Conclusions An Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings has entered an Order Closing File in this proceeding. A copy of the Order is attached to this Final Order as Exhibit A. Filed April 18, 2011 3:32 PM Division of Administrative Hearings FINAL ORDER NO. DCA11GM-014
Other Judicial Opinions REVIEW OF THIS FINAL ORDER PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.030(b)( 1)(C) AND 9.110. TO INITIATE AN APPEAL OF THIS ORDER, A NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT’S AGENCY CLERK, 2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100, WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DAY THIS ORDER IS FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM PRESCRIBED BY FLORIDA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.900(a). A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL AND MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE FILING FEE SPECIFIED IN SECTION 35.22(3), FLORIDA STATUTES. YOU WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW IF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL IS NOT TIMELY FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK AND THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL. MEDIATION UNDER SECTION 120.573, FLA. STAT., IS NOT AVAILABLE WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUES RESOLVED BY THIS ORDER. CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the original of the foregoing has been filed with the undersigned Agency Clerk of the Department of Community Affairs, and that true and correc J copies have been furnished to the persons listed below in the manner “DA, on this wee day of April, 2011. yf
The Issue Whether petitioners and intervening petitioners, or any of them, have standing or party status because removal of the dam would cause injury in fact of sufficient immediacy of a kind within the zone of interests protected by Section 403.91 et seq., Florida Statutes (1985)? If so, whether NWFWMD's permit application conforms to the requirements that Section 403.918, Florida Statutes (1985), Chapter 17-12, Florida Administrative Code, and Rules 17-3.001, 17- 3.121, 17-4.242 and 17-4.290(5) and (6), Florida Administrative Code, set out? Whether NWFWMD has given reasonable assurances that removal of the dam would not cause water quality violations by lowering dissolved oxygen concentrations below allowable levels, or by causing eutrophication or turbidity or an increase in heavy metals, including chromium or other battery constituents, in excess of allowable levels? Whether removal of the dam would be in the public interest, taking into account the diversity of aquatic life, including aquatic weeds, and whether fish spawning will be enhanced or hindered, whether heavy metals would reach Apalachicola Bay and affect oyster beds or marine productivity, what effects on the property of others would be, what the effects would be on fishing and other recreation, public safety for canoers and others, navigation generally, mosquito breeding and odors?
Findings Of Fact The Dead Lakes are a wide place in the Chipola River. Near Wewahitchka, a forest of towering cypress trees once flourished in the periodic inundation of the Chipola River. But when a sinkhole collapsed the river banks, widening the Chipola River and the lower reaches of Stone Mill Creek, a tributary, to form the Dead Lakes, the trees growing in the riverbed also sank. Permanent immersion eventually killed many of the trees. The dead, moss-draped remnant the loggers left inspired the name of the lakes, which stretch for some ten miles through Gulf and Calhoun Counties. The Rise and Fall of the Dead Lakes The level of the Dead Lakes depends not only on how much water flows in, but also on how much flows out. Before man's intervention, the rate of outflow depended all year round on the stage or height of the Chipola Cutoff, the fork of the Apalachicola River into which, just below the Dead Lakes, the Chipola River drains, as well as on the stage or height of the Chipola River above the Dead Lakes. When the Apalachicola River and, therefore, the Chipola Cutoff were high, a backwater or damming effect tended to keep the level of the Dead Lakes up. Although pristine conditions no longer obtain, the relative elevations of the Chipola and Apalachicola Rivers still affect the water level in the Dead Lakes, at certain stages. The Chipola River drains approximately 1,280 square miles in northwest Florida and southeast Alabama. Although the Chipola is spring fed, the flow of water into the Dead Lakes depends ultimately on rainfall in the basin, which varies seasonally. At Altha, the lowest flow ever recorded was 330 cubic feet per second, and the highest flow on record there was 25,000 cubic feet per second. The Apalachicola River, which arises out of the confluence of the Flint and Chattahoochee Rivers, drains a much larger area. Its flow has been altered by the Jim Woodruff Dam and other dams further north that the Army Corps of Engineers constructed, and now uses to generate electricity, and in an effort to keep at least nine feet of water in the Apalachicola River channel, for the benefit of commercial traffic. Although intended to bolster low flows, the Jim Woodruff Dam was first used to impound a reservoir, Lake Seminole, for the purpose. In combination with dry conditions, the result was record low water levels in the Dead Lakes of about ten feet NGVD during the years 1954 through 1958. Lakes Dammed Alarmed at this change in the Dead Lakes, people in the area decided a dam should be built. Not one of the 88 owners of property on the lake objected. The Legislature created the Dead Lakes Water Management District (DLWMD), Chapter 57-1115, Laws of Florida (1957); and the DLWMD constructed a stop log, low head weir just below and parallel to the bridge on which State Road 22A crosses the water flowing out of the lakes. The 787-foot weir was completed in late 1959 or early 1960 on the right of way of the St. Joseph and Iola Railway, alongside the bridge, not far upriver from the point where the clear water leaving the Dead Lakes joins the muddy waters of the Chipola Cutoff. The weir was designed to maintain the Dead Lakes at elevations up to 18.2 feet, in times of low flow. The stop log feature allowed adjustments so that elevations of less than 18.2 feet could also be maintained. In 1962, however, the stop log portion of the weir gave way, and that part of the weir was reconstructed, as the remainder had originally been constructed, with interlocking sheet pile, which, braced and buttressed with I- beams, did not allow any draw down of the lakes below 18.2 feet NGVD. No work has been done on the dam since 1962, and experts predict it will fail in about ten years if not attended to. The DLWMD installed four culverts about seven or eight feet high and twelve feet wide to the west of the weir in 1974, in order to restore draw down capability, as a means of controlling aquatic weeds. The DLWMD caused a channel to be excavated to these culverts, which were equipped with gates that could be raised and lowered with a screw mechanism. Although the invert elevation of the culverts is 10.5 at the upriver end and 10.3 feet at the other end, the Dead Lakes can only be drawn down to about 14 feet because of "base flow" and because of the configuration of the bottom, upriver of the culverts. With the gates of the draw down structure closed, the height of the weir (18.2 feet NGVD) is the limiting factor. Effect of Removal For about one-fifth of the year neither the weir nor the draw down structure determines how high the water in the Dead Lakes is, because interaction between flows in the Chipola River and in the Chipola Cutoff, the fork of the Apalachicola River which eventually rejoins the main river channel, keeps the Dead Lakes at or above the weir crest. During this part of the year, usually beginning in December and ending in March, Respondent's Exhibit No. 2, p. 20, the absence of the dam that NWFWMD seeks a permit to remove would make no difference. But, during times of low flow, with the dam out, the water level in the lakes would fall well below the current floor. Only one percent of the year, however, on average, would the lakes fall as low as the levels they reached in the 1954 to 1958 period. Eighty-five percent of the time the water level would be at or above 12 feet NGVD, without the dam, and the median elevation would be 14.75 feet NGVD, less than a foot above the lowest levels now reached. Without the dam, the lakes would cover more than 3,660 acres, the area covered at 14 feet NGVD, for half the year. The Dead Lakes now cover at least 5,500 acres half the time, or did before the draw down gates began staying open. No Control Over Control Gates As of the last day of the hearing, the testimony was that two of the draw down gates were open and two were closed. For some months preceding the hearing, private citizens opened and closed the gates willy nilly, although it was a good deal easier to close them than to open them, because they are quite heavy and the screw mechanisms are broken. With the dam's transfer to the NWFWMD for the purpose of seeking the permit here in contention, the DLWMD has become defunct, de facto if not de jure. According to Forest Revell, however, as quoted by Sheriff Harrison, the last word from the DLWMD on the gates was an order that they remain open. They were locked open in May of 1986 when Edward Baily, 67 years of age, found himself unable to start his outboard motor as he drifted north of the draw down structure in a small boat with his wife. The current dragged them through a culvert. Mrs. Bailey survived, but her husband did not. Charles Alford Gaskins had been sucked through a culvert some time before Mr. Edwards' fatal accident. Sheriff Al Harrison closed the gates to protect the divers who retrieved Mr. Bailey's corpse, but later opened them in obedience to the DLWMD's reportedly final order on the subject, not without, however, bringing the matter to the attention of a former member of the DLWMD board, Mr. McCarty at the NWFWMD, and various other officials, including then Governor Graham. All disclaimed authority to order the gates closed, and nobody posted any warning. In order to close the gates to protect the divers, the sheriff found it necessary to cut the locks, which were not replaced when the gates were reopened. At the time of the hearing, whether the gates were open or closed was "up to the vandals." All In Favor Sponsored by James Harold Thompson, then Speaker of the House of Representatives, House Bill No. 1262 became law with the Governor's approval on June 19, 1984. Chapter 84-380, Laws of Florida (1984). After the enactment of Chapter 84-380, Laws of Florida (1984), NWFWMD began applying for the permits necessary to remove the Dead Lakes dam, including the dredge and fill permit at issue here. So far it has obtained the requisite permit from the Army Corps of Engineers and a permit from the NWFWMD itself. The Florida Department of Natural Resources has no objection to taking the dam out. Florida's Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, the United States Department of the Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency also approve. The Department of Environmental Regulation is the state environmental agency to which the NWFWMD has made the application for the permit at issue in these proceedings. As stated in its notice of intent, DER, which actively participated at the formal hearing, supports removal of the Dead Lakes Dam. Also favoring removal of the dam is the Board of Commissioners of Calhoun County, which participated in the formal administrative proceeding as an intervenor. On March 13, 1984, Calhoun County had a "straw vote" on whether the Dead Lakes Dam should be removed. Those in favor of removal prevailed, 1,575 to 276. The County Commission endorsed removal by resolution on March 27, 1984, Respondent Intervenor's Exhibit No. 3, and subsequently voted to intervene in these proceedings in support of NWFWMD's application for a permit to remove the dam. The voters of Gulf County also favored removal of the dam in a referendum held there. The vote was 1,550 for and 594 against. The Gulf County Commission, too, endorsed removal by adopting a resolution, No. 84-7, Respondent's Exhibit No. 35, but Gulf County has not sought intervention in these proceedings. The same is true of the Cities of Marianna and Blountstown, whose City Councils have also passed resolutions in support of removal of the dam. Respondent Intervenor's Exhibits Nos. 4 and 5. Many of the owners of land on the Dead Lakes are not registered to vote in Gulf or Calhoun Counties, or in Marianna. Also participating as a party in support of removal of the dam is the Chipola Basin Protective Group, a corporation not for profit organized in July of 1983 in an effort to conserve and preserve natural resources in and around the Chipola River. Some 100 people are members, including some who own land on the Dead Lakes and others who own property elsewhere on the Chipola River and "use these natural resources." All Opposed Opposing the permit application are a number of property owners whose waterfront access to the Dead Lakes, although in times of low flow already impaired in many cases, would become still more difficult, if the water in the lakes dropped below the levels at which the dam now keeps it. The east side of the lakes are timberland in single ownership. On the west side, both permanent homes and weekend cottages have been built, and there are a number of fish camps and the like whose revenue depends on access to and fishing in the Dead Lakes. Daniel Monroe Sullivan began fly fishing in the Dead Lakes in 1935, and has fished there regularly since, except for 1939 through 1945 when he went off to the war, where he lost both knees. He "put everything [he] had" into the old Rowell landing, which he purchased in 1975, from Mr. Rowell, who since 1960 had let him keep a trailer on the property. The parcel has frontage on the Dead Lakes of 286 feet and is 394 feet deep. Improvements include a six-stall boathouse with handrails, and a floating dock. Mr. Sullivan has things arranged so that he can lower himself into a boat and set out, or