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. 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 order that is the subject of this appeal. Respondents, David and Florence Clark, are the owners of real property known as Lot 90, Holly Lane, Section F, Sugarloaf Shores, Florida (Lot 90). Sugarloaf Shores is a legally platted subdivision. The Clarks were, at the time of the formal hearing, constructing a single family dwelling on that property. The building permit for the construction of the dwelling is not at issue in this proceeding. Most of Monroe County, including the subject property, is within the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern as designated under Sections 380.05 and 380.0552, Florida Statutes. There is an extensive man-made canal system throughout Sugarloaf Shores subdivision that is several miles in length, is between six and ten feet in depth, and is approximately sixty feet in width. The subject permit is for construction where Lot 90 fronts this canal system and involves construction beyond the mean high water mark onto submerged lands. On January 17, 1992, Monroe County issued the subject building permit, Permit Number 9210003952, to David and Florence Clark as owners and Edward Warren Werling as contractor. The subject permit authorizes the construction of a vertical bulkhead designed to limit erosion together with a docking facility with davits and access to the canal system. Most of the neighboring lots in the vicinity of the project have vertical bulkheads with docking facilities. The bulkhead is desirable to prevent erosion of the canal bank at Lot 90 and pollution of the canal waters. The requested development would give the Clarks safe access to the canal and provide private boating facilities. Pursuant to the provisions of Sections 380.05 and 380.0552, Florida Statutes, Monroe County has adopted a comprehensive plan which complies with the Principles of Guiding Development found at Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statutes. Section 380.0552(7), requires Monroe County's land development regulations to comply with certain Principles For Guiding Development, including the following: (b) To protect shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, seagrass beds, wetlands, fish and wildlife and their habitat. * * * (e) To limit the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys. ... 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, 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 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. 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. Benthic communities exist in Sugarloaf Sound, 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. The canal system for Sugarloaf Shores subdivision does not have access to deep water without crossing shallow sea grass beds with depths of less than four feet at mean low water. The operation of motor driven boats may result in damage to sea grass beds and shallow water marine communities through prop dredging. Although there is evidence of prop dredging in parts of Sugarloaf Sound in these shallow areas, it was not shown that the damage was done by boats traveling from the Sugarloaf Shores canal system and deep water. Whether a boat that may be docked at some future time if the permit is granted will cause damage to some portion of Sugarloaf Sound 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 the subject project. That interpretation permits the development of marginal seawalls, vertical bulkheads and docks in subdivisions that were under development in 1986 if there is at least four feet of water at the terminal point of the dock at mean low tide. The dock that is the subject of this proceeding would, if permitted, terminate in water of at least six feet in depth at mean low tide. 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 a vertical bulkhead and dock built on an individual family home-site, where a dwelling was already built or under construction, would have minimal effect on the nearshore water environment of critical state concern. Monroe County considers the subject application by the Clarks to meet all of its permitting criteria. The subject project has received an exemption from permitting from the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation and from the Florida Department of Natural Resources. The Army Corps of Engineers has agreed to issue a permit for the project with no special conditions. There is no definition of "docking facility" contained within the Monroe County Land Development Regulations or the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. It was not established that a bulkhead is a docking facility or that the construction of a bulkhead on Lot 90 should be prohibited under any of the theories advanced by Petitioner. Respondents presented evidence that several similar projects were permitted at approximately the same time as the Clarks's permit without Petitioner filing an appeal. This evidence was insufficient to establish that Petitioner should be estopped to appeal the subject permit, that Petitioner engaged in selective enforcement of its regulatory power, or that Petitioner otherwise brought the subject appeal for an inappropriate purpose.
Conclusions The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over this matter. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The subject appeal was timely taken by Petitioner pursuant to Section 380.07(2), Florida Statutes, from a development order of Monroe County granting the Clark's request for a building permit to construct a vertical bulkhead and dock on their residential lot on Sugarloaf Shores subdivision. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, the propriety of Monroe County's action was reviewed de novo. Transgulf Pipeline Co. v. Board of County Commissioners of Gadsden County, 438 So.2d 876 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). The ultimate burden of persuasion rested on the Clarks to establish their entitlement to the permit authorizing their proposed development. Young v. Department of Community Affairs, 567 So.2d 2 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), and Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.C. Co., Inc., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Dispositive of whether the subject construction is consistent with the Monroe County land development regulations is the interpretation to be accorded Section 9.5-345(m)(2), Monroe County Code. Generally, an administrative construction of a statute by an agency responsible for its administration is entitled to great deference and should not be overturned unless clearly erroneous. Department of Environmental Regulation v. Goldring, 477 So.2d 532 (Fla. 1985); All Seasons Resorts, Inc. v. Division of Land Sales, Condominiums, and Mobile Homes, 455 So.2d 544 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); and Sans Souci v. Division of Land Sales and Condominiums, 421 So.2d 623 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). The same deference has been accorded to rules which have been in effect over an extended period and to the meaning assigned to them by officials charged with their administration. Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. Florida Public Service Commission, 427 So.2d 716 (Fla. 1983), and State Department of Commerce, Division of Labor v. Matthews Corp., 358 So.2d 256 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). Moreover, the agency's interpretation does not have to be the only one or the most desirable one; it is enough if it is permissible. Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. Florida Public Service Commission, supra, and Florida Power Corp. v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 431 So.2d 684 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Here, no less deference should be accorded Monroe County's interpretation of its land development regulations where, as here, such interpretation is reasonable, evidences due consideration for private rights of ownership, and is not contrary to its comprehensive plan. See e.g. Thomson v. Village of Tequesta Board of Adjustment, 546 So.2d 457 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). It is concluded that Monroe County's interpretation of Section 9.5- 345(m)(2), Monroe County Code, is a permissible interpretation and that the subject development is consistent with the Monroe County comprehensive plan and land development regulations. The Clarks have satisfied their burden of proof by demonstrating that the proposed construction is consistent with the Monroe County comprehensive plan and land development regulations and that they are entitled to the subject permit.
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 affirming Monroe County's decision to issue building permit number 9210003952, and dismissing the appeal filed by the Department of Community Affairs. DONE AND ORDERED this 30th day of December, 1992, 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 30th day of December, 1992.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent Crestwood Lakes Associates provided reasonable assurance that a modification to a conceptual surface water management permit complies with the permit criteria contained in statutes and rules.
Findings Of Fact Background This case involves a 900-acre parcel in the Loxahatchee Slough, west of the Florida Turnpike in Palm Beach County (County). Although the property occupies part of a slough, all of the wetlands in this case are isolated wetlands. Respondent Crestwood Lakes Associates (Applicant) owns the south 503 acres, Petitioner owns the north 287 acres, and the Village of Royal Palm Beach (Village) owns the remaining 115 acres, which abut the southwest boundary of the north parcel. The acreages do not total 900 acres because the numbers are approximate. The 900-acre parcel is generally bounded on the south by Okeechobee Boulevard and the north and east by the M-1 canal. The west boundary of the south part of the parcel adjoins a residential development known as Loxahatchee Groves, and the 115-acre parcel adjoins a County-owned preserve of at least 600 acres. Applicant’s land is undeveloped except for some landclearing. Petitioner’s land is partly developed, mostly in the south next to the boundary with Applicant’s land. The Village's 115 acres are a preserve, divided equally between wetlands and uplands. On February 11, 1988, Respondent South Florida Water Management District (District) issued surface water management (SWM) permit No. 50-00618-S-02 to Royal Palm Homes, Inc. for conceptual approval of a SWM system serving a residential development on the 900-acre parcel (1988 Permit). References to the Original Developer shall include Royal Palm Homes, Inc., its agents, lenders, and assigns, except for Petitioner and Applicant. The permitted development, which was known as the Royal Palm Homes PUD, comprises single-family and multifamily residences, wetland preserve areas, two 18-hole golf courses, and a park area. On August 3, 1994, Applicant filed SWM application number 940803-6 to modify the 1988 Permit to show the change in ownership and obtain conceptual approval of a modification to the permitted SWM system. The application was not complete when the new Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) rules replaced the old Management and Storage of Surface Water (MSSW) permit rules. On May 24, 1996, the District transmitted the staff report, which proposed the issuance of a permit modification. On June 13, 1996, the District approved the issuance of the proposed permit modification. On the same date, Petitioner filed its petition challenging the proposed agency action. Permits The first relevant SWM permit for the 900-acre parcel involved a larger parcel that includes the 900-acre parcel. On September 14, 1978, the District issued a two-page permit authorizing the “construction of a water management system serving 2073 acres of residential lands by waterways discharging into canal C-51.” This 1978 permit, which is identified as number 50-00618-S, contains a special condition calling for a minimum finished floor elevation of 18.0 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). The next permit is the 1988 Permit, which is a substantial modification to the 1978 permit. The 1988 Permit covers only the previously described 900 acres and, as modified, currently remains in effect. The 1988 Permit requires the preservation of two large wetlands in the north parcel, just north of the 115-acre preserve; one wetland is about 30 acres and the other is about ten acres. The 1988 Permit requires the preservation of no other wetlands in the north parcel, but, in addition to the wetlands in the 115-acre preserve, the 1988 Permit requires the preservation of several much smaller wetlands in the south parcel. The staff report for the 1988 Permit divides into three basins the drainage area for the 900-acre parcel: a north basin of 98.9 acres, a central basin of 525.7 acres, and a south basin of 270.8 acres. The staff report states that basin runoff will pass through a system of inlets and culverts into a series of interconnected lakes, from which, through control structures, the runoff will pass into the M-1 canal and eventually into the C-51 canal. The staff report notes that the control elevations will be 17.25 feet NGVD for the north basin, 17.55 feet NGVD for the central basin, and 17.75 feet NGVD for the south basin. Under the discussion of environmental impacts, the staff report observes that the 1978 permit proposed for protection only 30 acres of wetlands among the 281 acres of isolated wetlands on the site. The staff report notes that “extensive” melaleuca invasion has taken place since the 1978 permit and only 160 acres of wetlands remain in “relatively good” condition, with much of this subject to melaleuca