The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner is liable for the costs and expenses incurred by Respondent in responding to a pollutant discharge, occurring on November 6, 1992, at the waters off John Lloyd State Park, Dania, Florida, and for damages to natural resources resulting from the pollutant discharge.
Findings Of Fact On November 6, 1992, a DC-7 airplane crashed off the Atlantic Coast of Florida, more particularly, 100 yards from John Lloyd State Park, and one quarter of a mile north of Dania Pier in Dania, Florida. The DC-7 was a chartered cargo airplane and had departed from Miami International Airport. The DC-7 was chartered from Claudio Castillo by Miguel Delpino, United States General Manager of Aerochago Airlines, to carry cargo for Aerochago Airlines. Even though Aerochago Airlines owned aircraft, its aircraft was unavailable due to maintenance work being performed. During the flight from Miami International Airport, the DC-7 developed engine trouble, i.e., two of its engines failed. The aircraft began to lose altitude. In an attempt to regain altitude, the captain of the aircraft dumped 3,000 gallons of aviation fuel. However, the DC-7 failed to regain altitude and crashed. Remaining on the crashed aircraft were 3,000 gallons of aviation fuel and 150 gallons of motor oil. When the DC-7 crashed, only the crew and two passengers were on board. One of the passengers was Mr. Castillo. On the same day of the crash, the Florida Marine Patrol (FMP) of the Department of Natural Resources, now the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), arrived at the crash scene at 3:20 a.m. and investigated the crash. The DEP had four employees investigating the crash: three FMP officers and one employee from the Office of Coastal Protection. The remaining aviation fuel and motor oil in the crashed DC-7 was discharging into the coastal waters. The DEP employees attempted to abate the discharge. The equipment necessary for the employees' investigation of the crash and abatement of the discharge and the cost for the equipment were the following: (a) a DEP vehicle at a cost of $7.00; (b) a twin engine vessel at a cost of $120.00; (c) an underwater sealant kit at a cost of $16.66; (d) scuba tanks at a cost of $9.00; and (e) photographs at a cost of $24.00. The total hours expended by DEP's four employees were 36 hours, at a cost of $685.84. Due to the DC-7 leaking aviation fuel and motor oil into Florida's coastal waters, removal of the aircraft from the Atlantic Ocean was necessary. DEP contracted with Resolve Towing and Salvage (RTS) to remove the DC-7. RTS is a discharge cleanup organization approved by DEP. RTS' contractual responsibilities included removal of the entire DC-7 aircraft and all debris within 100 yards of the center of the aircraft; disposal of the aircraft; plugging the engines to help stop the leakage; and removal and delivery of the engines which failed to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA). Because the submerged DC-7 was located in an environmentally sensitive coral and sea-plant area, RTS was required to use extreme care in removing the aircraft. The contractual cost was fixed at $34,000.00 A DEP employee, Kent Reetz, was at the scene of the crash during RTS' cleanup. His responsibility was to monitor the removal of the DC-7 by RTS and to ensure that the aircraft's removal was in compliance with DEP's standards. During the removal of the DC-7 from the water, the fuselage ruptured, scattering debris which was dangerous to the public and to the coral and sea-plants. DEP determined that RTS was not responsible for the fuselage rupturing, but that the rupture was caused by several storms, prior to the aircraft's removal, and by the aircraft being submerged for an extended period in salt water. DEP contracted with RTS to remove the dangerous debris emitted when the fuselage ruptured. The contractual cost was fixed at $9,050.00 The total contractual cost between DEP and RTS was $43,050.00. DEP paid RTS from the Coastal Protection Trust Fund. In responding to the pollutant discharge, DEP incurred a total cost of $43,912.50. DEP assessed damages to the natural resources based upon the amount of pollutants discharged which were 3,000 gallons of aviation fuel and 150 gallons of motor oil. Using the statutory formula, DEP assessed damages to the natural resources in the amount of $57,898.72. Based upon the costs incurred by DEP in responding to the pollutant discharge in the amount of $43,912.50 and the damages to the natural resources in the amount of $57,898.72, DEP sought reimbursement and compensation from Mr. Castillo in the total amount of $101,811.22. DEP invoiced Mr. Castillo for reimbursement of the costs and for compensation for the damages. DEP provided Mr. Castillo with detailed and itemized expense documents for the costs that it had incurred in responding to the pollutant discharge. The documents showed the expenses incurred, what each expense represented, and the formula for computing each expense. Further, DEP provided Mr. Castillo with a document showing the amount of the damages to the natural resources, the formula for computing the damages, and how the damages were computed. The charter of November 6, 1992, was not the first time that Mr. Delpino had chartered the same DC-7 from Mr. Castillo. Prior to and, again, at the previous charter, Mr. Castillo represented to Mr. Delpino that he, Mr. Castillo, was the owner of the DC-7. The owner of a chartered aircraft is responsible for obtaining the aircraft's crew and insurance and for maintaining the aircraft. For the previous charter, Mr. Castillo was responsible for obtaining the DC-7's crew and the insurance and for maintaining the aircraft. Mr. Delpino had no reason to expect the charter for November 6, 1992, to be any different. Furthermore, Mr. Castillo did not inform Mr. Delpino that the responsibilities would be different. For the present charter, as before, Mr. Castillo handled all matters relating to the crew, insurance, and maintenance. Regarding the insurance, Mr. Castillo presented to Mr. Delpino an insurance certificate which, after the crash, was discovered to be false. Also, regarding maintenance, prior to the crash, the two engines which failed were to be removed and repaired, but, although they were removed, they were returned without being repaired. Mr. Castillo was the owner of the DC-7. Also, the crash of the DC-7 was investigated by several federal governmental agencies, including the FAA, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the NTSB. Both the Coast Guard and the NTSB issued reports on the crash, which identified Mr. Castillo as the owner of the DC-7. Mr. Castillo was responsible for the discharge of the 3,000 gallons of aviation fuel and 150 gallons of motor oil from the DC-7 into Florida's coastal waters.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) enter a final order assessing Claudio Castillo $43,912.50 for costs related to DEP responding to the pollutant discharge on November 6, 1992, at Florida's coastal waters off John Lloyd State Park, Dania, Florida, and $57,898.72 for damages to natural resources resulting from the pollutant discharge--all totaling $101,811.22. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of August, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of August, 1997.