could until people started opening the gates of the draw down structure. Now, at low water, some 300 yards of mud separate the boathouse from the Dead Lakes. Mr. Sullivan's physical condition makes it impossible for him to trailer a boat by himself and launch it from one of the three or four ramps where the water is always deep enough even with the gates open. Just north of Mr. Sullivan, Tullis D. Easterling, who also first fished the Dead Lakes more than 50 years ago, owns two lots, comprising about an acre and a half, with 212 feet fronting the western shore of Dead Lakes. He has a mobile home, a cook shack and other improvements, including a shed for three boats and a 60 to 70 foot dock, which extended 40 feet out into the water, when it was built. With two of the draw down gates closed, he can still use the dock, which is no small convenience for a man 77 years old. At low water, with the gates open, 300 yards of mud separate his dock, too, from the Dead Lakes. From his property north of Mr. Easterling's place, Charles L. Nowlin was able to launch his boat by backing his trailer down a sort of ramp he fashioned with patio blocks. He has about 400 front feet, "when there's water," and a two bedroom cottage on the property. Usually the water is from 2 to 2.5 feet deep in the "natural slip" in which he keeps his boat, but in 1985 and in again in 1986 the slip went completely dry at times. He had to launch his boat elsewhere and pole into a neighbor's dock. Thomas C. Brock, a 64-year-old retiree, has a two bedroom cottage on the Dead Lakes, and a 45-foot dock at the end of which the water was 4 to 4.5 feet deep at the time of the hearing. At low water, however, with all the draw down gates open, "you can plant a turnip patch" in front of his place. Once the lakes attain a height of 15 feet, Mr. Brock can reach his dock by boat. An avid fisherman, Mr. Brock fishes on the Dead Lakes regularly, having first fished there in 1945. James W. Quick and his wife live year round in a home on the Dead Lakes. Retired from the Air Force, he fishes continuously. At the time of the hearing, the water was 3.5 to 4 feet deep at the end of the Quicks' 80-foot pier, but last summer the pier was 300 yards from the water and you had to go another 100 yards into the water before it got knee deep. Oscar G. Clark has owned the property next to the Quicks since 1951. He bought the place for the fishing, which has long been his main recreation. Fishing on the Dead Lakes is what he mainly does since his wife died. He has a ramp and space for four boats under a boat shed, and has no trouble using the ramp in high water, but the last two years in a row the water has been too low seven or eight months running. James C. and Dorothy Taylor own a house on the west side of the Dead Lakes, on the Chipola River channel. The water is 12 to 14 feet deep only some ten feet beyond the end of their dock, which extends 28 feet into the lake. The depth of the water at the end of the Taylors' dock ordinarily fluctuates between 2.5 and 4 feet, but three or four times since 1981, the water's edge has receded two feet beyond the end of the dock. The Taylors' neighbors on the channel, Messrs. Linton and Bidwell are in essentially the same situation. Paris Wayne Carter, a Wewahitchka businessman, bought a place on the Dead Lakes two years ago, with a dock that ordinarily extends 25 feet out into the water, where the water is ordinarily two to five feet deep. But last year at low water with the gates open, he walked 300 yards from his boat dock to the water's edge. James Carroll Stokes, who is totally and permanently disabled, sold his house and used the proceeds to buy six acres on the west arm of the Dead Lakes. He lives there now in a mobile home. He has 18 hookups on the property for recreational vehicles, and charges campers $8.00 a night. When the lakes are at 18 or 19 feet, the boat ramp he has is half out of the water, but at low water with the draw down gates open the ramp cannot be used to launch boats, which affects his business adversely. In 1980, the year Leland Taylor bought the Jerry Gates Fish Camp, business was pretty good. The fish camp consists of five cabins and a house on five acres with 1,200 feet on the lake, and has eight boats and six motors. Even at low water with the gates open, he can get from the end of his 300 foot pier, where he keeps two of the boats, to the middle of the Dead Lakes, but, under such conditions, the boat shed where most of the boats are kept is separated from the water by 200 feet. With the opening of the draw down gates, business has slackened considerably. Mr. Taylor has had to telephone people planning to come to his camp to fish to tell them the water level would not allow it. Juanita Dill put the Cypress Lodge up for sale over two years ago. The Cypress Lodge was once a thriving business. Gulf Life agents 40 to 50 strong used to come every year to go fishing, but business fell off sharply in the last few years, and Ms. Dill has closed the placed down. The evidence did not establish that the decline in business was on account of problems with access to the lakes, as opposed to poorer fishing. But interrogatories adduced as evidence at hearing established that Ms. Dill, Max W. Kilbourn, Jim Gross, R. F. Martin, G. W. Hobbs, J. M. Whittaker, Lee Thompson, Duncan Smith, J. C. Blanton, C. D. Ramsey, Sr., Theodore Elchos, and V. D. Hilton, "have already suffered loss of their access to navigable water." For 45 or 50 years, Clyde Finch Brogdon has owned 165 acres with about three quarters of a mile fronting on the Dead Lakes. Mr. Brogdon raises sheep and cattle on the property. When the water recedes, the animals stray into the mud and bog down. He has to pull them out with a tractor and a length of line. Mr. Brogdon also has a boat ramp on his property that stops well short of the water when the lakes are down. Snails or something die and stink when the water recedes. For a day or two afterwards there is an expanse of "souring mud." Water Quality The clear "fast flowing Chipola River slows and spreads to form the strangely beautiful Dead Lakes," Respondent's Exhibit No. 40, but remains relatively free of suspended solids both in the Dead Lakes and when the river narrows again near the dam, until its confluence with the muddy Chipola Cutoff. In the long run, removal of the dam would lessen turbidity below the dam by increasing the volume of clear water mixing with the Chipola Cutoff during periods of low flow. In the long run, removal of the dam would lessen turbidity even in times of high flow because it would virtually eliminate the erosion now occurring in the vicinity of the draw down structure. In the short run, removing the dam would occasion a temporary increase in turbidity. The plan is to station equipment on the bridge (instead of on a barge) to "vibrate out" the sheet piles and to remove the steel from the site, leaving the riprap on the bottom to damp turbidity and curtail the movement of sediment. If the vibration shears a sheet pile, however, the contractor will have to go one foot beneath the bottom and cut the pile there. Under a proposed special permit condition, the contractor will not start work until the water level upriver of the dam is within one foot of the water level downriver, in order to avoid a sudden rush of water. This will help keep turbidity down and is also important for the safety of the bridge. Dissolved Oxygen In August of 1984, with flows low enough so that the Dead Lakes Dam had impounded the waters of the Dead Lakes, investigators took water samples from the Dead Lakes and from "the Chipola River above the influence of the dam." DER's Exhibit No. 8. Analysis of a sample taken from the bottom, at a point where the lake was nine feet deep, revealed 3.3 milligrams of dissolved oxygen per liter. A sample taken only one foot below the lake surface was not much better: 3.5 milligrams of dissolved oxygen per liter. By comparison, the upriver samples yielded results of 7.0 milligrams of dissolved oxygen per liter, or higher. The samples demonstrate the negative net effect impoundment has on dissolved oxygen levels, even though impoundment makes for more aquatic weeds, which add more dissolved oxygen to the water than they remove. The Dead Lakes Dam is in part responsible for these depressed levels of dissolved oxygen in the summer months, and its removal would alleviate the situation. By slowing or stopping the flow of the Chipola River, the dam increases precipitation of organic sediments, which gather on the bottom and compete with living organisms for the limited amount of dissolved oxygen available. Not only would removal of the dam decrease precipitation by increasing the velocity of the flow, it would cause a greater expanse of lake bottom to be uncovered, permitting oxidation of sediments exposed to sunlight and air. As a consequence, when the water again covered the sediment, the sediment would require less dissolved oxygen. Eutrophication Water hyacinths (Eichornia crassipes), limnophila (Limnophila sessiflora) and Brazilian elodea (Egenia densa), which are species of aquatic weeds not indigeous to Florida, all grow in the Dead Lakes, although they are under control and do not present a serious problem. Indeed, some vegetation, even of this kind, is advantageous. Exotic aquatic weeds flourish at the expense of native species, however, and, in overabundance are detrimental to game fish. Herbicides have proven effective against them, except perhaps in the case of Brazilian elodea which, however, such fluctuations as now occur in the level of the lakes seem to keep in check. The impounding effects of the Dead Lakes Dam create favorable conditions for the exotic, aquatic weeds' growth; the lakes tend to grow more shallow and weeds spread. The dam causes accumulation of the nitrates that enter the Chipola from agricultural operations upriver. Without the dam, no abundance of aquatic weeds could persist. Periodic draw downs or natural fluctuations are a good means of controlling most weed species. Water hyacinths, which can germinate in a draw down, are the exception. With the dam removed, sedges and slender rushes would grow up quickly and, in 10 to 20 years, a cypress forest would reestablish itself closer to the river channel, shading the river. Not only cypress, but also willow and button bush would grow up and keep sunlight from aquatic weeds underneath. Heavy Metals From 1970 until it went out of business in 1979, the Sapp Battery Company (Sapp) operated a battery salvage facility on the bank of Little Dry Creek, an intermittent tributary that empties into the Chipola several miles upriver of the Dead Lakes, north of Altha. While it operated, Sapp disposed of heavy metals, including lead, zinc, mercury and cadmium, improperly, so that these materials made their way into the Chipola River, caused at least one fish kill, and apparently caused the elevated levels of heavy metals found in the tissues of native mussels and corbicula alike. Finfish as well as mollusks exhibited these elevated levels at one time. Although several intervening ox bows or deep bends have been "deposition areas," there are no impoundments in the Chipola River between the Sapp site and the Dead Lakes. In 1984, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency secured the site of the battery salvage facility, and heavy metals have not entered the Chipola River from that source since. Any manganese still in the water may be geologic in origin. A gladiola farm nearby may contribute to mercury in the river by dipping bulbs in mercurial fungicides. Cadmium is found in phosphate fertilizer, and both manganese and zinc are also used in agriculture. Heavy metals tend to bind to fine clay grains which precipitate out of the water and end up in the sediment and this seems to have happened in the Chipola River, including the Dead Lakes, where occasional sediment samples have revealed high concentrations of heavy metals. But the water itself is now free of measurable quantities of heavy metals. No heavy metals were detected in a sample of the water column taken on April 3, 1987, just above the Dead Lakes. The evidence rules out the hypothesis that removal of the Dead Lakes Dam would let water contaminated with heavy metals escape into the Chipola Cutoff and ultimately into Apalachicola Bay, with its extensive oyster beds. The only conceivable mischief along these lines would be the transport downstream of contaminated sediment into a marine environment in which chemical reactions binding heavy metals would be altered or reversed, releasing them into the water. But the weight of the evidence suggests that, for better or worse, contaminated sediments bound for a marine environment have probably already migrated downriver. In times of low flow, the dam slows or stops the river, precipitating all manner of suspended solids, including materials on the periphery which may never be resuspended or reach the estuary. On the other hand, accumulations of muck up to 12 inches deep in the river channel are regularly resuspended, as the water rises above the weir crest and the current scours the channel bottom. In times of high flow, rocks, fine sand and shells lying on the upriver side of the Dead Lakes Dam are stripped clean of all organic sediment. The dam has not prevented the movement of large quantities of sediment downstream. Public Interest Removing the Dead Lakes Dam would enhance the public safety. When the dam is underwater, as it is, on average, more than two months a year, it is a submerged barrier presenting a considerable hazard to the unwitting boater. Although the application does not contemplate removing the draw down structure, removal of the dam would take away the incentive to open the draw down gates. Even if the gates remained open, moreover, and the water was high enough to flow through the culverts, the absence of the dam would reduce the rate of flow through the draw down structure and the attendant danger. Apart from the matter of safety, the evidence did not show that removal of the dam would have any effect on the public health, although Sheriff Harrison did testify to parts of dead fish being strewn on the ground near the dam where fishermen