encroachment. Due to the “extensive seed source” and “seasonal drying of the wetlands,” the staff report predicts eventual melaleuca dominance of the “entire site.” The staff report asserts that the proposed development plan includes the protection of about 100 acres of the “best quality wetlands,” plus eight acres of wetlands created in conjunction with the golf courses and 15 acres of wetlands created as littoral zones in conjunction with the lakes to be constructed. The staff report calls a program “to eradicate all melaleuca from the site” “[t]he major environmental feature” of the proposed development plan. But this major environmental feature of the 1988 Permit is presently in jeopardy. One major component of the present case is that, following the conveyances of the three parcels by the Original Developer, the District has evidently concluded that no one is responsible to perform certain obligations under the 1988 Permit and no remedies are available for the nonperformance of these obligations. It appears that these conclusions are largely driven by the vagueness of the plan to eradicate the melaleuca. This plan is called the "Melaleuca Eradication Plan." The Melaleuca Eradication Plan is incorporated into the 1988 Permit. The Melaleuca Eradication Plan, which is dated December 11, 1987, recounts that the Original Developer and regulatory bodies agreed that the melaleuca should be “eradicated and a program for this should be developed and included as a part of the permit application.” The plan states that the eradication plan will cover the entire 900- acre site with the Original Developer performing the “initial . . . program” on the entire site, including the 115-acre preserve to be deeded to the Village. The Melaleuca Eradication Plan calls for the Original Developer to create a bonded authority to conduct the “ten-year melaleuca eradication program.” The program is phased to coincide with the projected 10-year buildout of the 3000-unit parcel. The Melaleuca Eradication Plan describes in detail the three phases of the program and exactly how the Original Developer will proceed to remove the melaleuca and restore wetlands by planting native wetland species in disturbed areas. The plan promises a yearly inspection followed by hand-removal of any seedlings discovered on the site. This last phase will terminate ten years after commencement of the first phase. A “Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program” is also incorporated into the 1988 Permit. The Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program, which is dated December 8, 1987, states that Dr. Dwight Goforth performed a wetlands survey of the 900-acre site in 1985 and divided wetlands into three categories based on their quality. The Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance promises the preservation of 112.71 acres of wetlands comprising 98.81 acres of “large wetlands totally preserved” and nine wetlands totaling 13.9 acres that will be “partially preserved.” Also, the program will create golf course wetlands of 6.93 acres and littoral-zone wetlands around the lakes of 15 acres. Thus, the program summarizes, the “total wetland acreage preserved, enhanced and created will [be] 134.64 acres.” The Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program describes a three-year monitoring program using transects to assist in the vegetative mapping of the site. The program also promises semiannual observations of birds, small rodents, and larger mammals using the wetlands and adjacent preserved uplands, as well as semiannual sampling for fish, macroinvertebrates, and amphibians. The Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program outlines a plan to remove melaleuca and control algae buildup in the lakes. The program promises to contain algae through the use of “biological controls” and, when needed, hand-raking. The program also assures that the Original Developer will use a “conservative fertilization program” for the golf course and landscaped areas to reduce eutrophication in the created lakes. On February 18, 1988, the District issued its conceptual approval of the 1988 Permit. Among the special conditions of the 1988 Permit are Special Condition 15, which requires wetland monitoring and maintenance in accordance with the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program, and Special Condition 16, which requires melaleuca removal in accordance with the Melaleuca Eradication Plan. Also, Special Condition 17 requires low berms around protected or created wetlands, including littoral zones, to protect against sheetflow runoff from the golf course or other areas of intense development. The references in the preceding paragraphs to the responsibilities of the "Original Developer" imply greater clarity than is present in the Melaleuca Eradication Plan or Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program. The passive voice predominates in both these documents, so it is sometimes difficult to determine on whom a particular responsibility falls. The Melaleuca Eradication Plan states clearly that "[the Original Developer] will conduct the initial melaleuca eradication on the entire site including the dedicated park area [i.e., the 115 acres]." The next sentence of the plan contemplates the conveyance of the 115 acres to the County. But, after these clear provisions, the Melaleuca Eradication Plan lapses into the passive voice almost invariably. The next two sentences read, "A bonded authority will be created to conduct the ten-year melaleuca eradication program" and "The eradication program will be carried out through a bonded agreement with the [Original] Developer to remove the melaleuca . . .." Alluding to the several phases of melaleuca eradication, the plan states only "[t]he eradication program will be completed in stages " Only two other sentences establishing responsibility for melaleuca eradication identify the responsible party. The end of the plan states that the "bonded authority responsible for initial eradication clearance will likewise provide a yearly inspection." One of the final sentences of the plan adds: "the bonding authority's crew will hand remove entire seedlings found on site." The Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program is similar except that it does not once name the entity responsible for the monitoring and maintenance duties or hiring the firm or individual to conduct the actual work. The two special conditions incorporating these two documents likewise are in the passive voice, implying only that the responsibility belongs to the Original Developer. Given the vagueness of the melaleuca-eradication and wetlands-maintenance documents, it is not surprising that they fail entirely to address the issue whether these responsibilities run with the land, remain the responsibility of the Original Developer, or, for the eradication of melaleuca, remain the duty of the "bonded authority," if the Original