Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Florida Clearwater Beach Hotel, Inc., is the owner of Lots 1-5 and 49-52 at 490 North Gulfview Boulevard, Clearwater Beach, Florida. Lots 1-5 are located on the southwest corner of Baymont Street and Gulfview Boulevard and front directly on Clearwater Beach. They measure approximately one hundred feet in depth and one hundred forty-one feet at their widest point. Lots 49-52 lie immediately across the street from Lots 1-5 and are approximately one hundred feet south of Baymont Street. They form a square and measure one hundred feet on each side. Petitioner purchased the property in question in 1978. Prior to that time the two parcels of land enjoyed common ownership and a common development pattern for at least forty years. A twenty-two room facility presently sits on Lots 1-5 and is rented out as ten units. Lots 49-52 are used as a parking lot for the tenants and guests of the facility. The property is presently zoned CTF-28 (High Density Commercial Tourist Facilities), which provides for a complete range of motel/hotel developments. The major emphasis of the district is tourist oriented with a permitted maximum density of forty-two hotel or motel units per acre. Petitioner wishes to destroy the existing structure and replace it with a new rectangular-shaped facility containing approximately twenty-two motel or hotel units. Because of the need to comply with flood ordinances, it must be built on pilings or piers. The proposed new structure will consist of four living levels over grade level parking. Petitioner's property measures less than two hundred feet in depth; therefore, the maximum height of its proposed facility cannot exceed forty feet under existing zoning requirements. Other property owners whose lots exceed two hundred feet in depth may construct buildings not to exceed eighty feet in height. Under present plans, the proposed hotel will have a forty-four foot height, which will require a four-foot variance. Petitioner contends that the hotel cannot be built with smaller dimensions. It also contends that a vista or side setback on the northwest corner of the building is required since present plans call for a small portion of the building to project into the vista area. This is due to the north property line running at an angle to the south property line and the proposed building being rectangular in shape. This variance will be contingent upon the City vacating a right-of-way adjacent to Baymont Street, thereby giving Petitioner an additional twenty feet in which to build its new facility. The City opposes the application on the ground that all criteria necessary to grant a variance have not been met. It specifically points out that the problems encountered by Petitioner are not unique to Petitioner alone, but are hardships common to all area owners.
The Issue The ultimate issue in this appeal is whether to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the Development Order issued to Appellee Pinellas Education Organization, Inc., d/b/a Enterprise High School (Applicant or School), by the Board on December 3, 2019. Specifically, the following issues must be resolved: Whether Appellants have standing to appeal the Development Order. Whether the issues raised by Appellants at the Oral Argument were properly preserved for appeal. Whether there is substantial competent evidence in the record to support approval of the Development Order.3 Whether the Board's decision departs from the essential requirements of the law. If the Development Order is affirmed, whether any additional conditions are appropriate. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Appellee School filed an application to renovate an existing building to operate a high school at 2495 Enterprise Road, in Clearwater, Florida.4 The Board held a quasi-judicial public hearing on the application on November 19, 2019 (Board Hearing). The Board approved the School's application with conditions and the City issued the Development Order on December 3, 2019. On December 4, 2019, two separate Appeal Applications were filed regarding the Development Order: (1) by 2521 Countryside Blvd., LLP, Countryside Property Principals, LLC, Bruce Levine, and Joan Levine; and by 2505 Enterprise, LLC, and Greg Willsey, and Sandra Willsey. The Appeal Applications were fairly similar and raised a number of issues: four issues pertaining to traffic and parking requirements; and one issue as to whether a high school is a compatible use with the surrounding area. The City referred the matter to DOAH on December 4, 2019, and it was 3 Section 4-505C states, "The burden shall be upon the appellant to show that the decision of the community development board cannot be sustained by substantial competent evidence before the board, or that the decision of the board departs from the essential requirements of law." 4 The School's application went through a Level Two approval process which requires a quasi-judicial public Board hearing to approve flexibility (i.e. deviation) from the minimum development standards set forth in the Code. See Code at §4-401. Level Two approvals must meet both the general applicability criteria and the flexibility criteria outlined by the Code. See Code at Art. 4, Divisions 1, 3, 4 and 6. assigned to an administrative law judge. On December 13, 2019, a telephonic scheduling conference was held to determine the record on appeal and set the oral argument hearing. During that conference the parties agreed not to submit pre-argument briefs, but rather, chose to file post-hearing proposed final orders. The Oral Argument was held at the Clearwater Library and was open to the general public. Applicant, the City, the Board, and all persons who were granted party status at the Board Hearing were allowed to present arguments at the Oral Argument. See Code at 4-505B. At the Board Hearing the following people were granted party status: Dr. Richard Gottlieb, who was represented by Todd Pressman; Sandra Willsey; Greg Willsey; and Todd Burch. The transcript of the Oral Argument was filed with DOAH on February 19, 2020. Pursuant to section 4-505D, the proposed final orders were due within 20 days after the filing of the transcript, or no later than March 11, 2020. Per the City's request, the parties were granted an extension to submit proposed final orders. The additional time was to allow the parties to collaborate on a master index to the record on appeal (Index), which they intended to cite to in their proposed orders. The Index and the proposed final orders were timely submitted on March 23, 2020.5 5 At the Oral Argument, the parties stipulated that the undersigned could take official recognition of the Code provisions and City of Clearwater Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan) found online. As such, the undersigned takes official recognition of the Code found at https://library.municode.com/fl/clearwater/codes/ community_development_code?nodeId=CODECO (last visited April 14, 2020); and of the Comprehensive Plan found at https://www.myclearwater.com/government/city- departments/planning-development/divisions-/development-review-zoning/comprehensive- plan (last visited April 14, 2020). FACTS IN THE RECORD Pursuant to section 4-505A, the record includes the application file of the Clearwater Planning and Development Department (Planning Department); the agenda packet of the Board Hearing; all exhibits accepted into evidence at the Board Hearing; and the streaming video of the Board Hearing.6 The following findings of fact are supported by substantial competent evidence found in the record. Parties and Property The School filed an application with the Planning Department to renovate a 16,696 square foot building located on a 1.730 acre site at 2495 Enterprise Road in Clearwater, Florida (proposed development). The proposed development is in a retail/office plaza known as Village at Countryside (Plaza), located on the east side of Enterprise Road, just south of Countryside Boulevard in Clearwater, Florida. The Plaza consists of 11 parcels, including a large vacant building that formerly housed a Toys-R-Us store. The Plaza is located within the US 19 Corridor Redevelopment Plan, and has a designation of "US 19 District, Regional Center sub-district" (US 19-RC). Property within US 19-RC is subject to the special zoning district and development standards found at Appendix B of the Code.7 The School seeks to operate Enterprise High School, a charter high school, at the proposed development site.8 As explained below, relevant to this appeal is the number of students at the School and whether there will be adequate parking for the proposed development as required by the Code. 6 See Video of Board Hearing held November 19, 2019, on Agenda FLD2019-8026 at time marker 9:25 at http://clearwater.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=50&clip_id=3782 (last visited April 1, 2020). 7 See Code at Appendix B – US 19 Zoning District and Development Standards, found at https://library.municode.com/fl/clearwater/codes/community_development_code?nodeId=APX BUS19ZODIDEST (last visited April 14, 2020). 8 Enterprise High School is an existing charter school which intends to move from its current location to the proposed development site. The School is subject to section 1013.33, Florida Statutes. Appellants own and operate property within the Plaza and adjacent to the proposed development site. Specifically, Bruce and Joan Levine own Appellants 2521 Countryside Blvd., LLP,9 and Countryside Property Principals, LLC. The LLP and/or LLC operate the Countryside Foot and Ankle Center.10 The Countryside Foot and Ankle Center's administrator, Todd Burch, was granted party status at the Board Hearing. Greg and Sandra Willsey own Appellant 2505 Enterprise, LLC, which is a property in the Plaza. The Willseys were also granted party status at the Board Hearing. At the conclusion of the Board Hearing, the Board voted to approve the School's application. On December 3, 2019, a Development Order was issued to memorialize the Board's action. Thereafter, Appellants filed the Appeal Applications with a document titled "Notice and Statement" which stated the following grounds for the appeals: The Neighbors assert that the decision of the Community Development Board ("the Board") was not supported by substantial competent evidence and was a departure from essential requirements of law. Specifically: The Board's decision was based upon a high school with two, 200-student shifts. However, the record below established that these student shifts would substantially overlap during the noon hour. In other words, the evaluation of the proposed change of use was based on impacts and site requirements that were substantially less than what would actually occur on the site. 9 The Appeal Application lists this entity as 2521 Countryside Boulevard Land Trust. 