gathered. Petitioners raised the possibility that the river would leave isolated pools of water as it receded, pools in which mosquitos might breed. But the weight of the credible testimony was that gambusi or other fish trapped in such pools would eat the mosquito larvae; and that the mosquito population should not increase, in the absence, at least, of some man-made interference with drainage. Andromadous Fish On balance, taking the dam out should enhance the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, and their habitats. During spawning season, with the dam in place, fishermen gather on the downriver side of the Dead Lakes Dam and catch substantial numbers of roe-laden fish. They are "all bottled up trying to get in." At one time, Alabama shad, striped bass and Gulf of Mexico sturgeon were found in the Dead Lakes and still further north in the Chipola River. During the summer months these andromadous fish seek a "thermal refuge" in cooler fresh water. Now only the Alabama shad swims north of the dam. Before the dam went in, striped bass occurred in fairly substantial numbers north of where the dam now is. Evidently they cannot navigate the dam now. Even when the water is well above the weir crest, certain species that swam upriver to spawn before the dam was built no longer do so. Either they swim too close to the bottom, or they are unable to contend with currents through the draw down structure and over the weir. Beginning last century and as late as 1970, commercial fishermen took Gulf of Mexico sturgeon, some of which weighed as much as 350 pounds each. By 1983, the number of Gulf of Mexico sturgeon had dropped to 380 fish, and the number fell to 69 in 1986. Now the Gulf of Mexico sturgeon is in category two under the federal endangered species law. The Dead Lakes Dam closes off 80 miles of the Chipola River to this dwindling population. The temperatures in the Chipola River are more constant and the flows more stable than those in the Apalachicola River to which the sturgeon are now relegated. Only 17 percent of the open river system formerly available to the Gulf sturgeon is still accessible. Removal of the dam may also increase the numbers and widen the distribution of the greyfin redhorse, the snail bullhead, the spotted bullhead and the dusky shiner. Respondent's Exhibit No. 27. Fish who do reach the Dead Lakes to spawn come when the water is above the weir crest, and go to the shallow periphery to deposit their eggs. At such times, it is not the dam that determines the height and configuration of the Dead Lakes, and its removal would not interfere with this spawning. On the contrary, removal of the dam would help matters. During times of low flow, the dam slows or stops the water occasioning precipitation of soft organic material in the shallows. When spawning time comes, roe can sink into this material and fail to hatch for want of oxygen. Little Effect On Birds Restoration of a more natural hydroperiod would let certain trees reestablish themselves in areas now covered year round, improving the habitat for nesting birds. Newly uncovered land would be seasonally available to deer, turkey and squirrel, but less hospitable for alligators and others. Aquatic organisms trapped in sloughs would become food for predators, like the wood stork. During periods of low flow, the black bear and the indigo snake would have additional foraging. The little blue heron, the snowy egret and the tricolored heron might benefit from removal of the dam as might, theoretically, the limpkin, although there is no proof the limpkin is present in the area. If bald eagles are present, removal of the dam would work to their disadvantage, but no record exists of their nesting or making any other use of the area. Thousands of ducks flocked to the Dead Lakes regularly as recently as 1964 or 1965. Now perhaps a tenth that many come, mainly wood ducks and a few mallards. On the other hand, the number of ospreys has increased since the dam went in. This may in part be attributable to protection they have received under the game laws in recent years. For most birds and other air breathing wildlife, removal of the dam would not have a significant effect one way or the other. Fish Stories Fishing is the main recreational use to which the Dead Lakes are put. The short-term effect of impounding the Dead Lakes during times of low flow was an increase in the number of fish who multiplied or congregated to avail themselves of the newly prolonged enlargement of their aquatic habitat. Over time, however, other effects have become evident and taken their toll. If the numbers of fish have not fallen dramatically, their average size has. Diminished oxygen attributable to the impoundment has increased fish mortality by its direct effect on the fish, as well as indirectly by its effect on organisms further down the food chain. Hardest hit among the fish have been some of the most sought after: shellcracker, large mouth bass, blue gill and channel catfish, among others. Removing the dam would improve the fishing. Fishing on the Dead Lakes was once almost too good to be true, to hear the old-timers tell it. As late as 1959, there were 20 fish camps on the lake. Mr. Brock remembers seven "major" ones in the 1940s. Now six are open, if that. Sixty years ago, Sam Casey fished the whole summer, and for many summers after that, but now he doesn't bother after the willow fly season is over. Cyrus Royce Lewis also began fishing on the Dead Lakes in the 1920s, and now he, too, goes almost exclusively during late spring and early summer, when may flies and willow flies hatch. After that, it's no use, he finds. Expert fishermen like Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Easterling, Mr. Brock, Mr. Quick, and Mr. Leland Taylor, who testified he caught a ten-pound bass last spring, still catch fish regularly, but the fishing is not what it once was. It is a lot harder to catch fish now, and some owners of property on the lakes, including Charles Cook Bridges, want to see the dam out so the fishing will improve. In the 1950s, you might see 200 boats tied to each other fishing over a five-acre shellcracker bed. The Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission roped off some of the beds to protect spawning fish; the game warden had to sleep in his boat to guard the beds. As late as 1964 there were single shellcracker beds that covered three acres of lake bottom. Now you only see "pocket beds," maybe half the size of the courtroom in Calhoun County Courthouse. The first time Alton Coxwell, now 55 years old, went fishing on the Dead Lakes was with his mother who put an umbrella over him. When, as a small child, he began getting bait for his uncle, his uncle sold all of it to people going fishing on the Dead Lakes. Before the Second World War, Willy Rowell alone had 300 boats but nobody had outboard motors to speak of. People fished with flies, or catawba worms and crickets then. Nowadays Mr. Coxwell sells lots of earthworms. He put retail sales of earthworms at 21,000 for Thursday the week of the hearing. But only two to five percent of these earthworms were used as bait in the Dead Lakes. Nineteen years ago, more than 20 percent of the earthworms Mr. Cox sold were used for bait in the Dead Lakes. In 1977, the Bay County Bass Club had four tournaments on the Dead Lakes, but for the last two or three years they have held only one tournament a year on the Dead Lakes. They have considered not scheduling any more there. Two fishermen in each of 23 to 27 boats, all of whom are familiar with the Dead Lakes, participate in these tournaments. Jim Bozeman of Wewahitchka caught 14 pounds of bass in his first tournament in 1977, but did not finish in the top three. Last tournament the winner caught less than five pounds of bass. The biggest bass caught in a 1977 tournament on the Dead Lakes weighed 7 pounds 4 ounces. In last year's tournament on the Dead Lakes, the biggest fish weighed three pounds. The biggest bass (eight pounds) that Mr. James C. Taylor ever caught he took in July of 1978. The Chipola River is more productive both above and below the Dead Lakes. Increased fishing pressure cannot account for the decline in numbers and the even more remarkable decline in the size of game fish in the lakes. Indeed, the weight of the credible evidence was that less fishing occurs on the Dead Lakes now than 10 or 20 years ago when the fishing was better. Since 1981, the number of permits sold for fishing on the Dead Lakes has declined. The fisheries' biologists corroborated the testimony that, after an initial beneficial effect, the impoundment of the Dead Lakes has had an adverse effect on the numbers and weight of fish in the Dead Lakes. Very likely the low dissolved oxygen levels in the summertime keep many fingerlings from surviving to grow larger. Mr. Leland Taylor's testimony that he has never seen mature fish floating dead on the lakes is consistent with the hypothesis that many do not survive the critical fingerling stage. Removal of the dam would increase fish production. While the volume of water in the Dead Lakes and therefore the fish habitat would shrink further in low flows than it does with the dam in place, the fish would have access to habitat downstream without having to contend with the dam. Invertebrates Other aquatic life has waned with impoundment of the Dead Lakes, including snails of the kind that leave a white, snail-wide streak of eggs on trees growing at the water's edge. When they hatch, they fall into the water and become food for the shellcrackers, but their numbers have been declining since 1966. The drought in 1955, which like last year's, was among the most severe the Chipola River has experienced, did not affect the diversity of aquatic life in the Dead Lakes adversely. In August of 1984, a sampling of benthic organisms, bloodworms and the like, in the Chipola River near State Road 71 above the Dead Lakes yielded 1,256 individuals comprising 33 species, with a Shannon-Weaver diversity index of 4.07. A sample taken at the same time in the Dead Lakes near the dam yielded 304 individuals representing only eleven species, and a Shannon-Weaver diversity index of 2.38. A contemporaneous sample taken downriver from the dam had a comparable Shannon-Weaver diversity index (2.41), although 18 species were present. Of 975 organisms in the downriver sample, 575 were tubificid worms, a species which does not contribute significantly to fish productivity. Although less water during drier periods would mean less bottom area for benthic organisms, some of these organisms depend on periodic fluctuation. Even those that require constant immersion can survive, when the water level falls slowly enough for them to adjust. The loss of some organisms would not necessarily diminish the diversity of species. Historically prolific throughout the Chipola River, native mussels are now found only in the upper reaches of the river. Removal of the dam would restore the environment in which they prospered before the impoundment. The impoundment has affected larger invertebrates adversely too. Dr. Nowlin testified he had not seen any crawfish lately. Higher dissolved oxygen in the lakes would increase the diversity of species of macro- and benthic invertebrates alike. Mr. Stokes, Mr. Brogdon, Mr. Leland Taylor and others testified about the stench of souring mud that persisted for a day or two after each of the abrupt draw downs which the erratic opening of the control gates occasions. As Mr. Brogdon testified, the odor arises because "something dies." Removal of the dam will bring an end to the sudden, random outrushing of impounded water through the draw down structure. Without the dam, the water level will fall and fall further, but the drop will be more gradual so that organisms that need water to survive will have a chance to migrate and remain submerged. A more gradual lowering would also mean that less bottom would be newly exposed in the same interval of time. For both these reasons, removal of the dam should make odors associated with changes in the level of the Dead Lakes less, not more, of a problem. Public Welfare And The Property Of Others The Dead Lakes dam serves no flood control function. In times of low flow, it creates a reservoir, but the weight of the evidence was that such a reservoir is not needed. Nothing in the record suggests that removal of the dam would affect any significant historical or archaeological resources. There are two public boat ramps on the Dead Lakes, one at Oak Grove in Calhoun County and one in the Dead Lakes Recreational Area. Removal of the dam would render both of them useless for much of the year, unless they were extended. With the dam gone, fishermen and other recreational boaters would be able to navigate the Chipola River from a point in Jackson County down to its confluence with the Chipola Cutoff and from there down the Apalachicola River to Apalachicola Bay and the Gulf of Mexico, during much of the year. Boaters coming upriver could enter the Dead Lakes under a wider range of conditions. The dam, of which neither buoys nor anything else gives warning, presents a considerable navigational hazard. On the other hand, removal of the dam would impede navigation for riparian owners, who would need to extend their docks or boat ramps or take other measures to gain access to the water during times of low flow. Bound up with the environmental effects of removing the dam are certain economic realities. The weight of the evidence established that the value of most of the private residences, permanent and others, along the west shore of the lakes, would tend to decrease with removal of the dam, because removal would aggravate the access problem most of these landowners now have. On the other hand, other environmental consequences of removing the dam, notably better fishing, will have a beneficial economic effect, tending to increase land values not only for riparian landowners but also for owners of other property in the area. For riparian owners of land lying on the Chipola River above the Chipola Cutoff and below the Dead Lakes, the economic consequences of removing the dam would all be good. Jim Bozeman lives on the bank of the Chipola Cutoff 4.5 miles downriver from the dam on the site where his father has a public boat landing. Still further downriver are two other major businesses of this kind. With installation of the dam closing off the Dead Lakes, the Bozemans' business, which includes renting boats and motors as well as launching others' boats, fell off. Removal of the dam should have the opposite effect. Ten fish camp properties have docks or ramps on the Dead Lakes between the dam and Cypress Creek, as do 41 or 42 private landowners. Land upriver from Cypress Creek fronts the river channel, and lies beyond the influence of the dam. If the dam is removed, these property owners will have to extend their docks in order to have access to the water year round. In some cases, extending boat ramps may be an alternative. There is a statutory exemption from permitting requirements for private docks of up to 500 square feet. DER generally permits private docks no wider than six feet if they are built in T- and L- shapes, whatever their length. The environmental authorities do not favor excavating channels. The remains or "skeletons" of early docks reflect adaptations to fluctuations in the level of the lakes of the magnitude likely to recur upon removal of the dam. There are multi-tier docks on the lakes today. Only a few inches of water at the end of a dock will allow access to the lakes by boat, although it may be impossible to use the motor close to the dock. The prosperity of the fish camps depends more on the size of the fish population than on the length of the dock necessary to reach the fishing boats. William Setterich, who owns Stokes Fish Camp, which is located midway along the western shore of the Dead Lakes, wants to see the dam removed. It will mean more mud in front of his fish camp more of the time and he would have to spend some more money on the dock, but the prospect of better fishing would justify the investment.