained and until any sizeable barren portions of the area are covered. The excavated fill material to be placed on the beach shall consist of material compatible in grain size and coloration as the native beach sand and shall come from a source located landward of the coastal construction control line. The main structure of the addition shall not extend further seaward than the projected line of the existing retaining wall located seaward of the existing swimming pool. Petitioner, Key Biscayne Council (the "Council"), filed a timely protest of DNR's action. Essentially, the Council contended that the location of the proposed construction would be seaward of the 30-year seasonal high-water line and, therefore, prohibited by Section 161.053(6)(b), Florida Statues; that the proposed construction would adversely impact the beach-dune system and adjacent properties; that construction of similar projects along the coast would have a significant cumulative impact resulting in the general degradation of the beach or dune system along that segment of shoreline; and that the proposed construction failed to comply with the setback requirements or zoning or building codes of Dade County. The Key Biscayne Council In Its petition for formal hearing, the Council alleged that it was a not-for-profit Florida corporation which had, as one of its purposes, the preservation of the environment of Key Biscayne, including its beaches. The proof at hearing failed, however, to demonstrate that the Council enjoyed corporate status but, rather, demonstrated that it was an association formed in November 1987 to give the residents of Key Biscayne a more effective voice on matters of local interest, including the preservation of the environment of Key Biscayne. The Council is governed by nine individuals who are residents of Key Biscayne. These individuals are elected to their positions by the resident members of the association, who are also registered voters in Dade County. 4/ The Council meets at least once each month, and its meetings are open to the public. The agenda for each meeting is published in the local Key Biscayne newspaper, The Islander, the week before each meeting. Of particular interest to the Council is the preservation and protection of the beaches of Key Biscayne which form an important part of that community's and the Council members' lifestyle. To date, the Council has been a motivating force behind the enactment of Dade County Ordinance No. 89-23 discussed infra, which established the CCCL as the mandatory setback line for new construction on Key Biscayne, as well as efforts to fund a cleanup of the beaches, to establish a vegetation dune system, and to protect the sea turtle population. Here, by unanimous vote of the Council, it elected to contest the propriety of DNR's proposal to approve the Hotel's application to construct the proposed additions seaward of the CCCL. Key Biscayne and the surrounding topography Key Biscayne is the southernmost barrier island in what is now a chain of barrier islands extending southward from Miami Beach. Historically, Miami Beach was connected to some extent with Virginia Key, which lies to the north across Bear's Cut from Key Biscayne. In 1835, however, a hurricane struck the area, breached whatever connection existed between Miami Beach and Virginia Key, and formed what is now known as Norris Cut. The topography of the area was further altered in 1905 when construction of Government Cut, the navigational channel for the Port of Miami, was begun. Construction of that cut severed the southern tip from Miami Beach, and formed what is now known as Fisher Island. By 1927, a jetty had been constructed on the north side of Government Cut that created an effective barrier to any along shore sediment transport to the south. Over time the channel in Government Cut was deepened and jetties on its north and south sides extended. Today, the channel is 42 feet deep and extends two miles into the ocean. The north jetty extends 3,000 feet into the ocean, and the south jetty extends 2,750 feet into the ocean. Key Biscayne, which lies to the south of Government Cut and the other islands, is a sand island, roughly "drum-stick" in shape, formed on a limestone base, with elevations ranging from 5 1/2 to 6 1/2 feet. The northern and southern portions of its eastern shore are dominated by Crandon Park and Cape Florida State park, respectively, with development concentrated in the central portion of the island. It is along this central part of the island that the Sonesta Beach Hotel exists, and where the proposed construction is to occur. Immediately north of the existing hotel lies the Silver Sands Hotel and Sand Dollar Restaurant. To the south of the hotel lies the Sheraton Beach Hotel and Beach Club and, further south, the Key Biscayne Hotel and Villas. 5/ Although Key Biscayne is generally subject to mild weather conditions and a low energy environment, it has been subjected to erosion along its eastern shore, with the more severe erosion occurring along the central portion of its shoreline. Seaward of the northern and southern portions of its eastern shore, sand shoals exist which tend to dampen the force of wave energy that would otherwise be exerted against that stretch of coast line. The center of the island is not, however, accorded similar protection and the consequent concentration of wave energy causes sand to be transported from the center of the island to its outer ends. As a result, the central portion of the island, where the subject development is proposed, has historically eroded at a faster rate than the north or south ends of the island. In September 1984, as a consequence of the severe erosion suffered to the eastern shore of Key Biscayne, Dade County was authorized to place over 411,000 cubic yards of sand along approximately 10,000 feet of shoreline on Key Biscayne, and to construct a terminal structure at the south end of the island. The beach was restored by hydraulically pumping sand onto the beach from an offshore dredge and then redistributing the sand with a bulldozer. The resulting beach is characterized as "plan form," and is expected to assume a natural profile over time by responding to the natural forces of wind and waves. The fill pipes which were used to pump sand onto the beach were removed from the area of the Sonesta Beach Hotel on July 3, 1987, and the reprofiling or redistribution of sand in that area was completed around July 20, 1987. On September 26, 1987, the renourishment project was certified complete. The 30-year erosion projection Section 161.053(6)(b) Florida Statutes, provides that DNR may not issue a permit for construction seaward of the CCCL, except for certain specific structures not pertinent to this case, if the structure is "proposed for a location which, based on the department's projections of erosion in the area, will be seaward of the seasonal high-water line within 30 years after the date of application for such permit." The "seasonal high-water line" is a creature of statute, and is defined by Section 161.053(6)(a), Florida Statues, as "the line formed by the intersection of the rising shore and the elevation of 150 percent of the local mean tidal range above local mean high-water." Here, the seasonal high-water line, which is established as an elevation, calculates to approximately 5.4 feet NGVD, and according to the survey dated August 1, 1987, which was submitted with the Hotel's application, currently derives a line that is approximately 375 feet seaward of the proposed construction. To establish the 30-year erosion projection, DNR proposes to horizontally shift the profile which was depicted on such survey in a landward direction a distance equal to the expected erosion rate over a 30-year period. Ordinarily, DNR would calculate a 30-year erosion projection based on historic erosion rates, referred to as "horizontal change rates" in Rule 16B- 33.024, Florida Administrative Code, by reviewing two or more historical surveys taken over a period of time, and measuring the amount of shoreline recession that had occurred during that period. From that figure, an erosion rate would be derived by dividing the number of years which elapsed over the period of record chosen into the amount of shoreline recession that occurred during that period. The result would be the historic erosion rate which, when multiplied by 30, would establish the location of the 30-year seasonal high-water line. However, where, as here, the beach as been renourished, consideration of the effect and performance of such project must also be considered in making the 30- year erosion projection. Rule 16B-33.024(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code. Accordingly, to determine the expected location of the seasonal high-water line in 30 years in this case, it is necessary to establish a historical shoreline change rate and to evaluate the effect and performance of the beach renourishment project. To establish an appropriate historical erosion rate for the subject site, consideration must be given to both the tidal datum relied upon to obtain the rates, and the time period selected as the period of record for analysis of historic shoreline change rates. With regard to tidal datums, the Department's rule provides that horizontal shoreline change rate values may be obtained from one of several available tidal datums, including mean high-water, mean sea level, and mean low-water. Rule 16B-33.024(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code. However, the preferred and more reliable tidal datum to use in assessing historic erosion rates is the line of mean high-water. The time period used in calculating the historic shoreline change rate is required by DNR's rule to extend from the date of the field work for the applicant's survey, which was submitted as part of the application, to the earliest date for which reliable information is available. Rule 16R- 33.024(3)(b) Florida Administrative Code. The historic shoreline change rate analysis should generally include data from points 3,000 feet on either side of the proposed construction, with the change rate for each point averaged for the time period chosen. Rule 16R-33.024(3)(g), Florida Administrative Code. In the event that coastal or shoreline protection structures exist which have influenced the shoreline data for any of the reference points, such influence must be addressed, and if such influence renders the data unreliable the rate data obtained from that point during the period of influence must be rejected. 6/ Rule 16B-33.024(3)(c), Florida Administrative Code. Historic shoreline change rates for the subject project are properly determined by reference to DNR reference monuments R-101 to R-106, located on Key Biscayne. Monument R-104 is the closest monument to the project site, lying approximately 180 to 200 feet south of the site, with the project lying between monuments R-103 and R-104. To facilitate an accurate determination of historic shoreline change rates, DNR has created the Beaches and Shores Growth Management Data Base (DNR Data Base), which consists of data from primary source maps from various governmental agencies, including the United States Coastal and Geodetic Survey, National Ocean Survey, and United States Geologic Survey. These maps have been digitized relative to the DNR monuments, which are located along- the coast at- approximately 1,000-foot intervals, and the resulting data is used to assess shoreline changes over time. Inherent in these shoreline changes are the effects of natural forces on the shoreline, such as wind, wave height, and temperature. Pertinent to this case, the surveys available in the DNR Data Base prior to 1989 were those of 1851, 1919, 1927, 1935, 1945, and 1962. In or about February 1989, DNR contracted with Florida State University to redigitize maps of Key Biscayne. As a consequence, the accuracy of existing data was enhanced and a new survey, the 1913 United States Coastal and Geodetic Survey Map, was added to the DNR Data Base. The addition of the 1913 survey to the DNR Data Base is significant to this case, since the proof demonstrates that the data derived from the 1919 survey is unreliable and should be disregarded. Accordingly, the surveys that may be reasonably relied on in this case are those of 1851, 1913, 1927, 1935, 1945, and 1962. In selecting the appropriate period to determine the historic change rate in this case, several factors should be considered. First, in 1926 a hurricane, which came very close to Key Biscayne, resulted in severe damage to the beach. This storm was reported as at least a 100-year storm event, and is the major storm of record for the area. The 1926 storm, as a naturally occurring event, should be taken into consideration in arriving at an historic erosion rate, but should not be allowed to bias the data. Accordingly, any survey immediately preceding it should not ordinarily be used as a starting point for determining an historic erosion rate, because it would overestimate the historic change rate. Similarly, the immediate post-storm survey of 1927 should not be used as the starting point for determining the historic change rate, since this data would overestimate the effects of the post-storm rebound (accretion), but ignore the erosion caused by the 1926 storm and artificially lower the erosion rate. Finally, the 1962 survey should be the most recent survey used to establish an historic erosion rate, since it marks the end of the predevelopment phase of the study. In the mid-1960's, shoreline structures (seawalls) were erected along portions of the coast, and a beach renourishment project was carried out at Crandon Park in 1969 resulting in filling at DNR Monument R-101. These events render post 1962 data unreliable in assessing an historic change rate. Here, the proof demonstrates that the appropriate time period for analyzing the historic change rate is 1851 to 1962. Based on an analysis of the historic change data for such period, the appropriate historic erosion rate for the project site is -2.3 feet per year. In reaching the foregoing conclusion, the Council's contention that pre-1919 survey data should be rejected in deriving an historic change rate because the construction of Government Cut had, by 1927, interrupted a littoral supply of sand in the neighborhood of 200,000 to 400,000 cubic yards of sand to the south has not been overlooked. However, the more credible proof demonstrates that the littoral transport of sand along this area of Florida's coast is approximately 10,000 cubic yards per year, and that little of that sand ever reached Key Biscayne. Accordingly, the construction of Government Cut had little, if any, impact on Key Biscayne. Also, notable to this conclusion is the fact that an analysis of the historic change rate from 1913 to 1962 calculates an historic erosion rate of -2.5 feet per year, an insignificant difference from that calculated for the period of 1851 to 1962, and the existence of an erosional trend at the central portion of Key Biscayne prior to the construction of Government Cut. Following the establishment of an historic erosion rate, the next step in assessing the expected location of the seasonal high-water line in 30 years in situations where, as here, the beach has been renourished, is a consideration of the effect and performance of such renourishment project. The importance of this analysis cannot be gainsaid, since a beach nourishment project may behave differently than the