10 Although Appellants state that Bruce Levine was granted party status at the Board Hearing, there is no substantial competent evidence in the record supporting this statement. See Appellees' Proposed Final Order at p. 3; compare Tab 30 of the Index, Board Meeting Minutes for November 19, 2019, at p. 3 and 5. The Board's decision was based on a traffic analysis provided by the applicant that used a wrong ITE trip generation code - an elementary school instead of a high school - so it cannot be relied upon as a basis for the underlying decision. The change of use to a high school required that the applicant establish that it had one parking space per three students. There is no substantial competent evidence to establish that this parking requirement was satisfied. To the contrary, the substantial competent evidence establishes that the parking on the property failed to meet this requirement. In fact, granting this change of use would result in a substantial oversubscription of the available parking at the site. The proposed use would create tortured on-site parking and traffic circulation patterns that would substantially impact the existing medical office uses on the property, including a kidney dialysis office that serves a substantial elderly population. There is no substantial competent evidence to support the finding that the change of use would "have no impacts on the adjacent retail plaza." To the contrary, the change of use would have substantial impacts on the current retail and office plaza. The proposed change of use would have substantial negative impacts on the surrounding community and is incompatible with the existing surrounding retail, office and residential uses. At the Oral Argument, Appellants raised for the first time whether the operation of a school is an inconsistent use with: (1) an Amended and Restated Declaration of Establishment of Restrictive Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions, and Grants of Easements dated December 7, 1983 (the "Parking Easement"); and (2) the Comprehensive Plan. The Studies The first four issues raised in the Appeal Applications are related to the Parking Study and Traffic Study (collectively referred to as the Studies) which were submitted by the School as part of its application. The Parking Study, dated September 2, 2019, consists of overall parking calculations; aerial photographs of the development site and surrounding areas; and the Parking Easement. The purpose of the Traffic Study was to analyze the impact of the development on the traffic intersection at Countryside Boulevard and Enterprise Road, as well as the full access drive at the site. The 50-page Traffic Study, dated October 18, 2019, included numerous charts, maps, and tables with underlying information and data relating to the traffic counts for the proposed development. Jerry Dabkowski, a local traffic engineer who prepared the Studies for the School, testified at the Board Hearing about the traffic and parking calculations. To rebut the Studies, at the Board Hearing Mr. Pressman presented a two-page letter from a professional engineer dated November 15, 2019, titled "Traffic Study Review." Relevant to the appeal, the letter finds fault in the number of students and the "ITE Code" used in the Traffic Study and in the Planning Department's Staff Report and Recommendation (Staff Report), dated November 19, 2019, which was also presented to the Board. These factors would affect the calculations for the number of parking spaces required for and the trip distribution caused by the proposed development. Number of Students Appellants argue the parking calculations should be based on the total number of students enrolled at the School, or 400 students. The Studies and the Staff Report calculated the traffic and number of parking spaces necessary based on two shifts with 200 students per shift. At the Board Hearing, Donna Hulbert, the School's Director, testified that unlike a traditional high school, the School operated in two shifts to allow the students to hold employment while completing their high school education. Although the School intends to enroll a total of 400 students, she explained, each of the two shifts would have a maximum of 200 students. Additionally, the students are eligible for a public transportation bus pass, which some students utilize instead of driving their personal vehicles. The Study establishes that "[t]o reduce the impacts during the AM and PM peak hours, the school intends to split the day into two shifts, each with 200 students attending." Although there was conflicting information between the School's application and Ms. Hulbert's testimony at the Board Hearing about whether the shifts would overlap, the Staff Report recommends approval of the application because, "[t]he applicant has provided the school will operate in two shifts . . . with no more than 200 students present per shift." There is substantial competent evidence that there will be only 200 students at the School at a time, and that this number was correctly used in calculating the required parking spaces and the trip generation for the proposed development. ITE Trip Calculation Appellants argue the Traffic Study utilized the wrong Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Code, 520, which is the code applicable to an elementary school. The Study, however, states it utilized ITE Code 530 from the Institute of Transportation Engineers' Trip Generation, 10th Edition for Office, to calculate the change in trips attributed to the proposed development. A copy of the ITE Code 530 was attached to the Traffic Study. Additionally, Mr. Dabkowski testified that ITE Code 530 was the correct code for high schools. There is substantial competent evidence that ITE Code 530 was used in calculating the change in trips for the Traffic Study which was relied upon in the Staff Report, and which was accepted by the Board. Parking Requirements Table 2 in section B-303, Permitted uses and parking, provides the following parking requirements relevant to this appeal. Use Regional Use Specific Standards Minimum Off-Street Parking Spaces Retail Plaza BCP[Level 1 Minimum Standard(Building Construction permit)] [Not included] 4/1,000 SF GFA Schools FLD [Level 2 Flexible Development (Board approval required)] 1. All off-street parking is located at least 200 feet from any property designated as residential in the Zoning Atlas 1 per 3 students Based on this criterion, the School would require 67 parking spaces (200 students/3 = 66.6667). The Staff Report and Studies establish the proposed site has 55 parking spaces, but five of these spaces cannot be used because they are within 200 feet from a parcel designated as Residential. Thus, there are 49 available parking spaces "on site," leaving 18 spaces to be designated. As stated earlier, the proposed site is one of 11 parcels in the Plaza. The Parking Study contains a copy of a Parking Easement that allows cross- parking among the parcels. Based on the square footage of the buildings on the parcels (including the proposed development site), the entire Plaza is required to have 975 parking spaces. The Plaza actually has 1,137 parking spaces, an excess of 162 parking spaces. The Code also requires off-street parking spaces be located within 600 feet of the principal and accessory uses they serve. See Code at § 3-1404A. Next to and within 600 feet of the proposed development site is currently a vacant building that formerly housed a Toys-R-Us store. That parcel has 228 parking spaces, but only 177 spaces are required for that building, leaving an extra 51 parking spaces. Based on the excess spaces available through the Parking Easement, there is substantial competent evidence supporting the City's staff finding of adequate parking spaces to satisfy the additional 18 spaces necessary for the proposed development, and the Board's approval of the same. Compatible Use The fifth issue raised in the Appeal Applications is regarding the use of the proposed development site as a charter high school. Whether this site is appropriate for the type of school operated by the Applicant was a topic of discussion among the Board members at the Board Hearing. At the Board Hearing, Planning Department Manager Mark Parry testified as an expert witness. Mr. Parry explained the nature of the US 19- RC standards and gave his opinion that the proposed development complies with all applicable provisions of the Code, including the use requirements. In contrast, Appellants expressed anecdotal fears that the types of students attending the School would disrupt Appellants' medical businesses. For example, at the Board Hearing, Mrs. Willsey expressed concern that the students at the School were known to have "behavioral problems." Mr. Burch spoke about the increased number of pedestrians in the Plaza and cited to a letter in the record from Dr. Levine: "For us to have to monitor and police our properties for trespassing students would be untenable." There was no actual evidence in the record that the School's operations would cause any problems such as increased crime or trespassing in the area. At the Oral Argument and in their proposed final order, however, Appellants' argument shifted away from the potential effects of the students in the area and instead offered the new arguments that the School was inconsistent with the Parking Easement which states the Plaza shall be used "for commercial purposes only, including without limitation the operation of merchandising establishments, restaurants, and professional offices."11 Regardless, as explained below, this argument is not appropriate on appeal because it was not raised at the Board Hearing or in the Appeal Applications. At the Oral Argument, Appellants also argued that the School is an inconsistent use with the Comprehensive Plan. Appellants cited a paragraph from the Staff Report: The proposal includes a new charter school with grades nine through 12 and constitutes a public educational facility as defined by Policy J.2.1.2. The school will be located within the US 19–RC future land use designation. The prior designation was Commercial General (CG). The intent is that all uses permitted in the CG are also permitted in the US 19–RC classification. The City is planning to update the Comprehensive Plan to reflect this. Schools are a listed permitted use in the CG classification. As explained below, this argument is also inappropriate because it was not raised at the Board Hearing or in the Appeal Applications. Appellants also argue the proposed development is an inconsistent use with the existing businesses because the adjacent properties are commercial in nature and the School is not commercial. The Code, however, clearly allows Schools as an allowable use in the US 19-RC zoning district, and in the 11 The Complete section of the Parking Easement titled "Uses" states: 2.1 Uses in General The Property, consisting of both the Building Area and the Common Areas, shall be used for commercial purposes only, including without limitation the operation of merchandising establishments, restaurants, and professional offices. No portion of the Property shall be used or operated as a discotheque, bar or cocktail lounge (except in connection with a restaurant) ... theatre, bowling alley, skating rink, roller disco or catering hall, funeral parlor, or for the sale of pornographic literature or material, or an adult book store or so called "head shop" or for a video or other game arcade, flea market, or for a use which would be noxious or immoral or otherwise constitute moral turpitude or constitute an undignified, disreputable use. previous zoning designation of CG. See Code at § B-303. Moreover, unlike the Parking Easement, the Code does not divide use categories into "Commercial" and "Non-Commercial." Rather, the uses are categorized as "Residential" and "Non-Residential." Id. Based on the Code and the review of the application submissions, the Staff Report concluded the School will be an appropriate use in the area. Based on Staff visits, aerial photographs and material submitted by the applicant it is evident that the proposal will be in harmony and consistent with the scale, bulk, coverage and character of adjacent properties and, generally, with properties in the greater neighborhood. The reuse of the 16,700 square foot building with a school will not result in any adverse visual impacts on adjacent properties. Since the character of the site will not change with the proposal, and it is currently similar in nature vis-a-vis placement of other uses in the area it is not expected to impair the value of those properties. The proposal will likely have no effect, negative or otherwise, on the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. The testimony of Mr. Parry, coupled with the Staff Report, constitute substantial competent evidence supporting the Board's finding that the School is a compatible use with the area.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding are whether the Department should issue a permit to Casetta, and whether the Department should issue a permit to Harbor Point. The two application proceedings were consolidated for hearing purposes. In many respects, common factual and legal issues relate to the two proceedings. For that reason, in the interest of economy of time and space, a single recommended order is being issued with respect to the two proceedings.