Findings Of Fact Bennie Mae Rutledge, Petitioner, owns property located at 422 Madison Avenue, Clearwater, Florida which is the northwest corner of the intersection of South Madison Avenue and Brown Street. The legal description of the property is Lot 12, Block 1, Moase and Harrison Subdivision. The property is zoned commercial general. David Legault has a contract with Petitioner to purchase the subject property which is conditioned upon the granting of the variance which Petitioner is seeking. Legault's primary objective in this proceeding is to enhance business opportunities available to him through the purchase and use of Petitioner's property, if the variance sought herein is granted. On or about July 24, 1956 an application for a variance of the side property setback line requirement was submitted on behalf of Petitioner. This variance would permit the construction of an indoor storage or warehouse building 3.6 feet from the side property line, rather than ten feet. This is a variance of 6.4 feet. On August 14, 1986 the Development Code Adjustment Board denied this variance, and a timely appeal was taken on behalf of Petitioner. Prior to submission of this variance request, the Petitioner had sought four variances which were also denied. At that time, a 2,500 square foot building was proposed for the property which has now been reduced to a 2,000 square foot building, 100 feet long and 20 feet deep. The subject property is 136 feet long and 48.6 feet deep. Given the dimensions of the lot, and considering the requirements for parking, green space, and other setbacks, the variance sought herein is the minimum necessary to use this property for a warehouse or indoor storage. Without this variance, the building could only be 13 feet deep, and this would not be functional. Therefore, the particular size and shape of the subject property will result in an unnecessary hardship upon the Petitioner if the provisions of the Clearwater Land Development Code are strictly applied since the maximum depth of a commercial warehouse constructed on the lot could only be 13 feet. According to John Richter, development code administrator, there are several commercial warehouses in the area of the subject property, and in his opinion the approval of this variance would neither have an adverse impact on the neighborhood, nor would it be a benefit.
The Issue The issue is whether Vista of Fort Walton Beach, LLC (Vista), should be issued Surface Water Management Permit No. 04-2012-0013G authorizing the construction of an earthen embankment dam and impoundment to impound stormwater runoff from a proposed commercial development in the City of DeFuniak Springs (City), Walton County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The District has regulatory jurisdiction over the construction of certain types of impoundments within its boundaries. If an impoundment is at least ten feet high but less than 25 feet in height and has an impounding capacity of at least 50 acre-feet, a general permit is required. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40A-4.041(1). Vista, a limited liability corporation, owns an odd- shaped parcel in the City on which it intends to build a small commercial development consisting of a 17,000-square foot building, a parking lot, and related amenities. The vacant parcel abuts the north side of U.S. Highway 90 just east of 18th Street and is approximately 1.66 acres in size. The property is partially wooded and has a small wetland area on its northeastern corner. In conjunction with the proposed commercial development, Vista intends to construct an impoundment to control stormwater runoff from the project. Because the impoundment will be ten feet high and have an impounding capacity of at least 50 acre-feet, Vista is required to obtain a general permit. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40A-4.041(1). Vista filed a permit application with the District on June 8, 2012. On August 8, 2012, the District gave notice that it intended to issue a surface water management permit to Vista. The permit allows the construction of a stormwater retention basin. A mitigation plan for impacts to 0.23 acres of wetlands was also approved but is not at issue in this proceeding. As described in the District staff report, the project will encompass one earthen embankment dam and impoundment to impound the storm runoff. It will operate as a dry stormwater retention basin designed to impound water only during rainfall events. The facility will utilize a pipe and riser spillway system, and the basin outfall will be protected by a rip-rap lined plunge pool. Due to space restrictions, an engineered retaining wall will be incorporated into the embankment's north side slope. The stormwater will discharge through controlled overflow structures into a nearby wetland area that lies northeast of Vista's property and will then be integrated into an existing channel that eventually forms the headwaters of Sandy Creek to the north. Petitioner has resided on her property since around 1932. Her odd-shaped parcel, described as being between five and seven acres in size, lies immediately to the north of Vista's property. A small wetland is located on the southeastern corner of her property. The two parcels share a common boundary line, appearing to be no more than a hundred feet or so. Because the boundary line is lower than the highest part of each owner's property, a "trench" has formed along the line. Wabash Avenue, a platted but un-built roadway that begins on U.S. Highway 90, runs to the northwest through the wetland area and along the eastern boundaries of both properties. As alleged in the Second Amended Petition, Petitioner is concerned that the project will cause flooding on her property. In a broader sense, she appears to be opposed to any commercial development on Vista's property. The back side of the Vista parcel slopes downhill to a recessed area that is adjacent to both properties. Although some fill has already been placed on the property in preparation for the development, the applicant intends to add "a lot" more fill to the entire parcel to create a gradual slope down to the edge of Wabash Avenue. A basin or pond around 0.20 acres in size will be formed within the fill area and a retaining wall consisting of multiple segments will be constructed around the basin. The wall will be separated from Petitioner's property by a 20-foot buffer, while at its closest point the basin will be "35 feet or so" from her property line. The plans submitted by the applicant demonstrate that the system will be built in accordance with all District standards and should operate in a safe manner. Before construction can begin, the District must approve the retaining wall design specifications. During rain events, the first inch of water will be retained on site for treatment. Additional water will be stored in the basin and then slowly allowed to discharge from the basin into the wetlands. The point of discharge from the basin is at a location a minimum of 20 feet south and east of Petitioner's property line. To ensure that the retention system will not discharge runoff at a higher rate than was discharged before development, Vista performed hydrologic calculations demonstrating pre- and post-development runoff. According to accepted models developed by the United States Department of Agriculture and its predecessor, the Soil Conservation Service, the current peak runoff from the Vista property is 2.46 cubic feet per second (CFS) during a two-year, 24-hour storm event. After development, the volume of water will be reduced to 0.74 CFS. During a 25-year, 24-hour storm event, the volume of runoff post-development is anticipated to drop from 12.59 CFS to 6.51 CFS. Finally, during a 100-year, 24-hour storm event, post- development runoff will be slightly reduced from 19.64 CFS to 18.99 CFS. Therefore, as sited, sized, and designed, the project will reduce runoff during all anticipated storm events. The foregoing calculations were not credibly contradicted and satisfy the requirement that an applicant give reasonable assurance that the project will not cause an increased flow such that it will endanger downstream property in times of flood with respect to state or frequency. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40A-4.301(2)(f). They also confirm that water in the impoundment will not be raised to a level that could be harmful to the property of others. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40A- 4.301(2)(c). Thus, the potential for flooding on Petitioner's property will be reduced if the project is constructed as permitted. The Department of Transportation (DOT) is currently repairing the drainage system on U.S. Highway 90 in front of the Vista property. Stormwater from that project drains into the wetlands through an easement deeded to the City at the rear of the Vista property. Petitioner pointed out that after the DOT project began, and fill was added to the Vista property, she has experienced an increase in water on her property. Whether the DOT project is responsible in any way for this hydrologic change is not known. However, accepted testimony by two professional engineers supports a finding that Vista is not responsible for any hydrologic changes on Petitioner's property. Vista was not required to take into account any runoff from the DOT project in making its hydrologic calculations because the amount of runoff from its own property will actually be reduced by the retention system. At hearing, Petitioner contended that a fence she built on the common boundary line with Vista sometime after 1990 was illegally removed by Vista in order to construct the basin. According to Mr. George, who first surveyed the property line in 1990 and then surveyed it a second time a few years ago, the fence was built a few feet beyond Petitioner's property line and lies within the buffer zone between the basin and her property. Petitioner argues that even if this is true, the doctrine of adverse possession applies and she is now the owner of the property on which the fence was built. This type of dispute, however, can only be resolved in circuit court, and not in an administrative forum. See § 26.012(2)(g), Fla. Stat. The District has examined the property records and is satisfied that Vista has ownership of the property on which the impoundment will be built. Notably, the basin will not be located within the 20-foot buffer where the fence once stood and which is dedicated to the City as an easement. Finally, through cross-examination at hearing, Petitioner suggested that any project designed by humans carries with it the remote possibility that it will fail and create a catastrophic situation on her property. In the unlikely event that the design and operation of the retention basin threaten the safety of adjoining property owners, section 373.429 and rule 40A-1.205 enable the District to revoke, suspend, or modify a permit to protect the safety of others.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Northwest Florida Water Management District enter a final order approving the issuance of Surface Water Management System Permit No. 04-2012-0013G to Vista. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of March, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of March, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Jonathon Steverson, Executive Director Northwest Florida Water Management District 152 Water Management Drive Havana, Florida 32333-4712 Helen J. Crenshaw 61 North 18th Street DeFuniak Springs, Florida 32433-9547 Kevin X. Crowley, Esquire Pennington, Moore, Wilkinson, Bell & Dunbar, P.A. Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-2095 James Busby Vista of Fort Walton Beach, LLC Post Office Box 760 Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32549-0760
Findings Of Fact The applicant, Tom Tona, owns the mortgage on the island consisting of Lots 1 and 2, Block 8, Elliots Point Subdivision, Fort Walton Beach, Florida. Mr. Tona has taken steps to perfect his ownership of the island and holds a property interest sufficient to afford him standing to apply for a permit. Elliots Point Subdivision is a residential subdivision development surrounding a lagoon which opens into Santa Rosa Sound in Fort Walton Beach, Florida. The island is located in the lagoon opening to Santa Rosa Sound. It has a large area of wetlands on the north shore. The wetlands function as a habitat for wildlife in the area. Water depths surrounding the island are shallow. The island currently acts as a barrier island for the property located on the shore of the lagoon. The barrier effect of the island helps to prevent the lagoon shore from erosion which would be caused by the wave action in the sound. However, the island, itself, is rapidly eroding due to the same wave action it protects the lagoon shore from. The evidence clearly demonstrated that unless this erosion is stopped the island will completely wash away along with the habitat, including wetlands, it now provides to wildlife and no longer protect the lagoon shore from the erosion it otherwise would experience without the presence of the island. The subdivision appears to be almost completely developed along the lagoon with single family dwellings. A canal consisting of two vertical seawalls runs in between the island and Elliots Point. The canal leads to a public boat ramp within the subdivision. The vertical sea wall of the canal along with the boats that pass through it is causing erosion to occur within the wetlands adjoining the seawall. It is this 55 foot area of the wetlands that Respondent proposes to construct part of the riprap revetment. Petitioner, Audrey Dickason, owns property on the far side of the lagoon from the island. Petitioner's property does not adjoin the island, but is close enough to the island to be within view of the island. On March 6, 1991, the applicant submitted an application to the Department of Environmental Regulation for a dredge and fill permit to construct a riprap revetment around the entire island. This was Mr. Tona's first application with the Department and at the time of filing Mr. Tona was very inexperienced in completing dredge and fill applications. The application was completed to the best of Mr. Tona's knowledge. Additionally, as happens with any form document, this application did not entirely fit the fact that this was an island project and the type of property interest Mr. Tona was asserting over the island. The application as originally filed did not list any