natural beach, as the nourishment may erode faster or slower than the natural beach or it may accrete. Factors which may cause a beach nourishment project to behave differently than the natural beach include project design, such as the length and width of the project, the seaward slope of the fill material, and the nature of the fill material; and, natural and manmade factors, such as offshore shoals, jetties, and breakwaters. The length and width of a project is very significant in terms of how long the project will remain in place. A project which is short in length will have a tendency to erode at a faster rate than a long project or the natural beach. This loss, referred to as "end losses" or "spreading-out losses," is not necessarily a loss of material from the system, but rather a redistribution of the sediment to the outer edges of the nourishment project. These spreading-out losses are caused by the project's exposure to waves that occur from offshore. As a nourishment project is exposed to waves, it reacts to the force of those waves by spreading out in an alongshore direction, resulting in a reduction in the overall width of the project. A longer project, such as the nourishment project in the existent case, will erode from the ends more slowly than a small project and, consequently, maintain its width and life for a greater period of time. The seaward slope of the nourished beach will also affect the project's performance. When a nourishment project is constructed, the seaward slope of the beach may initially be steeper than the slope which existed prior to nourishment, and may be irregular in shape compared to the natural shoreline. During the slope adjustment process, gravity and waves act on the shoreline to create a more natural slope and shape. During this process, the upland portion of the beach, as well as any irregularities in the shoreline, will experience shoreline recession, with the material being redistributed along shore and offshore. This adjustment process, and the effects it will have on the project's performance, may extend over several years after nourishment is completed. The grain size of the material used in the nourishment project can also affect the performance of the project. If the sediments used to construct the nourishment project are essentially of the same grain size and quality of the sediments which existed on the natural beach, then the nourished beach can be expected to perform, after initial slope adjustment, in much the same manner as the natural beach.. Natural features or manmade structures which may affect the performance of the nourishment project include the shoreline and offshore characteristics of the area that can increase or slow the rate at which the material may otherwise erode, or a groin or natural feature that would tend to confine the project and prevent or minimize spreading-out losses. Here, the nourishment project is a long project, approximately 10,000 feet in length. This factor will contribute favorably to the project's longevity. The material used in the nourishment project is very similar to that which existed on the natural beach. Therefore, after initial slope adjustment, the nourished beach should perform in a manner similar to the natural beach. Finally, the portion of the beach fronting the hotel is bordered to the north and south by areas which are historically stable or accreting. This factor should stabilize the ends of the project, and reduce the alongshore spread which would otherwise occur. In sum, after the slope and shoreline have adjusted to a natural profile and shape, the nourishment project should perform in a manner very similar to the pre-nourishment beach. While the nourishment project should ultimately perform similar to the pre-nourished beach, little time has elapsed since completion of the project for slope and shoreline adjustment or to demonstrate stabilization. Here, the nourished beach was profiled by man (bulldozers), with the reprofiling in she area of the hotel being completed around July 20, 1987. The Hotel submitted its application for the subject permit on January 14, 1988, together with a survey of the area dated August 1, 1987. Based on this survey, DNR proposes to establish the 30-year seasonal high-water line by horizontally shifting the profile depicted on the survey in a landward direction. To predict the performance of the beach nourishment over time, the Hotel offered the results of an analytical computer model run by Dr. Robert Dean, an expert in coastal and oceanographic engineering and coastal processes. That model predicts spreading-out losses," and considers site specific factors that will affect the nourishment project, including pre-existing shoreline conditions, size and quality of the beach fill, volume, length of the project, conditions at the end of the fill, and the affect of wave forces on the coast. The wave data relied upon by Dr. Dean to drive his model was derived from a wave gauge located just north of Government Cut. The wave characteristics at Key Biscayne are, however, dissimilar to those experienced off Miami Beach due to the wave damping characteristics of the offshore area of Key Biscayne. While dissimilar, Dr. Dean opined that the data from Miami Beach could be reliably used as a conservative estimate of the force of waves at Key Biscayne, and that his model would, thereby, present a worst case scenario or prediction of spreading-out loss of sediment on the nourished beach. Based on such analysis, Dr. Dean predicted that shoreline recession on the nourished beach, attributable to spreading-out losses, would amount to 28 feet over the next 30 years, most of which would occur in the early years of the project. When combined with the historic change rate of -2.3 feet per year for 30 years, Dr. Dean calculates that 97 feet of erosion will occur at the subject site over a 30-year period, and that at the end of that period the proposed addition will be 102 feet landward of the seasonal high-water line. DNR also made an erosion projection to predict the performance of the beach nourishment over time. In its analysis, DNR relied on monitoring data Dade County had gathered regarding the performance of the project. Such data measured, at various monuments, the amount of accretion or erosion that had occurred within the first 6 months of the project, and the amount of accretion or erosion that had occurred over the next 12 months of the project. The data was not, however, complete for all monuments within 3,000 feet of the hotel, and was otherwise unpersuasive for reasons hereinafter discussed. In performing its analysis, DNR chose to focus on one monument, PL-5- DC, which is located 200 feet north of the hotel. The data at that monument showed that within the first six months the mean high-water line (MHWL) had receded 22 feet, and that over the next 12 months it had receded an additional 10 feet. Assuming a constant rate of erosion based on those two time points, DNR concluded that initial slope adjustment or stabilization would occur within four years, and that shoreline recession on the nourished beach over that 4-year period would amount to -41.6 feet. When combined with an historic change rate of -2.3 feet for the next 26 years, DNR's methodology calculates that 101.4 feet of erosion will occur at the subject site over a 30-year period, and that at the end of that period the proposed addition will be 99 feet landward of the seasonal high-water line. 7/ While Dr. Dean's model and DNR's analysis of Dade County data may yield similar results, neither methodology is, under the circumstances of this case, persuasive proof of how the nourishment project will perform or where the 30-year seasonal high-water line will be located. Here, the proof demonstrates that Key Biscayne enjoys a low-energy environment, and that the only force of significance ordinarily exerted along its coast occurs during the winter months when northeasters impact its shoreline. It is this wave energy that would, under normal circumstances, mold or adjust the seaward slope and shoreline of the nourishment project until it reached a more natural slope and shoreline, and after which the rate of erosion would be consistent with the historic change rate. However, since completion of the nourishment project, Key Biscayne has enjoyed unusually mild weather conditions, and the usual winter storms have not occurred. Consequently, the nourishment project has yet to be subjected to the forces of nature which can be reasonably expected to ultimately mold or adjust its seaward slope and shoreline. DNR's conclusion that the nourishment project will reach stability within four years, based on its analysis of the meager data provided by Dade County, is simply unpersuasive. That data, which appears on page 6 of DNR's exhibit 5, showed that at monument PL-5-DC the MHWL had receded 22 feet in the first six months of project existence and 10 feet over the course of the next 12 months. Based solely on these two measurements, DNR calculated a straight line decreasing rate of erosion to conclude that within four years the project would erode at the historic change rate. DNR's methodology and assumption, based on only two points of measure within the first 18 months of project existence, is not credible or persuasive proof of how the nourishment project will perform, and is rendered even less persuasive In view of the mild weather that affected Key Biscayne during such time period. Dr. Dean's opinion, based on his analytical computer model, which assessed shoreline recession on the nourished beach attributable to spreading- out losses, is likewise unpersuasive proof of how the nourishment project will perform. While Dr. Dean considered spreading-out losses and the historic change rate in reaching his conclusion, he failed to address offshore losses of sediment that will occur as the seaward slope of the project adjusts to a more natural profile. Here, the proof demonstrates that the seaward slope was constructed much more steeply than the natural slope, and that in the first 18 months of project existence significant quantities of fill have been lost offshore. At monument PL-5-DC the slope remains steep. Notably, while Dr. Dean calculated a spreading-out loss for the life of the project of 28 feet under what he termed a worse case scenario of wave height, the MHWL at the nourishment project has already receded 32 feet, under mild weather conditions, in the first 18 months of existence. Compared with Dr. Dean's and DNR's conclusions, the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), which designed the nourishment project, calculated a loss rate of approximately 22,000 cubic yards of fill each year. Should the project perform consistent with the Corps' estimate of project life, it will have receded to the Dade County erosion control line within 10 years, and over the course of the next 20 years to a point such that the proposed addition would lie seaward of the 30-year seasonal high-water line. Under the circumstances of this case, a calculation of the probable location of the 30-year seasonable high-water line, based on the Corps' estimate of the performance of the nourishment project, is more compelling than that of Dr. Dean or DNR. 8/ Impact on the beach and dune system Where, as here, construction is proposed seaward of the CCCL, Section 161.053(5)(a)3, Florida Statutes, requires DNR to consider the potential impacts which the location of the proposed structures or activities may have on the beach-dune system. That system includes the beach, the dunes, and the overwash areas, which are interrelated by the sediment erosion and accretion process. 9/ DNR's analysis of potential impacts to the beach-dune system includes both short-term and long-term impacts of proposed construction. Short-term impacts are those which may arise during construction of a project and are often a concern in sensitive areas, such as those areas characterized by natural dune features and dune-stabilizing vegetation. Long-term impacts of a project may include increased flooding caused by a lowering of dunes and increased erosion caused by a lowering of dunes or by a net loss of sand from the beach-dune system. Impact to the beach-dune system can also be caused by increased pedestrian traffic associated with the construction of a major habitable structure. Pedestrian-caused impacts are, however, a potential concern only in areas where there are dune features and stabilizing vegetation which could be destroyed. In the absence, of these dune features, pedestrian traffic has no significant impact to the beach-dune system. Here, the site of the proposed construction does not have any prominent dune features or stabilizing dune features or stabilizing dune vegetation. In fact, the site is the present location of an asphalt parking lot, which extends 40 feet seaward of the footprint of the proposed construction. Construction of the project will not result in any net excavation of material. Since dunes will not be lowered and there will be no net loss of material, there will be no increased flooding or erosion caused by the project. Under such circumstances, the proof demonstrates that there will be no long-term or short-term impacts to the beach-dune system occasioned by the project. Adverse cumulative impact on the beach-dune system Section 161.053(5)(a)3, Florida Statutes, also requires DNR to assess the potential cumulative impacts to the beach-dune system that may be caused by construction seaward of the CCCL. Here, the proof demonstrates that the proposed project, either singularly or in combination with other existing or similar projects, would not have any adverse impact to the beach-dune system. Impact on adjacent property Construction activities proposed for a location seaward of the CCCL are also analyzed by DNR to assess their impact on adjacent properties. Rule 16B-33.007(2), Florida Administrative Code. Such analysis includes a determination of whether construction activities will be confined on-site; whether a lowering of dunes will occur such that increased flooding on adjacent property could occur; whether elevations on the proposed construction site will be lowered such that flooding of adjacent property could occur; and whether proposed construction, in the event of a major storm event, would potentially increase erosion on adjacent property. Here, the proof demonstrates that construction activities will be confined on site, there will be no lowering of the dunes or elevations, and that there will be no net excavation of materials such that any increased risk of flooding or erosion could occur to either the project site or to adjacent properties. Interference with public beach access One purpose of CCCL permitting is to preserve public beach access. Sections 161.053(1) and (5)(e), Florida Statutes. "Public access" is defined as "the public's right to laterally traverse the sandy beaches of this state where such access exists on or after July 1, 1987." Section 161.021(1), Florida Statutes. The public presently does not have east-west access to the beach at the Sonesta Beach Hotel, and is not entitled to such access by law. The Hotel does not propose to hinder existing north-south (shore parallel/lateral) beach access, and the proposed project would not impede such access until the seasonal high-water line receded to the project. 