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petition of Daniel M. Sullivan, et al in Case No. 84- 4468, and the "Petition" of Raymond Drainville in Case No. 85-0129, be dismissed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 8th day of July, 1985 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of July, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Carroll L. McCauley, Esquire Ms. Victoria Tschinkel Post Office Box 3567 Secretary Panama City, Florida 32401 Department of Environmental Regulation Mr. Raymond Drainville Twin Towers Office Bldg. 2027 N. Roberts Circle 2600 Blair Stone Road Cantonment, Florida 32533 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William J. Rish, Esquire Post Office Box 39 Port St. Joe, Florida 32456 B. Suzi Ruhl, Esquire 203 N. Gadsden Street Suite 7 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Patria Fitzpatrick, Esquire Post Office Box 2464 Panama City, Florida 32402 J. David House, Esquire 119 River Street Blountstown, Florida 32424 Douglas L. Stowell, Esquire Gary J. Anton, Esquire P. O. Box 1018 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Susan Swihart, Esquire Asst. General Counsel Twin Towers Office Bldg. 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Talbott and Drake, Inc. is and was at all times alleged herein a registered real estate broker corporation. William F. Talbott is now and was at all times alleged herein a registered real estate broker and active firm member of Talbott and Drake, Inc. Paul P. Drake is now and was at all times alleged herein a registered real estate broker and active firm member of Talbott and Drake, Inc. Helen C. Drake is now and was at all times alleged herein a registered real estate broker and active firm member of Talbott and Drake, Inc. On or about January 18, 1977, William F. Talbott, on behalf of Talbott and Drake, Inc., negotiated a contract for sale and purchase between the High Ridge Water Company -- John H. McGeary, Jr., sellers, and William Montaltos and Genevieve L. Montaltos, his wife, buyers, for the purchase of lot in a new housing area known as River Forest in the Boca Raton area, Palm Beach County. A copy of said contract, Petitioner's Exhibit 1, is received into the record pursuant to the Stipulation of the parties. Said contract, Petitioner's Exhibit 1, was subject to the declarations of restrictions filed by High Ridge Water Company as seller on June 28, 1976, wherein, in Paragraph 7, the developer retained the right to approve or disapprove the plans and specifications for the construction of any structure, building, fence, wall or sign in the River Forest area. A copy of said declarations of restrictions is received into the record as Petitioner's Exhibit 2, pursuant to the Stipulation of the parties. As a part of the restrictions and provisions of the contract, the purchasers, Mr. and Mrs. Montaltos, were required to use a builder selected from a list of designated builders, approved and designated by Talbott and Drake, Inc. and the High Ridge Water Company. Mr. and Mrs. Montaltos decided to build on the subject property and contacted numerous builders designated by Talbott and Drake, Inc. to submit the bids for the construction of a home on the property. On or about June 9, 1976, the McGeary partnership, as developer of the River Forest area, entered into a joint venture agreement with Group Six Developers Collaborative, Inc., whereby Group Six Developers Collaborative, Inc. purchased lots in the River Forest area and agreed to pay Talbott and Drake, Inc. a five-percent commission on all homes constructed on said lots by Group Six Developers Collaborative, Inc. in the River Forest area. A copy of said joint venture agreement is received into the record as Petitioner's Exhibit 3 pursuant to the Stipulation of the parties. Petitioner's Exhibit 3 recites on the first page of said agreement as follows: WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, by that certain Purchase Agreement intended to be executed this date, BUILDER (Group Six Collaborative, Inc.) is agreeing to purchase certain real property as set forth herein, a copy of which Purchase Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit 1; . . . (emphasis added) WHEREAS, the parties hereto are desirous of forming a joint venture for the purpose of finan- cing, constructing and selling single family residences upon the property described in Exhibit 1; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the pro- mises and of the mutual covenants of the parties hereto, and for other good and valuable considera- tion, the parties agree as follows: 9. BROKER. The parties agree that TALBOTT AND DRAKE, INC., a Florida real estate brokerage corporation, shall have an exclusive listing agree- ment with BUILDER, as owner and joint venturer, for the sale of residences to be constructed pursuant to this Agreement, a copy of which Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. As a commission for their services, which shall include but not be limited to, advertising, manning model houses, showing receiving of deposits, qualifying prospects, assisting in obtaining financing for purchasers, they shall receive five percent (5 percent) of the pur- chase price, according to the provisions contained in Exhibit 2. The joint venture agreement, Petitioner's Exhibit 3, is clearly limited to houses to be constructed on the lots purchased from the McGeary partnership. The agreement does not constitute an agreement to pay Talbott and Drake, Inc. a fee of five percent of the construction cost of any custom home built by one of the designated builders on a lot purchased by an individual. When Mr. and Mrs. Montaltos received the bid statement from Group Six Developers Collaborative, Inc. there was noted thereon: "Add Real Estate Commission as per Talbott and Drake contract." A copy of said bid statement is received into the record as Petitioner's Exhibit 4 pursuant to the Stipulation of the parties. Although Mr. and Mrs. Montaltos were informed that Talbott and Drake, Inc. was to be paid a ten-percent commission by the seller on the sale of the property to Mr. and Mrs. Montaltos, they were at no time informed directly by the Respondents that the builders on the "approved list" were required to pay a five-percent commission to Talbott and Drake, Inc., nor that the said five- percent commission would be passed on to Mr. and Mrs. Montaltos when they contracted with an "approved" builder to construct a home on the subject property. On or about February 4, 1977, William F. Talbott, on behalf of Talbott and Drake, Inc., negotiated the contract for sale and purchase between High Ridge Water Company, as seller, and Donald James Kostuch and Mary Louise Kostuch, his wife, buyers, for purchase of a lot in the River Forest area of Palm Beach County. A copy of said contract is received into the record as Petitioner's Exhibit 5 pursuant to the Stipulation of the parties. Mr. and Mrs. Kostuch were required by the contract to select a builder from an approved list of designated builders approved and supplied by Talbott and Drake, Inc. and seller, High Ridge Water Company. Mr. and Mrs. Kostuch selected Snow Realty and Construction, Inc. from the list supplied by Talbott and Drake, Inc. Snow Realty and Construction, Inc. had an agreement with the McGeary partnership and Talbott and Drake, Inc. similar to that outlined in the joint venture agreement between the McGeary partnership in Group Six Developers Collaborative, Inc., Petitioner's Exhibit 3, whereby Snow Realty and Construction, Inc. agreed to pay Talbott and Drake, Inc. a five-percent commission on any residence that Snow Realty and Construction, Inc. built in the River Forest area. The bid supplied by Snow Realty and Construction, Inc. on March 7, 1977, to Talbott and Drake, Inc. contained a listing of real estate commission to Talbott and Drake, Inc. in the amount of $3,652. A copy of said bid statement is received into the record as Petitioner's Exhibit 6 pursuant to the Stipulation of the parties. The Kostuchs were advised of a five-percent fee to be paid by the builder by a salesman working for another broker who first introduced the Kostuchs to the real property in River Forest. The salesman advised the Kostuchs prior to their entry into the contract for the purchase of the lot in River Forest in which they agreed to limit their choice of builder to one approved by the McGeary partnership and Talbott and Drake, Inc. This disclosure would be sufficient to comply with the provisions of Rule 21V-10.13, Florida Administrative Code, because the fee was revealed by a salesperson involved in the transaction prior to the execution of the contract under which the favor, if any, was granted. Talbott and Drake, Inc., in addition to performing services as listing agent for the sale of homes in River Forest, also functioned as the prime developer in this project pursuant to an agreement with High Ridge Water Company and the McGeary partnership. Regarding the Montaltos' transaction, the limitation of the owners to the use of one of the approved builders constitutes the granting or placement of favor, because it narrows the competition to one of five builders out of all the builders available in the Fort Lauderdale area. The affidavits introduced indicate that, notwithstanding the absence of a written agreement, the designated builders had agreed to pay to Talbott and Drake, Inc. a fee of five percent of the cost of construction of any custom home as compensation for the efforts of Talbott and Drake, Inc. in developing the property. While compensation for these services is reasonable, it still constitutes a fee to be paid Talbott and Drake, Inc. from one of the five designated builders who would benefit from the contract. The potential adverse effect of this arrangement was to transfer a cost generally allocated to the cost of the lot to the cost of the house. Therefore, people shopping for a lot could be misled in the comparison of similar lots in different subdivisions in the absence of being advised of the fee to be paid by the builders to Talbott and Drake, Inc. However, the evidence shows no attempt to keep this fee a secret and thereby mislead buyers. The existence of such a fee is referred to in sales literature prepared by Talbott and Drake, Inc. The Kostuchs were advised of the fee by a participating salesman for another real estate company. The builders set out the fee as a separate cost item as opposed to absorbing it in general costs within their bids. While the Respondents could not produce evidence that the Montaltos' had been advised of the existence of the fee, and the Montaltos' testified that they had not been advised, this appears to be an isolated incident as opposed to a course of conduct. Notwithstanding proof of the above, no evidence is presented that the Montaltos' contracted with a designated builder to build their house, and that a designated builder paid a fee to Talbott and Drake, Inc. To the contrary, the testimony of William Talbott was that the Montaltos' had breached the terms of their contract regarding the use of a designated builder.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida Real Estate Commission issue a letter of reprimand to Talbott and Drake, Inc. which, in fairness to the Respondents, should set out the specifics of the violation and to further apprise other registrants of the potential dangers of such fee arrangement. DONE and ORDERED this 4th day of June, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Charles M. Holcomb, Esquire 653 Brevard Avenue Post Office Box 1657 Cocoa, Florida 32922