Developer ever created such an entity, which appears highly doubtful. The documents likewise do not disclose the penalties for noncompliance. On June 16, 1988, the District issued a modification to the 1988 Permit for the construction and operation of a 110.9-acre residential development in Phase I, which occupies the central basin. On October 1, 1988, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps) issued the Original Developer a permit to destroy 164 acres of wetlands on the 900-acre parcel. Special conditions of the 1988 Army Corps permit require the preservation of "115 acres of high quality wetlands," the creation of 18 acres of wetlands and 15 acres of littoral shelf, and the implementation of a "Melaleuca Eradication Program," which is the same program as is incorporated in the 1988 Permit. The 1988 Army Corps permit contains an attachment dated October 24, 1987. This attachment identifies the protected wetlands as the two large wetlands in the north parcel totaling about 40 acres, 58 acres in the 115-acre preserve, and 53.5 acres in the south parcel. The 1988 Army Corps permit protects several wetlands in the south parcel, including wetland numbers 14 (3.04 acres), 16 (1.6 acres), 23 (0.53 acres), 30 (2.6 acres), 44 (0.8 acres), 29 (1.08 acres), and 46 (3.0 acres). These wetlands, which total 12.65 acres, are seven of the nine wetlands partially preserved in the 1988 Permit, although some of the acreages vary from those preserved in the 1988 Permit. Unlike the District's permits (except for the subject proposed permit modification), the 1988 Army Corps permit addresses conveyances by the developer. The 1988 Army Corps permit states: "If you sell the property associated with this permit, you must obtain the signature of the new owner in the space provided and forward a copy of the permit to this office to validate the transfer of this authorization." Below the signature line of the 1988 Army Corps permit is language stating: When the structures or work authorized by this permit are still in existence at the time the property is transferred, the terms and conditions of this permit will continue to be binding on the new owner(s) of the property. To validate the transfer of this permit and the associated liabilities associated with compliance with its terms and conditions, have the transferee sign and date below. On March 1, 1989, the Original Developer conveyed the 115-acre preserve to the Village, which later leased the preserve to the County. The Original Developer had not eradicated the melaleuca at the time of the conveyance, nor has anyone since done so. On August 17, 1990, water elevations in the wetlands in Phase I reached 19.4 feet NGVD, washing out construction pads, roads, and in-ground utilities. On September 7, 1990, the District issued a stop-work request because the SWM system was not working as required. On September 28, 1990, the District approved interim measures to preserve the wetland hydroperiod and allow for wetland overflow. These measures include berming the residential areas in Phase I/Plat I adjacent to wetlands. On June 13, 1991, the District approved additional modifications to the 1988 Permit and the construction and operations permit for Phase I and issued a conceptual approval for works in the north and central basins. The revisions to the conceptual approval include adding two control structures to the north wetland that connect to the water management system in the north basin and adding a berm around the smaller of the two preserved wetlands in the north parcel. The construction approval was for a perimeter berm along the south wetland and park areas. On June 24, 1992, the District issued a staff report recommending issuance of another modification of the 1988 Permit for the conceptual approval of a SWM system to serve the 900-acre parcel and approval of construction and operation of a SWM system to isolate and control the existing onsite wetlands and revise the control structure for the central basin. The staff report explains that this modification proposes berming the wetlands to the 100-year, three-day peak elevation. The staff report notes that the wetlands basin consists of 295.18 acres of wetlands, including 155.85 acres of “wetlands/uplands.” The staff report notes that the north basin contains 107.41 acres of “good quality wet prairie wetlands” with “minimal” melaleuca encroachment. The staff report restates that the purpose of the modification is to berm all of the wetlands and uplands not planned for development. Special Condition 19 requires the Original Developer to dedicate as conservation and common areas in deed restrictions the “wetland preservation/mitigation areas, upland buffer zones, and/or upland preservation areas," so that these areas are the “perpetual responsibility” of a named property owners’ association. Special Condition 22 states that “a wetland monitoring and maintenance program” and “a melaleuca eradication program” “shall be implemented,” but the condition does not expressly state by whom. Special Condition 22 requires that the work implementing these programs conform to these “approved environmental programs as outlined in the [1988 Permit].” Special Condition 25 provides that, on submittal of an application for construction approval in the south basin (Phase II), the "permittee shall submit a detailed wetland construction mitigation, monitoring and maintenance plan.” In evaluating the plan for approval, the District shall apply the “environmental criteria in effect at the time of construction permit application.” Although the approval of the District is not attached to the staff report, the District approved the June 24, 1992, staff report and proposed permit. The 1992 permit modification did not address the issue of who was responsible for melaleuca eradication after the sale of the property. On November 10, 1993, the staff report accompanying another request for a permit modification restates the special conditions of earlier permit modifications. Special Condition 23 restates the requirement that a melaleuca eradication program “shall be implemented,” again not stating by whom. Special Condition 23 now requires the completion of the melaleuca eradication program by February 25, 1994. The omission of a referenced exhibit to the permit from the exhibit filed in this case prevents a determination that this is the same as the Melaleuca Eradication Plan incorporated in the 1988 Permit and restated in the 1992 modification, although it probably is. In any event, Special Condition 23 concludes in another sentence lacking a stated or implied subject: “Maintenance of the preserved wetlands and berm planting areas shall be conducted in perpetuity to ensure that the conservation areas are maintained free from exotic vegetation (Brazilian pepper, Australian pine and melaleuca) . . ..” Although the record does not contain the written approval of the District to the staff report, the District