10/ While the project might limit lateral access at times once the seasonal high-water line recedes, such impact would be de minimis in the instant case since construction of the project would not be seaward of existing structures on the Hotel's property. Compliance with local zoning requirements In order for a permit application to be deemed complete, an applicant must provide DNR with written evidence, provided by the appropriate local governmental-agency having jurisdiction over the activity, that the proposed development does not contravene local setback requirements or zoning or building codes. Rule 16B-33.008(2)(c), Florida Administrative Code. By letter dated February 10, 1988, the Hotel submitted to DNR a letter from Metropolitan Dade County's Department of Building and Zoning which indicated that the site plan for the proposed project was consistent with existent regulations. On April 21, 1988, DNR deemed the Hotel's application complete. While not contesting the consistency of the proposed project with local regulations at the time the Hotel's application was deemed complete, the Council contends that subsequent events have rendered its proposal inconsistent with such regulations. In this regard, the proof demonstrates that the Hotel received site plan approval for the proposed addition from Dade County in November 1988, but that its application for a bull ding permit was denied and returned to the Hotel for further action. To date the Hotel has not sought to further process such application with the County. On April 4, 1989, Dade County enacted Ordinance No. 89-23, effective April 14, 1989, relating to construction seaward of the CCCL on Key Biscayne. Pertinent to this case, the ordinance prohibits the new construction of major habitual structures and severely restricts the construction of nonhabitable structures seaward of the CCCL, absent a variance. At hearing, no proof was offered that any portion of the proposed project would qualify for a variance, or that the nonhabitable portion of the project complied with the requirements of the new ordinance. 11/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying the Hotel's application to construct and excavate seaward of the CCCL. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 5th day of September 1989. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of September, 1989.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner must forfeit his vested benefits in the Florida Retirement System (FRS), pursuant to section 112.3173(3), Florida Statutes, due to Respondent's commission of an act of extortion, as defined in section 836.05, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has lived for much of his life in West Palm Beach. Petitioner's family owned a Pepsi-Cola bottling company in West Palm Beach until selling it five or six years ago. Petitioner started with the company as a truck driver and eventually served as a vice-president. Petitioner served as a locally elected official in West Palm Beach for nearly 20 years. Petitioner was elected commissioner of the Board of Commissioners of the City of West Palm Beach and served for 12 years. Subsequently, he was elected and reelected commissioner of the Board of County Commissioners of Palm Beach County. Petitioner was prevented by term limits from serving beyond his second four-year term, which was due to end in December 2010. However, Petitioner resigned from the county commission five months earlier after he pleaded guilty to, and was adjudicated guilty of, the extortion that is described below. Petitioner had planned to retire from public office after finishing his term in December 2010. In his early 60s and evidently secure financially, Petitioner looked forward to retirement, during which he planned to volunteer in the community and play with his grandchildren. In the final year of his final term in public office, Petitioner busied himself with--or, perhaps more aptly, obsessed over--one major piece of unfinished business: the South Cove Restoration Project. The South Cove Restoration Project is an ecological restoration project in the Lake Worth Lagoon in downtown West Palm Beach. The Lake Worth Lagoon is a 20-mile long body of water in central Palm Beach County. Located just east of Flagler Drive and north of the Royal Park Bridge, the South Cove Restoration Project's primary sponsor is Palm Beach County, although the state has provided funds and the City of West Palm Beach and the Florida Inland Navigation District are also identified as project "partners." The project consists of the creation of two acres of mangrove/spartina habitat, 3.5 acres of potential seagrass habitat, and one acre of rock revetment/oyster reef. The project also includes a 565-foot elevated boardwalk running from the sidewalk along Flagler Drive to the largest mangrove island and a 16-foot square observation deck. Lastly, the project includes the capping of an old dredge hole with clean sand. This will reduce turbidity in the adjacent water column by preventing the continual resuspension of fine-grained particles that tend to collect in the dredge hole. For many years, water-quality issues in the Lake Worth Lagoon have received the attention of state, regional, and local officials, including Petitioner. For a couple of years, Petitioner had served as the county representative to, and chair of, a consortium of governmental entities that had formed the Lake Worth Lagoon Initiative (Initiative). Members of the Initiative have been drawn from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the South Florida Water Management District, the Palm Beach County chapter of the League of Cities, and Palm Beach County. The mission of the Initiative is to restore water quality in the lagoon by obtaining and providing funding from various sources for projects to address such issues as water quality, habitat, and pollution-control. The Initiative has supported the South Cove Restoration Project, which is located to the south of a larger project recently undertaken by the City of West Palm Beach to dredge the Intracoastal Waterway adjacent to Flagler Drive as part of extensive renovations of an old city marina. The dredge spoil from the city marina project will provide the fill for the dredge hole in the South Cove Restoration Project. The South Cove Restoration Project was first identified in 1997 as a Surface Water Improvement and Management project. In August 2008, the Department of Environmental Protection proposed to issue the permits necessary for the project's construction and operation. Trump Plaza challenged the proposed permits in DOAH Case No. 08-4752, and Flagler Center Properties, LLP, intervened on the side of Trump Plaza. Trump Plaza is the owner- association of two 30-story condominium buildings, and Flagler Center Properties is the owner of two eight- or nine-story office buildings. Due to the proximity of their buildings to the South Cove Restoration Project, both parties challenged the project on the grounds of, among other things, the potential obstruction of their view and the unreasonable infringement on their qualified rights to a dock. These properties and the uplands adjoining the South Cove Restoration Project are all entirely within the city limits of the City of West Palm Beach. This litigation delayed the issuance of the permits by 15 months. However, in September 2009, an Administrative Law Judge issued a recommended order approving the permits, and, in November 2009, the Department of Environmental Protection issued the final order issuing the permits. Members of the Johnson family own Flagler Center Properties. Like the Koonses, the Johnsons have lived in West Palm Beach for many years. The eldest Johnson is of the age of Petitioner's parents, and Petitioner knew the next generation of Johnsons, as they grew up together in West Palm Beach. The third generation of Johnsons and Koonses even attend the same school. But all of these relationships notwithstanding, at least certain members of the Johnson family with ownership interests in Flagler Center Properties have opposed at least certain aspects of the South Cove Restoration Project. The extortion occurred late in the approval process for the South Cove Restoration Project. The two acts of extortion took place in the six weeks before a vote by city commissioners to allow a fourth wheelchair-ramp access to be constructed from the existing sidewalk, over the seawall, and onto the boardwalk. The city commission vote took place on June 17 or 19, 2010. As expected, the city commissioners unanimously approved the fourth wheelchair ramp. Within a few days after the city vote, the last project sponsor to commit funds--the board of the Florida Inland Navigation District--approved its $1.5 million contribution. Evidently, the District vote was even more of a certainty that the city vote because--to the extent that Petitioner's extortion was designed to ensure final passage of the South Cove Restoration Project--Petitioner's concern, at the time of the extortion, was the city vote, not the District vote. In anticipation of the city vote, on May 6, 2010, at 9:14 a.m., Petitioner called the Johnson family attorney to discuss the Johnson family's continued objection to the project, especially the boardwalk. Petitioner failed to reach the attorney, so he left a voicemail. After a brief greeting, Petitioner demanded that the attorney send Petitioner immediately a memo outlining the remaining objections of the Johnson family to the South Cove Restoration Project. And if you don't--then I'm going to do a Public Records Request to the City of West Palm Beach on this. Dean, just for the heads up, good friend of mine, I'm going to work as hard as I've ever worked in twenty years of public service to take the Johnsons through the ringer on this if they don't support the City of West Palm Beach. I'll have kids picketing at the building and what I'm going to say is they want [a] marina instead of an island. I told you, this is very personal for me. Okay. This is something I really, really want. After twenty years I want the Johnsons to step away and congratulate me personally on all the work I've done. Okay? I have no idea why they're trying to fuck me on the deal but this is very personal. I'm going to work five [sic] hours a day for the next six weeks. I'm going to leverage every possible person, program--I have to get a five-oh vote out of the City Commission. It's very personal, Dean. So, I can't understand why they want to do it ultimately, I want them to say we've [sic] love to have this project. I'm going to door to door at every tenant in the building and throw them under the fucking bus. I'm going to say they want a marina out here versus a public island. I'm going to the FBI--I'm going to the Foundation. I'm going to every tenant in the building. I'm going to see if I have a banking relationship with anybody in there. I want this done and it's a personal thing for me. Shortly after this voicemail, Petitioner instructed a county employee to visit the Flagler Center Properties' site and photograph dead trees and the property's stormwater outfall. The record is not reliably developed on these points, except to the extent that these two issues are mentioned in Petitioner's next voicemail to the Johnson family attorney, which took place after the photographs were taken. To dispel any doubt of his seriousness, Petitioner called the Johnson family attorney again on June 9, 2010, at 6:18 pm: Hey, it's Koons. Just wondering, are the Johnsons still fighting that island on the maintenance issue? I was just wondering because I don't know if you noticed the dead trees that they have in their building in downtown West Palm Beach. Can't even take care of their own property with the dead trees. I don't know why they're worrying about maintenance on something else [the South Cove Restoration Project]. Anyway, also, do you have a map of where their stormwater goes? I was just trying to think if they were ever under a pre- treatment of their stormwater that goes off, I think, right where that island is going to be. Anyway, just let me know. Let me know if you want me to call Code Enforcement or what you want me to do. Thanks. By Information dated August 3, 2010, the State of Florida alleged that Petitioner "on or between May 6, 2010, and June 17, 2010, . . . did either verbally or by a written or printed communication, maliciously threaten an injury to the reputation of [the Johnson family] with intent to compel the persons so threatened . . . to do any act or refrain from doing any act against their will, contrary to Florida Statute 836.05 (2 DEG FEL)". The Information also alleges two misdemeanors that are irrelevant to this case. After three interviews with the authorities, Petitioner resigned from the county commission on August 3, 2010. The next day, Petitioner pleaded guilty to extortion and the two misdemeanors, and the court adjudicated Petitioner guilty of all three offenses and sentenced him to five years' county probation for the extortion and fined him $10,000 for the extortion. There is no evidence whatsoever that Petitioner extorted the Johnson family for personal financial gain. He had already declined to run for another elected office, so the record does not support a finding that he engaged in this extortion for his personal political gain. There is no evidence whatsoever that Petitioner engaged in this extortion for any other personal purposes, including obtaining wheelchair access for a family member or obtaining improper sexual advantage. It is difficult to find that Petitioner engaged in this extortion to cement some sort of personal legacy. The South Cove Restoration Project is not an exceptionally large project, in terms of water quality impacts. It appears to have already been named, so general naming rights--to paraphrase a theater critic, the graffiti of the political/philanthropic class--do not seem to be involved. (Charles Isherwood, "The Graffiti of the Philanthropic Class," N.Y. Times, December 2, 2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/02/theater/02ishe.html). As noted above, the sole practical concern of Petitioner, at the time of the acts of extortion, was the city vote on the fourth wheelchair ramp. But this vote was a near certainty and concerned an inconsequential matter--a fourth wheelchair ramp--that would not have prevented the project from going forward. Some proponents of the project even believed that the city vote was unnecessary, and a fourth ramp could have been located nearby at a location not within the jurisdiction of the city. Almost all that is left to explain the extortion is Petitioner's characterization of his acts, which he admitted were driven by anger, frustration, and stupidity. The narcissistic demands in the first voicemail that the Johnson family pay public homage to Petitioner and the eerie passive- aggressive nature of the second suggest pride to the point of hubris. But nothing else--except, of course, anger and stupidity. At all material times, Petitioner was in FRS-covered employment, owned vested FRS benefits, and had not filed for FRS retirement benefits. By letter dated November 8, 2010, Respondent advised Petitioner that he had forfeited his FRS benefits when he entered a guilty plea to the felony of extortion. He timely requested a hearing.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Retirement Services enter a final order determining that Petitioner's acts of extortion, described above, do not constitute grounds for forfeiture of his FRS pension. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of August, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 8th day of August, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Sarabeth Snuggs, Director Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Post Office Box 9000 Tallahassee, Florida 32315-9000 Jason Dimitris, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Geoffrey M. Christian, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Mark A. Emanuele, Esquire Panza, Maurer and Maynard, P.A. Bank of America Building, Third Floor 3600 North Federal Highway Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308
