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.
Findings Of Fact The upland property abutting the proposed marina is zoned CTF-28, which provides for the complete range of motel-hotel developments. Type A Marina facilities are permitted as a special exception in a CTF-28 district. The property owned by Petitioners is presently occupied by a 17-room motel (Exhibit 5) and there are 15 available parking spaces. Petitioners propose to remove the seaward 16 feet of the existing 20-year-old dock, extend the remaining portion of this dock from its present length of 62 feet to 112 feet, and construct four finger piers two feet wide by 24 feet long extending seaward from this dock so as to provide seven boat slips. As private slips this would constitute a Class A marina. Petitioners intend to convert the existing motel from sole ownership (husband and wife) to a cooperative association which will enter into long-term leases with proprietary lessees who purchase shares in the association. Specifically, the current owners will transfer title to the property to Tropical Palms Development Corporation, who in turn will transfer the property to The Bel Crest Beach Cabanas & Yacht Club, Inc., who will sell the leases (Exhibits 2 and 3). A copy of the Proprietary Lease proposed for use in this endeavor was not presented to the Board of Adjustment and Appeal on Zoning, nor was the By- Laws of The Bel Crest Beach Cabanas & Yacht Club, Inc. These documents were presented at this hearing as Exhibits 4 and 5. The Proprietary Lease (Exhibit 4) provides the dock is appurtenant to the unit and may not be conveyed, leased or subleased independent of the unit. Slips 1-7 are assigned to Units 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16 and 17, respectively (Exhibit 5). Petitioner Leonhardt testified that he would never allow the motel unit to be leased independent of the slip appurtenant to that unit. He also testified that the boat slips got little use from motel occupants. The existing dock, which is 62 feet long, contains berthing space for three or four boats, depending on the size of the boats. No evidence was presented concerning the parking problem, if any, resulting from the existing docking facilities. Respondent's primary concern and the reason this application was denied by the Board of Adjustment and Appeal on Zoning is the effect the proposed marina will have on parking on Clearwater Beach. Vehicular parking is a serious problem confronting Clearwater Beach at this time. Further aggravation of this problem will adversely affect the public interest. A special exception for a seven-slip, Class A marina was granted to the Sea Gull Motel located some 300 feet west of the Bel Crest motel less than one year ago. The Sea Gull converted to cooperative ownership in a plan similar to that proposed by Petitioners. At the Sea Gull hearing for a special exception the parking situation on Clearwater Beach was not raised. Item 40 of the Proprietary Lease (Exhibit 4) contemplates more than one person may be named as lessee and provides joint lessees have only one vote, are jointly and severally liable for lessees' obligations, etc. Nowhere does the Proprietary Lease or By-Laws of the Association specifically preclude one owner- lessee occupying the boat slip while another owner-lessee occupies the motel unit. Once converted to a cooperative, the Bel Crest will continue to operate as a motel run by the resident manager with the units owned by the shareholders in the Association. Currently, all units of the motel are owned by a single owner. The By-Laws and Proprietary Lease do not fully cover the situation regarding the boat slip when the unit appurtenant to that boat slip is rented by the usual overnight motel guest who has no use for a boat slip. The proposed slips present no hazard to navigation or interfere with the enjoyment of the waters adjacent thereto by the boating public.
The Issue The issues are whether the Department of Environmental Protection's (Department's) proposed agency action to issue a coastal construction control line (CCCL) permit to Respondents, Daniel G. and Doris L. Wentz (Wentzes or applicants), affects the substantial interests of Petitioner, James Hasselback, and if so, whether he timely filed his request for a hearing.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented by the parties, the following findings of fact are made: Background This case is the latest chapter in a long-running dispute between adjacent property owners in Gulf County. In 1984, the Cape Haven Townhomes (Cape Haven), consisting of five two-story units on pilings, were constructed at 263 Haven Road on Cape San Blas just west of County Road 30E. Petitioner purchased his unit in 1985 and has owned it continuously since that time. The remaining units were purchased by several other individuals, including Barnett, Hosford, Steve Brady (Brady), and Alison Dohrman, the daughter of Thomas Dohrman (Dohrman). Ownership in the Barnett unit is shared with two other persons, John Beranek (Beranek) and Stephen Hanlon (Hanlon). There are, then, seven individuals having an ownership interest in the five units. Although the complex faced the Gulf of Mexico to the west, another lot, which at one time was approximately 350 feet deep and 65 feet wide, lay between Cape Haven and the Gulf of Mexico. Between 1985 and 1999, the lot lying between the Gulf of Mexico and Cape Haven remained