approved the staff report dated November 10, 1993. On November 12, 1993, the Original Developer conveyed by special warranty deed the north to Petitioner. The deed is subject only to "easements, declarations, restrictions and reservations of record . . .." The record does not provide recording information for the deed. The Original Developer probably conveyed the south parcel to Applicant in the same fashion and at the same approximate time. Almost five months later, on March 29, 1994, the Army Corps issued another permit for the 900-acre parcel. Although the Original Developer had conveyed at least the north parcel, the Army Corps issued the 1994 permit to the Original Developer. The 1994 Army Corps permit authorizes the destruction of 158 acres. The general conditions governing transfers are the same as those in the 1988 Army Corps permit. The special conditions of the 1994 Army Corps permit require the permittee to preserve and enhance only 110 acres of high quality wetlands, instead of preserving 115 acres of such wetlands, as was required in the 1988 Army Corps permit. The 1994 Army Corps permit drops the requirement of creating eight acres of wetlands and 15 acres of littoral zone, as was required in the 1988 Army Corps permit, but requires the preservation of what appears to be the 39.5-acre preserve that is proposed by Applicant in the subject permit modification, as described below. Special Condition 3 of the 1994 Army Corps permit adds that all preserved areas "will be maintained in perpetuity free of Melaleuca. The permittee agrees to develop a bonded Melaleuca eradication program for the entire 906 acres. Copies of the bonded agreement will be provided to this office for approval before development can commence." The next permit activity affecting the 900-acre parcel is the subject application filed by Applicant on August 3, 1994, for its 503-acre parcel. On May 24, 1996, the District issued a staff report for conceptual approval of a SWM system proposed by Applicant for its 503-acre parcel. On June 13, 1996, the District issued an addendum to the staff report that contains another special condition that is not especially relevant to this case. In the background section, the staff report mentions the flooding of Phase I of the north parcel and states that the District had “assumed the adjacent wetlands would flow away from the development.” The staff report outlines the modifications implemented to eliminate the flooding; these modifications include connecting the M-1 canal, through inlets, with several wetlands located in the north and central basins. According to the staff report, Petitioner’s north parcel, which totals 287.34 acres, includes the Phase I/Plat 1 area, north basin, and part of central basin south of Phase I. Describing Applicant’s proposal, the staff report states that a preserve of 39.5 acres will be located in the northwest corner of the south parcel, adjoining the east boundary of the 115-acre parcel. The staff report states that the 39.5-acre preserve will sheetflow through cuts in the berm to wetlands in the 115-acre preserve. The 115-acre preserve is connected to the SWM system permitted on November 10, 1993, to eliminate flooding from these wetlands, whose control elevation is 19 feet NGVD. The staff report describes the south parcel as “dominated by flatwood habitat,” within which are stands of Australian pine and other exotic plant species that have recently been spreading across the site. The onsite wetlands are 4.93 acres of wet prairies, 18.4 acres of pond cypress strands, 1.56 acres of isolated marsh, 3.5 acres of cypress mixed with pine flatwood, and 163.91 acres of melaleuca. The staff report finds that only the 4.93 acres of wet prairies and 18.4 acres of cypress are in good condition, but melaleuca has become established in many of the wet prairies. The 1.56 acres of freshwater marshes and 163.91 acres of melaleuca are in poor condition. The 3.5 acres of cypress mixed with pine flatwoods are in fair condition. As for listed species, the staff report mentions only the possibility that herons might forage onsite during periods of standing water. Summarizing the impact of the proposed project on wetlands preservation, the staff report endorses the hydrologic reconnection of the 39.5-acre wetland/upland site with the 115-acre wetland. The staff report notes that water levels in the 115-acre preserve, which has been bermed to 21 feet NGVD, have stabilized at 19 feet NGVD. The staff report asserts that the “proposed wetland impacts (183.54 acres) were previously permitted under the conceptual permit application” for the original 1988 Permit. The staff report adds that this modification is to “change a portion of the original mitigation requirements . . . and includes impacts to a 6.78 acre wetland area that was previously permitted to be preserved.” But the staff report does not recommend the preservation of this wetland “[d]ue to the reduced hydrology and proximity to the proposed upland development” and the mitigation and compensation provided by the 39.5-acre preservation area. The staff report states that 8.76 acres of the 39.5- acre preserve are wetlands, and the remainder are uplands. As for the 8.76 acres of wetlands, the staff report lists 0.67 acres of mixed cypress and pine flatwoods, 4.93 acres of wet prairies, and 3.16 acres of cypress. Applicant would also restore 4.95 acres of pine flatwoods. As for the 183.54 acres of wetlands to be destroyed, the staff report lists 2.83 acres of mixed cypress and pine flatwoods in fair condition, 15.24 acres of cypress in fair condition, 1.56 acres of freshwater marshes in poor condition, and 163.91 acres of melaleuca in poor condition. Addressing the mitigation and monitoring elements of the current proposal, the staff report states that the modification would eliminate the creation of 15 acres of littoral wetlands around SWM lakes and 7.99 acres of marshes in golf courses in return for the creation of the 39.5-acre preservation area. The staff report assures that Applicant will perpetually manage and maintain the 115-acre preserve. Conceding that the 1988 Permit also required long-term maintenance of the 115-acre parcel, the staff report notes that the initial eradication effort was never completed. The staff report mentions an “access agreement” giving Applicant the authority to enter the 115-acre preserve for mitigation and monitoring, but “anticipat[es]” that Applicant will submit an application for another permit modification, on behalf of the two governmental entities, so that Applicant can “assume future maintenance responsibilities for this area.” As is clarified by the maintenance and monitoring plan, which is part of the proposed permit, Applicant's expectation is that the County and Village, not Applicant, will assume future maintenance responsibilities for the 115-acre preserve. The staff report concludes that the District should issue the permit subject to various