adjacent property owners. Mr. Tona did not believe there were any adjacent property owners since an island was involved. Regardless of whether Mr. Tona should have listed any property owners of the subdivision, the failure to list any such property owners was not done to deceive or defraud the Department or the island's neighbors and in reality had no impact on the notification of parties who may have been interested in Mr. Tona's application. The owners of the property directly across from the island testified at the hearing and voiced their concerns to the Department during the processing of the application. Moreover, as indicated earlier, Petitioner's property does not adjoin the island. Since Petitioner's property does not adjoin the island, she was not entitled to be listed in Mr. Tona's application for the dredge and fill permit. The evidence simply did not establish that this debatable issue justifies the denial of Mr. Tona's application for a dredge and fill permit. The application filed by Mr. Tona also had the box indicating that he owned the property checked. The other box which could have been checked was that he would acquire an interest in the property. Neither box quite fit Mr. Tona's circumstances since he already had an interest in the property. The Department advised that it would be sufficient to check the ownership box and attach a copy of the mortgage assignment which gave Mr. Tona his interest. Mr. Tona followed the Department's advice. Again, the information as to ownership was not submitted to deceive or defraud the Department or the island's neighbors and in reality had no impact on the application process. In fact, the necessary information to determine Mr. Tona's interest was submitted to the Department. Again, there is nothing in the information submitted by Mr. Tona in the application which would justify denying that application as it has since been amended. As indicated above, after consulting with the Department, Mr. Tona amended his application so that the riprap revetment would only be constructed on a 55 foot strip along the northwest corner of the island immediately adjacent to the vertical seawall and on a 322 foot stretch of the island shore, beginning at the intersection of the vertical seawall and the southwest shore of the island and extending along the shore of the island to the edge of the wetland marsh on the north side of the island. The riprap would consist of clean limestone and would extend into state waters. The fill would not impede the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. In fact, the purpose of the revetment is to stop the rapid erosion of the island which is currently taking place and preserve the wetland habitat which exists on the island. The evidence did not demonstrate that the type fill the applicant intends to use in the construction of the revetment would cause any significant pollution or water quality problems or adversely affect fish or wildlife. The evidence demonstrated that the placement of the fill would create more habitat for fish and wildlife. The revetment is intended to be a permanent structure. After evaluating the application for consistency with the relevant pollution control standards, the Department determined that the proposed revetment met departmental standards for water quality and the public interest and issued an Intent to Issue with a draft permit authorizing the construction of the riprap revetment described above subject to several standard permit conditions. The modifications of the application along with the permit conditions provide reasonable assurances that the project will not violate water quality standards as provided in Section 403.918, Florida Statutes. Additionally, the historical evidence the Department has gained through observing the impact of other riprap revetments in a similar environment on water quality provides strong support for the above conclusion and in itself is a reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be adversely impacted by the construction of this riprap revetment. For similar reasons, the evidence demonstrated that the proposed revetment would not be contrary to the public interest. In essence, the evidence demonstrated that the revetment would not adversely impact the public health, safety, welfare or property of others, the current condition or relative value of the area surrounding the proposed project, the conservation of fish or wildlife and their habitats, or cause harmful erosion or shoaling, or involve historical or archaeological resources. In fact, the evidence demonstrated that the only effect on the environment the proposed revetment would cause would be a beneficial effect. Petitioner's fear that the grant of this permit will allow Mr. Tona to build a house on the island and thereby destroy her view is not the type of factor which may be considered in determining whether a dredge and fill permit should be granted or denied. See Miller v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 504 So.2d (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Petitioner's concerns for the revetment's affect on the wildlife of the area were not established by any evidence. The evidence did demonstrate that Petitioner's concerns for the wildlife using the island were simply feinted by her and are belied by the fact that if the island is not preserved from erosion there will be no habitat for any wildlife to use once the island erodes away. Based on all the evidence, Mr. Tona's application for a dredge and fill permit to construct a riprap revetment should be granted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order issuing a dredge and fill permit to construct a riprap revetment as sought by Tom Tona in his permit application as amended and subject to the permit conditions contained in the Department's Intent to Issue. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of September, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of September, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 91-3872 The facts contained in paragraph 1 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, in so far as material. The facts contained in paragraphs 3 and 4 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Facts are subordinate. The facts contained in paragraphs 6, 7, 8 and 9 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Facts were not shown by the evidence. The facts contained in paragraph 5 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are immaterial. The facts contained in paragraph 2 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, except for the finding relating to notice which was not shown by the evidence. The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, in so far as material. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Mead P.O. Drawer 1329 Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32549 William Stone P.O. Drawer 2230 Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32549 Candi Culbreath Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Carol Browner, Secretary Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue Whether Appellant was wrongfully denied a variance of 21.33 feet to construct a second floor deck at 673 Bay Esplanade, Five Palms Motel Condo, Clearwater, Florida.