vacant. In December 1999, the Wentzes purchased the lot, which is located at 193 Haven Lane. The lot is divided into Parcels A and B, which appear to be of equal size with both facing the Gulf of Mexico. See Wentz Exhibit 1. It can be inferred that they purchased the lot with the intention of constructing a single-family dwelling on the property. In February 2000, the Wentzes filed an application with the Department for a CCCL permit authorizing the construction of a home on Parcel B. On July 9, 2002, the Department issued proposed agency action approving the application and issuing Permit No. GU-305. A petition was filed by Barnett and Hanlon challenging this action, the matter was referred to DOAH and assigned Case No. 02-3252, an evidentiary hearing was conducted, and a Final Order was entered denying the application. Barnett, et al. v. Wentz, et al., DOAH Case No. 02-3252, 2003 Fla. ENV LEXIS 232 (DOAH June 5, 2003), adopted, 2003 Fla. ENV LEXIS 231 (DEP Aug. 4, 2003). In that proceeding, Barnett and Hanlon were represented by the law firm then known as Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez & Cole, P.A., now known as Oertel, Fernandez, Cole & Bryant, P.A. (the law firm). In September 2000, the Wentzes also filed an application for a field permit to enhance the dune system on their property. After the Department proposed to grant Field Permit 014292 authorizing the dune enhancement project, a petition challenging that action was filed by the law firm on behalf of Barnett, Dohrman, Hosford, Brady, Hanlon, Beranek, and Hasselback. The matter was referred to DOAH and was assigned Case No. 00-4460. Before a final hearing was conducted, however, Petitioners filed a notice of voluntary dismissal. In 2004, the Wentzes filed another application with the Department for a CCCL permit, this time on Parcel A. On September 8, 2004, the Department issued its notice of intent to issue Permit GU-409. Notice of this action was not published. Therefore, actual or constructive notice was required in order to afford third parties, including Mr. Hasselback, a point of entry. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-110.106(2)(receipt of notice means "either receipt of written notice or publication of the notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the county . . . in which the activity is to take place"). Besides the law firm, Barnett, Dohrman, and several others not relevant here received personal written notice of the Department's action. Thereafter, acting pro se Barnett timely requested at least six extensions of time to file a petition challenging the proposed agency action. The last extension lapsed on February 14, 2006, and neither Barnett nor any other Cape Haven owner requested a hearing by that date. In August 2005, the Wentzes filed an inverse condemnation suit against the Department. See Wentz v. State, Department of Environmental Protection, Case No. 05-270CA (14th Cir., Gulf Co. Fla.). On April 10, 2006, the Department issued a Final Order stating that it intended to revoke Permit GU-409 on the grounds the property was not platted prior to October 1, 1985, and shoreline changes had occurred after the proposed agency action had been issued. See DOAH Case No. 06-2381. Presumably, the latter reason was based on severe erosion of the shoreline due to several storms or hurricanes that struck the Florida Panhandle. According to testimony at hearing, due to erosion caused by storm events, the lot has receded from its original 350 feet in depth to around 175 feet at the present time. (In Case No. 02-2352, the administrative law judge noted that between 1993 and October 2002, around 47 percent of the property's total depth, or 170 feet, had eroded. Barnett at *11.) This in turn requires that any structure built on the Wentzes' lot be much closer to Petitioner's unit. One witness estimated that the Wentzes' septic tank, drain fields, and driveway would be no more than 30 feet from the front of the complex, while the pilings supporting the structure would be no more than 40 feet from the complex. The Wentzes challenged the proposed revocation of Permit GU-409 and simultaneously filed a rule challenge. See DOAH Case No. 06-2309RX. In August 2007, the Wentzes and Department reached a global settlement on all pending matters, and in return for the Wentzes' dismissing all pending court and administrative actions and executing a conservation easement in favor of the State as to one of the two parcels, the Department agreed to issue a Notice to Proceed (NTP) with the construction on Parcel A and to extend the expiration date on Permit GU-409 from September 8, 2007, to May 8, 2010. Except for the extension of the expiration date, no other changes to Permit GU- 409 were made. An extension was necessary because the permit would otherwise expire within a month, and no activity on the property had occurred due to Barnett's six requests for extension of time to file a petition and the passage of time required to resolve the revocation case and reach a global settlement. After the NTP was issued, concrete pilings were placed on the site and still remain as of this date. According to recent photographs, no other construction has occurred pending the outcome of this case. See Petitioner's Exhibit 4. In response to the Department's action, on October 10, 2007, the law firm filed a Petition on behalf of Barnett and Hosford in which they claimed that they first