The Issue Petitioners challenged the Department of Environmental Protection's (Department) preliminary Final Order, alleging that Petitioners committed the "unauthorized clearing and destruction of dunes and dune vegetation for the purposes of constructing a roadway seaward of the coastal construction control line [(CCCL)] without benefit of a permit." The ultimate issue is whether the work Petitioners performed was seaward of the CCCL, and if it was, whether there was a violation of Amended Permit FR-563 and Section 161.053(2), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioner, Ben Withers, Inc., is a Florida corporation doing business in the State of Florida. Petitioner, Ben Withers, is the President and owner of Ben Withers, Inc., and a resident of Panacea, Florida. (Henceforth, Ben Withers and Ben Withers, Inc., are referred to collectively as "Mr. Withers," unless otherwise noted.) Mr. Withers is a licensed general contractor. The Department is the executive agency of the State of Florida operating pursuant to, among others, Chapter 161, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 62, Florida Administrative Code. Pursuant to Chapter 161, Florida Statutes, the Department administers the CCCL program for construction activities seaward of the CCCL. Coastal Construction Control Line Program The Department's Bureau of Beaches and Wetland Resources regulates construction and excavation activities seaward of the CCCL. The Department is responsible for determining and setting the CCCLs. The CCCL is a scientifically established line pursuant to Section 161.053, Florida Statutes. By definition, the CCCL "defines that portion of the beach-dune system subject to severe fluctuations based on a one-hundred-year storm surge, storm waves, or other predictable weather conditions." Rule 62B-33.002(13), Florida Administrative Code. Construction and excavation activity seaward of the CCCL is regulated by Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, and Rule 62B- 33, Florida Administrative Code. Mr. Withers admitted that he is aware of Department rules regarding beaches and coastal construction and is also aware that excavation seaward of the CCCL requires a permit unless it is otherwise exempt, and that he had this knowledge prior to the present case. Accessing the Pepper Project Site Under Amended Permit FR-563 Dog Island is a barrier island south of and about three miles off the coast of Franklin County, Florida. The island is approximately eight miles in length. There is no bridge to the island. The Pepper project site is on the far western end of the island. The Gulf of Mexico borders the island on the south and St. George Sound borders the island to the north. The most common way to access the Pepper site with any vehicle carrying equipment and materials, would be to use a boat or barge to a marina area (Tyson's Harbor) near the center of the island, or a private dock, and then traverse west down the middle of the island or down the beach itself, or a combination of the two. The Easy Street Easement is an easement area for a roadway running east and west through Dog Island. The parties agree that Easy Street and the Easy Street Easement are the same. The Easy Street Easement had been an unpaved roadway years before; part of the roadway was still visible in May 2001, and other parts had been covered with vegetation. There are portions of Easy Street and Easy Way east of the cul-de-sac which are visible roadways. See, e.g., Department Exhibit 13. Additionally, parts of Easy Street are seaward of the Department's CCCL (e.g., in the narrows area which is west of the cul-de-sac) and other parts are landward of the CCCL. See, e.g., Finding of Fact 29. Pursuant to its statutory duty, in 1996, the Department set the reference monuments R-158-R-160 for the CCCL on the west end of Dog Island. These monuments are in the narrows area of the island and run west to east. The CCCL is not visible on the ground. A surveyor is needed to locate the line. The alleged violation in this case was committed between R-158 and R-160, part of the narrows area. The Easy Street Easement on Dog Island runs both north and south from The Nature Conservancy cul-de-sac and then runs westerly to the west end of Dog Island. The CCCL Permits On October 21, 1999, the Department issued Permit FR-563 to Leonard Pepper, the property owner, for the construction of a single–family dwelling and for structures associated with the dwelling on the west end of Dog Island. Permit FR-563 contained Standard Permit Conditions that required in part: (1)(a) all construction or activity for which the permit was granted be carried out in accordance with the plans and specifications which were approved by the Department as a part of the permit; (1)(b) all construction or activity authorized under the permit shall be conducted using extreme care to prevent any adverse impacts to the beach and dune system; and (1)(g) existing beach and dune topography and vegetation shall not be disturbed except as expressly authorized in the permit. Permit FR-563 did not authorize the start of construction until a construction access plan to the Pepper project site was approved, in order to minimize impacts to the beach and dune system. On October 16, 2000, Amended Permit FR-563 was issued with a Notice to Proceed Withheld. The Amended Permit also contained Special Condition 1.5 which required the submittal and approval of "[a] construction access plan showing the route and timing for bringing equipment and materials to the site, in order to minimize impacts to the beach and dune system." The Department was concerned about the manner in which equipment and materials would be brought to the project site without causing further harm to the system. Amended Permit FR-563 did not expressly or implicitly authorize excavation or grading seaward of the CCCL in any area on Dog Island off of the project site and footprint of the house. In late 2000, Mr. Withers became involved with the Pepper project after Amended Permit FR-563 (with the Notice to Proceed Withheld) was issued on October 16, 2000. Part of Mr. Withers' job responsibility was to prepare and submit a construction access plan to the Department for approval. The Department does not normally require an access plan because most job sites are located in areas with established roads for ingress and egress. Here, there was no established road to and from the project site. The access plan was necessary in order to determine how Mr. Withers would transport equipment and materials to the Pepper project site on the west end of Dog Island due to the site's remote location and the absence of an established roadway to the site. Mr. Withers expected that materials and heavy equipment, including cranes, would be off-loaded at Tyson's Harbor, located approximately in the middle of Dog Island, and transported by vehicle to the project site along the access plan route. He expected to only transport pilings using the beach access route. On March 15, 2001, Mr. Withers submitted an access plan which described the route Mr. Withers would traverse by vehicle with construction equipment and materials. See Endnote 1. The Easy Street Easement starts at the east end of the island as an established roadway. Proceeding in a westerly direction, Easy Street comes to a dead-end at a cul-de-sac landward of the CCCL. The access plan authorized Mr. Withers to access the job site using part the Easy Street/Easy Street Easement (starting on the east end of the island) going north from The Nature Conservancy cul-de-sac, then heading in a westerly direction just south of the Ausley house (west of R-158 and just landward of the CCCL) and across the narrows area and continuing in a westerly direction along the northern shoreline and in southerly direction toward R-154. The access plan then authorized Mr. Withers to proceed in a westerly direction over the middle portion of the west-end of the island, then in a southerly direction toward the project site.1 The access plan showed a route both landward and seaward of the CCCL along the narrows area. See Department Exhibit 4- orange line then blue line after the orange circle on the west-end of the island. As described by Mr. McNeal of the Department, the access route is seaward, for the most part, of the CCCL from R-157 to R- 159 (running west to east) and landward of the CCCL east of R-159. The Department described the damaged area of 5,305.6 square feet (Department Exhibit 11A, insert "B") caused by Mr. Withers as east of R-159 and seaward of the CCCL and south of the access plan route. See also Finding of Fact 35. However, it appears that a portion of Easy Street, between R-159 and R-160, is seaward of the CCCL. Compare Department Exhibit 12 with Department Exhibits 4, 11A, and 13. During a pre-hearing deposition, Mr. Withers marked in pink the route he took through a portion of the narrows area which coincides with the portion of Easy Street between the approximate locations of R-159 and R-160, depicted on Department Exhibit 12. See Finding of Fact 43. (Mr. Withers had the Easy Street Easement staked prior to doing any work on Dog Island. See Findings of Fact 33-35.) The damaged area appears to coincide with this portion of Easy Street, and seaward of the CCCL. See Department Exhibit 11A. The access plan authorized Mr. Withers to drive (vehicular traffic) his equipment over the easement following the route depicted on the access plan until he arrived at the project site. See Endnote 1. The Department expected that travel along the access route would cause minimal and temporary damage or destruction to the topography, so the plan was considered acceptable. The access plan did not authorize excavation of a roadway within the route, including the narrows area, nor did it contemplate any other activity over or around a dune other than what might occur as a result of driving.2 The Department understood that Mr. Withers would be driving daily over the access plan route to the project site. The Department assumed that trucks would be used to transport equipment and materials. The Department did not differentiate among vehicles which could be used, including large trucks. On April 11, 2001, the Department issued a Notice to Proceed to Mr. Pepper to begin construction of his single-family dwelling in accordance with Amended Permit FR-563. The access plan is part of the Amended permit. Shortly after the Notice to Proceed was issued, The Nature Conservancy advised the Department of concerns it had with the access plan. As a result, on April 24, 2001, there was a meeting in Apalachicola, Florida, convened by the Department and attended by other interested governmental entities and private persons, including Mr. Withers. The purpose of the meeting was explore other possible ways and means of access by Mr. Withers to the Pepper project site.3 No resolution was reached during the meeting and the access plan previously approved by the Department remained effective. The previously issued Notice to Proceed was also in effect. The Violations Mr. Withers hired Kenneth Greenwood of Garlick Environmental Associates to perform a threatened/endangered species inspection, plant and animal, on an approximately 30-foot wide strip on the Easy Street Easement (approximately 1,800 feet) being utilized in Mr. Withers' access plan and within the narrows area. See Department Exhibit 13-yellow markings. On May 2, 2001, Mr. Greenwood performed the inspection within the easement that Mr. Withers had staked out by a land surveyor, approximately 15 feet on either side of the stakes. He found no threatened/endangered species. (The CCCL was not staked by Mr. Withers because, according to Mr. Withers, the Department did not ask him to locate the CCCL with stakes.) The access route depicted by Mr. McNeal in orange on Department Exhibit 4, which runs east of R-159, is similar to the description of the staked areas east of R-159, described by Mr. Greenwood and marked in yellow on Department Exhibit 13. See Findings of Fact 28-29. Both areas are landward of the CCCL. However, the 5,305.6 square foot damaged area is east of R-159 and is seaward of the CCCL. Mr. Greenwood described the area where he performed his investigation as being "relatively undisturbed," "relatively stable," having no vehicle tracks, and he stated that there were areas of bare sand as well as areas of "natural beach dune vegetation." He described the area as "relatively flat with some small amounts of mounding." The pictures taken by Mr. Greenwood within the staked easement on May 2, 2001, as part of his investigation, do not depict any vehicle tracks. After Mr. Greenwood completed his investigation on May 2, 2001, he observed Mr. Withers landward of the CCCL on a front-end loader and north of the cul-de-sac, proceeding west along the Easy Street Easement scraping off the top layer of soil and heading in a westward direction. Mr. Greenwood believed that the activity performed by Mr. Withers at this time was consistent with unpaved, road construction. According to Mr. Greenwood, the width of the scraped area appeared to be approximately the width of the bucket on Mr. Withers' front-end loader. Mr. Withers stated that he was doing minor grading landward of the CCCL with a John Deere 310-E front-end loader tractor when Mr. Greenwood was present on May 2, 2001. This tractor had a front bucket (approximately seven to eight feet wide) and a backhoe for excavating dirt on the back-end. Mr. Withers described the work which he performed when Mr. Greenwood was present as moving out and smoothing off the top of the sand landward of the CCCL in order for his equipment to get through. Mr. Withers also stated that he made areas in the easement seaward of the CCCL smooth by using the bottom of the bucket of his front-end loader to move sand around. Mr. Withers mentioned that he was very concerned that he needed to have the pathway he was utilizing in the access plan marked and smoothed off and fairly level. He believed the access plan authorized him to smooth off the areas on the access route. Mr. Withers stated that he had to have the access path level because he was bringing a self-propelled, 25-ton crane down the access path and they are top heavy and can get off balance, topple over, or get stuck. Mr. Withers described two types of work that he performed in the Easy Street Easement as: 1) clearing landward of the CCCL that required scooping and moving dirt, and 2) smoothing several areas seaward of the CCCL, just east of R-158 to around R- 160. An area of excavation damage seven feet seaward of the CCCL (beginning approximately 130 feet east of R-158) and an area 41 feet seaward of the CCCL (beginning at R-159, continuing east approximately 500 feet) are located within the area Mr. Withers stated he did some "smoothing off areas," again, east of R-158 and continuing east toward, but west, of R-160. Mr. Withers believed