Findings Of Fact History of Proceedings In 1974, a prior owner of the property now owned by Casetta filed an application with the Department to entirely fill the pond which is the subject of this proceeding. A final order denying the application was entered by the Department on August 31, 1977. A second application to fill the entire pond was filed with the Department by Casetta's predecessor in 1979. During the pendency of that proceeding, Casetta purchased the property and by stipulation was permitted to be substituted as the Petitioner. The Department gave notice of its intent to deny the second application in February, 1981. Casetta challenged the Department's assertion that it had jurisdiction under the provisions of Chapter 253, Florida Statutes. The matter was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings and given Case No. 81-1082. The matter before the Division has been closed, but it remains as a pending proceeding before the Department. It is being held in abeyance pending the resolution of Casetta's present application. The application involved in this proceeding was submitted to the Department during December, 1981. The City of Riviera Beach, Florida, granted local approval for this application; and on May 18, 1982, the Department issued a Notice of Intent to issue the permit. The Department published a notice of its proposed action in the Commercial Record, a Palm Beach County newspaper. The Florida Wildlife Federation and the Property Owners' Association of Singer Island together filed a request for formal hearing with the Department. The Singer Island Civic Association filed a separate request. Counsel for the Wildlife Federation and the Property Owners' Association withdrew during the course of the proceeding. It was indicated that these parties would voluntarily dismiss the requests for hearing, but no such papers were filed. No one appeared on behalf of the Florida Wildlife Federation or the Property Owners' Association of Singer Island during prehearing conferences that were conducted in this matter or at the final hearing. The Executive Director of the Florida Wildlife Federation testified as a public witness at the hearing and indicated that they were not participating in the proceeding as a party. During the pendency of proceedings respecting the Casetta application before the Division of Administrative Hearings, Harbor Point filed an application with the Department to install a culvert which would connect the pond that is the subject of the Casetta application with a pond located on property owned by Harbor Point through a culvert system. Harbor Point sought to have its application considered by the Department as an alternative to the Casetta application. On or about August 2, 1982, the Department issued a Notice of Intent to deny the Harbor Point application Harbor Point thereafter petitioned for a formal hearing. On or about June 4, 1982, the United States Corps of Engineers issued a permit to Harbor Point to construct its proposed culvert system. Description of Property in the Area of Proposed Projects. Casetta is the owner of approximately five acres of land that lie between the Atlantic Ocean and Lake Worth on Singer Island in Palm Beach County, Florida. The property includes a rectangular pond that is approximately three acres in area. This pond will hereafter be referred to as the "Casetta pond." Submerged lands in the Casetta pond were conveyed into private ownership by the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, State of Florida, in 1924. Harbor Point owns land adjacent to Casetta's property to the north. Harbor Point's property includes a pond which is configured in the approximate shape of an hourglass and is approximately one acre in area. A condominium apartment building has been constructed on Harbor Point's property. Harbor Point members own residential units in this facility. The area presently owned by Casetta and Harbor Point was, in its natural condition, a part of the littoral zone, a shallow, submerged area, on the eastern edge of the lake. Lake Worth is an estuarine water body located between the mainland and Singer Island. The littoral zone of such a lake is of fundamental ecological importance. It serves as a habitat for a wide variety of wildlife and serves to maintain water quality in the lake through uptake of nutrients by vegetation that thrives in the area. The natural condition of the area was markedly changed by the construction of State Road A-1-A. The highway separated the area, including what is now the Casetta and Harbor Point properties, to a large extent from the waters of Lake Worth. A culvert was constructed under the highway in the area of what is now the Harbor Point property. This culvert allowed tidal waters from Lake Worth to enter the area, and the area thus remained in a diminished fashion as a littoral zone of Lake Worth. Sometime between 1953 and 1964, landowners in the area constructed dikes which appear to have served as driveways along their northern and southern boundaries. Fill was placed on the Harbor Point property so that a pond was created in its present approximate configuration. The Harbor Point condominium facilities are presently in part set on the filled land. The Harbor Point pond remained connected with the waters of Lake Worth through the culvert system. The Harbor Point pond thus remains subject to tidal influences from Lake Worth. It is an estuarine system which serves as a part of the littoral zone of Lake Worth. The driveway to the condominium, however, completely Separated the Casetta pond from direct interaction with the waters of Lake Worthy. The Casetta pond is presently in an approximately rectangular configuration. Probably as a result of groundwater interaction, it is affected in a minimal manner by tidal influences in Lake Worth. The Casetta pond receives water from runoff and from groundwater interaction. It has become a freshwater body. While the Casetta pond is no longer a direct part of the Lake Worth estuarine system, and while it is by no means in its natural condition, it remains a wetland ecosystem. The pond is surrounded by mangrove communities. There is considerable biologic activity. Many bird species roost in the mangroves and feed in the pond. The mangroves provide shelter for aquatic organisms which are a food source for the birds. The pond does not support a wide diversity of marine plants or animals. A single species of minnow, mosquito fish, exists in substantial quantities These serve as a food source for birds including ducks, herons, egrets, and kingfishers It appears that the Casetta pond has been used in the past as a borrow pit to obtain fill for adjoining properties trenches, which are as much as six feet in depth, have been dug along the northern, southern, and eastern perimeters and across the pond. Because it is cut off from Lake Worth, and because of the ditches that have been cut through it, the Casetta pond is in a very deteriorated condition. While healthy mangroves surround the pond, they are, except to the west, extremely narrow populations due to the sharp banks that have been caused by dredging activity. The mangroves have no room to expand their population and are stressed due to invasion of upland vegetation such as Brazilian pepper. Widgeon grass exists in the lake bottom. Algae, however, has become the dominant vegetation in the pond. From 80 to 90 percent of the pond's bottom is covered by a mat of algae that ranges up to five and one-half inches in thickness. The algae population is increasing rapidly. Widgeon grass populations are being choked off by the algae. Dissolved oxygen levels in the Casetta pond are consistently low, below standards set in the rules of the Department. The oxygen demand of the algae community has depleted dissolved oxygen levels. While the Casetta pond functions as a wetland community, its values are severely reduced, and it appears that water quality in the pond is likely to continue to deteriorate. While by no means in a natural condition, the Harbor Point pond continues to function as a viable part of Lake Worth. This is a result of the pond being connected to the lake through the culvert system. The edges of the pond are populated by mangrove and cord grass communities. Marine species such as mullet are easily observable. Wading birds roost in surrounding vegetation and feed in the pond. The Harbor Point pond is basically a shallow, tidal water body. Water quality in the Harbor Point pond basically mirrors water quality in areas of Lake Worth to the west of Highway A-1-A. The Harbor Point pond has an eastern and western lobe connected by a narrower area, forming an approximate hourglass configuration. The eastern lobe is farthest from the connection to Lake Worth. Water quality in the eastern lobe is generally poorer than water quality in the western lobe and in Lake Worth. The deepest portion of the Harbor Point pond is in the eastern lobe. Wind action cannot serve to fully flush the waters of this area because of its relative isolation from the western lobe. Runoff from the Harbor Point condominium to the east of the pond and from a fire station parking lot to the west enters directly into the Harbor Point pond. It is filtered only by the action of grasses over which it flows. There is no ex-filtration drainage system. The culvert which connects the Harbor Point pond with Lake Worth runs from the western lobe of the pond under Highway A-1-A into Lake Worth. Lake Worth is a Class III water body under the Department's rules. The Parties' Proposals 1. The Casetta Application Casetta is proposing to construct a high-rise condominium on the eastern portion of its property. There is insufficient land on the property as it is presently configured to accommodate needed parking spaces. Casetta proposes to fill in 1.8 acres, or approximately 60 percent of the Casetta pond in order to construct parking facilities. Casetta has proposed to construct a culvert system that would connect the remaining portion of the pond with Lake Worth. The remaining portion of the pond would be regraded and configured. The northern and western boundaries would remain basically in their present configuration The remainder of the pond would be completely modified. A meandering shoreline would be created for an "L"- shaped pond. The bottom would be recontoured so that broader, shallow areas along the shoreline would be created. With the culvert system installed, the reconfigured pond would receive tidal waters from Lake Worth. The pond would effectively become, as the entire area once was, a portion of the littoral zone of Lake Worth. With the meandering shoreline and a gradually sloping bottom, the reconfigured pond would have as much area for littoral zone vegetation to establish itself as the present pond. Casetta proposes to commence construction activities by filling in a portion of the pond and regrading the remainder. The pond would be drained so that the algae that presently exists in large quantities would die and be removed. Clear fill material would be used to grade the pond. An exfiltration system would be created so that runoff that would reach the pond from upland areas would be filtered before it could enter the pond, thus reducing the impact of pollutants from upland runoff. The proposed culvert system would be in three sections. There would be a 35-foot section leading from the pond and slanting gradually downward to a point approximately eight to nine feet under Highway A- 1-A. The second section would be 110 feet long, lying vertically under Highway A-1-A. The third section would be 95 feet long, gradually rising from the second section to the bottom of Lake Worth. The bottoms of the open ends of the culvert in the Casetta pond and in Lake Worth would be at the ordinary low-tide marks. The top would be below the ordinary high-tide marks. Thus, the culvert openings would be exposed at low tide and submerged at high tide. The portion of the culvert under A-1-A would be filled with water at all times. It is necessary to place the culvert at least eight feet under Highway A-1-A in order to avoid utility pipes and cables that lie under the highway. The portion of the pipe under A-1-A would be installed through a boring technique known as "jack and bore." This technique would obviate any need for the closing of traffic on Highway A-1-A. The portion of the culvert in the Casetta pond and in Lake Worth would be installed by digging trenches, laying the pipe, then filling the trenches. Two openings would be made in the pipe at either end of the deep sections. These would be "manhole-type openings that would allow for periodic maintenance. Installation of the portion of the pipe in Lake Worth would be accomplished by building a work platform into the lake from material that is dredged from the trench. Once the pipe is laid, the material from the work platform would be placed back on top of the culvert, and any extra material would be removed from the site. Turbidity screens would be used to surround the project to reduce the short-term impacts of turbidity caused by construction. Once the pond is reconfigured and the culvert is installed, tidal flows would be introduced to the reconfigured pond on a gradual basis in order to observe any problems that might result. Shoreline grasses such as cord grass would be introduced in the shallow areas, and mangroves removed during filling operations would be replanted along the shoreline. This would serve to stabilize the shoreline and to provide the beneficial effects of littoral zone vegetation, including wildlife habitat and water quality benefits. The reconfigured Casetta pond would be approximately 33,000 square feet in area. If the culvert system functions as proposed, the reconfigured pond would become a part of Lake Worth. There are environmental and ecological advantages and disadvantages to the proposal. The disadvantages are rather obvious. One and eight-tenths acres of wetland habitat would be eliminated. While the present Casetta pond is only a marginally valuable wetland, it is not without its beneficent effects as have been described above. Furthermore, during construction, the habitat values of the Casetta pond would be lost, and short-term deleterious water quality impacts would occur in Lake Worth. There are trade-offs. The proposed filling, regrading, and connecting of the ponds to Lake Worth could have substantial positive impacts. The most apparent of these is that Lake Worth would regain 33,000 square feet of littoral zone. Construction activities have removed as much as 75 percent of the Shoreline vegetation that once Surrounded Lake Worth. The littoral zone has been replaced with developments that in ecological terms have negative impacts. Reconnecting the ponds to Lake Worth would be a slight reversal of that trend. Habitat for marine species would be increased, and the "kidney effect" that shoreline vegetation provides would be reestablished. Except during construction, Casetta's proposal would have no adverse water quality impacts upon surrounding waters. Adverse impacts during construction would be minimized by protective techniques that Casetta has proposed, including the use of turbidity screens. Long-term water quality impacts of the proposed project would be positive. Water in the present Casetta pond is of poor quality. The pond does not presently serve any water quality function for Lake Worth, since it is not connected to Lake Worth. Connecting the reconfigured pond to Lake Worth would allow waters from the lake to be purified through nutrient uptake by littoral zone vegetation. In habitat terms, the filling would reduce the total area of wetland habitat. The quality of the habitat would, however, be vastly improved. Rather than an unnatural, stagnant pond which provides habitat for only a few varieties of very common freshwater minnows, a marine habitat would be provided for all manner of creatures that survive in the littoral zone of estuarine water bodies. Bird habitats would not be reduced, since the shoreline of the lake would not be lessened. Thus, while the Casetta proposal would reduce the total size of wetland habitat, it would vastly improve it and would not have a detrimental effect that would be contrary to the public interest. In order for the reconfigured Casetta pond to offer an improved wetland habitat and a positive water quality impact for Lake Worth, it is essential that the proposed culvert system functions so as to allow an unimpeded interchange of water between the reconfigured pond and Lake Worth. If the culvert system does not operate, the result of the proposed project would be merely to lessen wetland habitat. Rather than a three-acre unnatural wetland habitat, there would be a 1.2-acre unnatural wetland habitat. Such an adverse impact upon wildlife habitat would be clearly contrary to the public interest. Furthermore, limited exchange of water between a eutrophic pond and Lake Worth could have an adverse impact upon water quality in Lake Worth so as to result in violations of the Department's water quality standards along the border of Lake Worth. The evidence does not establish that the proposed culvert system will properly function. Casetta had proposed a 36-inch culvert. Robert Snyder, a consulting engineer, was retained to determine the flushing characteristics of the culvert. Snyder calculated that maximum velocities associated with mean or average tides through the culvert system would be 1.89 cubic feet per second. Snyder calculated that this exchange rate would be sufficient to flush sediment and debris that would collect in the culvert. Thus, the culvert would be self- cleaning with only limited maintenance required to keep it open. In calculating the exchange rate, Snyder utilized the wrong formula. He overestimated the exchange rate by a factor of two. If the rate estimated by Snyder is reduced by a factor of two, it is apparent, that the exchange rate would not be sufficient to flush the culvert. Sediment and debris would collect in the pond, and rather regular maintenance would be required. Mechanical means can be utilized to clean a clogged culvert. A culvert of the length and configuration proposed by Casetta is difficult to clean through mechanical processes, however, and the processes themselves increase turbidity in the area. The evidence does not establish that regular maintenance would be sufficient to keep the culvert free of sediment and debris so that there would be a free exchange of water between Lake Worth and the reconfigured pond. When engineer Snyder was made aware of his miscalculations, he proposed reducing the size of the culvert to 24 inches. He testified that this would adequately increase the exchange rate so that the culvert would be selfmaintaining. Snyder's testimony in this regard has not been deemed credible. Given the witness's use of an erroneous formula in calculating exchange rates and another error that he admitted making in calculating scour potential, the witness cannot be considered competent to give expert testimony in these areas. If the culvert system proposed by Casetta allowed for the free exchange of waters between Lake Worth and the reconfigured Casetta pond, the water quality and habitat impacts of the proposed Casetta project would be, on balance, positive. The evidence does not, however, establish that the culvert system would function. It appears likely that the culvert system as proposed would be frequently clogged with sediment and debris, thus preventing the exchange of waters between the reconfigured pond and Lake Worth. The result of the proposed project would therefore be a reduction of wildlife habitat with potentially adverse water quality impacts upon the waters of Lake Worth. 