learned of the Department's latest action by reading a real estate listing in early October 2007, which advertised the Wentzes' property for sale, including a three-bedroom, three-bath home then under construction. On October 19, 2007, the Wentzes filed with the Department a Motion to Dismiss the request for a hearing as being untimely. Barnett and Hosford were later dismissed from the case on the grounds a new point of entry was not required by the latest Department action, and they had waived their right to contest the issuance of Permit GU-409 by (a) Hosford's failing to timely file a petition after notice of the agency action was issued on September 8, 2004, and (b) Barnett's failing to file a petition after the last extension of time to do so expired in February 2006. See Order Granting Motion to Dismiss, Jan. 25, 2008. On or about October 23, 2007, or just after the Motion to Dismiss had been filed by the Wentzes, Petitioner was contacted first by Hosford and then Barnett, who asked that he participate in the case to challenge Permit GU-409 since they believed that "apparently . . . [he was] not noticed by DEP on GU-409", and Petitioner was "the key for all of us maintaining our rights." See Wentz Exhibit 23. Petitioner agreed to file a petition since he thought it was in the best interests of all of the unit owners and did so within a matter of "two or three days." The Petition was prepared by the law firm and was filed with the Department on October 26, 2007. Substantial Interests At hearing, and in pre-hearing discovery, Petitioner testified that his substantial interests would be affected by the proposed agency action in three ways: (a) it would adversely affect his view of the Gulf of Mexico; (b) it would negatively impact the value of his townhome; and (c) he feared that wind or waterborne missiles from the structure during a storm event would cause damage to his townhome, which lies directly behind and to the east of the proposed construction site. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B-33.005(4)(f)(an applicant must show that "[t]he construction will minimize the potential for wind and waterborne missiles during a storm").1 The latter concern is the subject of the Wentzes' Motion in Limine briefly discussed in the Background portion of this Recommended Order. In addition to his testimony, on page 2 of the parties' Stipulation, Petitioner identifies the following concerns with the proposed agency action: The project does not satisfy the requirements or purpose of the statutes and rules limiting coastal construction; will diminish his observation and enjoyment of flora and fauna including sea turtles; will damage his property[;] and will have a significant adverse impact to marine turtles and the coastal system. Finally, in paragraph 21 of the Petition, the following allegation is made regarding the substantial interests of Petitioner: Should the permit be permitted, the Petitioner will no longer be able to enjoy the flora and fauna of Cape San Blas, the proposed project will jeopardize the Petitioner's continued enjoyment of his property at this location as described above, and the Petitioner's rights will be swept aside. The Wentzes argue that in demonstrating how his substantial interests are affected, Petitioner is limited to the reasons he gave during his testimony, both before and during the final hearing, irrespective of any other issues identified in his Petition or the parties' Stipulation. On the other hand, through counsel, Petitioner argues that he is a lay person, he cannot be expected to give opinion testimony in support of technical allegations in the pleadings and Stipulation, and that expert testimony may be used to establish how his substantial interests may be affected. A common thread in the testimony of Mr. Hasselback and the Stipulation is a concern that the proposed activity "will damage his property." See Stip., p. 2. Therefore, assuming arguendo that the Wentzes' argument regarding the standing issues that may be raised is correct, Petitioner is still entitled to offer proof that his property may be damaged by the proposed activity. As to the other two concerns stated in Petitioner's testimony, neither loss of view nor loss of economic value is a relevant consideration. See, e.g., Schoonover Children's Trust v. Village at Blue Mountain Beach, LLC, et al., Case No. 01- 0765, Recommended Order of Dismissal, April 20, 2001 (dismissing challenge to CCCL permit based upon allegations of loss of view and economic injury because "neither . . . is a protected interest in a proceeding under Section 161.053, Florida Statutes"). See also Young, et al. v. Department of Environmental Protection, et al., Case No. 04-3426, 2005 Fla. ENV LEXIS 155 at *30 (DOAH Aug. 15, 2005), adopted, 2005 Fla. ENV LEXIS 154 (DEP Sept. 26, 2005). Therefore, only the contention that the issuance of a permit may cause wind or waterborne missiles to strike or cause damage to his property need be decided to resolve the standing issue. Rule 62B-33.005(4)(f) requires that an applicant for a CCCL permit demonstrate that "[t]he construction will minimize the potential for wind and waterborne missiles during a storm." Mr. Hasselback is concerned that if a dwelling is constructed in front of his unit as proposed and no more than 40 feet away, during a severe storm event parts of that structure may be carried by wind or water into his unit. Although any