Findings Of Fact Background Petitioner, Department of Community Affairs (Department), is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility to administer and enforce the provisions of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder. Respondent, Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County (Monroe County), is a local government within the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern designated by Section 380.0552, Florida Statutes, and is responsible for implementation of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations, as approved and adopted in Chapters 9J-14 and 28-20, Florida Administrative Code. Between January 6, 1988, and January 12, 1988, Monroe County cleared, graded and filled a .6 mile stretch of road between Key Deer Boulevard and Ixora Road on Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida. As sited, the project was within the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern and the National Key Deer Wildlife Refuge, and altered the character of the road from a private access road, which provided a right of ingress and egress for the landowners within Pine Key Acres Section 1 (Pine Key Acres), to a public collector road, which was capable of carrying traffic from local roads outside Pine Key Acres to major thoroughfares. On January 29, 1988, the Department issued a notice of violation to Monroe County which, among other things, directed Monroe County to cease work on the road project and to conform its activities to the land development regulations approved and adopted in Chapters 9J-14 and 28-20, Florida Administrative Code. Monroe County filed a timely request for a formal administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, and contended that the road work constituted routine maintenance or improvement of an existing road and, therefore, did not constitute development as defined by Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. Thereafter, the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct a formal hearing. The Project at Issue The road work at issue in this case was constructed along the easterly .6 mile portion of the proposed right-of-way for the Cross Big Pine Key Arterial Access Road (Arterial Road). That Arterial Road would run east and west approximately 1.2 miles, through a corridor located approximately one-half mile north of and parallel to US 1, and would provide the developed residential areas of Big Pine Key, located at the extreme east and west ends of the proposed road, with an alternate to travel on US 1 to reach the central shopping area located immediately north of US 1 on Key Deer Boulevard. As proposed, the right-of-way follows a corridor along a 50-foot wide private easement, within which existed poorly maintained private access roads. The property north and south of these dirt roads, with the exception of a prison located at the southwest corner of the right-of-way and Key Deer Boulevard, is sparsely developed with single family residences, is natural habitat for the Key Deer, and is located immediately south of the main reservation of the National Key Deer Wildlife Refuge. The Arterial Road was conceived in 1985, following a six-month study by a Tripartisan Road Committee formed at the suggestion of County Commissioner Ed Swift to study alternate routes to move traffic across the island that would avoid the congestion experienced on US 1. The committee, composed of three members each from the Lower Keys Chamber of Commerce, Big Pine Civic Association, and Big Pine Concerned Citizens, ultimately recommended the proposed route to Monroe County in July 1985. This recommendation was made without benefit of a professional traffic study or environmental study to assess the need for or impact of the road. Monroe County approved the recommended route in July 1985, and authorized the committee to contact the landowners who held title to the land underlying the proposed right-of-way and to see if they could be persuaded to deed such property to the county for construction of the road. As previously noted, the proposed right-of-way followed a 50-foot wide private easement, and the landowners to the north and south of the proposed right-of-way owned, respectively, 25 feet of such lands, subject to the private access easement for adjacent land owners. In 1986, as the committee was endeavoring to acquire title to the right-of-way on behalf of Monroe County, Monroe County was developing its comprehensive plan and land development regulations for submittal to the Department as required by Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. Pertinent to this case, the plan and regulations contained no reference to the Arterial Road and permitted only one single family residence per gross acre in suburban residential areas, and excluded public rights-of-way from that calculation. Accordingly, since the lots along the proposed right-of-way were largely one- acre lots, including the 25 foot easement, the lot owners were at peril of rendering their lots unbuildable if they deeded such portions of their lands to the county. To alleviate this impediment, Monroe County, at some time prior to February 23, 1986, "assured" the committee that credit for the square footage deeded to the county would be included in calculating the size of the lot for building purposes. On February 28, 1986, Monroe County adopted its comprehensive plan and land development regulations (Land Use Plan), and forwarded them to the Department for review. On September 15, 1986, the County's Land Use Plan was approved by the Administrative Commission by rule and became effective. The Land Use Plan adopted by Monroe County and approved by the Administration Commission contained no reference or description of the proposed Arterial Road. It further permitted only one single family residence per gross acre in suburban residential areas, and still excluded public right-of-way from that calculation. On June 6, 1986, while its Land Use Plan was pending Department and Commission approval, Monroe County, in apparent recognition of the adverse impact its Land Use Plan would have on lot owners along the proposed road, adopted Ordinance No. 019-1986. Pertinent to this case, the ordinance provided: Section 1. Where a dedication is made for a county road and accepted by the county, the property so dedicated shall be taken into account by the proper county authorities and credited to the dedicating property owner for the purpose of computing density and/or area when and if the property owner applies for an improvement permit for the property. This ordinance was never submitted to the Department for approval, and was not a part of the Land Use Plan approved by the Administration Commission on September 15, 1986. Despite the fact that the Arterial Road was not included in the transportation element or any other element of its comprehensive plan, Monroe County engaged the services of Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan to prepare the proposed right-of-way map for the proposed road. This map was prepared and filed with the Clerk of the Circuit Court, Monroe County, on March 26, 1987. On February 2, 1988, Monroe County adopted Resolution No. 059-1988 to "address" its failure to include the Arterial Road in its Land Use Plan. Pertinent to this case, that resolution provided: WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County adopted a Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations on February 28, 1986, and said Plan and Regulations became effective on September 15, 1986, and WHEREAS, Section 13-101(E) of the Land Development Regulations provides that the Board of County Commissioners may correct typographical and drafting errors in the Regulations at any regular meeting without posted notice or public hearing provided that notice of such corrections is transmitted to the Florida Department of Community Affairs within thirty days of the adoption of such corrections: now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: Section 1. The proposed "Cross Big Pine Key Arterial Access Road" is consistent with the transportation element of the Monroe County Comprehensive Master Land Use Plan, and by prior vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida, was identified as a proposed road to be incorporated in the Monroe County Comprehensive Master Land Use Plan as a secondary collector road. Section 2. This Resolution correcting scrivener's errors and omissions described in section one shall be construed nunc pro tunc to February 28, 1986. Section 3. That the Clerk of the Board is hereby directed to provide notice of the adoption of this Resolution to the Department of Community Affairs within thirty days of adoption and the correct (sic) be appropriately noted in the permanent records of Monroe County relating to the Land Use Plan and Maps. This resolution was never submitted to the Department, and consequently never approved by it. By January 6, 1988, Monroe County had received quit claim deeds to the land underlying the 50-foot right-of-way from all the land owners along that portion of the proposed route lying east of Key Deer Boulevard to the intersection of Ixora and Hibiscus Roads, except the Trustees of the internal Improvement Trust Fund (Trustees) which owned the land underlying the area immediately prior to and at the intersection of the proposed road and Key Deer Boulevard. 1/ No proof was offered at hearing that the County had received any deeds for the right-of-way of the proposed road from its intersection with Key Deer Boulevard west to its terminus at Ships Way, and no construction has been undertaken along that .6 mile stretch of roadway. The right-of-way acquired by Monroe County had been in existence since it was created in 1973 as a private easement and dedicated to the landowners in Pine Key Acres for use as a road for ingress and egress. 2/ The road the developer constructed at that time was of limited stature, and consisted of a 30-foot wide simple fill road through the pine woods that characterize the area. Over the years, the landowners did not maintain the road, and it sank into a severe state of disrepair. Consequently, when the road was acquired by Monroe County it was severely potholed and rutted, partly overgrown with vegetation, and of insufficient width to allow the passage of cars in some areas. At the extreme easterly end of the road, where it now connects with the intersection of Ixora and Hibiscus Roads in the Whispering Pines Subdivision, a dump existed which contained tree stumps from the original creation of the road, and discarded refrigerators, air conditioners, cars and construction debris. This debris severely restricted the access to the road at its eastern terminus, and few ventured through it from the developed easterly part of Big Pine Key. Because of the limited access to the road at its eastern terminus, its severe state of disrepair, and the few residences that existed along its length, the easement running from Key Deer Boulevard to Wilder Road and from Wilder Road to Ixora Road received little traffic. What traffic it did receive was, because of the road's character, required to travel at an exceedingly limited speed. On January 6, 1988, Monroe County commenced construction on the subject road between Key Deer Boulevard and Ixora Road. While such construction did not conform to the design or construction standards for the Arterial Road evidenced by the proposed right-of-way map filed by the County, the compelling proof demonstrates that it does conform to and is in furtherance of the County's announced desire to construct an alternative access road at the subject location. Accordingly, while not the Arterial Road evidenced by the proposed right-of-way map filed by the County, the subject road is in furtherance of the County's plan to create such a road, albeit of a different design and construction standard than evidenced by the proposed right-of-way map. 3/ Between January 6 and 12, 1988, Monroe County's surveyor staked the centerline of the road right-of-way, and within 15 feet on either side of the centerline the County's work crews laid down a new bed of fill from Key Deer Boulevard to Ixora Road, rolled it, and would have applied a paving material but for the Department's cease and desist order. In the process, the County cleared vegetation from the right-of-way. At the eastern terminus of the road, the County also removed the debris from the dump area, and connected the road to the residentially developed areas of eastern Big Pine Key. In so doing, the county "straightened out the edges of the road" (created a road where it no longer existed because of lack of maintenance), and created a public access road from Ixora Road to Key Deer Boulevard capable of handling traffic at significant speeds. Notably, a portion of that roadway was created over the lands of the Trustees, to which Monroe County held no title and, overall, upon lands dedicated as a private access way. Monroe County undertook the aforementioned work without benefit of a building permit or certificate of compliance, and, accordingly, never rendered such a permit or certificate to the Department. 4/ Big Pine Key Area of Critical County Concern Section 11-109, Monroe County Land Development Regulations, establishes the Big Pine Key Area of Critical County Concern (Area of Critical Concern), and provides: Purpose. The purpose of the Big Pine Key Area of Critical County Concern is to establish a focal point planning effort directed at reconciling the conflict between reasonable investment backed expectations and the habitat needs of the Florida Key Deer which is listed as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act. Focal Point Planning Program. 