2. The Harbor Point Proposal Harbor Point has proposed to install a culvert system that would connect the Casetta pond in its present configuration with the Harbor Point pond. Since the Harbor Point pond is connected through a culvert system with Lake Worth, the Harbor Point proposal would result in opening the Casetta pond to tidal influences from Lake Worth. Harbor Point has presented no evidence as to construction techniques that would be utilized and has provided no assurance that the construction itself would not result in water quality violations in the Harbor Point pond and in Lake Worth. Opening the Casetta pond in its present configuration to tidal influences would have the positive impact of allowing an exchange of water from the Casetta pond. Water quality in the Casetta pond would inevitably be improved. Given the configuration of the bottom of the Casetta pond, with its deep troughs, a complete exchange of waters would not occur, and water quality in the Casetta pond would be likely to remain poor, albeit improved. The Harbor Point proposal would have short-term and long-term negative impacts upon water quality in the Harbor Point pond and in Lake Worth. Simply opening the Harbor Point pond and Lake Worth to exchange of poor-quality water with the Casetta pond would have a negative impact. As water quality in the Casetta pond improves, this impact will be lessened, but will remain. Furthermore, the proposed culvert would result in poorer flushing of the waters from the eastern extremity of the Harbor Point pond. This would occur as a result of increased water velocities in the western extremity. Water quality in the eastern extremity of the Harbor Point pond is already stressed, and reducing the flushing characteristics of the pond would be likely to result in violations of the Department's water quality standards in the eastern portion of the Harbor Point pond. While the Harbor Point proposal would have the ecologically positive impact of opening the Casetta pond to tidal flows, it would have the negative impacts of reducing water quality in the Harbor Point pond and potentially along the shoreline of Lake Worth. Water quality in the Casetta pond would thus be improved at the expense of water quality in the Harbor Point pond and in Lake Worth. Riparian Rights Harbor Point owns a narrow fringe of the northern border of the Casetta pond. The precise amount of the Casetta pond that is owned by Harbor Point cannot be determined from the evidence, but it is clear that Harbor Point owns some portion of the Casetta pond which may be at one point as much as six feet of the northern portion of the pond. The Casetta pond offers minimal amenity to Harbor Point. The pond is unsuitable for boating, bathing, swimming, or any commercial enterprise. The pond is largely blocked from view by Harbor Point residents by abundant mangrove and upland vegetation. Reconfiguration of the pond as proposed by Casetta would not change the northern boundary of the pond, and it would remain largely blocked from view by Harbor Point residents. To the extent that the Casetta pond provides a view for Harbor Point residents, it is only minimally attractive given the configuration of the pond and given the fact that a high-rise condominium has been constructed on property to the south of the pond. There is no evidence in the record from which it could be concluded that the value of Harbor Point property would be in any way reduced as a result of the projects proposed by Casetta.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Frenchy's Rockaway Grill, Inc., is the owner and operator of a restaurant and alcoholic beverage establishment located at 7 Rockaway Street, Clearwater, Florida. Petitioner purchased the property in 1991. Michael Preston is president of Petitioner. Petitioner's establishment is immediately adjacent to the Gulf of Mexico and Clearwater beach on the west, to the north is a public parking lot, to the east is a motel, and to the south is the Clearwater Beach Hotel, which is owned and operated by Hunter Hotel Co., as indicated above. On the beach side of Petitioner's establishment there is an existing 972 sq. ft. wooden deck. The existing deck was initially constructed on or about 1987 by prior owners without receiving appropriate variance approvals. Subsequent alterations to the deck occurred between 1987 and 1991, also without appropriate variance approvals. In 1991 Charles and Ypapanti Alexiou/Anthony Alexiou, former owners of the subject property, filed an application for variance approval with the Board seeking three variances relating to the construction of the deck at the 7 Rockaway establishment. Specifically, the variances sought were: "1) 55.5 ft. to permit deck seaward of the coastal construction control line; 2) 15 ft. to permit a deck zero feet from a street right-of-way; and, 3) seven parking spaces to permit a 1,338 sq. ft. deck at 7 Rockaway Street, Miller's Replat, Lot 2 & vacated beach Drive on W and Lot 3, zoned CR 28 (resort commercial) & OS/R (open space recreation)." At public meeting on August 8, 1991, the application was considered by the Board. At that time Mr. Cline, as counsel for Hunter appeared in opposition to the application stating that approval of the variance requests would adversely impact the Clearwater Beach Hotel, that the request was for economic gain, that any hardship was self-imposed, and that development and traffic in the area was already heavy. The Board, however, granted the variance requests as to variances number 1 and number 2., and as to the third request, the Board denied the proposed 1,338 sq. ft. deck, but approved a variance of five parking spaces to permit the existing deck of 972 sq. ft. On or about July 13, 1993, a variance application was filed with the Board by Howard G. and Jean B. Hamilton and Palm Pavilion of Clearwater, Inc., seeking approval of four variances required for an 800 sq. ft. expansion of an existing deck at a restaurant at 10 Bay Esplanade, Clearwater Beach, Florida. The Palm Pavilion applicants were also represented by Mr. Cline. Like Petitioner's establishment, Palm Pavilion is a beachfront restaurant, which is located directly across the public parking lot to the north of Petitioner's establishment. Unlike Petitioner's establishment, Palm Pavilion is bordered by parking to the south and the east, and is not immediately adjacent to other buildings. On August 26, 1993, the Board granted the Palm Pavilion variance application for expansion of an existing beachfront deck with certain conditions. On October 6, 1994, Petitioner submitted its application to the Board requesting five variances required for a 650 sq. ft. expansion of the existing wooden deck at 7 Rockaway Street. Specifically, the variances sought were: 1) 13.22 ft. to permit a lot depth of 86.78 ft. where 100 ft. is required; 2) 8.2 ft. to permit it a rear setback of 6.8 ft. where 15 ft. is required; 3) 14 percent to permit 11 percent of open space where 25 percent is required; 4) three parking spaces to permit zero parking spaces where three additional are required; and, 5) 52.14 ft. to permit a structure seaward of the coastal construction control line. The subject property at 7 Rockaway Street is properly zoned CR-28 (resort commercial). Any scrivener's error indicating that the property is zoned OSC (open space recreation) has been corrected. Petitioner's restaurant, Frenchy's Rockaway Grill, is a popular beachside establishment. It is one of very few freestanding restaurants fronting the Gulf of Mexico on Clearwater Beach. Some patrons particularly enjoy dining on the open air deck adjacent to the beach. During peak hours, there is often over an hour's waiting time for tables on the deck. Petitioner is currently unable to accommodate the demand for seating on the beachside deck. Petitioner would sustain an economic benefit if more patrons could be accommodated on an expanded deck. Because of the size constraints of the lot and the establishment's location directly on the beach, development and improvement of the facility is highly restricted. The back of some residential rooms of the Clearwater Beach Hotel are immediately adjacent to the south of Petitioner's establishment. There are small bathroom windows from these residential rooms that face Petitioner's establishment. Petitioner's proposed expansion of the open air deck would place the proposed deck in very close proximity to the back of these residential hotel rooms. The City's staff reviewed the Petitioner's application and recommended approval with the following conditions: 1) the applicant shall obtain the requisite occupational license within 12 months; 2) the applicant shall obtain the necessary building permit within 6 months; 3) there shall be no outdoor entertainment and no outdoor speakers; 4) the applicant shall obtain the requisite alcoholic beverage separation distance variance from the City Commission. Petitioner agreed to the conditions recommended by staff. The recommendations of staff are not binding on the Board. In addition to the application for the five variances filed with the Board, Petitioner also filed a conditional use request with the Planning and Zoning Board. The conditional use request was approved on September 13, 1994, and imposed certain other conditions including the construction of a six foot wall on the south side of the proposed deck to buffer the adjoining hotel. Petitioner agreed to the conditions imposed by the Planning and Zoning Board.
The Issue The issue on appeal is whether, pursuant to Clearwater Code of Ordinances Section 4-505, to sustain or reverse, with or without conditions, the decision of the Community Development Board on June 20, 2003, denying Cepcot Corporation's application to build a convenience store with two islands for pumping gas.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner The Cepcot Corporation (Cepcot) owns real property located at 657 Court Street in the downtown zoning district of the City of Clearwater (Property). On December 17, 2002, Cepcot filed a Flexible Development Application for a comprehensive infill redevelopment project (Application) on the Property. At the time of the proposal, the Property, which comprises 0.95 acres, was developed with a restaurant in a building that was the former Clearwater train station, a thrift store, and a park. The Application proposes the demolition of these improvements and their replacement with a 3200 square-foot convenience store and two gas pump islands. The Property fronts Chestnut Street to the south, East Avenue to the east, and Court Street to the north. The surrounding area is developed with office uses to the west and south, a privately owned utility plant to the north, and warehouse uses to the east. Upon the completion of the Memorial Causeway bridge, which is presently under construction, traffic to the beach will use Court Street and traffic from the beach will use Chestnut Street. In response to questions and suggestions from Respondent's staff, Cepcot revised the proposed site plan several times. The Application is presently complete. Respondent's Planning Department prepared a Staff Report, which finds that the proposed project does not meet certain requirements and recommends denial of the Application on several grounds. On June 17, 2003, Respondent's Community Development Board (CDB) considered the Application. CDB denied the Application and issued a development order explaining the reasons for denial as follows: The proposal is inconsistent with the adopted Community Development Code, the Comprehensive Plan, 1995 Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, and the Downtown Design Guidelines. The proposed automobile service station is not a permitted use within the downtown district. Approval of the proposed use may encourage other like uses and may be detrimental to downtown redevelopment. The proposal does not comply with the Flexible Development criteria as a comprehensive infill redevelopment project per Section 2-803. The proposal is not in compliance with the other standards in the Code including the general applicability criteria for Section 3-913. Most of the reasons cited for denial involve Respondent's Community Development Code (CDC), which is the land development regulations. The Property is in the Downtown District. CDC Section 2-901 states: "The intent and purpose of the Downtown District is to establish a mixed use downtown where citizens can work, live, and shop in a place which is the economic, governmental, entertainment and cultural focal point of a liveable city." CDC Section 2-902 sets forth the permitted uses within the Downtown District, and CDC Chart 2-100 lists permitted uses by zoning district. The proposed uses are not among the permitted uses for the Downtown District (or the Tourist District, to which portions of the record refer). CDC Section 2-903.C sets forth the following ten criteria to be applied in determining if the proposed use qualifies as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project (CIRP) that may qualify an otherwise non-permitted use: The development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is otherwise impractical without deviations from the use, intensity and development standards; The development of the parcel proposed for development as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project will not reduce the fair market value of abutting properties; The uses within the comprehensive infill redevelopment project are otherwise permitted in the City of Clearwater; The uses or mix of uses within the comprehensive infill redevelopment project are compatible with adjacent land uses; Suitable sites for development or redevelopment of the uses or mix of uses within the comprehensive infill redevelopment project are not otherwise available in the City of Clearwater; The development of the parcel proposed for development as an comprehensive infill redevelopment project will upgrade the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development; The design of the proposed comprehensive infill redevelopment project creates a form and function which enhances the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole; Flexibility in regard to lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street parking are justified by the benefits to community character and the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole; Adequate off-street parking in the immediate vicinity according to the shared parking formula in Division 14 of Article 3 will be available to avoid on-street parking in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development; The design of all buildings complies with the Downtown District design guidelines in Division 5 of Article 3. CDC Section 3-913.A sets forth the General Applicability criteria. CDC Section 3-913.A.1 states: "The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density, and character of adjacent properties in which it is located." CDC Section 3-913.A.5 states: The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development."