conditions. Special Condition 1 is that the minimum building floor elevation is 20 feet NGVD. Special Condition 16 requires the implementation of a wetland mitigation program and requires Applicant to create 4.95 acres of marsh; restore 3.16 acres of cypress, 4.93 acres of marsh, and 0.67 acres of mixed forest; and protect 25.79 acres of uplands. Special Condition 17 sets performance criteria for the mitigation areas in terms of percentage and length of survival of vegetation. Special Condition 17 supplies completion dates for monitoring reports. Special Condition 21 addresses listed species. Noting that listed species have been seen onsite or the site contains suitable habitat for such species, Special Condition 21 requires Applicant to coordinate with the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission or the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service for guidance, recommendations, or permits to avoid impacts to such species. The monitoring and maintenance plan does not address direct and contingent liabilities for maintenance and generally is a poor candidate for enforcement. In addition to the vagueness of the passive voice, the plan is, at times, simply unreadable, as, for example, when it concludes boldly, but enigmatically: The site as a whole is evolving hydrologic trends which permits successional seres development toward communities with shorter hydroperiods and ultimately, toward more upland transitional and/or exotic species dominance of historically wetland habitats. Long-term prospectives infer that successional deflection has become a severe detriment for natural environmental control to alter the present scenario. Active management coupled with graduated balanced in hydrologic restoration and created habitat elements will become the processes engineered to obtain an infusion of probabilities fashioned to inscribe a regenerative adaptation to the present site condition while fostering in situ processes, to optimize derived functions, for the maintenance of both habitat and wildlife over the long-term existence of the Preserve. (Sic.) Water Quality Impacts Petitioner does not contend in its proposed recommended order that the proposed project fails to meet applicable requirements regarding water quality. Applicant has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed permit modification would not violate State water quality standards. Flooding Petitioner contends in its proposed recommended order that the proposed permit modification would not meet applicable requirements regarding water quantity and flooding. However, Applicant has provided reasonable assurance that the project would not violate these requirements. There are several aspects to a SWM system. Undeveloped land stores and conveys rainfall through soil and surface storage. An artificial SWM system alters the undeveloped land’s storage capacity by the addition of a storage and drainage system, such as, in this case, conveying water through the soil into storm drains and then to lakes to store surface runoff prior to release, through an outfall structure, into a receiving body of water--in this case, the M-1 canal. The SWM system hastens the conveyance of stormwater runoff offsite. The control elevation of a SWM system is the height at which water in the lakes will flow through the outfall structure into the receiving body of water. Except during the dry season, the control elevation tends to establish not only the water level of the SWM lakes, but also of the nearby water table. The hastening of drainage offsite with the establishment of control elevations produce the drawdown effect of SWM systems. As to flooding, the basic underlying dispute between Petitioner and Respondents is whether to use the pre- or post- development depth to water table. In determining whether an applicant has provided reasonable assurance as to the impact of a proposed development on wetlands, one would project the effect of any post-development drawdown on the wetlands themselves and their functions and inhabitants. It would be illogical not to do the same in determining whether an applicant has provided reasonable assurance as to the impact of a proposed development on flooding. Pre-development, the average depth to water table on Applicant’s property is as little as two feet. Post- development, the average depth to water table on Applicant’s property will be five feet, which is the difference between the control elevation of 14 feet NGVD and ground elevation of 19 feet NGVD. Petitioner’s evidence concerning flooding is flawed because its expert witness based his calculations on an average depth to water table of two feet on Applicant’s property. He did not adjust for the considerable drawdown effect of the SWM system. The District table allows for no more than four feet between the water table and ground, so there is an added margin of safety in the ensuing flooding calculations. Another important factor in the flooding calculations is the soil type in terms of permeability. The District properly characterized the prevailing soils as flatwoods, and the soils onsite are in the category of “good drainage.” Applicant’s suggestion that flooding calculations use the post-development soils is rejected. Post-development depths to water table are used because they can be calculated to predict post-development conditions accurately. Applicant produced no proof that it would replace such massive amounts of soil from the site with more permeable soils so as to justify reclassifying the soil type. The District's flooding calculations probably overstate the risk of flooding in the three-day, 100-year design storm because they ignore lake bank storage, which is the additional amount of water that a lake can store in its sloped banks above the typical water elevation. The District could have relied on the effect of lake bank storage for additional assurance that the proposed project will not result in flooding. The proposed project contains a large number of long, narrow lakes, which will thus have a relatively high percentage of lake banks to lake area. Additionally, the District has raised the minimum floor elevation at this site by two feet over 18 years. Whatever other effects may follow from this trend, the higher floor elevation offers additional protection to onsite improvements. The flooding of Petitioner’s property seven years ago understandably is a matter of concern to Petitioner. Applicant proposes to change the configuration of drainage basins, but the District has adequately addressed the drainage issue, and this is not the first time in the 20-year permitting history of this property that the District has approved a reconfiguration of basins. Also, in the 1988 Permit, the District incorrectly projected the direction of runoff under certain conditions. However, the flooding was partly due to inadequate road- drainage facilities. Following the flooding, the Original Developer