1. Monroe County shall initiate a focal point planning program for the Big Pine Key Area of Critical County Concern that considers the following: The reasonable investment backed expectations of the owners of land within the Big Pine Key Area of Critical Concern; The habitat needs of the Florida Key Deer; The conflicts between human habitation and the survival of the Florida Key Deer; The role and importance of freshwater wetlands in the survival of the Florida Key Deer; Management approaches to reconciling the conflict between development and the survival of the Florida Key Deer; and Specific implementation programs for the Big Pine Key Area of Critical County Concern. Interim Regulations. Notwithstanding any other provisions of these land development regulations, no development shall be carried out on the Big Pine Key Area of Critical County Concern prior to the completion of the focal point planning program required by Section C of this designation and the adoption of amendments to the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and these land development regulations except in accordance with the following: 1. No development shall be carried out in the Big Pine Key Area of Critical County Concern except for single family detached dwellings on lots in the Improved Subdivision District or on lots having an area of one (1) acre of more. To date, the focal point planning program has not been completed by Monroe County, and that portion of the subject road running between Key Deer Boulevard and Wilder Road is within the Area of Critical Concern. The Florida Key Deer is a unique species of deer listed as endangered by both the state and federal government. The official estimate of the total population of these deer is 250-300, most of which live on Big Pine Key. The federal government has designated most of Big Pine Key as the National Key Deer Refuge, including the area through which the subject road runs. The area surrounding this road is prime habitat for the Key Deer because of the large number of endemic plants that are necessary elements of the Key Deer's diet. The primary threat to the continued existence of the Key Deer is the destruction of habitat and road kills (the killing of the animal by a motor vehicle). Construction of the subject road will adversely impact the Key Deer's chance of survival since it bisects the deer's natural foraging area, and will permit high speed travel and increased traffic across a road that previously accommodated limited local traffic at moderate speeds. Maintenance or development? Pertinent to this case, Sections 6-101 and 6-102, Monroe County Land Development Regulations (MCLDR) provide that no "development" may occur within the county except pursuant to a building permit and upon the issuance of a certificate of compliance with existing development regulations. "Developer" and "development" are defined by Section 3.101, MCLDR, as follows: DEVELOPER means any person, including a governmental agency, undertaking any development as defined in this Plan. DEVELOPMENT means the carrying out of any building activity, the making of any material change in the use or appearance of any structure or land or water.... * * * (c) For the purpose of these regulations the following operations or uses shall not be taken to involve "development": * * * (4) A change in the ownership or form of ownership of any parcel.... * * * (6) ... the maintenance of public rights of way and private accessways existing on the effective date of these Land Development Regulations or approved private rights of way. At hearing, Monroe County contended that the work it undertook on the subject road was not "development", as defined by the MCLDR because it constituted "maintenance" of a private accessway existent when its Land Use Plans became effective. Based on the findings which follow, Monroe County's contention is rejected. The 50 strips of land that Monroe County took title to was burdened with "an easement for the purpose of use as a road for ingress and egress into and from Pine Key Acres Section 1, Page 1," and dedicated to all the lot owners in Pine Key Acres. The simple fill road established in 1973, and still existent, through in disrepair, when the County's Land Use Plan became effective, was a private accessway designed and maintained, if at all, to provide access to Pine Key Acres property, of relatively low average traffic volume, of limited continuity and not for through traffic. As such, although a private accessway, the road meets the definition of "local road," as defined by 16-21(5), Monroe County Code. By the work already performed by the County on the subject road, it has changed the character and function of the roadway from a local road, primarily used by residents who lived along its length, to a "collector road." As such, the road now gathers an increased traffic volume from local roads within the eastern subdivisions of Big Pine Key, and moves it at increased speeds to arterial roads, which are, like Key Deer Boulevard and Wilder Road, main traffic arteries carrying relatively heavy volumes of traffic for long distances. Had the County not been halted from paving the road, the change in character and function would have been intensified. Because the County's construction activities were not designed to maintain, and did not maintain, the character and function of the road as a private accessway, they cannot be considered as "maintenance" of a private accessway, but were "development" as that term is defined by the County's Land Use Plans. 5/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered requiring the following corrective actions: Monroe County cease any and all construction on the subject road and refrain from commencing any further construction to create an arterial access road on Big Pine Key until it has complied with the provisions of its Land Use Plan and Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. That until such time as Monroe County has complied with its Land Use Plans and Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, that it erect such barriers, signs or other impediments, or take such other action as may be necessary, to limit the volume and speed of traffic on the road it has developed to those conditions which existed prior to its development. Monroe County carry out the Big Pine Key focal point planning program as required by Section 11-109, MCLDR, and strictly adhere to and enforce section 11-109D, MCLDR, which prohibits development in the area of Critical County Concern, except for single family detached dwellings, until its land use regulations are amended in accordance with Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 9th day of May 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 9th day of May, 1989.
The Issue The issues to be determined in this consolidated proceeding are (1) whether the Petitioners have demonstrated standing under section 163.3184, Florida Statutes (2018), and (2) whether the Okeechobee Business District Comprehensive Plan Amendment (OBD Amendment) adopted on August 13, 2018, by the Respondent by Ordinance No. 4783-18 (Ordinance) is "in compliance" under section 163.3184(1)(b).
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Standing Lakeview is a Delaware limited liability company, registered with the State of Florida. Lakeview owns Esperanté, a 20-story office tower at 222 Lakeview Avenue within the boundaries of the OBD. Lakeview submitted oral and written objections to the City during the process leading to adoption of the OBD Amendment. Lakeview's concerns included impact to views of the Intracoastal Waterway by potential development of a 25-story office tower to the east of Esperanté at the location referred to as the "church site," as well as increased traffic congestion on Lakeview Avenue. Lakeview is an affected person under section 163.3184(1)(a). The Town is a Florida municipal corporation and a home rule charter municipality. The Town owns property within the City, including its public works facility in close proximity to the OBD. The Town submitted oral and written comments, recommendations, and objections to the City during the adoption process for the OBD Amendment. The Town is an adjoining local government to the City. The Town was concerned that the OBD Amendment would produce substantial impacts on the increased need for publicly funded infrastructure by increasing the cost of traffic signalization on Okeechobee Boulevard and Lakeview Avenue in the OBD. The Town is an affected person under section 163.3184(1)(a). The County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and a home rule charter county. The County owns property within the jurisdiction of the City, including its convention center and parking garage, which are located on Okeechobee Boulevard in close proximity to the OBD. The County was concerned that the OBD Amendment would produce substantial impacts on the increased need for publicly funded infrastructure in the form of increased cost for traffic signalization and other active traffic management measures on Okeechobee Boulevard and on increased cost of providing bus services. The County submitted oral and written comments, recommendations, and objections to the City during the adoption process for the OBD Amendment. The County is an affected person under section 163.3184(1)(a). The City is a Florida municipal corporation located in the County and is responsible for adopting a comprehensive plan and plan amendments. The City adopted the OBD Amendment under the state expedited review process in section 163.3184(3). The City also owns a parcel within the OBD referred to throughout this proceeding as the "tent site." Background The OBD includes all the properties located between Okeechobee Boulevard, Lakeview Avenue, Rosemary Avenue, and Flagler Drive in the City's downtown. It is a five-block area with the church site as its easternmost parcel. The OBD is a new district within the area defined in the Downtown Master Plan (DMP) Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan (City Comp Plan). The DMP Element is an optional element of the City Comp Plan that was adopted in 1995. The DMP's vision includes promoting a place of sustainable and efficient transportation systems that promote greater connectivity for pedestrians, cyclist, and transit riders. The OBD Amendment is a small component of the City's large and comprehensive strategy to encourage mode shift within the DMP area. The DMP currently sets forth 13 districts that are described in Policy 1.1.1 and whose boundaries are depicted on the Downtown District Map in the City Comp Plan. DMP Policy 3.1.1 directs the City to maintain the DMP Zoning Atlas showing the districts from DMP Policy 1.1.1, the planning areas and the subdistricts. The OBD is also located within the Downtown Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) established in Objective 2.3.5 of the Transportation Element in the City Comp Plan. The Downtown TCEA is also adopted in the County's Comprehensive Plan (County Comp Plan), and the TCEA boundaries are coterminous with the DMP area. The City entered into an agreement with the County and FDOT in 1998 regarding the TCEA. Adoption of the TCEA meant that the City, the County, and FDOT acknowledged that in order for desired development and redevelopment to occur in the City's downtown area, it would be difficult for certain roadways to continue to meet the adopted level of service standards. Thus, the City was exempted from meeting transportation concurrency requirements and traffic performance standards in the TCEA. A Florida Standard Urban Transportation Modeling System (FSUTMS) traffic analysis of the area that was done prior to adoption of the TCEA ultimately established the required residential and nonresidential development ratios described in Transportation Element Policy 2.3.5(h). The development ratios required the City to have both residential and nonresidential space in the downtown area. The City achieved the projection for residential units set forth in Transportation Element Policy 2.3.5(g), but has approximately five million square feet more of nonresidential space available to reach the stated projection for nonresidential space. The OBD Amendment On April 30, 2018, Gabe Klein, a consultant for the City, presented the Downtown Mobility Plan to the mayor and city commission. The workshop was open to the public and televised on the City's website. At this workshop, the Mayor initiated the process for pursuing the OBD Amendment. The City then timely sent its executive summary of the proposed OBD Amendment to the Interlocal Plan Amendment Review Committee (IPARC) Clearinghouse on May 3, 2018. On May 7, 2018, the Clearinghouse provided notice (IPARC Notice) of the OBD Amendment to the Town and the County under the terms of the Interlocal Agreement that established the IPARC. On May 21, 2018, by Resolution No. 134-18, the City Commission adopted the Downtown Mobility Plan, along with the Okeechobee Corridor Study, Downtown Parking and Transportation Demand Management Study, and the Citywide Bicycle Master Plan. In addition to the IPARC Notice, the City provided notice to both the County and Lakeview by mail and published required notices in the newspaper. Counsel for Lakeview presented oral comments regarding the OBD Amendment at the City's Planning Board meeting on May 15, 2018; at the Downtown Action Committee (DAC) meeting on June 13, 2018; at the transmittal hearing on June 18, 2018; and at the adoption hearing on August 13, 2018. County representatives made oral comments at the transmittal hearing on June 18, 2018, and the adoption hearing on August 13, 2018. A Town representative made oral comments at the adoption hearing on August 13, 2018. The Ordinance reflected the City's continuing policy of seeking to attract high-intensity office uses to consolidate the area as an economic center of downtown, with innovative high-rise buildings and an active pedestrian environment. The Ordinance further allowed for the creation of incentives to permit building heights to increase from five stories to 25 stories in the OBD 5 subdistrict without increasing the permitted floor area ratio (FAR) of 2.75. The Ordinance amended the City Comp Plan's DMP Element to identify the location, development capacity, and height allowed within the OBD. DMP Policy 1.1.1 was amended to create the OBD. DMP Policy 3.1.3 was amended to show maximum development capacity, subdistrict boundaries and incentive areas for the OBD. The text added to DMP Policy 1.1.1 stated: N. Okeechobee Business District: The Okeechobee corridor is the traditional business district of downtown, around which office buildings have historically located. The focus of the Okeechobee business district should be towards attracting high intensity office uses to consolidate the area as an economic center of downtown, with innovative high-rise buildings and an active pedestrian environment. The district shall function as a connection between the north and south portions of the City, with enhanced pedestrian crossings and a large percentage of public open spaces. Intensity and Density The OBD Amendment did not increase development intensity or density. In fact, the OBD Amendment reduced the allowable development within the Okeechobee Corridor. The evidence established that the FAR of 2.75 on the church site remained the same with the OBD Amendment. Ms. Aponte is in charge of overseeing the development