Findings Of Fact John Taylor, III, Petitioner, owns property located at 1200 South Missouri Avenue in the City of Clearwater which is zoned CC (commercial center). The subject property consists of a mall and movie theater. On or about April 17, 1986, Michael Johnson, on behalf of Petitioner, applied for a variance to allow two message signs on the subject property and also to allow total message signage of 256 square feet. Without a variance, the subject property can have only one message sign which cannot exceed 192 square feet. The property presently has one message sign and total message signage of 176 square feet located on its marquee. At a meeting of the Development Code Adjustment Board on May 8, 1986, Petitioner's variance application was denied. The parties stipulated that Fusco Corporation is the manager of the mall located on Petitioner's property and further that Fusco is the owner of all improvements on the property. Further, Cineplex-Odeon has leased the theater located on the subject property and has renovated and expanded it from two to five movie theaters. Finally, Michael Johnson was employed by Cineplex-Odeon to install the changeable message sign which is the subject of this variance. The second message sign which is sought by this variance would be located 350 feet from Missouri Avenue, which runs north and south in front of the subject property. Specifically, it will be located in the front wall of the theaters next to the ticket counter, and will be 16 feet long by 4.4 feet high. The sign would actually be a display case, 6 inches deep, with five individual poster display cases, which would be used to display coming attraction posters. Each display case would have a hinged glass door, through which the poster could be seen. Coming attraction posters are 2 feet long by 3.3 feet high. The 6 inch depth of the display case extends equally into, and protrudes out of, the front wall of the theater. Petitioner has not established that a hardship would exist if this variance is not approved. Coming attraction posters can be, and in fact are, displayed in the theater lobby. During the renovation of the theater, the front wall could have been removed and a window installed to allow viewing of the lobby posters from outside the theater. Finally, the existing sign on the property could be used to advertise coming attractions, as well as movies which are currently playing. The display case for which this variance is sought on behalf of Petitioner is a "changeable message sign," as that term is used in Section 134.011(a), Land Development Code, since it would be a graphic communication or device which would be primarily used to convey information or advertise and would also be prominently visible from outside the theater.
The Issue Is the City of Mexico Beach (the City or Applicant) entitled to the issuance of a joint coastal permit and consent to use of sovereign submerged land for the Mexico Beach Canal (Main Canal) and a municipal flushing outlet adjacent to 8th Street (8th Street outlet)? Those permits would be issued by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) in response to DEP Application File No.: 0124938-001JC and DEP Application File No.: 0129039- 001JC, respectively.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners Edmond Blount, Sr.; Edmond Blount, Jr.; and Robert Davenport are residents of the City of Mexico Beach, Florida. As residents they have access to the Main Canal, the public beaches adjacent to the Main Canal, and beaches adjacent to the 8th Street outlet. Edmond Blount, Jr., and Robert Davenport oppose the issuance of any permits by DEP which would allow the City to conduct dredging and the placement of dredge materials associated with the Main Canal. Those Petitioners and Edmond Blount, Sr., oppose the grant of necessary permits by DEP upon the application by the City to conduct occasional maintenance excavation at the 8th Street outlet to alleviate potential damage through erosion to properties adjacent to the 8th Street outlet. The City of Mexico Beach is a municipality in Florida which serves as the local government for that community. The City owns the Main Canal and 8th Street outlet. DEP is an environmental regulator with authority to issue or deny joint coastal permits and to grant or deny consent to use sovereign submerged lands belonging to the State of Florida. The joint coastal permitting authority and right to grant consent to use is pursuant to Chapters 161, 253, and 373, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 18-21 and 62B-49, Florida Administrative Code. In particular, DEP has joint coastal permitting authority upon sovereignty lands in the State of Florida below the mean high waterline (MHWL) of any tidal water of the State. The reference to sovereign land is an association with lands below MHWL held in trust by the State of Florida. The term tidal waters refers to waters in which there is an astronomical effect on the elevation of that water. The Gulf of Mexico which fronts the City is a tidal water of the State of Florida. The MHWL is established along the coastal regions in Florida, to include the Gulf coast that fronts the City. The MHWL is set based upon charting information concerning the local mean high tide, the average height of the high waters, and where this average intersects the land. PERMIT APPLICATION FOR MAIN CANAL On June 30, 1997, the City applied to DEP for a ten-year permit/water quality certification and authorization to use sovereign submerged lands owned by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (the Trustees), which would allow the City to maintenance dredge the Main Canal entrance and place the dredge material on the beach east of the canal below the water's edge. This task would be accomplished by the use of hydraulic dredging device. In the course of these activities, approximately 660 cubic yards of material would be removed approximately four times a week. The application file number for the requested permit in the Main Canal project was: 0124938-001 JC. The City, through its application, provided a complete and appropriate application with adequate engineering data to support the proposed project. The Main Canal is located in the western part of the City and is partially located in sovereign submerged lands of the State of Florida where the canal intersects the Gulf of Mexico below the MHWL. On January 13, 1998, DEP gave notice of its intent to issue necessary permits for the activities to allow dredging and the placement of fill in association with the Main Canal. More specifically, the hydraulic dredge the City intends to use in the maintenance dredging of the Main Canal is a floating device which excavates the sand from the bottom of the entrance of the Main Canal and pipes the material onto the beach immediately east of the dredge site. The dredging activities may only be conducted in a manner designed to protect the beach-dune system, water quality and habitat for marine turtles. These restrictions in the conduct of the dredging are in accordance with the proposed joint coastal permit. The dredging activity is to remove and deposit clean beach sand that has been transported by coastal processes and deposited in the lee of the jetty within the Main Canal. There is no intent, nor permission under the proposed permit, that would allow disturbance of any sediments more landward of the extent of the canal. The dredging is necessitated because the entrance of the Main Canal slowly fills with sand being transported from west to east along the shoreline. The Main Canal is stabilized on both sides by jetties. The western-most jetty extends further out than the eastern-most jetty. The Main Canal has seawalls along its inside. A recreational area is located on the western side of the Main Canal. The Main Canal is highly utilized for purposes of commerce and recreation. The Main Canal constitutes an economic support for many residents of the City. The Main Canal in proximity to the Gulf and the Gulf itself are not considered outstanding Florida waters or aquatic preserves. The waters in the Main Canal and Gulf are Class III marine waters when considering the parameters for water quality under DEP statutes and rules. Competent evidence was presented concerning water quality sampling and results in the analysis of those samples for fecal coliform bacteria and total coliform bacteria in relation to the Main Canal at its entrance where dredging would take place under the terms of the permit. Some values for fecal coliform and total coliform exceeded the allowable limits for those parameters as envisioned by Section 62-302.530, Florida Administrative Code, as preexisting conditions. However, the dredge operations will not lead to further degradation of the existing Class III marine waters in the Main Canal and degradation of the Gulf. The relatively clean sand being excavated does not contain fines or organics, which, through the dredging and placement of the sand on the beach following the dredging, would contribute to degradation of water quality standards. The activity associated with the dredging and placement of those materials on the beach will not cause a significant adverse impact to the beach-dune system, nor will the transport of sand from west to east along the beach as it presently exists be interrupted by the dredging and placement of the sand. The dredged material is being placed immediately east of the dredge operation avoiding a disruption of the natural processes of transport. The proposed disposal area is located on the beach at least 100 feet east of the canal below the waters edge at approximately minus 0.5NGVD. Finally, the deposit of the sand on the beach contributes to beach stabilization as opposed to depriving the beach of sand. The proposed permit requires that the dredge pipeline be retracted upon a daily basis during marine turtle nesting season from May 1 until October 31 each year. By this limitation in the operation of the dredge pipeline, marine turtles are not hindered in their behavior nor is their habitat unduly disturbed. The placement of the dredged sand on the beach would not be in the dry upland where the turtles would typically nest. The DEP Bureau of Protected Species Management reviewed the permit application for any significant adverse impact on nesting sea turtles and recommends the approval subject to specific conditions such as have been described. The dredging of the sand from the Main Canal and placement of that material on the beach will not cause significant adverse impact to the property of others. The Main Canal project will not create any significant erosion or turbidity. Given the small volume and coarseness of the dredged sand, elevated turbidity levels are not expected. The dredging of material from the mouth of the Main Canal and placement on the adjacent beach does not block lateral access to the beach, because the hydraulic dredge pipeline is placed at the water's edge with a discharge of dredge material being made at the water's edge in the area of the intertidal zone where water comes up to the beach. The exact discharge point is seaward of the area described as the intertidal zone. Given that the project associated with the Main Canal is located in Class III marine waters, it must not be contrary to the public interest. The project is not contrary to the public interest. PERMIT APPLICATION FOR 8TH STREET OUTLET On June 13, 1997, the City applied to DEP for a ten- year permit/water quality certification and authorization to use sovereign submerged lands owned by the Board of Trustees. This would allow the City to conduct occasional excavation of the 8th Street municipal flushing outlet which connects to the Gulf, having in mind the alleviation of potential damage to adjacent beachfront properties. That potential damage would be expected to occur in the instance where there was an uncontrolled breach of the berm surrounding the 8th Street outlet due to high incidence of rainfall, thus eroding adjacent beachfront properties. With the advent of scheduled maintenance, excavation of the outlet that erosion is expected to be deterred. The application file number for the requested permit in the 8th Street outlet project was File No.: 0129039-001 JC. The City, in its application for necessary permits to conduct excavation at the 8th Street outlet, submitted a complete and appropriate application setting forth adequate engineering details. More specifically, the permit application contemplates the removal of approximately 20 to 40 yards of beach sand per excavation, with the material excavated being placed on the beach near the water's edge. The excavation would be approximately 4 to 5 feet wide, 50 feet long, and 2 to 3 feet deep. Ordinarily, the frequency of excavation would be one to two times per month. The excavation practices would be by the use of a backhoe other than in the sea turtle nesting season. While sea turtles are nesting, the plans contemplate excavation by hand by use of a shovel or similar tool. In addition, during the turtle nesting season the application contemplates that the excavation would be done during daylight hours, only twice a month, to reduce potential flooding of marine turtle nests due to a meandering outflow from the outlet. Other than in the marine turtle nesting season the excavation would be done on an "as needed" basis. On March 16, 1998, the DEP gave notice of its intent to issue a permit for the dredging at the 8th Street outlet. The conditions associated with the intended permit for dredging of the 8th Street outlet deter any significant adverse impacts to the beach-dune system. In the area of the 8th Street outlet, a large