Findings Of Fact John Shaw, a resident of Massachusetts, purchased the condominium for which the variance is here requested in December, 1988 without first visiting the property or inquiring about zoning restrictions. The unit purchased is on the second floor of a two story building earlier converted from a hotel or motel into condominiums. The seller told Shaw he could construct a deck over the existing deck on the ground floor condominium below the unit purchased by Shaw. While the construction of this deck was in progress it was discovered no permit had been pulled for the project and the work was stopped. The subsequent application for a permit was denied because the proposed deck encroached some 21.33 feet into the setback area. The application for a variance was denied by the Clearwater Development Code Adjustment Board and this appeal followed. The two buildings comprising this complex were erected many years ago and are non-conforming, i.e., the buildings themselves violate the current Development Code. An existing deck extending into the setback area was constructed on the unit directly below the condominium purchased by Shaw and a similar deck extending to the seawall was constructed on an adjacent building. No permits are on file for those decks. Construction of the proposed deck would improve the livability of the condominium greatly by expanding the area usable for looking seaward. The condominium has been used without this deck for many years. This property is zoned CR-24 and the setback requirement is 25 feet from the water's edge.
Findings Of Fact Ben A. Posdal is the owner of property commonly known as 166 Brightwater Drive, in the City of Clearwater, Florida. On August 7, 1986, he applied for variances to construct two wooden decks on his property, located at the above address. The property which is the subject of the variance request is a building which contains four apartments, which are rented by Ben A. Posdal to various tenants. On August 28, 1986, the Development Code Adjustment Board (DCAB) denied the variance requested by Mr. Posdal on the grounds that he had not demonstrated a hardship and that he had not demonstrated that the requested variance would not violate the general spirit and intent of the Clearwater Land Development Code. On September 9, 1986, an appeal was filed by Ben A. Posdal from the decision of the Development Code Adjustment Board. The appeal alleges that the DCAB decision was arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable on the following grounds: Other properties allegedly are in violation of the back line setback regulations; The DCAB failed to give enough evidentiary weight to photographs he submitted; and Appellant allegedly is being deprived of the beneficial use of the property in a manner commensurate with the community. There are no physical conditions which are unique to the property. There is no particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical condition that would result in an unnecessary hardship upon the Appellant. Failure to obtain a variance would not impinge upon Appellant's use of the property in any way. The record on appeal contains competent, substantial evidence to support the DCAB decision. Nonconforming uses in the area of the subject property are legal nonconforming uses.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner has an option to purchase property located at 301-307 Island Way Boulevard, Island Estate, Clearwater, Florida, on which he proposes to construct ten townhouses. Initially Petitioner asked for two variances. The first variance was for 25.12 feet to allow construction on a lot only 124.88 feet wide. This variance was granted for this nonconforming lot. The second variance, for 13.24 feet to allow construction of the ten townhouse complex 12 feet from the side property line, was denied by the Clearwater Code Adjustment Board. The Board concluded the variance requested did not meet the requirements of Section 45.24 of the Clearwater Land Development Code. Petitioner presented evidence that if the lot had been 150 feet wide they would have had 90 feet to build on without requesting any variance. However, since the lot was nonconforming, in order to have 89 feet on which to place the building, the requested variance would be necessary. Petitioner also presented evidence that the construction of ten townhouses on this lot is necessary for the project to be on a solid economic basis. Subsequent to the denial of this variance by the Development Code Adjustment Board, Petitioner submitted plans, which have been approved by the City of Clearwater, to erect nine townhouses on this property without any variance needed. However, these townhouses would be smaller than would be the ten townhouses initially proposed and would provide a lesser return on the capital invested.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner applied for conditional use approval from Respondent for the package sale of beer, wine and liquor (4-COP) at 2779 Gulf-To-Bay Boulevard, Clearwater, Florida, on or after September 4, 1987. The subject property is zoned general commercial (CG), and conditional use approval is required for package sales on property zoned CG. Conditional use approval was previously granted for this property on June 30, 1987, to allow on-premises consumption of alcoholic beverages, but this prior approval is not under review in this proceeding. On October 13, 1987, the Planning and Zoning Board voted unanimously to deny Petitioner's application for the package sale of beer, wine and liquor. Petitioner has timely sought review of the Planning and Zoning Board decision. It is undisputed that the subject property is less than 500 feet from an adult congregate living facility (ACLF) which constitutes the residence of approximately 300 persons. Frank Pascoe, the President and representative of the ACLF, testified about the residents' concerns about security, and the adverse impact of this application on the general welfare of their neighborhood. Paula Harvey, Planning Director, testified about the adverse impacts of this application on neighborhood noise, traffic and parking. Ordinance 4470-87 applies to this application since said Ordinance, by its terms, governs applications filed subsequent to September 3, 1987. Petitioner offered no evidence in support of its application. Specifically, there is no evidence in the record favorable to the applicant concerning noise, parking and the compatibility of this application with the neighborhood.