that Amended Permit FR-563 allowed him to use the Easy Street Easement in the access plan "to do . . . whatever was necessary and . . . needed to get [his] equipment, access [his] equipment down to the job site." He also admitted smoothing the areas. Mr. Withers also stated that Amended Permit FR-563 granted him permission to access the west end of Dog Island. Therefore, there was no need for him to locate the CCCL. Mr. Withers referred to the easement in the access plan as turning into a good pathway after he smoothed the areas. Mr. Withers stated that it was his "intention to gain access to the west end of Dog Island through a legal easement and an existing roadway" and that he wanted to utilize it. Mr. Withers testified "that he knew a lot of roads on Dog Island crossed seaward of the [CCCL]" in response to questioning whether he knew at the time of his performing work on the easement, whether or not the Easy Street Easement crossed seaward of the CCCL. He knew he was going to be traversing "fairly close" to the CCCL. Mr. Withers stated he did not knowingly violate the conditions of the Amended Permit. Mr. Withers was aware of the Department's permit requirements for work seaward of the CCCL when he performed his access work in the easement on Dog Island. However, Mr. Withers never had a survey done to figure out where the CCCL was located. Notice of the Alleged Violations Around May 2, 2001, the Department received a complaint that excavation was occurring seaward of the CCCL on Dog Island in the narrows area of the Easy Street Easement. On May 4, 2001, John A. Poppel, William Fokes, and Phil Sanders went to Dog Island on behalf of the Department to investigate the complaint of excavation in the narrows area seaward of the CCCL. On May 4, 2001, Mr. Poppel performed a survey of the narrows area and located the CCCL. He located monuments R-158- R-160. Department Exhibit 11. As a product of his survey, Mr. Poppel was able to depict the newly excavated roadway or pathway in relation to the CCCL. Mr. Poppel calculated that one area of damage was seven feet seaward of the CCCL and consisted of 503.8 square feet of damage and a second area of damage was 41 feet seaward of the CCCL and consisted of 5,305.6 square feet of damage. These square foot areas represent only the disturbed areas seaward of the CCCL, not the entire area between the CCCL and the Gulf of Mexico. Both areas of damage are within the area where Mr. Withers stated that he smoothed out the sand. As part of the May 4, 2001, investigation, William Fokes, an Engineer I with the Department, took photographs of the damaged areas and prepared an inspection report. Mr. Fokes' report indicates that an approximately 11-foot wide roadway or pathway had been cleared by excavation with the most seaward extent of the road being about 40 feet seaward of the CCCL. In addition, the report states that small dunes and beach vegetation had been destroyed. Mr. Fokes described the damage as excavation or grading done by some kind of machine, which cut and uprooted vegetation and pushed sand to the side as it leveled the ground. Mr. Fokes testified that the damage did not appear to be caused by merely traversing the area. Mr. Sanders, an engineer with the Department, processes CCCL permit applications and supervises Mr. Fokes, a field engineer. On May 4, 2001, Mr. Sanders observed the narrows area in question and confirmed that it looked like a "graded road" in that "[i]t appeared in the road bed that vegetation was gone and had been pushed out to the side, graded away," and that there was "excavation" seaward of the CCCL. Mr. Sanders stated that this activity did not comply with the approved access plan. On May 7, 2001, a Notice of Violation was issued to Mr. Withers for the "the unauthorized clearing and destruction of dunes and native vegetation for the purpose of constructing a roadway seaward of the coastal construction control line." Mr. Greenwood's photographs taken May 2, 2001, when compared with Mr. Fokes' photographs taken May 4, 2001, show that no discernable roadway or pathway was present landward or seaward of the CCCL in the narrows area at the time of Mr. Greenwood's inspection on May 2, 2001. This is evident when comparing Mr. Greenwood's photograph, Exhibit 15a, taken on May 2, 2001, with Department Exhibit 16g taken on May 4, 2001--the roadway or pathway present in the May 4, 2001, photo is absent in the May 2, 2001, photograph, and the vegetation has been removed from part of the area. Comparing Mr. Greenwood's photograph, Department Exhibit 15b, taken May 2, 2001, with Department Exhibits 16c and d, taken on May 4, 2001, also shows that the roadway or pathway was not present on the narrows portion of the Easy Street Easement at the time of Mr. Greenwood's inspection. The previously mentioned pictures, which were used for a comparison, were taken by two different people on separate dates, and from approximately the same locations. Also, Department Exhibit 16j was taken 250 feet east of R-159 and within the narrows area, facing east which shows clearing approximately 40 feet seaward of the CCCL. On May 14, 2001, at the request of the Department, Ken Jones, a principal engineer with Post Buckey et al., performed a damage assessment of the narrows portion of the Easy Street Easement which was seaward of the CCCL. Mr. Jones has a bachelor's degree in civil engineering and a master's degree in physical oceanography. Mr. Jones was familiar with the narrows area having been to Dog Island for recreation during the past 20 years and as a Dog Island property owner for the last three years. Mr. Jones described the narrows area as relatively flat and located between the St. George Sound to the north and the Gulf of Mexico beaches to the south. Between these two areas, the land is undulating sand and fairly consistent vegetation. At the time of Mr. Jones' damage assessment, he determined that a road had been cut through the vegetative portion of the dune of the narrows. Mr. Jones observed cut roots and a majority of the vegetation destroyed. Mr. Jones stated it appeared that the damage was caused by a vehicle with a blade on the front. The result was the road sat down in the sand approximately four to six inches. Mr. Jones stated that the work appeared to have been recent because distinct edges were still present. Mr. Jones took photographs and compiled an inspection report as part of his damage assessment. Mr. Jones testified that the damage "was pretty consistent from both landward and seaward of the [CCCL]." The pictures labeled Department Exhibits 18a1 and 18a2 depict a level pathway or roadway barren of vegetation seaward of the CCCL. Department Exhibit 18a4 is a photograph of a typical vegetated dune. Mr. Jones took this picture in order to have a general idea of what the vegetation coverage was in order to get an idea from a cost-estimating perspective. Mr. Jones's cost estimate for repairing the damage to the narrows area seaward of the CCCL, was approximately $7,500.00.4 Mr. Jones calculated the $7,500.00 by making an estimate of what it would cost to buy coastal vegetation, and by estimating what it would cost to employ laborers to hand rake the sand back into position and to plant the vegetation. Administrative Fine and Damages Jim Martinello, an environmental manager in charge of enforcement and compliance with the Bureau, used Mr. Jones' damage assessment estimate for informational purposes in assessing the damages amount for the narrows area. Mr. Martinello calculated the administrative fine and damages in accordance with Section 161.054, Florida Statues, and Rules 62B-54.002 and 62B-54.003, Florida Administrative Code. Rule 62B-54.002, Florida Administrative Code, provides that the Department shall assess fines for willful violations of, or refusing to comply with, for example, Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, and the fine should be sufficient to ensure immediate and continued compliance. In determining the actual fine within the range, the Department shall consider the offender's past violations, if any, and other aggravating or mitigating circumstances. Aggravating circumstances include prior knowledge of rules. Mitigating circumstances may be considered. Id. Mr. Withers had knowledge prior to the issuance of Amended Permit FR-563 of Department rules regarding permit requirements for construction activities seaward of the CCCL. On October 4, 1996, Mr. Withers, on behalf of Ben Withers Construction Company, was issued a warning letter for possible unauthorized construction seaward of the CCCL. This matter was resolved by entering into a consent order. On October 29, 1997, Mr. Withers, on behalf of Ben Withers Construction Company, was issued a warning letter for possible permit violation seaward of the CCCL. On November 13, 1997, Mr. Withers was issued a warning letter for possible unauthorized construction seaward of the CCCL. On October 27, 2000, Mr. Withers wrote a letter to Mr. McNeal indicating that he believed that the Easy Street Easement on Dog Island heading south from The Nature Conservancy cul-de- sac, then west to the west end of Dog Island, is landward of the CCCL and, therefore, no permit was necessary to reopen and use the easement, but he would have a surveyor establish the control line prior to work commencing. On November 7, 2000, Phil Sanders replied by letter to Mr. Withers' October 27, 2000 letter, in which Mr. Sanders reminded Mr. Withers of the pertinent rules and laws and suggested that Mr. Withers have the CCCL surveyed. On December 20, 2000, Mr. Martinello sent Mr. Withers an advisory letter informing him that the area he traversed (on July 2000) on the south route of the Easy Street Easement from the cul- de-sac on Dog Island was considered to be a dune as defined by Rule 62B-33.002, Florida Administrative Code. However, Mr. Martinello further advised that the Department did not take any action because "the traversing [did not] cause any substantial damage, it was minimal damage." In regard to the present case, it is more than a fair inference that Mr. Withers had specific knowledge of the CCCL and the Department's laws and rules, and that he knew excavation was not authorized seaward of the CCCL. The information in the prior Findings of Fact was used by the Department, and specifically Mr. Martinello, to determine that the harm to the beach resource or potential harm was major, and the administrative fine assessed was $7,500.00. However, part of Mr. Martinello's determination was predicated on Mr. Jones' assessment that the site one narrows violation was approximately 700 feet in length when, in fact, the area was approximately 500 feet in length, which explains in part the disparity between a 9,800 square foot area and the proven 5,305.6 square foot area. See Finding of Fact 78 and Endnote 4. Even the additional amount of damage of 503.8 square feet for the site two narrows area, when viewed in the aggregate, is significantly less than Mr. Jones' assessment of damages by square feet. (Mr. Martinello used the Jones' assessment as a guideline. Mr. Martinello says that the mistake did not alter his decision, although he was unaware of the mistake until the final hearing. He also says that Mr. Jones recommended a higher damage amount than the $5,000.00 assessed by the Department in its preliminary Final Order. He did--$7,500.00 for 9,800 square feet of damage.) Grossly negligent or knowing violations of statutes and Department rules regarding coastal construction seaward of the CCCL, which result "in harm to sovereignty lands seaward of mean high water or to beaches, shores, or coastal or beach-dune system(s), including animal, plant or aquatic life thereon," shall be considered in determining damages. Rule 62B-54.003(1), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 62B-54.003(2), Florida Administrative Code, provides that a damage amount greater than the minimum amounts may be assessed to ensure, immediate and continued compliance and the Department may consider, e.g., the need for restoration and the damaged ecological resource. The Department determined that the violation was knowing based on the factors mentioned above. The Department also considered the need for restoration and the damage to ecological resources and whether the amount would ensure immediate and continued compliance. Id. The Department determined that there was harm to the resource and that it was major and knowing. The Department proposed to assess the minimum damage amount of $5,000.00. On January 11, 2002, the Department entered a preliminary Final Order for the unauthorized grading and destruction of dunes and dune vegetation seaward of the control line for the purpose of constructing a roadway. The amount assessed in the Final Order was $12,500.00, $7,500.00 in administrative fines and $5,000.00 in damages, as described above. As noted, there has been harm to the beach area resource seaward of the CCCL and the Department proved the need for restoration and the damage to the ecological resource. In mitigation, Mr. Withers' construction access plan was approved by the Department. The Department knew that Mr. Withers intended to use the access route, which ran seaward of the CCCL from approximately R-157 to R-159 (except for a small portion between R-158 and R-159) in the narrows area; that Mr. Withers planned to transport equipment and materials by truck using the access route and necessarily would traverse seaward of the CCCL; and that he would continuously use the access route until the project was completed. The actual damaged area is less than originally determined by Mr. Jones, thus the need for restoration reduced. Mr. Jones, without the benefit of a survey, estimated the total cost to restore the damaged area of 9,800 square feet to be approximately $7,500.00. The total square feet of damage proven in this proceeding is 5,809.4 square feet in the narrows area and the Department is requesting $12,500.00 in fines and damages. Based on an approximate ratio of square feet and dollars needed to restore, a damage assessment in the amount of $4,500.00 is appropriate. Balancing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, a fine of $3,500.00 is appropriate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a final order be rendered as follows: That a final order be issued adopting this Recommended Order; and Within 30 days of a final order being effective, Petitioners shall pay a fine of $3,500.00 and $4,500.00 in damages with the total amount of $8,000.00, to the Department of Environmental Protection. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of January, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES A. STAMPELOS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 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 9th day of January, 2003.
The Issue Should discipline be imposed on Respondent's Florida Educator's Certificate No. 878226, based upon the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint, Case No. 034-0140-Q, before the State of Florida, Education Practices Commission?