box culvert runs underneath U.S. 98, the main highway in the city. That highway runs parallel to the beach. Once the water flows through the culvert, it accumulates in the outlet south of the road. In the instance where rainfall is diminished, the flushing outlet does not flow to the Gulf and the beach berm, which accretes seaward of the outlet, traps the water that is being released via the culvert. By contrast, in instances where heavy rainfall occurs, the water in the outlet collects to a point that it begins to flow away from the culvert in the direction of the Gulf. If the beach berm has built up over time, the path of that flow in high incidence of rainfall can encroach on buildings that are adjacent to the culvert on the south side of U.S. 98. When the rainfall is sufficient, and the water begins to flow, it reaches a sufficient velocity to move sand as a bed load. Under those circumstances, when the water strikes a ridged object, like a house foundation, the local water velocity will act to carry away the sand more readily from that location where the house foundation is found, by scouring out the sand near the foundation, undermining the building and risking the collapse of the building onto the beach. In the course of this process the water breaches the beach berm and flows towards the Gulf. In the instance where the berm on the beach has been breached, the water that has been released begins to scour the beach and establish a pattern that can run down the beach roughly parallel to the Gulf for a distance before flowing into the Gulf. By contrast, the controlled release of water from the outlet would cause less of an impact, in that it would create an immediate access through the beach berm to the Gulf without creating the potential for harm to upland property or causing erosion or scouring of dunes and vegetation in beach areas, some of which might contain turtle nests. Unlike the circumstances with high incidence of rainfall where adjacent property is eroded and damaged, the use of controlled maintenance excavation to relieve the outlet would not cause significant and adverse impact to adjacent property owners. The controlled release of the water in the outlet, unlike the natural release of that water in high incidence of rainfall, is more in the interest of the public when considering adverse impacts to property. The introduction of the water in the outlet, and its constituents, onto the beach and its consequences, is no more a problem whether based upon the natural event of high incidence of rainfall or the routine release contemplated by the project. Therefore, the alternative method of releasing the water by use of scheduled excavation is not contrary to the public interest. If anything, the use of periodic excavation to relieve the outlet would limit the breadth of discharge and the amount of discharge. The 8th Street outlet and the Gulf area adjacent to that outlet are not within outstanding Florida waters or aquatic preserves. The project site for the 8th Street outlet and the Gulf are within Class III marine waters. The existing Class III marine water quality parameters for fecal coliform and total coliform when considered in accordance with Rule 62-302.530, Florida Administrative Code, have been exceeded in the 8th Street outlet. This is borne out by test results from samples gathered at the 8th Street outlet presented at hearing. However, as with the circumstance with the Main Canal, the effect of periodic excavation to relieve the outlet will not further degrade state waters found in the outlet. The results of water quality tests performed following sampling that relate to the amount of fecal coliform and total coliform in the Gulf that could be expected at the entrance of the Main Canal and as the discharge of water within the 8th Street outlet enters the Gulf show low values for those parameters. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the release of the water from the 8th Street outlet to the Gulf under controlled conditions contemplated by the permit application would cause a violation of the parameters for fecal coliform and total coliform in the Gulf, the receiving body of water, especially when compared to the existing release of water from the 8th Street outlet to the Gulf in high incidence of rainfall. This finding is also influenced by the fact that the most excessive values for total coliform and fecal coliform in the 8th Street outlet system were found 600 to 800 feet up the water course described as the 8th Street outlet. Similar to the Main Canal, the project contemplated at the 8th Street outlet would not require mitigation before being permitted by DEP. The 8th Street outlet project would not create significant adverse impacts on coastal sediment transport. The DEP Bureau of Protective Species Management reviewed the 8th Street outlet application and recommended approval with specific conditions. Those conditions offer adequate protection to marine turtles and their habitat. The conditions include project excavation that does not create parallel trenches in the sand that inhibit movement on the beach by sea turtles. The 8th Street outlet project will not create significant erosion concerns or turbidity concerns. The 8th Street outlet project does not block lateral beach access to the public, in that the excavation to relieve the outlet on a periodic basis is temporary, that is to say only in effect when the water is being released from the outlet to the Gulf. CONSENT TO USE SOVEREIGN SUBMERGED LANDS The 8th Street outlet project, as well as the Main Canal project, involves sovereignty submerged lands below the MHWL constituted of the beach and ocean bottom. The facts show that the City is entitled to consent of use to work on sovereign submerged lands in the Main Canal and 8th Street outlet projects.
Recommendation Based upon the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That DEP issue a final order granting the City the joint coastal permits and consent to use sovereign submerged lands in accordance with application File Nos.: 0124938-001JC and 0129039-001JC respectively, subject to specific conditions contained therein. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of November, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of November, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Edmond Blount, Sr. Post Office Box 13855 Mexico Beach, Florida 32410 Edmond Blount, Jr. Post Office Box 13854 Mexico Beach, Florida 32410 Robert Davenport Post Office Box 13926 Mexico Beach, Florida 32410 Gerard Murnan Post Office Box 13378 Mexico Beach, Florida 32410 Paul G. Komarek, Esquire Daniel and Komarek, Chartered Post Office Box 2547 Panama City, Florida 32402 Ricardo Muratti, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 John McInnis, City Manager City of Mexico Beach Post Office Box 13425 Mexico Beach, Florida 32410 Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 F. Perry Odom, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact The Guana River Marsh Aquatic Preserve (the Preserve) is state-owned property. Title is held by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund. It includes some 13 miles of Atlantic Ocean beach within St. Johns County. Within the boundaries of the Preserve is included the Guana River State Park (the Park). It, too, is state-owned. It is managed and operated by the Division of Recreation and Parks (the DRP) of the Department of Environmental Protection (the DEP). Some of the Preserve's Atlantic Ocean beaches are included within the boundaries of the Park. The "wet sand," or "hard sand," area of the Atlantic Ocean beaches in the Preserve is the area of the beach between mean high water and mean low water. The mean high water line is essentially the landward extent of the ocean at mean high tide; the mean low water line is essentially the landward extent of the ocean at mean low tide. When the tide is low, this entire area of the beach is exposed. It remains wet and, generally, relatively hard-packed during the time it is exposed. However, there are beds of "red shell" in this part of the beach that are softer. In the summer, this part of the beach averages approximately 50 feet in width. In the winter, when the waves and tides generally are higher, it is narrower. In the Preserve, the mean high water line usually is indicated both by debris washed up during the highest tides and left on the beach and by a "shelf." This "shelf," made by the erosive action of the ocean waves during the highest tides and during storms, rises at an angle of approximately 45 degrees and can be from one to four or five feet high. Landward of this shelf is the "dry sand" or "soft sand" beach, also sometimes referred to as the "upper beach." It extends landward from the mean high water line to the vegetation line, where the dunes start. Usually, some pioneer vegetation is found in the uppermost reaches of this part of the beach, forming what is called the "foredune" area of the beach. The tides along the Atlantic Ocean beaches in the Preserve are semi- diurnal, i.e., there usually are two high tides and two low tides a day. These high and low tides last approximately one hour, and each day they occur approximately an hour later than they did the day before. There are five beach access points with motor vehicle parking areas located along U.S. Highway A1A within the Preserve. Three are within the Park. There is parking for approximately 120, 68, 79, 42 and 25 vehicles in these five parking areas. There also is a current proposal for the addition of three more access points in the Park, with parking for a total of 340 vehicles, five beach bathhouses, and five pedestrian overpasses. There are many other places where pedestrians can walk from A1A to the beaches, including 30 County-controlled access points. But there are no lawful parking areas adjacent to any of these other access points at this time, and parking on the right-of-way of A1A is prohibited. Currently, the only lawful motor vehicle access to the Atlantic Ocean beaches in the Preserve is to the south of the Preserve. Prior to the agency action challenged in these proceedings, motor vehicles lawfully could be driven onto the beach at this access point and be driven north into the Preserve, so long as they remained below the mean high water line. A former access near the north end of the Preserve has been cordoned off. To leave the Preserve, motor vehicles would have to be turned around and driven back south to the same motor vehicle access point. Due to the restricted access to the Atlantic Ocean beaches in the Preserve, not much use is made of those beaches. In comparison, beaches to the south are used much more heavily. Of the relatively few who use the motor vehicle access to the south and drive on the beach north through the Preserve, some ultimately use the beaches to picnic, swim, surf, beach-comb and similar activities; some probably just drive on the beach. There was no evidence quantifying the uses currently being made of the beaches in the Preserve. In the past, homemade motor vehicles called "skeeters" were built with a light-weight chassis and over-sized wheels. They were used for driving on both the hard and soft areas of the beaches, as well as illegally in the dunes. This practice has been curtailed due to better enforcement of the prohibitions against driving in the dunes, a generally heightened environmental consciousness among the public, and prohibitions against driving the "skeeters" on public highways. Generally, there has been less driving on the beaches of the Preserve in recent years, although the practice persists at a reduced level. At all times of the year, it sometimes is impossible to drive along the entire length of the beaches in the Preserve without driving on the soft sand area. This is especially true during the winter months when the waves and tides are higher and storms are more frequent. But even in the summer months, there are times when "red shell beds" in the "wet sand" part of the beach must be circumvented to avoid getting stuck. Especially when the tide is not at its lowest, the only way to avoid some of these "red shell" beds is to drive over the "shelf" and onto the "soft sand." Depending on the tides, this may also be necessary in order to turn a vehicle around on the beach. In many places, the "soft sand" area is not very wide, and it would be necessary under those circumstances to drive in the "foredune" area. The times of the daily high and low tides can be obtained relatively easily by members of the public. But there is no assurance that all persons who would drive on the beaches would know the times of the tides. Nor is there any assurance that persons who drive the "wet sand" or "hard sand" part of the beaches at low tide also would plan to both start their beach drive and their return trip during low enough tides to be able to avoid driving on the "soft sand" part of the beach. For these and other reasons, it would be difficult, if not practically impossible, to effectively monitor beach driving throughout the Preserve and consistently enforce a restriction to driving only on the "wet sand" or "hard sand" areas of the beach. In the summer months, sea turtles lay eggs in nests dug in the sand of the foredune and dune areas of the Atlantic Ocean beaches in the Preserve. After a period of incubation in the nests, the turtle hatchlings dig themselves out of the nests and crawl to the ocean to begin their lives in the sea. Driving motor vehicles over nests on those parts of the beaches in the summer months could crush eggs in their nests or pack the sand hard enough to reduce the number of hatchlings that emerge from the nest