dwelling constructed on the coastline must be designed to withstand the impact of a 100-year storm, a coastal engineer established that even if the home is built to those standards, "substantial structural elements" (such as sections of roofing material, siding, stairways, and the like) may still be carried by water, or blown by the wind, into Cape Haven, which lies directly behind, and less than 40 feet from, the proposed structure. The expert also pointed out that both the Department and Federal Emergency Management Agency require that all frangible structural components (those that tend to break up into fragments) below the first living floor remain unattached to the home. In this respect, the evidence supports a finding that Mr. Hasselback could reasonably expect to be adversely impacted in this manner should a permit be approved.2 Petitioner's expert also established that the existence of the pilings on the Wentz structure could accelerate beach erosion and cause damage to the beach dune system on Petitioner's property. Because of the extremely high rate of erosion on Cape San Blas, he opined that such impact could occur soon after the Wentz structure was completed. In this additional respect, Petitioner's substantial interests could reasonably be expected to be affected by the issuance of a permit. Was the Petition Timely Filed? Mr. Hasselback is the Mary Ball Washington Eminent Scholar in the College of Business, University of West Florida, in Pensacola, but maintains a residence in Tallahassee. As such, he must commute between the two cities each week during the academic year. He also travels much of the other time. Because of his schedule, he stated that he visits his unit only "an average of once a year." The record shows that he occasionally communicates by email or telephone with other unit owners, particularly Barnett, who is considered the "leader" of the unit owners in opposing any development on the Wentz property. It is fair to infer that since the property was purchased by the Wentzes in late 1999, most, if not all, of the information derived by Petitioner (and other unit owners) about the Wentz property, including any proposed activities they have undertaken, has come from Barnett, rather than other sources. Throughout this case, Mr. Hasselback has consistently maintained that he was unaware that the Department proposed to issue Permit GU-409 until he spoke by telephone with Barnett and Hosford in late October 2007 after the Wentzes had filed a Motion to Dismiss the Barnett/Hosford Petition. After the Department denied the application for Permit GU-305 in August 2003, he says he assumed that the issue was closed and that no further development would occur on the Wentzes' property. There is no direct evidence to dispute these assertions. Notwithstanding Mr. Hasselback's testimony, the Wentzes and Department contend that the law firm has represented the unit owners as a group since 2000, when the first two applications were filed, and that this relationship was still in effect in September 2004 when the law firm received notice of the Department's proposed agency action regarding Permit GU-409. They go on to contend that an agency relationship between the unit owners and the law firm existed, that it is presumed to continue in the absence of anything to show its revocation or termination, that the law firm's receipt of separate written notice concerning Permit GU-409 constituted constructive notice on Petitioner, and a petition should have been filed within 21 days after receipt of notice. Conversely, Petitioner contends that the attorney-client relationship between him and the law firm ended when the litigation in Case No. 02-2352 was concluded in August 2003, that the law firm did not represent him in September 2004, and that any notice to the law firm regarding the issuance of Permit GU-409 cannot be imputed to him. For the following reasons, on two different bases, including one not addressed by the parties, it is found that Petitioner received constructive notice of the proposed issuance of Permit GU-409 on or about September 15, 2004. To resolve the contentions of the parties, a factual review of the relationship between the law firm and Cape Haven owners is necessary. As discussed in greater detail below, this task is a difficult one because of the large number of unit owners (seven), some of whom participated as parties in one case, but not the others, and who are referred to by the law firm in correspondence or other papers generically as "a group of property owners, "adjacent property owners," or "other Cape Haven Townhome owners," and in other papers by their specific names. Although the law firm normally required that its clients execute a letter of engagement before agreeing to represent them, this policy was not strictly followed, and some unit owners who had not signed a letter of engagement were named as parties in a Wentz proceeding, while others who had signed a letter were not. Finally, the record supports a finding that throughout the nine-year controversy between the parties, Barnett has been the individual who acted as liason between the other unit owners and the law firm. After the Wentzes filed their application for a CCCL permit in February 2000, on August 4, 2000, Mr. Hasselback and three other unit owners, Dohrman, Barnett, and Hosford, each signed a letter of engagement with the law firm, also known as a New Matter Report (Report), authorizing the firm to represent them in the Wentz matter. See Wentz Exhibit 13. Petitioner says he "most likely" learned about the proposed issuance of Permit GU-305 through Barnett, who urged all of the unit owners "to come together" in opposing the permit. Petitioner agrees that all of the unit owners acted as a group "to fight the field permit and the GU-305." Even though Hasselback, Dohrman, and Hosford each signed a Report, the Reports identified only Barnett, Hanlon, and Beranek, who share ownership in unit 5, as the clients in the matter; Barnett was listed as the contact person. However, there is no evidence that Hanlon and Beranek ever signed a Report. Presumably, as co-owners with Barnett of unit 5, they had informally agreed with Barnett to be named as clients and to reimburse him for their pro rata share of the costs. The subject of the Reports was the "potential challenge of coastal control permit" and contained no information as to when the firm's services would cease. On September 25, 2000, the Department proposed to issue a field permit to the Wentzes for dune enhancement. See Case No. 00-4460. On October 11, 2000, the law firm filed a petition challenging the issuance of that permit. The petition was filed on behalf of all seven unit owners, even though three had never signed a Report. Although he probably discussed the substance of the petition before it was filed, Mr. Hasselback admits that he did not know the difference between a field permit and a CCCL permit and said he signed his Report so that the law firm could take "action against [the Wentzes] being able to build on [their] property." On October 20, 2000, the law firm also sent a letter to Department counsel requesting Department counsel to remind the Wentzes that a petition had been filed on behalf of its clients, that Permit 014292 was only proposed action, and that the Wentzes should not proceed with any work on the site. See Wentz Exhibit 3. The letter reflects that all of the Cape Haven owners, including Petitioner, were copied with that correspondence. The law firm's representation of the unit owners as a group at that time was confirmed by a letter sent to the Department on October 1, 2001, stating that the firm represented all of the Cape Haven owners, including Barnett, Dohrman, both Hosford and his wife, Brady, Hanlon, Beranek, and Petitioner, in their challenge to the Permit GU-305 application. It also requested notice of any decisions regarding the permit and a point of entry. See Wentz Exhibit 17. A copy of the letter was sent to all unit owners, including Petitioner. When the Department issued its formal proposed agency action regarding Permit GU-305 on July 9, 2002, it sent separate written notice to a member of the law firm on the same date. See Wentz Composite Exhibit 8. A petition was then timely filed by the law firm challenging that action. Notwithstanding the firm's letter of October 1, 2001, which indicated that all of the unit owners were opposing the issuance of a CCCL permit, only Barnett and Hanlon (who had not signed a Report) were identified as petitioners in the GU-305 case. Petitioner acknowledged, however, that he and the owners of three other units, but not Brady, agreed to share in the expenses of that case even though they were not named as parties. In all, he paid more than $35,000.00 in legal fees.3 (Brady, who owns unit 3, did not sign a Report, and according to Petitioner, he would not agree to share legal expenses in opposing the Wentzes' applications; even so, his name was on the petition filed in Case No. 00-4460.) Before Case No. 02-3252 was concluded, by letter dated January 15, 2003, the law firm, through a former member, Patricia A. Renovitch, Esquire, made the following request to Michael W. Sole, then Bureau Chief of the Department's Bureau of Beaches and Wetland Resources: Please consider this a request on behalf of adjacent property owners for notices about points of entry prior to the issuance of any permits to, and notices of any applications filed by, Doris and/or Daniel Wentz regarding the coastal lots they own on Cape San Blas that are described in File Numbers GU-375 and GU-305 (DOAH Case No. 02-3252 and OGC Case No. 02-1127). This would include notices of any applications for coastal construction control line permits or "dune enhancement" permits for these lots. (Emphasis added) In this instance, the law firm identified the unit owners as "adjacent property owners" without any further specificity. It can be inferred, however, that the law firm was still representing the entire group. At hearing, Petitioner acknowledged that because Case No. 02-3252 was not yet concluded, the law firm was still representing him when the letter was sent. He also agreed that the letter authorized the law firm to receive notices of "any applications" on behalf of him and the other unit owners the Wentzes might file in the future. Petitioner says his relationship with the law firm ended on August 4, 2003, when the Department issued a Final Order denying the application for Permit GU-305. He acknowledges that he never notified the Department or the law firm that the relationship ended on that day, and he did not instruct the law firm to revoke his prior authorization to receive notices of "any applications" that might be filed by the Wentzes in the future. Lacking any contrary information, the law firm did not advise the Department that it no longer