The Issue As to Case 92-1751DRI whether Building Permit No. 9110002865 issued by Monroe County, Florida, to Ronald and Patricia LaCroix as owners and Pierce Construction and Builders as contractor for the construction of a dock is contrary to the provisions of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and the Monroe County Land Development Regulations. As to Case 92-3949DRI whether Building Permit No. 9110003422 issued by Monroe County, Florida, to David Goodridge as owner and Pierce Construction and Builders as contractor for the construction of a dock is contrary to the provisions of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and the Monroe County Land Development Regulations. As to Case 92-5582DRI whether Building Permit No. 9210004503 issued by Monroe County, Florida, to Dick and Jean Madson as owners and Mark W. Milnes Construction as contractor for the construction of a dock is contrary to the provisions of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and the Monroe County Land Development Regulations.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility to administer the provisions of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, and the regulations promulgated thereunder. Petitioner has the authority to appeal to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission any development order issued in an area of critical state concern. Each appeal in this consolidated proceeding was timely and each involved a development within the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern as designated under Sections 380.05 and 380.0552, Florida Statutes. Monroe County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and is responsible for issuing development orders for development in unincorporated Monroe County. Monroe County issued the development orders that are the subject of this appeal. Respondents, Ronald and Patricia LaCroix, are the owners of real property known as Lot 43 Saddlebunch RV Park on Saddlebunch Key in unincorporated Monroe County. On December 12, 1991, Monroe County issued building permit 9110002865 to Mr. and Mrs. LaCroix as owners and to Pierce Construction and Builders as general contractors, to build a boat dock on the subject property and extending beyond the mean high water mark into a man-made canal. At the point that the boat dock would terminate, the canal is more than twenty feet wide and is more than four feet deep at mean low tide. The canal extends throughout the Saddlebunch RV Park. Respondent, David Goodridge is the owner of real property known as Lots 38 and 39 Saddlebunch RV Park on Saddlebunch Key in unincorporated Monroe County. On March 20, 1992, Monroe County issued building permit 9110003422 to Mr. Goodridge as owner and to Pierce Construction and Builders as general contractors, to build a seawall and boat dock on the subject property and extending beyond the mean high water mark into a man-made canal. At the point that the boat dock would terminate, the canal is more than twenty feet wide and is more than four feet deep at mean low tide. The canal extends throughout the Saddlebunch RV Park. Respondents, Dick and Jean Madson are the owners of real property known as Lot 38, Section D, Sugarloaf Shores subdivision, Sugarloaf Key in unincorporated Monroe County. On May 13, 1992, Monroe County issued building permit 9210004503 to Mr. and Mrs. Madson as owners and to Mark W. Milnes Construction as general contractors, to build a dock and davits on the subject property and extending beyond the mean high water mark into a man-made canal. At the point that the boat dock would terminate, the canal is more than twenty feet wide and is more than four feet deep at mean low tide. The canal extends throughout Sugarloaf Shores subdivision. Monroe County's comprehensive plan, which has been approved by the Petitioner and by the Administration Commission, is implemented through its adopted land development regulations, codified in Chapter 9.5, Monroe County Code. Section 9.5-345(m)(2), Monroe County Code, referred to as the four foot rule, provides as follows: (2) All structures on any submerged lands and mangroves shall be designed, located and constructed such that: * * * No structure shall be located on submerged land which is vegetated with sea grasses except as is necessary to reach waters at least four (4) feet below mean low level for docking facilities; No docking facility shall be developed at any site unless a minimum channel of twenty (20) feet in width where a mean low water depth of at least minus four (4) feet exists; Section 2.104, Nearshore Waters, Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, Volume II, Future Land Use Element, provides, in pertinent part, as follows: The Florida Keys are dependent on nearshore water quality for their environmental and economic integrity. The heart of the Florida Keys economy, the means by which Monroe County exists as a civil and social institution, is based on its unique oceanic character. If nearshore water quality is not maintained, then quality of life and the economy of Monroe County will be directly and immediately impacted. OBJECTIVES 1. To protect, maintain and, where appropriate, to improve the quality of nearshore waters in Monroe County. * * * POLICIES 1. To prohibit land use that directly or indirectly degrade nearshore water quality. * * * To prohibit the development of water dependent facilities, including marinas, at locations that would involve significant degradation of the biological character of submerged lands. To limit the location of water-dependent facilities at locations that will not have a significant adverse impact on off-shore resources of particular importance. For the purposes of this policy, off-shore resources of particular importance shall mean hard coral bottoms, habitat of state or federal threatened and endangered species, shallow water areas with natural marine communities with depths at mean low tide of less than four (4) feet, and all designated aquatic preserves under Florida Statutes section 258.39 et seq. Section 9.5-4(W-1), Monroe County Code, provides as follows: (W-1) "Water at least four (4) feet below mean sea level at mean low tide" means locations that will not have a significant adverse impact on off- shore resources of particular importance. For the purposes of this definition, "off-shore resources of particular importance" shall mean hard coral bottoms, habitat of state or federal threatened and endangered species, shallow water areas with natural marine communities with depths at mean low tide of less than four (4) feet, and all designated aquatic preserves under Florida Statutes section 258.39 et seq. Benthic communities exist in the waters between the two canals and deep water, such as rock-hard bottom, sea grasses, algae, and hard coral. Turtles, manatees, sharks, stingrays, eagle rays, snapper, pink shrimp, mullet, and other marine animals populate the Sound. Sea grass beds play an important