enlarged these features and bermed the flooding wetlands, so as to eliminate the flooding of developed areas due to design storm events. On balance, Applicant has proved that the proposed permit modification would not adversely affect flooding or water quantity. Environmental Impacts A. Wetlands Petitioner contends in its proposed recommended order that the proposed permit modification would not meet applicable requirements regarding environmental impacts to wetlands. Applicant has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed work would not violate these requirements. There are two major deficiencies in the District's analysis of wetland impacts and mitigation or compensation. First, the proposed permit modification includes mitigation or compensation in the form of melaleuca removal. But prior permits have already required the same work, no one has ever done the work, and the District does not know if these permit requirements are still enforceable. Second, the proposed permit modification ignores 13.9 acres of preserved wetlands in the 1988 Permit, allowing their destruction without mitigation or compensation. The permitting process requires the District to balance the impacts of development and mitigation or compensation on the natural resources under the District's jurisdiction. Balancing these impacts in issuing the 1988 Permit, the District required the complete eradication of melaleuca in return for permitting the residential, institutional, and recreational development proposed by the Original Developer. District staff, not the Original Developer or Petitioner, called the Melaleuca Eradication Plan “the major environmental feature” of the development plan approved by the 1988 Permit. The major environmental feature of the 1988 Permit clearly justified significant development impacts on natural resources. To justify additional development impacts on natural resources, the District now proposes to count again another developer’s promise to eradicate the melaleuca. The District claims that the term of the original melaleuca protection plan was only ten years, not perpetual as is presently proposed. However, the District's claim ignores Special Condition 23 in the 1993 permit modification. This condition set a deadline of February 25, 1994, for the eradication of melaleuca and made perpetual the requirement that one or more of the potentially responsible parties--the Original Developer, Petitioner, Applicant, the bonded authority, the property owners' association, or transferees-- maintain the wetlands free of melaleuca and other exotics. Unfortunately, this “major environmental feature” of the 1988 Permit, as well as subsequent permit modifications, was so poorly drafted as to leave potentially responsible parties unsure of their legal obligations. The District tacitly suggests that it cannot enforce the obligations imposed by the 1988 Permits and later modifications for the eradication of melaleuca. But there is presently no reason for the District to resort again to permitting without first reviewing carefully its enforcement options. The District should first determine whether anyone will voluntarily assume these obligations. As a business consideration, Petitioner may choose to eradicate the melaleuca from the north parcel and 115-acre preserve to prevent Applicant from providing this service and claiming that it should receive compensation credit against additional environmental impacts permitted by a modification of the 1988 Permit. Maybe the County or Village has already budgeted funds for this work. If no party offers to perform the necessary work, the District must next determine its legal rights and the legal obligations of these parties. Depending on the results of this research, the District may need to consider litigation and the cessation of the issuance of construction and operation permits on the 900-acre parcel or either the north or south parcel. At this point, the District should discuss joint litigation or permit revocation with the Army Corps, whose 1994 permit requires the permittee to develop a bonded melaleuca-eradication program and apparently imposes on the permittee the responsibility to maintain all preserved areas free of melaleuca. Only after having exhausted these options may the District legitimately conclude that melaleuca eradication on any part of the 900 acres represents fair compensation for the development impacts on jurisdictional natural resources. The second major problem as to wetlands impacts concerns the calculation of wetlands acreages to be destroyed by the proposed permit. The 1988 Permit expressly incorporates the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program. This program, as an operative part of the 1988 Permit, represents that the developer will “partially preserve. . .” nine wetlands totaling 13.9 acres. The partial preservation of wetlands does not mean that a five-acre wetland will remain a five-acre wetland, except that its function will be impaired. Partial preservation means that, for instance, two acres of a five- acre wetland will be preserved. It is impossible for the District to have required mitigation to offset the destruction of these 13.9 acres of wetlands because the District denies that the 1988 Permit required the partial preservation of these nine wetlands. As noted below, neither the District nor Applicant can identify all of the wetlands that make up the 13.9 acres. Rather than account for these wetlands that were to have been partially preserved, the District instead contends that this undertaking by the Original Developer was ineffective or nonbinding because it was overriden by contrary statements in the staff report. Not so. The specific provisions delineating the preserved wetlands area in the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program, which was prepared by the Original Developer, override more general statements contained in the staff report accompanying the permit. There is not necessarily a conflict between the staff report and the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program. The staff report states that the plan “includes the protection of approximately 100 acres of the best quality wetlands,” together with the creation of eight acres of golf course wetlands and 15 acres of lake littoral zones. The plan “includes” these wetlands among those preserved or created; the word suggests that the list is not exhaustive, but only illustrative. Alternatively, if the list were exhaustive, the preservation of “approximately” 100 acres reasonably encompasses the 112.71 acres of partially or totally preserved wetlands cited in the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program. More to the point, on October 26, 1987, Donald Wisdom, the engineer handling the 1988 Permit, prepared a memorandum for the file stating that the total acreage of wetlands to be preserved or created was 134.45. This figure represents an insignificant