was his agent for purposes of receiving notices. In response to Ms. Renovitch's letter sent to the Department in January 2003, on June 4, 2004, the Department sent a letter to the law firm (and Barnett individually) advising that the Wentzes had just filed another application for a CCCL permit, that it was being assigned File Number GU-409, and that any comments should be filed within ten days. See Department Exhibit 4o. In response to the Department's letter, on June 15, 2004, Ms. Renovitch filed a letter with the Department indicating in part as follows: Please consider the following comments made in behalf of our clients, Richard Barnett and other Cape Haven townhome owners of adjacent and/or upland property to the property described in the above styled application. (Emphasis added) The letter went on to state that "Mr. Barnett and other similarly-situated upland/adjacent property owners of Cape Haven townhomes submit their carefully considered objections to the issuance . . . of GU-409." See Department Exhibit 4o. Based on this correspondence, it can be inferred that in June 2004, at least for purposes of receiving "notices of any applications" filed by the Wentzes and submitting comments on behalf of the unit owners, an apparent principal-agent relationship still existed between the "other Cape Haven townhome owners" and the law firm, and that Petitioner was one of the unit owners being represented for those purposes. A copy of the letter was provided to Barnett, who presumably approved its content. On September 13, 2004, or five days after the Department issued its proposed agency action to issue Permit GU- 409, the Department sent separate written notice of this action to the law firm, Dohrman, Barnett, Erik J. Olsen (Olsen), a coastal engineer in Jacksonville, Florida, who testified as a consultant for Petitioner in this case, and several other individuals not relevant here. See Wentz Composite Exhibit 8. The notice was received by Barnett on September 15, 2004, and presumably by the law firm on or about the same date. See Department Exhibit 4n. (Besides the law firm, Barnett, Dohrman, and Olsen were also given separate written notice since they had each filed additional written objections in response to the Department's letter of June 4, 2004.) Although Barnett promptly contacted the law firm after receiving the notice to discuss the case, there is no evidence that the law firm contacted or spoke with any of the other unit owners regarding the proposed agency action. More likely than not, this was because it assumed that, based on the prior conduct of the parties, Barnett was the leader or "contact" person for the group and would convey any pertinent information to the other unit owners. While the law firm had not yet agreed to represent any of the unit owners on the merits of the GU-409 case since new Reports had not yet been sent out, see Finding 32, infra, the law firm was still Petitioner's agent for purposes of receiving notice of "any applications," and its receipt of the Department's notice on or about September 15, 2004, constituted constructive notice on Petitioner. On September 27, 2004, Ms. Renovitch emailed Kenneth Oertel, Esquire, the senior partner in the law firm, regarding the proposed agency action to issue Permit GU-409 and advised him as follows: Rick [Barnett] called a couple of times last week about the GU-409 case. He and John Beranek are in charge of overseeing the case (assuming we take it). They have approved the content of the Petition (per the memo I sent early last week.) I spoke to Rick Barnett several times about the balance (approx. $10K) on the bill in GU-305 (first Wentz CCCL permit). He said it's owed by Tom Dohrman and he will try to get a letter confirming when and how Tom will pay the balance. In the new case, the clients would be Rick, John Beranek, Jim Hasselback, Laurie Hosford, and Tom Dohrman. They will be paying equal shares. We have the NMRs [New Matter Reports] ready to send out, but have not sent them due to the unpaid balance in the first case. Rick wants to meet with DEP counsel Mark Miller and Tony McNeal about the GU-409 case this week . . . . Tony is very busy with hurricane impact emergencies . . . [and] Mark suggested Rick file a request for an extension to file the Petition. (Emphasis added) See Wentz Exhibit 9. Mr. Hasselback is not listed as a recipient of the email and he never spoke with Barnett or Ms. Renovitch about the case. He attributes the mentioning of his name in the email and being named as a party in the proposed petition to an assumption on the part of Barnett that "we may still have a group." However, given the prior conduct of the parties, it is reasonable to infer at a minimum that Barnett had Petitioner's implied authority to instruct the law firm to include his name on the proposed petition and to represent that Petitioner would share in the costs of the action. In response to that email, Mr. Oertel replied by email the same date that "we can't take a case where the client already owes us a substantial sum and has a hard time paying it. It will mean at best we will get paid only 80% of our bill." Id. At the suggestion of Mark Miller (Department counsel), Barnett requested that the Department grant him an extension of time to file a petition in order not to waive the 21-day filing requirement, which expired on October 6, 2004. The first request for an extension of time was filed on