role in water quality maintenance in the Keys through filtration, nutrient uptake, stabilization of the bottom, and as a habitat for commercially important species. Neither the canal system for Saddlebunch RV Park nor the canal system for Sugarloaf Shores subdivision has access to deep water without crossing areas of water in Sugarloaf Sound with depths of less than four feet at mean low water. Many of these shallow areas contain sea grass beds. The operation of motor driven boats may result in damage to sea grass beds and shallow water marine communities through prop dredging if boats were to attempt to cross these shallow areas. Although there is evidence of prop dredging in parts of these shallow waters, it was not shown that the damage was done by boats traveling from these canal systems and deep water. Whether boats that may be docked at these sites if these permits are granted will cause damage at some future time to some portion of the shallow waters of Sugarloaf Sound between the canal systems and deep water is speculation. Since 1986, Monroe County has adopted an interpretation of Section 9.5-345(m)(2), Monroe County Code, and of Section 2.104, Nearshore Waters, Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, Volume II, Future Land Use Element, that would permit the construction of each of the subject projects. That interpretation permits the development of marginal seawalls, vertical bulkheads and docks in subdivisions that were under development in 1986 if the proposed structure would terminate in a channel more than 20 feet wide with water more than four feet deep at mean low tide. The structures that are the subject of this proceeding meet that permitting criteria. Monroe County's interpretation of the so-called "four foot rule" is that the rule was intended to restrict the development of boating access facilities in new, undeveloped subdivisions and to regulate proposed expansion of existing marinas and the development of new marinas. Monroe County's interpretation of its rules is that the type development at issue in this proceeding, constructed on an individual family home-site, would have minimal effect on the nearshore water environment of critical state concern. Monroe County considers the subject applications to meet all of its permitting criteria. Respondents presented evidence that several similar projects were permitted at approximately the same time as the subject permits were issued without Petitioner filing an appeal. This evidence was insufficient to establish that Petitioner should be estopped to appeal the subject permits, that Petitioner engaged in selective enforcement of its regulatory power, or that Petitioner otherwise brought the subject appeals for an inappropriate purpose.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission enter a final order which affirms Monroe County's decision to issue building permit number 9110002865, and which dismisses the appeal filed by the Department of Community Affairs that is at issue in Case 92-1751DRI. It is further recommended that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission enter a final order which affirms Monroe County's decision to issue building permit number 9110003422, and which dismisses the appeal filed by the Department of Community Affairs that is at issue in Case No. 92-3949DRI. It is further recommended that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission enter a final order which affirms Monroe County's decision to issue building permit number 9210004503, and which dismisses the appeal filed by the Department of Community Affairs that is at issue in Case No. 92-5582DRI. DONE AND ORDERED this 26th day of January, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of January, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER TO CASE NO. 92-1751DRI, CASE NO. 92-3949DRI, AND CASE NO. 92-5582DRI The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, and 14 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 7 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in the first two sentences of paragraph 9 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in the last sentence of Paragraph 9 are rejected as being unsupported by the evidence. While the evidence established that damage may result, the evidence did not establish that damage would result. The proposed findings of fact in the first sentence of paragraph 12 are rejected as being unsubstantiated by the evidence since the water in the canals is deeper than four feet. The proposed findings in the second sentence of paragraph 12 are subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in the last sentence of Paragraph 12 are rejected as being unsupported by the evidence. While the evidence established that damage may result, the evidence did not establish that damage would result. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 13 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in the first sentence of paragraph 15 are rejected since the evidence established that Monroe County's interpretation of the four foot rule dates to 1986. The proposed findings of fact in the second sentence of paragraph 15 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The remaining proposed findings of fact in paragraph 15 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in the first sentence of paragraph 16 are subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in the second sentence of paragraph 16 are rejected as being argument. The proposed findings of fact in the final sentence of paragraph 17 (there are two paragraphs 16, the second of which is being referred to as paragraph 17) are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The remaining proposed findings of fact in paragraph 17 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondents. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, and 17 are rejected as being the recitation of testimony that is subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 12 are rejected as being contrary to the record of the proceedings. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 13 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 14 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order are rejected in part as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 15 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. COPIES FURNISHED: Lucky T. Osho, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Randy Ludacer, Esquire Monroe County Attorney 310 Fleming Street Key West, Florida 33040 James T. Hendrick, Esquire Morgan & Hendrick 317 Whitehead Street Key West, Florida 33040 William R. Kynoch, Deputy Director Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Executive Office of the Governor 311 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Carolyn Dekle, Director South Florida Regional Planning Council Suite 140 3400 Hollywood Boulevard Hollywood, Florida 33021 Robert Herman Monroe County Growth Management Division Public Service Building, Wing III 5825 Jr. College Road Stock Island Key West, Florida 33040 Charles M. Milligan, Esquire Post Office Box 1367 Key West, Florida 33041 David and Florence Clark 4606 Wayne Road Corona Del Mar, California 92625 Edward Warren Werling Post Office Box 1042 Summerland Key, Florida 33042 Theodore W. Herzog, Esquire 209 Duval Street Key West, Florida 33040 Pierce Construction & Builders Route 4, Box 319 Summerland Key, Florida 33042 Dick and Jean Madson Post Office Box 276 Summerland Key, Florida 33402 Mark W. Milnes Route 5, Box 775-G Big Pine Key, Florida 33043 David M. Maloney, Esquire Office of the Governor The Capitol, Room 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