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate No. 878226, covering the areas of chemistry, which is valid through June 30, 2004.2/ At all times pertinent hereto, the Respondent was employed as a science teacher at Gulf Coast High School Charter, in the Escambia County School District. STIPULATED FACTS Gulf Coast High School (GCHS) conducted a field trip to Pensacola Beach on May 10, 2002. No certified lifeguards were employed by GCHS for the May 10, 2002 beach field trip. GCHS conducted a similar field trip to Pensacola Beach in April 2001. For the April 2001 (trip), GCHS claims it employed two certified lifeguards. Fifty-eight students attended the May 10, 2002 beach field trip. The following eight GCHS employees accompanied the students to the beach: Russell D. Bourne, Transportation Supervisor --"Mr. Bo" Deanna Jones, Science Teacher Felicia Churchwell, English Teacher Anthony Bassett, Social Studies Teacher Alphonso Lewis, Behavioral Tech Minnie Robertson, Secretary/Attendance Clerk Ray Steven White, Student Services Specialist Melvin Burnett, Behavioral Tech Mr. Burnett left the field trip around lunch time, before the drowning took place. For each student attending the beach field trip, parents signed a field trip authorization form and attached a $5.00 payment for expenses. The beach field trip form specifically stated the student would be going to the beach and that a "certified lifeguard would be on duty." Although the field trip was planned by Assistant Principal Kevin Jones, the person in charge at the beach was Felicia Churchwell, a second-year English teacher. Ms. Deanna Jones took no part in planning the field trip. Both Assistant Principal Kevin Jones and Trip Supervisor Churchwell attended last year's beach trip (the 2001 trip) and knew lifeguards were on duty at that time. Neither Assistant Principal Kevin Jones, nor any other employee of GCHS polled students to ascertain whether students could or could not swim. Neither Assistant Principal Kevin Jones, nor any other employee of GCHS polled employees to ascertain whether the employees attending the field trip could or could not swim. Prior to leaving the school on May 10, 2002, the fifty-eight students were shown the safety video: A Safe Visit to the Beach. The video described the meaning of the beach flag system and provided information on how to manage dangerous surf conditions such as rip tides. Aside from a viewing of the video, Assistant Principal Kevin Jones' only other precautionary instruction to the students was that they were not to go into the water deeper than their navels. The students boarded two GCHS buses and were taken to the gulf side of the beach near the entrance to Fort Pickens. They arrived at the beach at approximately 10:30 a.m. Ms. Deanna Jones immediately advised Ms. Churchwell and other staff that no lifeguards were on duty and yellow flags were flying. Ms. Churchwell stated that she was not concerned that a lifeguard was not present. Students remained in the water for nearly an hour and a half before being called out of the water for a lunch break. All students left the water for lunch. The students were permitted to return to the water following the lunch break at approximately 12:45 p.m. Two staff members, Ms. Deanna Jones and Mr. Alphonso Lewis, stayed at the pavilion. Mr. Lewis was cleaning up from lunch and Ms. Jones was watching the students who were still eating. The remaining staff members returned to the beach to monitor the students who were either sitting or standing near the water's edge observing the students. Some students began to go out into deeper water, venturing beyond the sandbar approximately ten to fifteen yards from shore. At that time Social Science teacher Anthony Bassett began to yell to the students to get out of the water. Students Isaiah Baker, Colan White, Johnny Smith, Ryan Dumas and the decedent, Earl Beasley, were together in the water. No staff person observed the decedent in any danger. No staff person observed the decedent drown. Staff at the beach determined the decedent was missing only after students leaving the water indicated the decedent was missing. Initially GCHS staff believed the decedent could have been in the rest room. When the decedent could not be located, Anthony Bassett called 911. No GCHS personnel, except Alphonso Lewis, entered the water to search for the decedent. Mr. Lewis traveled to the sand bar, but was discouraged from going further by another GCHS employee due to the dangerous surf. Mr. White searched the water visually through the zoom feature on his camera. Rescue personnel arrived with jet skis about ten minutes after the 911 call was made. The decedent's body was found submerged ten to fifteen minutes later approximately fifty yards off shore. Rescue personnel performed CPR at the scene and Life Flight took the decedent to Gulf Breeze Hospital. Earl Beasley was pronounced dead thirty minutes later. ADDITIONAL FACTS On February 26, 2002, Respondent commenced her employment at GCHS. During employment at GCHS Respondent had not been told about school policies in relation to serving as a chaperone on a field trip for the student body. The persons responsible for planning the May 10, 2002 outing for the school were Kevin Jones, the assistant principal, and Felicia Churchwell, an English teacher. Mr. Jones and Ms. Churchwell did not delegate to Respondent any planning or organizational responsibilities associated with the field trip. In that connection, Respondent was not called upon to determine whether the students could swim. Respondent was not called upon to arrange for a lifeguard to be in attendance at the outing. Assistant Principal Jones did not attend the field trip. Ms. Churchwell was placed in charge of the field trip and served as supervisor at the beach. Respondent had no supervisory authority or control over other persons who served as chaperones on the field trip. Respondent was required by Assistant Principal Jones to attend the field trip as a chaperone. Assistant Principal Jones had informed Respondent of the duty to act as chaperone a couple of days before the field trip. It was the intent of Assistant Principal Jones that all students who would participate in the field trip watch the video on safety. After the students watched the video Mr. Jones told the students that they should not go deeper in the water than their belly buttons. Earl Beasley did not view the safety video. But he was allowed to go on the field trip. There is no indication in the record that Respondent participated in the decision to allow Mr. Beasley to participate in the outing without a knowledge of the instruction presented in the safety video. When the party arrived at the beach, there was a lifeguard stand but no lifeguard. The lifeguard stand had a sign displayed indicating that the lifeguard was not on duty. A yellow flag was displayed reminding swimmers to proceed with caution. When Respondent told other chaperones, to include Ms. Churchwell about the absence of the lifeguard, those other persons responded that they knew that the lifeguard was not on duty. Before lunch Respondent spent time down by the water watching students in her role as chaperone. Some students were in the water, others were not. Some students were observed violating the assistant principal's instruction not to go deeper than their belly buttons. Respondent called out to those students who exceeded the depth allowed. The students came closer to the shore where they could understand what was being said. Respondent then told them that Mr. Jones had said that they could not go above their belly buttons. Beyond the time at which she had offered this reminder to stay within the bounds for depth, Ms. Churchwell allowed the students to return to the deeper water. Later in the morning Respondent reminded the students another time to not go so deep in the water. By that point the water was becoming more choppy. A short time later the students were called for lunch. The students went to a location behind the sand dunes away from the beach, where a picnic area was located to have their lunch. The students were required to remain out of the water for a period of time beyond the point in time when they ate their lunch. From the picnic area, one could not see the immediate shoreline because of the dune height. Respondent remained in the picnic area after lunch to watch some students who had remained in that area. Respondent became aware that Earl Beasley was missing when people began to approach the picnic area by coming across the boardwalk that topped the dune. These persons were trying to find the missing student in the restroom areas adjacent to the picnic area. Respondent was told words to the effect that Earl Beasley was in the water and in distress. Having been told about Mr. Beasley's circumstances, Respondent returned to the beach. She observed that the water was even rougher than it had been before. Respondent was prepared to assist in the attempt to rescue Mr. Beasley. She decided against this course given the water conditions. The efforts of others to save Mr. Beasley were not successful.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered dismissing Counts 1 through 3 of the Administrative Complaint, upon a finding that Respondent has not violated Section 1012.795(1)(f) and (i), Florida Statutes (2002), nor has she violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a).3/ DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of April, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 13th day of April, 2005.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Town of Beverly Beach's Comprehensive Plan Amendment 03-1, initially adopted by Ordinance 2003-ORD-6 and amended by Ordinance 2004-ORD-6, is "in compliance," as required by Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes (2004).
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state land planning agency and has authority to administer and enforce the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes (2004). One of the Department's duties under the Act is to review proposed amendments to local government comprehensive plans to determine whether the amendments are in compliance with the Act. The Town of Beverly Beach is a small municipality in Flagler County, Florida, and has the duty and authority to adopt a local government comprehensive plan pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (2004), and to amend the plan from time to time. In June 2002, the Town proposed to amend its Future Land Use Map (FLUM) to change some of the land uses within the 37-acre Shelter Cove Planned Unit Development (PUD). The Shelter Cove PUD was the subject of an earlier lawsuit in the circuit court for Flagler County brought by the owners and developers of the property after the Town denied their PUD application. In 2002, the court entered judgment against the Town and ordered the Town to approve the PUD application. In its order, the court included a statement that the Shelter Cove PUD was consistent with the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of the plan amendment proposed in June 2002 was to re-designate 14.25 acres from Conservation/Spoil Area to Low Density Residential, 0.75 acres of Conservation/Spoil Area to Medium Density Residential, and 8.25 acres of Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. The proposed amendment was transmitted to the Department for compliance review. In its July 2003 ORC Report, the Department set forth four objections to the proposed amendment: 1) increased density in a Coastal High Hazard Area; 2) no traffic impact analysis regarding emergency evacuation; 3) inadequate potable water and sanitary sewer services; and 4) unsuitability for development because of saltwater marsh and potential use by threatened and endangered animal species. The Town made changes to the proposed amendment to address the Department's objections and adopted Plan Amendment 03-1 on October 6, 2003. One significant change made by the Town was to reduce the size of the land affected by the amendment from 23.25 acres to 14.5 acres. The stated purpose of the revised amendment was to deal exclusively with the spoil areas within the Shelter Cove PUD; to convert them from Conservation to Low Density Residential. The Department was not satisfied with the changes made by the Town and on November 17, 2003, it issued a Statement of Intent To Find The Comprehensive Plan Amendment Not In Compliance. This statement did not reassert the four objections of the ORC Report, but identified only two reasons for its determination that Plan Amendment 03-1 was not in compliance: 1) increased density in a Coastal High Hazard Area that would increase evacuation clearance times and 2) inadequate sanitary sewer facilities based on the denial of the utility's permit renewal by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). The Department recommended remedial actions that would bring Plan Amendment 03-1 into compliance. Thereafter, the Department and Town entered into a compliance agreement to identify remedial actions by the Town that would bring the plan amendment into compliance. Pursuant to the agreement, the Town adopted remedial measures in Ordinance 2004-ORD-6 (the Remedial Ordinance) that caused the Department to determine that the plan amendment was in compliance. The Remedial Ordinance (with additions and deletions as indicated in the ordinance) states in pertinent part: Limiting Density on the 14.5-acre amendment site & Hurricane Evacuation Plan Future Land Use Element: contains policies controlling the density and intensity of development (both residential and non- residential) in the Town of Beverly Beach. Policy A.1.1.9 The Low Density Residential (LDR) land use (up to 5 dwelling units/acre) shall be applied to 14.5 acres of upland spoil sites in the Shelter Cove development as shown in Exhibit A, not to exceed a total gross density of 28 residential units. In addition to the provisions described in Policy 1.1.4, the following provisions shall apply to the Shelter Cove Development: Residential land use for the Shelter Cove Planned Unit Development(PUD)shall be limited to a maximum of 115 dwelling units. The Town of Beverly Beach shall not issue a permit or certificate of occupancy until the Building Official certifies the required public facilities and services will be provided consistent with Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code (see Policy A.1.1.1). * * * Policy A.1.1.10 No later than December 2005, Beverly Beach shall revise its comprehensive plan to update the goals, objectives and policies and future land use map series and transmit such revisions to the Department of Community Affairs. The updated plan shall reflect changes to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, since the plan went into effect in 1991. This revision shall be based on a planning period through Year 2015, with current and forecasted conditions and satisfy data and analysis requirements. * * * Revise policies under Objective D.2.1, Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan regarding the provision of potable water and sanitary sewer Public Infrastructure/Facilities Element: refers to the protection of water quality by specific policies that require deficiencies in wastewater treatment facilities be corrected in accordance with DEP requirements. Objective D.2.1 By December 31, 1992 December 31, 2005, the Town shall require that existing deficiencies in the wastewater treatment package plants owned by Surfside Utilities operated by Ocean City Utilities be corrected in accordance with FDER Department of Environmental Protection [DEP] requirements. Policy D.2.1.1 As the Town does not own the wastewater treatment plants nor has operational control over the same, the Town shall formalize a coordination committee to include the owner/operator of Surfside Utilities Ocean City