September 27, 2004, and stated in part that "I request a two week extension to October 20, 2004, for the homeowners of Cape Haven to consider all issues that could be raised in filing a potential challenge to this permit." (Emphasis added) See Department Exhibit 4n. The "homeowners" are not otherwise identified, although it is fair to infer that they were the five unit owners identified in the proposed petition whose content was approved by Barnett and Beranek. According to Ms. Renovitch's email of September 27, 2004, by requesting an extension of time, this would also "give [Barnett] more time to try to get Tom Dohrman to set up a payment plan." The last request for an extension of time was filed on November 14, 2005, and expired on February 14, 2006. Barnett says that he "lost track of the time and didn't submit [a seventh request] in time, but [he] clearly intended to submit [one]". The end result was that the law firm did not accept the case in September 2004, no petition was filed, and a new Report was not executed by any unit owner. After reading an advertisement regarding the potential sale of the Wentz property in October 2007, Barnett and Hosford engaged the services of the law firm to file a petition challenging the action taken by the Department in August 2007. There is no evidence that they signed a new Report authorizing the law firm to represent them. As noted above, their petition was later dismissed as being untimely. The law firm then filed a petition on behalf of Petitioner, who agrees that it was filed "to maintain the rights" of the group. However, he has not signed a new Report for this case, he has not been billed for any legal fees, he believes that Barnett is paying "some of the cost," but he expects he will probably end up paying a part of the legal fees incurred in this action. Based upon the facts of this case, and the conduct of the parties, the record also supports a finding that a principal-agent relationship existed between Petitioner and Barnett. As noted above, Barnett has always been the leader of the group of unit owners in opposing any development on the Wentz property. He communicated in writing and by telephone with Department personnel on numerous occasions over the years regarding the status of the activities on the property and periodically relayed this information to other unit owners by telephone or emails. Even though the law firm was given notice on behalf of the unit owners, Barnett also requested separate written notice from the Department for any applications filed after the GU-305 case, including the GU-409 permit. Barnett was initially identified by the law firm as the contact person for the group and has regularly met or communicated with the law firm regarding the various permits being challenged. It is fair to infer that the law firm assumed that Barnett had the authority to act on behalf of the other unit owners in coordinating their opposition to any permit challenges. This is evidenced by one of its emails indicating that Barnett was "in charge of overseeing the [GU-409] case" and that he approved the content of the proposed petition in which Mr. Hasselback was named as one of the parties. Although no longer a party in this case, he continues to discuss strategy of the case with counsel and other unit owners, including Petitioner. Finally, since the inception of these disputes, the record supports a finding that the law firm has invoiced Barnett for its legal fees, and Barnett then seeks reimbursement from the other owners, including Petitioner. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer from the evidence that because of his work schedule and travel, and infrequent visits to his townhome, since 2000 Petitioner has, at a minimum, impliedly authorized Barnett to serve as his agent to advise him about any activities by the Wentzes that might potentially impact the value of his townhome. The fact that Barnett did not always timely convey the information, as was the case here, does not negate this relationship. Because notice was received by Petitioner's agent on September 15, 2004, the time for filing a challenge to the issuance of Permit GU-409 expired 21 days after receipt of that written notice, or on October 6, 2004. Assuming that Mr. Hasselback was one of the "homeowners of Cape Haven" referred to in Barnett's first request for an extension of time to file a petition on September 27, 2004, and the subsequent five requests, the time for filing a petition expired no later than February 14, 2006.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order dismissing, with prejudice, the Petition of James Hasselback as being untimely. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 28th day of January, 2010.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether a proposed activity by Cayo Costa Island Partnership is exempt from permitting.