alive. In addition, driving motor vehicles in these area, even in other parts of the year, can leave ruts in the beach that disorient hatchlings that leave the nests in summer so that fewer reach the ocean alive. Sea turtles crawl out of the ocean to their nest sites at night. Artificial lighting can disturb their nesting and egg-laying activities. However, it seems that moving lights, or lights that turn on and off (in the manner of car lights), create more of a disturbance than stationary lights, such as those more often found at residences along the beaches in the Preserve. The Management Plan does not prohibit artificial lighting along the beaches in the Preserve, but it recommends that further attention be given to this problem and that ways to address the problem be explored and pursued in cooperation with the County. Various shore birds, including the threatened least tern, make their nests in the foredune area of the beaches in the Preserve. Driving on the foredunes destroys and disturbs nesting habitat and disturbs the nesting activities of these birds. In addition, both these ground nesting shore birds and a variety of migratory birds make use of different areas of the beaches to rest and feed. Driving on the beaches disturbs these activities, as well. The only known nesting colony of least terns in St. Johns County is located in the Park, where beach driving is prohibited. The Division of Parks and Recreation (DPR) of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has utilized F.A.C. Rule 16D-2.002(4)-(5) to prohibit driving or parking motor vehicles on the beaches of the Park by not designating the beaches as driving or parking areas within the Park. At least parts of the beaches in the Park have been posted as areas where driving motor vehicles is prohibited. In order to develop a management plan for the Preserve, the manager of the Preserve personally researched the geology, climate and natural resources of the Preserve, as well as the records of the County, and also collected data pertaining to the Preserve from several state agencies. Over the course of a year, the manager's input was taken into consideration, and a management plan, called the Guana River Marsh Aquatic Preserve Management Plan (the Management Plan), was developed for the Preserve. It was adopted by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund on December 17, 1991. The Management Plan recites in pertinent part: At the present time, motorized vehicular traffic is permitted, by county ordinance, below the natural vegetation line on the beaches adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean in St. Johns County. Vehicles are not allowed on the 4.2 miles of beach within Guana River State Park. The coarse coquina sand and steep profiles of the beaches in the preserve make driving on the wet sand area difficult. Drivers are forced to cross the dry sand area, damaging the foredunes, pioneer dune vegetation and sea turtle nesting habitat. Due to the negative environmental impacts resulting from this activity, motorized vehicular traffic shall not be considered an authorized activity on sovereign submerged lands within [Prime Resource Protection Area] PRPA beach management areas of the preserve, and therefore will be prohibited. Under the Management Plan, all of the Atlantic Ocean beaches in the Preserve are Prime Resource Protection Area, and the driving of motorized vehicles on them is prohibited. On June 11, 1993, the DEP's DRP sent St. Johns County a letter advising that, based on the Management Plan, DEP no longer would permit the driving of motor vehicles on the Atlantic Ocean beaches in the Preserve. The proposed amendment to F.A.C. Rule 18-20.004(7), incorporating the Management Plan, was noticed in the Florida Administrative Weekly on August 6, 1993. On or about August 18, 1993, the DEP agreed not to enforce the beach driving prohibition in the Preserve until these cases are resolved.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Town of Beverly Beach's Comprehensive Plan Amendment 03-1, initially adopted by Ordinance 2003-ORD-6 and amended by Ordinance 2004-ORD-6, is "in compliance," as required by Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes (2004).
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state land planning agency and has authority to administer and enforce the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes (2004). One of the Department's duties under the Act is to review proposed amendments to local government comprehensive plans to determine whether the amendments are in compliance with the Act. The Town of Beverly Beach is a small municipality in Flagler County, Florida, and has the duty and authority to adopt a local government comprehensive plan pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (2004), and to amend the plan from time to time. In June 2002, the Town proposed to amend its Future Land Use Map (FLUM) to change some of the land uses within the 37-acre Shelter Cove Planned Unit Development (PUD). The Shelter Cove PUD was the subject of an earlier lawsuit in the circuit court for Flagler County brought by the owners and developers of the property after the Town denied their PUD application. In 2002, the court entered judgment against the Town and ordered the Town to approve the PUD application. In its order, the court included a statement that the Shelter Cove PUD was consistent with the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of the plan amendment proposed in June 2002 was to re-designate 14.25 acres from Conservation/Spoil Area to Low Density Residential, 0.75 acres of Conservation/Spoil Area to Medium Density Residential, and 8.25 acres of Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. The proposed amendment was transmitted to the Department for compliance review. In its July 2003 ORC Report, the Department set forth four objections to the proposed amendment: 1) increased density in a Coastal High Hazard Area; 2) no traffic impact analysis regarding emergency evacuation; 3) inadequate potable water and sanitary sewer services; and 4) unsuitability for development because of saltwater marsh and potential use by threatened and endangered animal species. The Town made changes to the proposed amendment to address the Department's objections and adopted Plan Amendment 03-1 on October 6, 2003. One significant change made by the Town was to reduce the size of the land affected by the amendment from 23.25 acres to 14.5 acres. The stated purpose of the revised amendment was to deal exclusively with the spoil areas within the Shelter Cove PUD; to convert them from Conservation to Low Density Residential. The Department was not satisfied with the changes made by the Town and on November 17, 2003, it issued a Statement of Intent To Find The Comprehensive Plan Amendment Not In Compliance. This statement did not reassert the four objections of the ORC Report, but identified only two reasons for its determination that Plan Amendment 03-1 was not in compliance: 1) increased density in a Coastal High Hazard Area that would increase evacuation clearance times and 2) inadequate sanitary sewer facilities based on the denial of the utility's permit renewal by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). The Department recommended remedial actions that would bring Plan Amendment 03-1 into compliance. Thereafter, the Department and Town entered into a compliance agreement to identify remedial actions by the Town that would bring the plan amendment into compliance. Pursuant to the agreement, the Town adopted remedial measures in Ordinance 2004-ORD-6 (the Remedial Ordinance) that caused the Department to determine that the plan amendment was in compliance. The Remedial Ordinance (with additions and deletions as indicated in the ordinance) states in pertinent part: Limiting Density on the 14.5-acre amendment site & Hurricane Evacuation Plan Future Land Use Element: contains policies controlling the density and intensity of development (both residential and non- residential) in the Town of Beverly Beach. Policy A.1.1.9 The Low Density Residential (LDR) land use (up to 5 dwelling units/acre) shall be applied to 14.5 acres of upland spoil sites in the Shelter Cove development as shown in Exhibit A, not to exceed a total gross density of 28 residential units. In addition to the provisions described in Policy 1.1.4, the following provisions shall apply to the Shelter Cove Development: Residential land use for the Shelter Cove Planned Unit Development(PUD)shall be limited to a maximum of 115 dwelling units. The Town of Beverly Beach shall not issue a permit or certificate of occupancy until the Building Official certifies the required public facilities and services will be provided consistent with Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code (see Policy A.1.1.1). * * * Policy A.1.1.10 No later than December 2005, Beverly Beach shall revise its comprehensive plan to update the goals, objectives and policies and future land use map series and transmit such revisions to the Department of Community Affairs. The updated plan shall reflect changes to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, since the plan went into effect in 1991. This revision shall be based on a planning period through Year 2015, with current and forecasted conditions and satisfy data and analysis requirements. * * * Revise policies under Objective D.2.1, Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan regarding the provision of potable water and sanitary sewer Public Infrastructure/Facilities Element: refers to the protection of water quality by specific policies that require deficiencies in wastewater treatment facilities be corrected in accordance with DEP requirements. Objective D.2.1 By December 31, 1992 December 31, 2005, the Town shall require that existing deficiencies in the wastewater treatment package plants owned by Surfside Utilities operated by Ocean City Utilities be corrected in accordance with FDER Department of Environmental Protection [DEP] requirements. Policy D.2.1.1 As the Town does not own the wastewater treatment plants nor has operational control over the same, the Town shall formalize a coordination committee to include the owner/operator of Surfside Utilities Ocean City Utilities, the members of the Town Commission, members of the Flagler County Board of County Commissioners or their appointee, members of the City of Flagler Beach Commission or their appointee, and FDER the Department of Environmental Protection [DEP] and any other identified stakeholder in the Town. Policy D.2.1.2 The Town shall use the coordination committee to address the deficiencies in the wastewater plants, to set priorities for upgrading and replacing components of the plants, and to request FDER the Department of Environmental Protection [DEP]to increase and enforce their regulations requiring periodic monitoring and maintenance of package treatment plants. Policy D.1.2.3 The Town shall use the coordination committee to investigate the feasibility of assuming operational responsibility of the wastewater treatment system by another entity. Applying the five dwelling units per acre density allowed in the Low Density Residential category to 14.5 acres would generate 72.5 units. However, as indicated above, the Remedial Ordinance also restricted the total allowable dwelling units in the 14.5 acres to 28 units. The 28 units coincide with the site plan for the Shelter Cove PUD that was the subject of the circuit court judgment. The site plan called for 28 single- family lots in the former spoil areas. Charles Osbourne, Bernard Knight, and Mary Jo Knight were residents of the Town of Beverly Beach when the Town adopted Plan Amendment 03-1. They intervened against the Town in the original proceedings initiated by the Department. Following the Department's determination that the plan amendment had been brought into compliance by the Remedial Ordinance, they filed an Amended Petition to Intervene and were realigned as the Petitioners. On some date between the filing of their original petition in this case and the date of the final hearing, Petitioners Bernard Knight and Mary Jo Knight moved out of Beverly Beach. They are no longer residents of the Town. In their Amended Petition to Intervene, the Petitioners assert that the Remedial Ordinance did not resolve all the problems originally identified by the Department's ORC Report, and Plan Amendment 03-1 is still not in compliance. The Petitioners' objections to the amendment fall into three categories: insufficient and inaccurate data and analysis, insufficient legal description for the lands affected by the plan amendment, and inadequate wastewater services available for the increased density resulting from the amendment. These three categories will be used to organize the findings of fact that follow. Data and Analysis/Maps The Petitioners assert that the maps used for Plan Amendment 03-1 and the Remedial Amendment are not the official maps currently contained in the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan. They contend the unofficial maps contained errors that caused some of the area designated as Conservation/Saltwater Marsh to be included in the 14.5 acres re-designated Low Density Residential. At the hearing, the Petitioners also attempted to show that maps used by the Town with Plan Amendment 03-1 were not consistent with the Beverly Beach FLUM with regard to the depiction of saltwater marsh areas outside the 14.5 acres affected by the plan amendment. Whether such discrepancies exist is not a relevant inquiry for determining whether Plan Amendment 03-1 is in compliance. A 1997 report regarding threatened