Findings Of Fact On March 30, 1981, the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, received a request from William H. Griffith to allow him to place "rip-rap" adjacent to a retaining wall which fronts Griffith's property. Griffith is a resident at 259 Sabine Drive, Pensacola Beach, Florida. This residence address is in Escambia County, Florida. The details of the application for permit are as set forth in Respondent Griffith's Exhibit 3, admitted into evidence, which is a copy of the application. The application as originally constituted requested that Griffith be allowed to place "rip-rap" material along the front of his property adjacent to the retaining wall which wall was approximately 140 feet in length. The depth of the "rip-rap" material was to be 30 feet with an approximate height of the material being 3 feet. The "rip-rap" material was to be constituted of concrete test block cylinders which are 6 to 8 inches in diameter by 12 to 14 inches in length, together with other aggregate material constituted of irregularly shaped chunks of concrete. Those materials are depicted in the Petitioner's Exhibit 1A through H which are photographs taken at the site of the proposed project. Subsequent to the submission of the application for permit, a modification was made which reduced the depth of the "rip-rap" material from 39 feet to 10 feet 6 inches. This modification occurred sometime in May, 1981, and is depicted in the Respondent Griffith's Exhibit 3. The proposed project, in its modified form, would involve navigable waters of the State. Specifically, it would involve Class II waters, namely the intercoastal waterway which is fronted by the Respondent Griffith's property. A sketch of this location in Escambia County is depicted in the item entitled "vicinity map" which is part of Respondent Griffith's Exhibit 3. The purpose of the "rip-rap" as it is presently contemplated through the project would be to prohibit tidal erosion of the Respondent Griffith's property, in the area of his beach front, particularly as it is exacerbated by seasonal winds. A permit application appraisal was made by the Department and was concluded on July 27, 1981. A copy of that appraisal may be found as the Respondent Department's Exhibit 1, admitted into evidence. Through the process of the permit review and appraisal, the Department requested that the applicant remove four "rip-rap" groins running perpendicular to the retaining wall, which were 20 to 30 feet long. Those groins were not acceptable to the Department as devices to prohibit erosion. Respondent Griffith has removed the majority of the fill material and the present design contemplates the total removal of those groins. At the time of the permit review and at present the existing retaining wall is located 8 to 10 feet landward of the approximate mean high water shoreline. If constructed the 10 foot 6 inch depth "rip-rap" fill structure would extend approximately 2 feet waterward of the approximate mean high water shoreline. A description of the flora and fauna located at the project site, together with general description of the soil types may be found in Respondent Department's Exhibit 1. The impact of the project as described in the permit application appraisal, Respondent Department's Exhibit 1, indicates that the placement of "rip-rap" would stabilize the eroding shoreline adjacent to the applicant's property; provide moderate amounts of substrate to act as a habitat and shelter for intertidal organisms; would act as a limited inhibitor to littoral sand transport, particularly as related to Petitioner Gibson's property, in that there will be some deprivation of sand transport onto the Gibson property until the "rip-rap" stabilizes; however, this deprivation of sand transport of the Gibson property is not substantial. The impact on the Gibson property is further described in the appraisal statement as being insignificant. (It is also suggested that Gibson utilize "rip-rap" as opposed to the vertical timber retaining wall which is in place at his property and is subject to being undermined by tidal pressures.) These perceptions as set forth in the Department's permit application appraisal are factually correct. Having conducted the permit review and being of the opinion that the permit should be issued, the Department sent a letter of intent to issue the permit on July 29, 1981, and served Petitioner Gibson with a copy. The permit document was also forwarded to the applicant. The letter of intent and permit document may be found in Respondent Griffith's Exhibit 5, which was admitted into evidence. This exhibit is a copy of the aforementioned items. Subsequent to the notification of the intent to grant, Petitioner Gibson requested a Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing, which Petition, in its final form, may be found as Respondent Griffith's Exhibit 2, admitted into evidence, which is a copy of the verified Petition of the Petitioner. The hearing was then noticed and conducted on November 10, 1981, pursuant to the hearing notice, a copy of which may be found as Respondent Griffith's Exhibit 1, admitted into evidence. The project as contemplated will not have a significant negative impact on the flora and fauna. To the extent that there is some destruction by the placement of the "rip-rap" material, this destruction is more than offset by the provision of habitat and shelter for intertidal organisms. The placement of the "rip-rap" will not have a negative impact on water quality in the waters of the State which are adjacent to the Respondent Griffith's property and in which the "rip-rap" will be implaced to the extent of approximately 2 feet waterward of the approximate mean high water shoreline. Should the "rip-rap" material not be placed, shoreline erosion will continue in the area of the applicant's property and that of the Petitioner. The placement of the "rip-rap" is not a hazard to navigation nor in conflict with the public interest. The applicant has received necessary approval from the Army Corps of Engineers for the installation of the "rip-rap" material as may be seen by the grant of a permit from the Corps, a copy of which is found as Respondent Griffith's Exhibit 4, admitted into evidence.