Findings Of Fact Cayo Costa Island is a bridgeless barrier island situated between Gasparilla Island to the north and Captiva Island to the south. East of Cayo Costa Island is Pine Island, and east of Pine Island is Cape Coral. In the 1960s, Travis Gresham subdivided and commenced development of a portion of Cayo Costa Island. Development included the dredging of canals. Eventually, one or more plat maps were recorded in the public records of Lee County, so that warranty deeds for residential lots referred to such recorded plat maps. There is also a subdivision sales plat map, which may not have been recorded. Not all of the land was subdivided into lots. The sales plat map reserves a considerable amount of land and canals for future development. One of the reserved areas is to the east of the subdivided lots. The location of the proposed dock is in the extreme southwest corner of this unplatted area. The dock would be located at the western end of a relatively wide manmade canal, which measures 2000 feet long and 105 feet wide. The east end of the canal terminates in Pine Island Sound. Petitioner and her late husband purchased from Mr. Gresham lot 16 in block 1 over 30 years ago, and they moved onto the island almost 20 years ago. The lot does not abut the canal, nor the upland adjacent to the subject dock. She has permanently resided on the island continuously since 1976. In 1984, she and her husband conveyed their property by warranty deed to the State of Florida, reserving a life estate. Petitioner's husband and some friends constructed the subject dock at the end of the canal in September 1978. A couple of years later, another nearby resident named Carl Noah substantially enlarged the dock. On March 16, 1993, Mr. Noah conveyed by warranty deed his real property to Paul Faust. At the same time, Mr. Noah gave Mr. Faust a quitclaim deed for "boat docks constructed by [Mr. Noah] to be used with the [residential] structure." After purchasing the property from Mr. Noah, Mr. Faust was contacted by Petitioner, who told him that she had previously owned the dock and that Mr. Noah had shared it with her. Mr. Faust agreed to share the dock with her, for as long as he owned it. There are no recorded easements concerning the use of the dock. On the sales plat map, the west end of the canal is clearly separated from the subdivided area by a road, which is named Harbor Drive. However, Harbor Drive was never constructed and there is no physical evidence of the proposed road. Petitioner's late husband and his friends who helped build the dock mistakenly believed that the west end of the canal terminated at Harbor Drive. Undoubtedly, other persons were similarly confused, including the property assessor, who had never assessed the property that separates the west end of the canal from Harbor Drive. However, in May 1993, Noel Andress, one of the partners of Cayo Costa Island Partnership, obtained a warranty deed from Mr. Gresham for a triangular- shaped piece of land running north just to the existing dock from the intersection of Harbor Drive and an actual road known as La Costa Drive. Mr. Andress quitclaimed the triangular-shaped parcel, which is described by metes and bounds, to Cayo Costa Island Partnership on January 13, 1994. After Mr. Andress acquired the triangular-shaped parcel, he directed his attorney to write Petitioner and Mr. Faust and inform them to remove their personal property from the real property that Mr. Andress had recently acquired. Mr. Faust is contesting this matter in court. Unfortunately, the record does not include the application or applications submitted by Cayo Costa Island Partnership. Mr. Andress testified that he submitted an application in February or March of 1993. The proposed dock, which would replace the dock built by Mr. Sellars and Mr. Noah, would serve a single family. The proposed dock would consist of two sections: a 5' by 92' main section and a 6' by 10' walkway to the upland area. Thus, the total area of the dock would be 520 square feet. The application reportedly provides that Cayo Costa Island Partnership would use turbidity barriers during construction. The location of a 92-foot dock running parallel to the end of a 2000- foot long undeveloped canal presents no impediment to navigation. There is no reason to infer an adverse impact to flood control or, as long as turbidity barriers are used, a violation of water quality standards. By letter dated June 15, 1994, the Department of Environmental Protection acknowledged receipt of the application, as well as additional drawings and documents submitted on April 8, 1994. Based on these materials, the letter states that the proposed project "appears to qualify as an activity which is exempt from the need for a Department wetland resource permit under Florida Administrative Code Rule 17-312.050(1)(h)."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order dismissing the petition of Petitioner. ENTERED on November 22, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on November 22, 1994. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings A-C: rejected as not findings of fact. A1: rejected as not finding of fact and irrelevant, except for last sentence, which is adopted or adopted in substance. A2-end: rejected as irrelevant, recitation of evidence, subordinate, and unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Rulings on Cayo Costa's Proposed Findings 1-10: adopted or adopted in substance. 11-12: rejected as subordinate. 13-15: adopted or adopted in substance. 16-23: rejected as subordinate, recitation of testimony, and unnecessary. 24-31: adopted or adopted in substance. 32-33: rejected as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Kenneth Plante, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Barbara Mathews Trescott Pepper Law Firm 1505 S.E. 40th St. Cape Coral, FL 33904 Mary F. Smallwood Ruden, Barnett P.O. Box 10888 Tallahassee, FL 32302 John Chaves Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