Utilities, the members of the Town Commission, members of the Flagler County Board of County Commissioners or their appointee, members of the City of Flagler Beach Commission or their appointee, and FDER the Department of Environmental Protection [DEP] and any other identified stakeholder in the Town. Policy D.2.1.2 The Town shall use the coordination committee to address the deficiencies in the wastewater plants, to set priorities for upgrading and replacing components of the plants, and to request FDER the Department of Environmental Protection [DEP]to increase and enforce their regulations requiring periodic monitoring and maintenance of package treatment plants. Policy D.1.2.3 The Town shall use the coordination committee to investigate the feasibility of assuming operational responsibility of the wastewater treatment system by another entity. Applying the five dwelling units per acre density allowed in the Low Density Residential category to 14.5 acres would generate 72.5 units. However, as indicated above, the Remedial Ordinance also restricted the total allowable dwelling units in the 14.5 acres to 28 units. The 28 units coincide with the site plan for the Shelter Cove PUD that was the subject of the circuit court judgment. The site plan called for 28 single- family lots in the former spoil areas. Charles Osbourne, Bernard Knight, and Mary Jo Knight were residents of the Town of Beverly Beach when the Town adopted Plan Amendment 03-1. They intervened against the Town in the original proceedings initiated by the Department. Following the Department's determination that the plan amendment had been brought into compliance by the Remedial Ordinance, they filed an Amended Petition to Intervene and were realigned as the Petitioners. On some date between the filing of their original petition in this case and the date of the final hearing, Petitioners Bernard Knight and Mary Jo Knight moved out of Beverly Beach. They are no longer residents of the Town. In their Amended Petition to Intervene, the Petitioners assert that the Remedial Ordinance did not resolve all the problems originally identified by the Department's ORC Report, and Plan Amendment 03-1 is still not in compliance. The Petitioners' objections to the amendment fall into three categories: insufficient and inaccurate data and analysis, insufficient legal description for the lands affected by the plan amendment, and inadequate wastewater services available for the increased density resulting from the amendment. These three categories will be used to organize the findings of fact that follow. Data and Analysis/Maps The Petitioners assert that the maps used for Plan Amendment 03-1 and the Remedial Amendment are not the official maps currently contained in the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan. They contend the unofficial maps contained errors that caused some of the area designated as Conservation/Saltwater Marsh to be included in the 14.5 acres re-designated Low Density Residential. At the hearing, the Petitioners also attempted to show that maps used by the Town with Plan Amendment 03-1 were not consistent with the Beverly Beach FLUM with regard to the depiction of saltwater marsh areas outside the 14.5 acres affected by the plan amendment. Whether such discrepancies exist is not a relevant inquiry for determining whether Plan Amendment 03-1 is in compliance. A 1997 report regarding threatened and endangered animal species, prepared by Lotspeich and Associates for the developer of the Shelter Cove PUD, includes a statement that there are 10.3 acres of spoil on the 37-acre PUD site. That figure is inconsistent with the Town's claim that the lands affected by Plan Amendment 03-1 consist of 14.5 acres of spoil. Lindsay Haga, a regional planner with the Northeast Florida Regional Planning Council (Council), made the determination that there are 14.5 acres of spoil area. Because the Town does not have a professional planning staff, the Council was providing planning services to the Town under contract. Ms. Haga worked on Plan Amendment 03-1 on behalf of the Town. Ms. Haga obtained a mapping of the land uses within the Shelter Cove PUD from information maintained by the St. Johns River Water Management District (District). The land use categories are based on the Future Land Use Classification Categorization System, and were applied by the District using aerial photography. Using professional software called "ArcView," Ms. Haga derived the size of the various land uses mapped within the Shelter Cove PUD by the District. The software calculated the size of the spoil areas as 14.5 acres. According to Ms. Haga, planners use this method "100 percent" of the time to delineate land uses on future land use maps. Ms. Haga was called as a witness by the Petitioners and by Beverly Beach and testified at length on direct and cross-examination on how she determined the size of the spoil areas. Nevertheless, some ambiguity remains as to whether the size and position of the spoil areas designated in the official Town FLUM are the same as their size and position as delineated by Ms. Haga for Plan Amendment 03-1 using information from the St Johns River Water Management District. The Town and the Department seem to suggest in their joint post-hearing submittal that the size and position of the spoil areas on the FLUM can be "cleaned up" or re-drawn using more site-specific information presented at the final hearing. The implication is that, if the Town's FLUM delineated less than 14.5 acres as Conservation/Spoil Area, but better data is presented at the hearing to show that the spoil areas actually cover 14.5 acres, the FLUM delineation can be ignored or treated as if did cover 14.5 acres. The redrawing of land uses as they are depicted on an adopted FLUM is arguably beyond the authority granted to the Department in Chapter 163. That issue need not be decided on this record, however, because the more credible and persuasive evidence shows there were no material changes to the size and position of the spoil areas in Plan Amendment 03-1, and no saltwater marsh was re-designated as Low Density Residential. Data and Analysis/Topographic Information The Petitioners assert that topographic data used by the Town was flawed and did not accurately reflect that much of the Shelter Cove PUD is within the 100-year floodplain. For example, the June 2002 Transmittal Packet sent to the Department included a statement that, "According to FEMA the 100 year floodplain is confined to the saltwater marsh areas located adjacent to the Intracoastal Waterway." At the hearing, the Town admitted that some of topographic information was inaccurate and described it as a "scrivener's error." The parties stipulated to the introduction into evidence of topographic information that indicates a portion of the 14.5 acres affected by Plan Amendment 03-1 lies within the 100-year floodplain. The Petitioners have not shown how the inclusion of inaccurate topographic in the data and analysis causes Plan Amendment 03-1 to be not in compliance; or, put another way, the Petitioners have not shown how the accurate topographic information proves Plan Amendment 03-1 will be inconsistent with the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan or applicable state laws and regulations. The Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan does not prohibit Low Density Residential uses in the 100-year floodplain. Data and Analysis/Clustering The Petitioners contend that the data and analysis was flawed because it included a reference to the possibility of clustering dwelling units to avoid adverse impacts to areas unsuitable for development, but the Town has no regulations that allow for or address clustering. Neither the Amended Petition to Intervene nor the evidence presented by the Petitioners makes clear how this alleged error causes Plan Amendment 03-1 to be not in compliance. Any alleged error must relate to the 14.5 acres affected by the amendment. The Petitioners did not show that clustering of dwelling units is planned or necessary on the 14.5 acres. Data and Analysis/Scrub Jays The Petitioners contend that the data and analysis is insufficient because it fails to describe and account for the current use of the site by the Florida scrub jay, a bird listed as threatened by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The Town and Department stipulated that scrub jays have been seen on the property. Charles Osbourne and Gail Duggins, a birdwatcher, testified that they have seen scrub jays in the Shelter Cove PUD area on several occasions. They marked Petitioners' Exhibit 15 to indicate eight specific sites within the PUD where they had observed scrub jays. None of the marked sites are located on the 14.5 acres affected by Plan Amendment 03-1. Lotspeich and Associates conducted a scrub jay survey on the 37-acre Shelter Cove PUD in 1997. They observed no scrub jays on the 14.5 acres that will be affected by Plan Amendment 03-1. In the written report of the survey, Lotspeich and Associates concluded that, "no jays reside on-site nor did any birds react as though they were defending territory which extended onto the property." Following a second survey in 2002, Lotspeich and Associates reached the same conclusion that the property "is unlikely to support a resident Florida scrub jay population." The observations of scrub jays made by Mr. Osbourne and Ms. Duggins do not contradict the conclusions of the Lotspeich and Associates reports. Mr. Osbourne and Ms. Duggins did not offer an opinion (and no foundation was laid for their competence to offer such an opinion) that scrub jays reside on the 14.5 acres affected by Plan Amendment 03-1. The Department's ORC Report stated that the originally-proposed amendment was not consistent with Policy E 1.4.3 of the Town's comprehensive plan which calls for the Town to obtain information from appropriate agencies concerning the known locations of listed plant and animal species. The Department recommended in the ORC Report that the Town conduct a survey for gopher tortoises and other listed species. The Department's objection about listed species, however, was not included its subsequent Statement of Intent to Find The Comprehensive Plan Amendment Not in Compliance. The Town had available to it, as part of the data and analysis to support Plan Amendment 03-1 and the Remedial Amendment, the Lotspeich and Associates reports prepared for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The reports convey the results of Lotspeich and Associates' surveys of the Shelter Cove PUD property for gopher tortoises, scrub jays and other listed species. It is likely to be the best information available since it is a site-specific, scientific study. The Petitioners did not show that better data were available or that the Lotspeich and Associates reports are flawed. In fact, the Lotspeich and Associates reports were exhibits offered by the Petitioners. Policy E.1.4.3 of the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan directs the Town to adopt land development regulations that provide protections for known listed species. Land development regulations are the usual and appropriate tools for applying specific protective measures to specific development proposals. No regulations have yet been adopted by the Town to protect listed species. Listed species are not left unprotected from development activities in the Town, however, since there are both state and federal laws to protect listed species and their habitats. Data and Analysis/Beach Access The Petitioners contend that the data and analysis was insufficient because it indicated that there are five locations in the Town where the public can gain access to the beach, but the Petitioners allege there are only two public beach walkovers that qualify under the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan. The beach access issue relates to the Town's recreational level of service standard adopted in the Recreation and Open Space Element of the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan. Policy F.1.1.1 specifies that the adopted level of service standard is "Five publicly-owned beach access facilities." The Petitioners apparently believe that the easements acquired by the Town that provide for public beach access across private property do not qualify as publicly-owned beach access facilities as contemplated by the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan. The term "publicly-owned beach access facilities" is not defined in the Recreation and Open Space Element, but one can find a statement at page F-2 that, "Access points and parking areas are support facilities for public owned beaches." Therefore, the Town considers an access point, without any man- made structures, to be a "facility." Furthermore, the comprehensive plan, itself, includes a map that depicts the location of the five public beach access points. It must be assumed that these access points met the Town's intent and meaning. By raising the issue of whether the data and analysis for Plan Amendment 03-1 is accurate in referring to the existence of five public beach access points, the Petitioners are collaterally attacking the existing comprehensive plan. Stephen Emmett, the mayor of Beverly Beach, stated that the five public beach access points depicted in the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan, as well as a new sixth beach access point, are currently maintained by the Town. Description of the Land Affected The Petitioners alleged in their Amended Petition to Intervene that the Town did not have an adequate legal description for the lands affected by the plan amendment. The issue was not raised in the Petitioners' Pre-Hearing Statement. When the Department objected to the Petitioners' presentation of evidence on this issue because it was not raised in their Pre- Hearing Statement, the Petitioners voluntarily withdrew the issue. Sanitary Sewer Services The Petitioners contend that sanitary sewer services are not adequate for the increased residential density that would result from Plan Amendment 03-1. The Beverly Beach Wastewater Treatment Facility is operated by Ocean City Utilities. Ocean City's application to renew the permit for the facility was denied by DEP in September 2003 because the facility was not in compliance with several DEP regulations. As a result of the denial of Ocean City's permit renewal application, DEP would not allow new customers to connect to the Beverly Beach Wastewater Treatment Facility, including the Shelter Cove PUD. DEP subsequently approved the connection of the Shelter Cove PUD wastewater collection system to the Beverly Beach Wastewater Treatment Facility. Permitting problems associated with the treatment plant was one reason for the Department's objection to the originally proposed plan amendment and the Department's subsequent determination that Plan Amendment 03-1 was not in compliance. No evidence was presented to show that Ocean City Utilities has corrected the deficiencies in the wastewater treatment plant or has obtained a renewal permit from DEP. Nevertheless, the Department determined that Plan Amendment 03-1 is in compliance based on the changes to the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan called for in the compliance agreement and adopted in the Remedial Ordinance. Objective D.2.1 of the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan was amended to require that existing deficiencies in the wastewater treatment plant be corrected by December 31, 2005. Policies D.2.1.1, D.2.1.2, D.2.1.3 were amended to re-constitute and re-energize a coordination committee to address the deficiencies in the wastewater plant and the feasibility of giving operational responsibility to another entity (such as Flagler County). In addition, the Remedial Ordinance amended Policy A.1.19 of the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan to prohibit the Town from issuing a permit or certificate of occupancy for the Shelter Cove PUD "until the Building Official certifies the required public facilities and services will be provided consistent with Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code." No dispute was raised about the available capacity of the Beverly Beach Wastewater Treatment Facility to serve the Shelter Cove PUD.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the Town of Beverly Beach Plan Amendment 03-1, and Remedial Ordinance 2004-ORD-6, are "in compliance" as defined in Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes (2004). DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER 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 29th day of August, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Shaw P. Stiller, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Sidney F. Ansbacher, Esquire Upchurch, Bailey and Upchurch, P.A. Post Office Box 3007 St. Augustine, Florida 32085-3007 Robert J. Riggio, Esquire Riggio & Mitchell, P.A. 400 South Palmetto Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Thaddeus Cohen, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Heidi Hughes, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