and endangered animal species, prepared by Lotspeich and Associates for the developer of the Shelter Cove PUD, includes a statement that there are 10.3 acres of spoil on the 37-acre PUD site. That figure is inconsistent with the Town's claim that the lands affected by Plan Amendment 03-1 consist of 14.5 acres of spoil. Lindsay Haga, a regional planner with the Northeast Florida Regional Planning Council (Council), made the determination that there are 14.5 acres of spoil area. Because the Town does not have a professional planning staff, the Council was providing planning services to the Town under contract. Ms. Haga worked on Plan Amendment 03-1 on behalf of the Town. Ms. Haga obtained a mapping of the land uses within the Shelter Cove PUD from information maintained by the St. Johns River Water Management District (District). The land use categories are based on the Future Land Use Classification Categorization System, and were applied by the District using aerial photography. Using professional software called "ArcView," Ms. Haga derived the size of the various land uses mapped within the Shelter Cove PUD by the District. The software calculated the size of the spoil areas as 14.5 acres. According to Ms. Haga, planners use this method "100 percent" of the time to delineate land uses on future land use maps. Ms. Haga was called as a witness by the Petitioners and by Beverly Beach and testified at length on direct and cross-examination on how she determined the size of the spoil areas. Nevertheless, some ambiguity remains as to whether the size and position of the spoil areas designated in the official Town FLUM are the same as their size and position as delineated by Ms. Haga for Plan Amendment 03-1 using information from the St Johns River Water Management District. The Town and the Department seem to suggest in their joint post-hearing submittal that the size and position of the spoil areas on the FLUM can be "cleaned up" or re-drawn using more site-specific information presented at the final hearing. The implication is that, if the Town's FLUM delineated less than 14.5 acres as Conservation/Spoil Area, but better data is presented at the hearing to show that the spoil areas actually cover 14.5 acres, the FLUM delineation can be ignored or treated as if did cover 14.5 acres. The redrawing of land uses as they are depicted on an adopted FLUM is arguably beyond the authority granted to the Department in Chapter 163. That issue need not be decided on this record, however, because the more credible and persuasive evidence shows there were no material changes to the size and position of the spoil areas in Plan Amendment 03-1, and no saltwater marsh was re-designated as Low Density Residential. Data and Analysis/Topographic Information The Petitioners assert that topographic data used by the Town was flawed and did not accurately reflect that much of the Shelter Cove PUD is within the 100-year floodplain. For example, the June 2002 Transmittal Packet sent to the Department included a statement that, "According to FEMA the 100 year floodplain is confined to the saltwater marsh areas located adjacent to the Intracoastal Waterway." At the hearing, the Town admitted that some of topographic information was inaccurate and described it as a "scrivener's error." The parties stipulated to the introduction into evidence of topographic information that indicates a portion of the 14.5 acres affected by Plan Amendment 03-1 lies within the 100-year floodplain. The Petitioners have not shown how the inclusion of inaccurate topographic in the data and analysis causes Plan Amendment 03-1 to be not in compliance; or, put another way, the Petitioners have not shown how the accurate topographic information proves Plan Amendment 03-1 will be inconsistent with the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan or applicable state laws and regulations. The Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan does not prohibit Low Density Residential uses in the 100-year floodplain. Data and Analysis/Clustering The Petitioners contend that the data and analysis was flawed because it included a reference to the possibility of clustering dwelling units to avoid adverse impacts to areas unsuitable for development, but the Town has no regulations that allow for or address clustering. Neither the Amended Petition to Intervene nor the evidence presented by the Petitioners makes clear how this alleged error causes Plan Amendment 03-1 to be not in compliance. Any alleged error must relate to the 14.5 acres affected by the amendment. The Petitioners did not show that clustering of dwelling units is planned or necessary on the 14.5 acres. Data and Analysis/Scrub Jays The Petitioners contend that the data and analysis is insufficient because it fails to describe and account for the current use of the site by the Florida scrub jay, a bird listed as threatened by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The Town and Department stipulated that scrub jays have been seen on the property. Charles Osbourne and Gail Duggins, a birdwatcher, testified that they have seen scrub jays in the Shelter Cove PUD area on several occasions. They marked Petitioners' Exhibit 15 to indicate eight specific sites within the PUD where they had observed scrub jays. None of the marked sites are located on the 14.5 acres affected by Plan Amendment 03-1. Lotspeich and Associates conducted a scrub jay survey on the 37-acre Shelter Cove PUD in 1997. They observed no scrub jays on the 14.5 acres that will be affected by Plan Amendment 03-1. In the written report of the survey, Lotspeich and Associates concluded that, "no jays reside on-site nor did any birds react as though they were defending territory which extended onto the property." Following a second survey in 2002, Lotspeich and Associates reached the same conclusion that the property "is unlikely to support a resident Florida scrub jay population." The observations of scrub jays made by Mr. Osbourne and Ms. Duggins do not contradict the conclusions of the Lotspeich and Associates reports. Mr. Osbourne and Ms. Duggins did not offer an opinion (and no foundation was laid for their competence to offer such an opinion) that scrub jays reside on the 14.5 acres affected by Plan Amendment 03-1. The Department's ORC Report stated that the originally-proposed amendment was not consistent with Policy E 1.4.3 of the Town's comprehensive plan which calls for the Town to obtain information from appropriate agencies concerning the known locations of listed plant and animal species. The Department recommended in the ORC Report that the Town conduct a survey for gopher tortoises and other listed species. The Department's objection about listed species, however, was not included its subsequent Statement of Intent to Find The Comprehensive Plan Amendment Not in Compliance. The Town had available to it, as part of the data and analysis to support Plan Amendment 03-1 and the Remedial Amendment, the Lotspeich and Associates reports prepared for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The reports convey the results of Lotspeich and Associates' surveys of the Shelter Cove PUD property for gopher tortoises, scrub jays and other listed species. It is likely to be the best information available since it is a site-specific, scientific study. The Petitioners did not show that better data were available or that the Lotspeich and Associates reports are flawed. In fact, the Lotspeich and Associates reports were exhibits offered by the Petitioners. Policy E.1.4.3 of the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan directs the Town to adopt land development regulations that provide protections for known listed species. Land development regulations are the usual and appropriate tools for applying specific protective measures to specific development proposals. No regulations have yet been adopted by the Town to protect listed species. Listed species are not left unprotected from development activities in the Town, however, since there are both state and federal laws to protect listed species and their habitats. Data and Analysis/Beach Access The Petitioners contend that the data and analysis was insufficient because it indicated that there are five locations in the Town where the public can gain access to the beach, but the Petitioners allege there are only two public beach walkovers that qualify under the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan. The beach access issue relates to the Town's recreational level of service standard adopted in the Recreation and Open Space Element of the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan. Policy F.1.1.1 specifies that the adopted level of service standard is "Five publicly-owned beach access facilities." The Petitioners apparently believe that the easements acquired by the Town that provide for public beach access across private property do not qualify as publicly-owned beach access facilities as contemplated by the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan. The term "publicly-owned beach access facilities" is not defined in the Recreation and Open Space Element, but one can find a statement at page F-2 that, "Access points and parking areas are support facilities for public owned beaches." Therefore, the Town considers an access point, without any man- made structures, to be a "facility." Furthermore, the comprehensive plan, itself, includes a map that depicts the location of the five public beach access points. It must be assumed that these access points met the Town's intent and meaning. By raising the issue of whether the data and analysis for Plan Amendment 03-1 is accurate in referring to the existence of five public beach access points, the Petitioners are collaterally attacking the existing comprehensive plan. Stephen Emmett, the mayor of Beverly Beach, stated that the five public beach access points depicted in the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan, as well as a new sixth beach access point, are currently maintained by the Town. Description of the Land Affected The Petitioners alleged in their Amended Petition to Intervene that the Town did not have an adequate legal description for the lands affected by the plan amendment. The issue was not raised in the Petitioners' Pre-Hearing Statement. When the Department objected to the Petitioners' presentation of evidence on this issue because it was not raised in their Pre- Hearing Statement, the Petitioners voluntarily withdrew the issue. Sanitary Sewer Services The Petitioners contend that sanitary sewer services are not adequate for the increased residential density that would result from Plan Amendment 03-1. The Beverly Beach Wastewater Treatment Facility is operated by Ocean City Utilities. Ocean City's application to renew the permit for the facility was denied by DEP in September 2003 because the facility was not in compliance with several DEP regulations. As a result of the denial of Ocean City's permit renewal application, DEP would not allow new customers to connect to the Beverly Beach Wastewater Treatment Facility, including the Shelter Cove PUD. DEP subsequently approved the connection of the Shelter Cove PUD wastewater collection system to the Beverly Beach Wastewater Treatment Facility. Permitting problems associated with the treatment plant was one reason for the Department's objection to the originally proposed plan amendment and the Department's subsequent determination that Plan Amendment 03-1 was not in compliance. No evidence was presented to show that Ocean City Utilities has corrected the deficiencies in the wastewater treatment plant or has obtained a renewal permit from DEP. Nevertheless, the Department determined that Plan Amendment 03-1 is in compliance based on the changes to the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan called for in the compliance agreement and adopted in the Remedial Ordinance. Objective D.2.1 of the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan was amended to require that existing deficiencies in the wastewater treatment plant be corrected by December 31, 2005. Policies D.2.1.1, D.2.1.2, D.2.1.3 were amended to re-constitute and re-energize a coordination committee to address the deficiencies in the wastewater plant and the feasibility of giving operational responsibility to another entity (such as Flagler County). In addition, the Remedial Ordinance amended Policy A.1.19 of the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan to prohibit the Town from issuing a permit or certificate of occupancy for the Shelter Cove PUD "until the Building Official certifies the required public facilities and services will be provided consistent with Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code." No dispute was raised about the available capacity of the Beverly Beach Wastewater Treatment Facility to serve the Shelter Cove PUD.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the Town of Beverly Beach Plan Amendment 03-1, and Remedial Ordinance 2004-ORD-6, are "in compliance" as defined in Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes (2004). DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of August, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Shaw P. Stiller, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Sidney F. Ansbacher, Esquire Upchurch, Bailey and Upchurch, P.A. Post Office Box 3007 St. Augustine, Florida 32085-3007 Robert J. Riggio, Esquire Riggio & Mitchell, P.A. 400 South Palmetto Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Thaddeus Cohen, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Heidi Hughes, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