and implementation of the DMP. She testified that prior to adoption of the OBD Amendment, the FAR on the church site was 2.75 and that the church site property could have been developed to accommodate approximately 300,000 square feet of usable office space and provide parking on site. With the same FAR of 2.75 after adoption of the OBD Amendment, the church site's development capacity remained the same. Ms. Aponte also concluded that from a planning perspective, since the development capacity at the church site remained the same before and after the OBD Amendment, and the use did not change, there would not be additional traffic impacts. Mr. Greene explained that the OBD Amendment would actually reduce the development capacity on the tent site and that all other blocks in the OBD would retain the same development capacity as before the OBD Amendment. Since there was a reduction in the actual development capacity within the OBD, there was not an increase in intensity. Mr. Greene and/or his staff explained the reduction in development capacity in the OBD at all four public hearings and in many telephone conversations with staff from the County and the Town. The tent site is located within the City Place Development of Regional Impact (DRI) that holds certain development rights. Sites located within the DRI may use the DRI's development rights on a "first come, first serve" basis until they are exhausted. Reducing capacity on the tent site would allow another site within the DRI to use those development rights. This would shift development away from the Okeechobee Corridor in the OBD to another site within the DRI. The City proved that the OBD Amendment did not increase development intensity or density. The City credibly established that the OBD Amendment reduced the allowable development within the OBD. Petitioners' Objections The Petitioners jointly presented their cases during the hearing. They argued that the OBD Amendment was not "in compliance" because it created internal inconsistencies within the City Comp Plan, it was not supported by relevant and appropriate data and analysis, it was not properly coordinated with the neighboring local governments, it was not coordinated with the comprehensive plans of the Town and the County, and it was a de facto future land use plan amendment. Each argument is generally addressed below. However, the major underlying premise of the Petitioners' challenge was that the OBD Amendment would allow more intense development and that the City had not evaluated potential impacts to traffic and parking. As found above, the City proved that the OBD Amendment did not increase development intensity or density. Thus, the City did not need to evaluate the traffic impacts of the OBD. In addition, the City was exempted from meeting transportation concurrency requirements and traffic performance standards in the TCEA. Internal Consistency The Town and County identified elements in the City Comp Plan in order to argue internal inconsistency. Those were the Coastal Management Element, Intergovernmental Coordination Element, and Transportation Element. The Town and County also claimed the OBD Amendment was inconsistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan. Lakeview claimed the OBD Amendment was inconsistent with the entire City Comp Plan generally, and specifically inconsistent with the vision of the DMP Element, DMP Policies 3.1.3, 1.1.1.H, and 1.1.1.M; Future Land Use Policy 1.1.7; Transportation Element Policy 2.3.1(a), Objective 2.3.4, Policies 2.3.5(a) and 2.3.5(h); and Intergovernmental Coordination Element Objectives 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4, Policies 1.3.1, 1.3.3, 1.3.4, and 1.5.3. The Petitioners argued that "high-rise Class A" buildings must be built in the Quadrille Business District (QBD) described in DMP Policy 1.1.1.H. However, the DMP Element does not limit tall buildings to the QBD. For example, a maximum height of 30 stories is allowed in the Quadrille Garden District, 25 stories in the QBD, and 15 stories in the Transit Oriented District and Flagler Waterfront District. During the hearing, Mr. Greene narrated drone footage that showed high-rise buildings are located throughout the downtown area, including in and near the OBD in the Okeechobee Corridor. Two residential towers that are 32 stories in height are also located along the waterfront in the Flagler Waterfront District. The evidence supported the description in the OBD that "[t]he Okeechobee corridor is the traditional business district of downtown, around which office buildings have historically located." The evidence also established that the tallest buildings in the downtown are not located in the QBD. The City Comp Plan does not prohibit high-rise buildings in districts other than the QBD. Lakeview's witness, Ms. Ward, opined that creation of the OBD conflicted with the intention of the Flagler Waterfront District to preserve waterfront views and its function as a transition from more intense development in the urban core of downtown. The evidence showed that these intentions can be realized with creation of the OBD. The OBD's implementing regulations adopted at the same time as the OBD Amendment as changes to the DMP Urban Regulations required that any development be set back 400 feet from the Intracoastal Waterway and that open space be increased. This would maintain an open space promenade along Flagler Drive. The County argued that the OBD Amendment conflicted with Policy 1.2-m of its Transportation Element, which provides in part: "Based on the results of the traffic monitoring report, the City will pursue strategies including, but not limited to . . . develop a centrally-managed system of strategically located parking facilities." The same language is found in the Transportation Element of the City Comp Plan in Policy 2.3.5(a). Contrary to the County's argument, the OBD Amendment in no way prohibited or directed the location of centrally-managed parking garages. The OBD Amendment complemented the many strategies referenced in Policy 1.2-m and Policy 2.3.5(a) by promoting public transit services, encouraging transportation mode options, and implementing employer-based Transportation Demand Management (TDM) activities. The evidence established that parking requirements for any developments within the DMP, including the new OBD, complied with the provisions of DMP Element Objective 4.3 and the implementing DMP Urban Regulations. DMP Objective 4.3 states that "[t]he City shall develop strategies to manage the downtown parking supply and demand." Lakeview argued that Exhibit 3 to the Ordinance showed two Okeechobee Business subdistricts but did not list the other subdistricts that were created under the OBD, specifically OBD-12CP. Mr. Hansen explained that OBD-12CP is contained within the City Place DRI, which was amended by the adoption of a separate Ordinance No. 4782-18 and is not subject to review in a comprehensive plan challenge. At the hearing, the County and Town withdrew their claim relating to conflict with the Coastal Management Element. In an abundance of caution, the City presented evidence and established that the OBD is not in a coastal high hazard area. The Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (Treasure Coast) is the regional planning council that reviewed the City's OBD Amendment. Treasure Coast's review and comments were limited to any adverse effects on regional resources or facilities identified in the Strategic Regional Policy Plan, and any extra- jurisdictional impacts that would be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan of any affected local government within the region. Based on the City's staff report for the OBD Amendment, Treasure Coast found that the maximum development potential of property, as expressed by FAR, did not increase as a result of the creation of the OBD. Treasure Coast found no adverse effects on regional resources or facilities and no extra-jurisdictional impacts resulting from creation of the OBD. The Petitioners did not present any evidence that would establish the OBD Amendment was not consistent with the requirements of the Strategic Regional Policy Plan. The Petitioners did not prove beyond fair debate that the OBD Amendment conflicted with the policies, goals, and objectives of the City Comp Plan or the County Comp Plan. Data and Analysis The City Commission adopted the Downtown Mobility Plan (Mobility Plan), along with the Okeechobee Corridor Study, Downtown Parking and Transportation Demand Management Study and the Citywide Bicycle Master Plan. The various studies that make up the Mobility Plan included data relating to mode shift, walkability, mobility, circulation on Okeechobee Boulevard, economic growth in the downtown, and TDM initiatives. The Mobility Plan created a vision of desired outcomes, goals, a mode hierarchy, a mode-shift goal, and a series of proposed projects and strategies to improve mobility, not only along the Okeechobee Corridor, but also the entire downtown. The plan estimated needs in 2040 based on jobs and population rates and provided specific proposed projects that could be implemented to manage future growth in the entire downtown. The study specifically included streets within the OBD and was, therefore, relevant data and analysis that supported the OBD Amendment. The Okeechobee Corridor Study looked at the needs, capacity, and characteristics along Okeechobee Boulevard, all of which are related to the OBD. The Downtown Parking and Transportation Demand Management Study provided an audit of the parking in the downtown area. The study supported adoption of the OBD Amendment since the OBD is an area included within the overall parking demand study. The Citywide Bicycle Master Plan included an analysis of bike facilities and bike lanes along and accessing the OBD. It discussed the existing transit network in the Okeechobee corridor, obstacles, and the need for modification to some of the street systems to achieve the Bicycle Master Plan's long-term goals of producing a connected series of trails. The City also relied upon traffic count data for Okeechobee Boulevard produced by the County. In addition to the County's traffic count data, the City relied on an FDOT analysis dated June 7, 2018, which showed existing conditions before and after the Brightline train service began and which revealed that there were no intersections on the relevant portions of Okeechobee Boulevard that were failing. The City Commission also reviewed data concerning trolley ridership and skybike ridership. There were numerous other data and analyses that existed at the time of adoption of the OBD Amendment that supported the City's action in adopting the amendment including: The Economic Impact Analysis of the OBD by Fishkind & Associates, which found that the City's Class-A office market is underserved, that the City's market has a vacancy rate far below average for business districts in Florida or the United States, that a new Class-A office building in the OBD is likely to have a beneficial impact on the City's office market, that the OBD could create 1,000 new high-wage jobs and create additional demand for residential housing, that a new Class-A office building would likely generate $1 million in tax revenue for the City, and that approval of the OBD would not have a detrimental impact on surrounding Class-A offices. The West Palm Beach Downtown Walkability Analysis specifically stated that certain streets, most notably the state- owned Okeechobee Boulevard and Quadrille Avenue, are considered "downright hazardous" to pedestrians. Dr. Depew explained that the study was relevant to the OBD Amendment because it explained how the City could get people out of their personal automobiles and move them into an urban environment in different modes of transportation, which is consistent with the TCEA's aim to have more people living and working downtown. The City has adopted the walkability study in the Transportation Element Policy 2.4.4(a) of the City Comp Plan. The FDOT District 4 Road Safety Audit Report was intended to look at the performance of existing or future road intersections, including the intersection of Okeechobee Boulevard and Florida Avenue and Rosemary Avenue, to determine how the area itself could be made safer for pedestrians, provide alternative means of transportation, and reduce conflicts between pedestrians, bicycles, and vehicles in the area. The Transit Choices Report + Sketch Alternatives contained data related to population and employment trends in the downtown area and alternatives for transit in the downtown area. It provided options, alternatives, and recommendations that included a portion of the OBD area. The report contained a map related to the mobility plan and shifting transit services to a new downtown site as a potential for future consideration within the OBD. It also referenced the Okeechobee Boulevard Corridor Study. The West Palm Beach Economic Development Study by Avalanche evaluated economic and demographic data, assessed the City's business climate, analyzed visitor trends, analyzed real estate trends, and reviewed economic development assets and programs in the City. With regard to infrastructure and real estate, the study found that Class A office space was in high demand, that office vacancy rates have been falling since 2011, and that the potential OBD would allow the City to increase in-demand Class A office product in a prime downtown location. The appraiser report by Aucamp, Dellenback and Whitney concluded that the proposed OBD would not have an adverse effect on property values for the downtown-at-large, no adverse effect on property values for nearby residential buildings, and no adverse effect on property values for nearby office buildings. The Palm Beach Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan included growth forecasts regarding population and employment (population growth at 35 percent and employment growth at 56 percent by 2040), which Dr. Depew looked at to confirm that the materials in other reports he reviewed were accurate. The City did not perform a site-specific traffic impact study because it was exempt under the TCEA, and there was a reduction of development