The Issue Whether a vessel is owned by Petitioner, Jonathan Selby, and is a “derelict vessel” within the meaning of section 823.11(1)(b)1., Florida Statutes (2020), and City of Riviera Beach Derelict Vessel Policy, No. 4.2., and therefore, subject to the provisions of section 705.103, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the owner of the 1987 Wellcraft marine vessel, Florida Boat Registration Number FL5632FV (HIN: WELC24661687)(the “vessel”), that sunk on the north side of the Riviera Beach Marina. Riviera Beach Marina is in the City of Riviera Beach. The vessel broke free from a mooring in a storm and is now in a wrecked, junked, or substantially dismantled condition. Therefore, the vessel is a “derelict vessel” as defined in section 823.11(1)(b)1., and the City of Riviera Beach Derelict Vessel Policy, No. 4.2. There was no evidence presented that the vessel became derelict because of the negligence of Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Department of Community Affairs, is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility of administering the provisions of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, and the regulations promulgated thereunder. The Department has the authority to appeal to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission any development order issued in an area of critical state concern pursuant to Sections 380.031(18), 380.032, and 380.07, Florida Statutes. At all times pertinent to this proceeding and to DOAH Case Number 93- 7165DRI, Petitioner, Fred Snowman, owned the real property known as Lot 75, Matecumbe Ocean Beach subdivision, Lower Matecumbe Key, in Monroe County, Florida (the subject property). A building permit issued by Monroe County, described below, for this property was the subject of DOAH Case Number 93- 7165DRI (the underlying proceeding.) The lot is approximately 100 feet wide and, at different points, between 200 and 225 feet deep. The subject property is bounded on the landward side by U.S. 1 and fronts the Atlantic Ocean in an area known as Matecumbe Beach. Matecumbe Beach is a known resting and nesting habitat for marine turtles. This building permit constituted a development order on property within the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern. On September 30, 1993, Monroe County issued to Mr. Snowman, as the owner and general contractor, building permit number 9330008850, which authorized the construction on the subject property of a single-family residence containing 2,472 square feet of heated and cooled area, 1,568 square feet of porches, 1,435 square feet of storage enclosure below base flood elevation, and a swimming pool. The authorized construction was to be consistent with the building site plan, which was also approved by Monroe County. On November 18, 1993, the Department timely appealed the subject building permit to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (FLWAC) pursuant to Section 380.07, Florida Statutes. FLWAC referred the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings where it was assigned DOAH Case Number 93- 7165DRI. A formal hearing was conducted in DOAH Case Number 93-7165DRI in Key West, Florida, on June 30, 1994. Following the formal hearing, the parties were afforded the opportunity to file post-hearing submittals. Thereafter, a recommended order was entered which recommended that FLWAC enter a final order that dismisses the Department's appeal. After the entry of the recommended order, the Department voluntarily dismissed its appeal. FLWAC subsequently entered a final order of dismissal. Petitioner, Fred Snowman, was the prevailing party in DOAH Case Number 93-7165DRI. SMALL BUSINESS PARTY The issue as to whether Petitioner is a "small business party" as defined by Section 57.111(3)(d), Florida Statutes, was disputed by the Department in this proceeding. The parties stipulated that Mr. Snowman meets the remaining criteria contained in Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, for an award of attorney's fees and costs. The following testimony elicited by Petitioner's counsel of the Petitioner was the sole evidence pertaining to the number of employees of the Petitioner: Could you tell us a little bit about your business? What's the nature of your business? Primarily I'm a speculation - spec builder and general contractor in the Florida Keys, and have been since 1973. Q. How many employees do you maintain on a regular basis? A. I mainly have subcontractors. Occasionally when I have a job, I hire for that particular job. But I'm the sole proprietor and I'm the employee. (Transcript, page 9, lines 12-22.) While the foregoing testimony establishes that as of May 15, 1995, Petitioner was the sole proprietor and sole employee of his business, it does not establish that Petitioner had fewer than 25 employees in 1993 when the Department initiated its actions against him. 1/ The following testimony elicited by Petitioner's counsel of the Petitioner pertains to his net worth: Q. What is your net worth? Let me ask you this. Does your net worth exceed a million dollars? A. No. Q. Less than a million dollars? A. Yes. (Transcript, page 9, line 23 through page 10, line 3) The following testimony elicited by Respondent's counsel of the Petitioner on cross examination also pertains to his net worth: Q. When you're identifying your net worth, what exactly are you considering? A. Well, net worth is all my assets minus my liabilities. Q. All of your personal assets? A. Which are far and few between (sic) today. Q. Do you have business assets? A. No. Q. Do you own any property? A. Lot 75. Q. Any property other than Lot 75? A. I own three lots, small lots in Plantation Key. Q. Are they developed or undeveloped? A. No, they're undeveloped. Q. Do you know how much they're worth? A. They're valued at fifteen thousand per lot. Q. They're not on the water? A. Not on the water. Q. Lot 75, do you know what that property's worth? A. That property is worth about a hundred and seventy-five thousand. Q. Without the house on it? A. Without the improvements, yes. Q. How about in its improved condition? A. I would say, in the improved condition, with this home, it would be about five hundred thousand. Q. Okay. Other than the real estate, do you have any personal or business investments, stocks or -- A. No. Q. No? A. Just my condo. (Transcript, page 10, line 8 through page 11, line 13.) There was no other evidence presented as to Petitioner's net worth. While the foregoing testimony establishes that as of May 15, 1995, Petitioner had a net worth of less than two million dollars, it does not establish that his net worth was below that figure in 1993 when the Department initiated its actions against him. SUBSTANTIAL JUSTIFICATION The Department's appeal initially raised several issues. All issues in the underlying proceeding but one were voluntarily dismissed by the Department either prior to the hearing or at the hearing. The only issue litigated at the formal hearing in DOAH Case Number 93-7165DRI was the appropriate setback from the portion of the beach-berm complex located on the subject property known to serve as an active nesting or resting area of marine turtles. Pertinent to this proceeding, Section 9.5-345(3)(f), Monroe County Code, provides: f. No structure shall be located within fifty (50) feet of any portion of any beach-berm complex which is known to serve as an active nesting or resting area of marine turtles, terns, gulls or other birds; There was no dispute in Case 93-7165DRI that the turtle nesting setback applied to Mr. Snowman's property. The dispute was how to apply the setback. There was a bona fide factual dispute as to the extent of the beach berm complex on the subject property that should be considered to be "beach berm complex which is known to serve as an active nesting or resting area of marine turtles" within the meaning of the setback ordinance. The Department established that it followed its standard procedures in deciding to appeal the subject development order. The Department maintains a field staff in the Florida Keys that routinely reviews development orders issued by Monroe County for consistency with the land development regulations, the Monroe County comprehensive plan, and Chapters 163 and 380, Florida Statutes. The permit package typically reviewed, and reviewed in this case, includes the permit, a permit conditions sheet, surveys, and site plans. The Department staff usually reviews a biological survey or habitat evaluation index, reviews the County's entire file, reviews aerial photographs and conducts a field assessment. In this case, the Department also looked at records of the Department of Natural Resources and of the Save A Turtle volunteer environmental group. In this case, the Department conducted a field assessment of Mr. Snowman's lot and measured the point it considered to be the landward extent of the turtle nesting setback line. Kate Edgerton, an experienced biologist employed by the Department, measured the point the Department asserted was the landward extent of the turtle nesting setback line. Ms. Edgerton made a good faith assessment of the beach berm complex and considered the property to contain one beach berm complex. (Transcript, DOAH Case 93-7165DRI, page 166, line 17.) Ms. Edgerton testified in the underlying proceeding that she considered herself bound by the definitions in the Monroe County land use regulations and that she believed herself to be applying the pertinent definition when she measured the setback line. (Transcript, DOAH Case 93- 7165DRI, page 163, lines 20-23.) Following field staff review, a report is prepared and forwarded to Tallahassee for review by additonal staff, including the Department's administrator of the critical state concern program. Department staff in Tallahassee review the field staff report and participate in formulating a recommendation as to whether to appeal the permit. The appeal decision is then made either by the Department Division Director or by the agency head. Each material step in the Department's customary practice of reviewing permits was followed in reviewing the subject permit. Section 9.5-4(B-3), Monroe County Code, contains the following definition of the term "beach berm" that was found to be pertinent to the underlying proceeding: (B-3) "Beach berm" means a bare, sandy shore- line with a mound or ridge of unconsolidated sand that is immediately landward of, and usually parallel to, the shoreline and beach. The sand is calcareous material that is the remains of marine organisms such as corals, algae and molluscs. The berm may include forested, coastal ridges and may be colonized by hammock vegetation. The term "berm" is identified in the Monroe County comprehensive plan as . . . a mound or ridge of unconsolidated sand that is immediately landward of, and usually parallel to, the shoreline and beach. A berm is higher in elevation than both the beach and the area landward of the berm. At the formal hearing in the underlying appeal, there was conflicting evidence as to the extent of the beach berm complex on the subject property. The Recommended Order found that there were two distinct ridges located on the subject property. The issue of whether both ridges could be considered part of the "beach berm complex" was one of first impression. Succinctly stated, it was the position of the Department in the underlying appeal that both ridges were in an area of potential habitat on a beach that is known habitat and it asserted the position that both ridges should be considered to be one beach berm complex. The Department asserted the position that the setback should be measured from the landward extent of the second ridge (the more landward of the two ridges). Monroe County had measured the setback from the landward extent of the first ridge. Mr. Snowman agreed with the County's determination of the setback. Mr. Snowman presented evidence that the County had, for several years, applied the setback from the landward extent of the first ridge and argued that, based on the foregoing definitions each ridge should be considered to be a separate beach berm, but that only the first should be considered to be a beach berm. The Department presented evidence that the County had applied the setback provision in an inconsistent manner by measuring from the crest of berms in some cases and measuring from the landward extent of berms in other occasions. The Recommended Order rejected the Department's position and concluded that the definition of "beach berm" contained in Section 9.5-4(B-3), Monroe County Code, and the description of "berm" in the comprehensive plan were unambiguous. Although the Department argued that other provisions of the code and comprehensive plan supported their construction of the setback requirement, it was concluded that the issues should be resolved based on the unambiguous definition of "beach berm". It was also concluded that no deference should be afforded the Department's construction of the term "beach berm" because there is a plain and unambiguous definition of the term that is a part of the Monroe County Code. It was observed that "[w]hile a greater setback may better serve the goals of the comprehensive plan, as argued by the Department, the imposition of a greater setback requirement should come from a change in the Monroe County Code." This observation was made because the Department had found support for its interpretation of the setback requirement from other parts of the code and comprehensive plan. This case involved bona fide disputed issues of material fact and legal issues that were of first impression. It is found that those issues, although resolved against the Department following the formal hearing, were of sufficient merit to substantially justified the Department's actions in initiating the underlying appeal.