intensity within the Okeechobee Corridor. Dr. Depew opined that the proposed OBD Amendment did not require a traffic impact study. The Petitioners argued that the various surveys, studies, and reports did not expressly refer to the OBD and the OBD Amendment. However, section 163.3177(1)(f) does not require creation of a plan amendment prior to conducting studies and gathering data to support it. In fact, a plan amendment is usually the reaction to surveys, studies, community goals and vision, and other data. The data and analyses relied on by the City were prepared by recognized professionals using professionally accepted methodologies and sources. The City's reaction to the data and analyses was appropriate. The Petitioners did not prove beyond fair debate that the OBD Amendment was not supported by relevant data and analysis or that the City did not react appropriately to the data and analysis. Intergovernmental Coordination The County, Town, and City entered into the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Coordinated Review Interlocal Agreement, dated October 1, 1993 (Interlocal Agreement), to comply with the intergovernmental coordination requirements of chapter 163. The Interlocal Agreement established a countywide coordinated review process designed to provide cooperation between affected local governments and opportunities to resolve potential disputes within the plan amendment process with the least amount of infringement upon existing processes. The Interlocal Agreement established the IPARC Clearinghouse. Local governments are obligated to provide the Clearinghouse with an executive summary and hearing information. The City timely sent its executive summary to the Clearinghouse, and the Clearinghouse provided notice of the OBD Amendment to the Town and the County. The Interlocal Agreement provided that a written notice of intent to object may be filed by a participating local government and must be filed no later than 15 days before the transmittal hearing. Once filed, a meeting is required between the jurisdictions, a fact-finding panel is established, an opinion letter is issued, and conflict resolution is available as provided under Article X. The Town signed the Interlocal Agreement. It also adopted Policy 1.1.3 in the Intergovernmental Coordination Element (ICE) of its Comprehensive Plan requiring it to cooperate with all other local governments in a voluntary dispute resolution process for the purpose of facilitating intergovernmental coordination. The County also signed the Interlocal Agreement. In the County's ICE, it too recognized the intergovernmental review process established under the Interlocal Agreement. The County and Town did not present any evidence that they filed notices of intent to object to the OBD Amendment 15 days prior to the transmittal hearing as required by the Interlocal Agreement. In addition to the IPARC Notice, the City provided notice to both the County and Lakeview by mail and published required notices in the newspaper. Mr. Greene and Ms. Aponte spoke with John Lingren from the Town about the OBD Amendment. During that conversation, the purpose of the amendment was clarified, development capacity was discussed, and it was explained that the amendment did not increase development capacity on the corridors and did not change the uses. Ms. Aponte and Mr. Hansen also spoke with Mr. Mohyuddin, a principal planner from the County, and clarified that the City was not modifying development capacity and that there was no effect on traffic in the corridor. Mr. Hansen also spoke to Jorge Perez, a senior urban designer with the County, regarding the plan amendments. The FDOT sent a findings letter to the City after reviewing the OBD Amendment. Following receipt of the letter, Mr. Greene communicated with Larry Hymowitz, the FDOT transportation planner who prepared the letter. After reviewing information provided by Mr. Greene, Mr. Hymowitz testified that he no longer believed that there were adverse impacts to transportation facilities and no longer had concerns about the data and analysis used to support the OBD Amendment. Mr. Hymowitz stated that he considered this type of communication to be intergovernmental coordination. The City also received letters from the Petitioners and heard public comment made by the Petitioners' representatives at the public hearings before making its final decision to adopt the OBD Amendment. The Petitioners did not prove beyond fair debate that the City did not comply with the intergovernmental coordination requirements of the Comp Plans of the County, Town, or City, or of chapter 163. De Facto Future Land Use Plan Amendment The Petitioners argued that the OBD Amendment conflicts with the Future Land Use (FLU) Element and is a de facto future land use plan amendment. On its face, the Ordinance amended the City's DMP Element, not the City's Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The only FLU designation for the entire DMP area is the Urban Central Business District. The OBD Amendment did not change the FLUM since the designation remains Urban Central Business District. DMP Element Policy 3.1.3 stated that the City would establish zoning designations, and specifically indicated that Table DMP-1 identified the maximum FAR and maximum height allowed within each zoning subdistrict by right and with incentives. The City's illustrative zoning maps included in the DMP Element were reviewed in the past by the state land planning agency and were accepted as part of the DMP Element, not as a part of the FLU Element or FLUM. The Petitioners' argument is an attempt to challenge the status quo by claiming that the OBD Amendment is part of a change to or in conflict with the FLU Element when no change to the FLUM has occurred. The City's interpretation of its Comp Plan is reasonable. Ultimate Findings The Petitioners did not prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance is not in compliance. All other contentions not specifically discussed have been considered and rejected. The City's determination that the Ordinance is in compliance is fairly debatable.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Economic Opportunity enter a final order finding the OBD Amendment adopted by the City by Ordinance No. 4783-18 "in compliance," as defined by section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2018). DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of December, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRANCINE M. FFOLKES Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of December, 2018. COPIES FURNISHED: Nathan E. Nason, Esquire Nason, Yeager, Gerson, White & Lioce, P.A. 3001 PGA Boulevard Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 (eServed) John Kenneth Rice, Esquire Nason, Yeager, Gerson, White & Lioce, P.A. 750 Park of Commerce Boulevard Boca Raton, Florida 33487 (eServed) Terrell K. Arline, Esquire Terrell K. Arline, Attorney at Law, Company 1819 Tamiami Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Kimberly L. Rothenburg, Esquire K. Denise Haire, Esquire City of West Palm Beach 401 Clematis Street, 5th Floor West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 (eServed) Peter Penrod, General Counsel Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building, MSC 110 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed) Cissy Proctor, Executive Director Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed) Stephanie Webster, Agency Clerk Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact 1. Emmons was a Residential Services Supervisor who had a predetermination/liberty interest (name clearing) hearing held on August 24, 2012. After that hearing, he was terminated effective at the close of business on August 24, 2012 and notified of that fact via correspondence dated August 27, 2012. (See, e.g., Exhibit 4). 2. On September 4, 2012, Emmons submitted a written request to ECUA’s Director of Human Resources and Administrative Services (hereinafter “HR Director”) appealing disciplinary action taken against him in his employment with ECUA. 3. That same date, ECUA requested the services of an Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter “ALJ”) from the Florida Division of Administrative Hearings (“DOAH”) to conduct an evidentiary hearing and issue a Recommended Order to ECUA’s Executive Director pursuant to the Administrative Law Judge Services Contract previously entered into between ECUA and DOAH. 4. DOAH assigned an ALJ to preside over the matter, who in turn issued a Notice of Hearing scheduling an evidentiary hearing to take place beginning at 10:00 a.m. on October 15, 2012 in ECUA’s Board Room. 5. ECUA was present and ready to proceed with the evidentiary hearing at the appointed time and place, yet neither Emmons nor anyone acting on his behalf appeared. Furthermore, no one had heard from Emmons. 6. After waiting fifteen (15) minutes after the designated start-time for the hearing, neither Emmons nor anyone acting on his behalf had been heard from. 7. Thereafter, the ALJ called the hearing to order, and ECUA proffered witness testimony and admitted exhibits into the record. The record established the following: a. Emmons was a Residential Services Supervisor in ECUA’s Sanitation Department. b. On March 28, 2012 Emmons was notified by a Sanitation Equipment Operator under his supervision that his truck (Truck #43B), had broken down. After Emmons arrived on the scene in ECUA Truck #11C, he went to sleep while on duty. c. Emmons slept for approximately twenty to thirty minutes, and his vehicle, Vehicle #11C, was idling with the air conditioner on throughout this time. d. While Emmons slept, an ECUA employee photographed him. e. This was not the first time Emmons had slept while on duty; instead, in the Summer of 2011 Emmons was observed sleeping in his ECUA-assigned vehicle by another ECUA employee. f. Furthermore, within the past twelve months Emmons was observed by ECUA employees reclined with his eyes closed for an extended period of time on two other occasions during the past twelve months. g. Additionally, in 2010 a photograph of Emmons apparently sleeping on duty was brought to one of his superiors’ attention. In this instance, Emmons was cautioned that it was completely unacceptable for a supervisor to be sleeping anywhere 3 at any time while on duty and that if this were to happen again disciplinary action would be imposed. h. ECUA issued a written notice of predetermination hearing to Emmons on August 21, 2012 regarding contemplated disciplinary action for violations of Section B-13A(4), [Conduct Unbecoming an ECUA Employee], Section B-13A(18) [Loafing], Section B-13A(21) [Neglect of Duty], Section B-13A(25) [Sleeping on Duty], and Section B-13A(33) [Violation of ECUA rules or policies] of ECUA’s Human Resources Manual. i. Section B-37(A) of ECUA’s Human Resources Manual additionally provides that ECUA employees shall avoid unnecessary vehicle idling and prohibits allowing a vehicle to idle solely to operate the air conditioner for the comfort of the vehicle’s occupants. j.._ Emmons knew of the above-referenced provisions of ECUA’s Human Resources Manual by virtue of the fact that he had received it, as well as the fact that the substantive provisions of it applicable to his sleeping on duty had been previously discussed with at least one of his superiors. k. Upon proper notice a predetermination hearing was held on August 24, 2012, and thereafter a written notice of disciplinary action was issued to Emmons on August 27, 2012 notifying him that his conduct violated Sections B-13A(4), (18), (21), (25), and (33) of ECUA’s Human Resources Manual. 8. The hearing was closed at approximately 10:27 a.m. 9. Based upon a review of the record, the evidence shows that Emmons’ conduct was violative of Sections B-13A(4) [conduct unbecoming an ECUA employee], 4 Section B-13A(8) [loafing], Section B-13A(21) [neglect of duty], Section B-13A(25) (sleeping while on duty], Section B-13A(33) [violation of ECUA rules or policies], and Section B-37 [vehicle and equipment idle reduction] of ECUA’s Human Resources Manual. (See ECUA ex. 5, 6). The evidence further shows that you were aware of these provisions within the Human Resources Manual. (See ECUA ex. 7). 10. Two days later, on September 17, 2012, R. John Westberry, Esq., entered an appearance on behalf of Emmons and filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on his behalf. In neither of these filings was any justification proffered for Emmons’ having failed to appear at the scheduled evidentiary hearing. Additionally, good cause was not shown for Emmons’ attorney having failed to appear at the hearing (although it is unclear whether the attorney had been retained at that time). 1. Nevertheless, on October 18, 2012 the ALJ rendered an Order Closing File ostensibly dismissing the matter.
Conclusions Petitioner, Emerald Coast Utilities Authority (hereinafter either "ECUA" or “Petitioner”), terminated Respondent, Michael A. Emmons (hereinafter either "Emmons" or “Respondent”), from his employment with ECUA effective at the close of business on August 24, 2012. Emmons timely requested a hearing in order to appeal his termination, and his case was forwarded to Florida Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct a hearing and issue findings of fact and recommended conclusions of law. After being properly noticed, a formal hearing was held in this cause on October 15, 2012 in Pensacola, Florida, before Diane Cleavinger, Administrative Law Judge with the Florida Division of Administrative Hearings, which Emmons elected not to attend. . Three days later, on October 18, 2012, Judge Diane Cleavinger submitted an Order Closing File, which for reasons set forth below is deemed a Recommended Order. Pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(10, Florida Statutes, the Parties had 15 days within which to submit written exceptions to the Recommended Order. That time-frame has expired, with only Petitioner’s having filed a submission. Emmons also filed no response to Petitioner’s exceptions. See Rule 28-106.217(3), Florida Administrative Code (affording a party 10 days from the filing of the other party’s exceptions to respond to those exceptions).