deviation of 0.19 acres from the total listed in the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program, which was dated six weeks later, on December 8, 1987. In the October 26 memorandum, Mr. Wisdom describes the preserved wetlands as 111.46 acres of A- and B-quality wetlands. This is 1.25 acres less than the acreage in the Wetlands Monitoring/Maintenance Program. These small discrepancies were eliminated by November 18, 1987, when Mr. Wisdom wrote a memorandum noting that the program called for the total preservation of 98.81 acres and partial preservation of 13.9 acres. Adding the created wetlands, the new total for preserved or created wetlands was 134.64 acres. A month later, a District employee wrote a memorandum to the file, expressing his “main concern” that the proposed development would protect only 99 acres of wetlands. It is unclear why the employee mentioned only the 98.81 acres slated for preservation. Perhaps he was confused or mistaken. But the misgivings of a single employee do not constitute the rejection by the District of a developer's proposal to preserve nearly 14 acres of high-quality wetlands. The staff report for the 1988 Permit notes that the 900-acre site contained about 281 acres of wetlands. If the 1988 Permit required the preservation, as an entire wetland or part of a larger wetland, of 112 acres of wetlands, then the 1988 Permit allowed the destruction of 169 acres, which is consistent with the 164 and 158 acres allowed to be destroyed by the 1988 and 1994 Army Corps permits. However, by the 1996 permit modification, the staff report refers, without explanation or justification, to the permitted destruction of 183.54 acres of wetlands--evidently adding the 13.9 acres to the 169 acres previously permitted to be destroyed. Tab 13 of the Wisdom bluebook identifies the nine wetlands constituting the 13.9 acres, which are entirely in Applicant's south parcel. Except for three, all of these wetlands were characterized as A-quality, meaning that they are in good to excellent condition and “have not been stressed significantly from the biological viewpoint.” B-quality wetlands are in disturbed condition and “are in various stages of biological stress caused primarily by a lowered water table and/or melaleuca invasion.” C-quality wetlands are highly disturbed and “are substantially degraded biologically.” The 13.9 acres of wetlands comprise wetland numbers 23 (0.5 acres), 46 (0.4 acres), 44 (0.6 acres), 37 (0.4 acres), 29 (1.1 acres), 20 [sometimes misreported as 21] (3.9 acres), 30 (2.6 acres), 16 (1.5 acres), and 14 (2.9 acres). Wetland numbers 46 and 29 are B-quality, and wetland number 20 is C-quality. The wetlands shown in District Exhibit 4 and Applicant Exhibit 3 inaccurately portray the wetlands constituting the missing 13.9 acres. A internal memorandum to the file notwithstanding, the District predicated the 1988 Permit in part on the preservation of 112.71 acres of functioning wetlands, including the 13.9 acres that the District now disclaims. The mitigation and compensation required of Applicant in the present case ignored the destruction of these wetlands. The District's analysis of mitigation and compensation in this case was fatally flawed by these two deficiencies. But more deficiencies exist in the District's analysis of wetland impacts. The District relied on faulty data in reviewing Applicant's request for a permit modification. Undercounting the extent of wetlands by at least 21 acres and their condition by an indeterminable amount, Applicant presented to the District a materially inaccurate picture of the wetland resources on the south parcel. Despite disclaimers to the contrary, the District relied on this inaccurate data in reviewing Applicant's request for a permit modification. There are possible problems with 39.5-acre preserve offered by Applicant. This parcel contains less than nine acres of wetlands, including two wetlands that Applicant may already be required to preserve under the 1994 Army Corps permit. At the same time, Applicant's proposal may include the destruction of a third wetland that is to be preserved under the 1994 Army Corps permit. The best rendering in the record of the 1994 Army Corps permit may be Applicant Exhibit 4, which shows eight large wetland areas to be “preserved/enhanced/created.” Two of these are the 10- and 30-acre wetlands on Petitioner’s property, which were preserved in the 1988 Permit. Three of the eight wetlands are in the 115-acre preserve; these were also preserved in the 1988 Permit. The remaining three wetlands to be preserved, enhanced, or created under the 1994 Army Corps permit are in the north end of Applicant’s property. It is difficult to estimate acreage given the scale of the drawing, but the two westerly wetlands are about 4-5 acres each and the easterly wetland is 3-3.5 acres. Subtracting the total preserved acreage of 110 from the acreage identified in the preceding paragraph, the total acreage of these remaining three wetlands is about 12. The two westerly wetlands are in the 39.5-acre preserve that Applicant offers as mitigation in the present case. According to Applicant Exhibit 6, the easterly wetland, or at least the most valuable part of it--the center--is slated for destruction if the District grants the subject permit modification. The proposed destruction of the third wetland is a matter of greater interest to the Army Corps than to the District, but the offer to preserve the other two wetlands really does not provide anything in return for the permitted development impacts because these two wetlands are already preserved under the 1994 Army Corps permit. As the District and Applicant contend, golf course marshes and littoral zones are typically of little environmental importance. Although the 1988 Permit addresses some of these problems, although without supplying any performance standards, golf courses themselves are often conduits of fertilizers and pesticides into the groundwater and nearby surface water. The District and Applicant justifiably question the value of the golf courses approved in the 1988 Permit as wildlife corridors. It is unclear what wildlife would use the corridor, which is surrounded by residential development and bounded by Okeechobee Boulevard. Other factors also militate in favor of Applicant's proposal. But, as the record presently stands, there is no way to find that Applicant has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed development and related mitigation and compensation, as described in the subject permit modification, meet the applicable criteria. The District substantially undervalued the environmental impacts of the proposed modification while substantially overvaluing the environmental impacts of Applicant's proposed contributions in the form of mitigation and compensation. To find adequate assurance as to wetland impacts in these circumstances, where the District did not perform an informed balancing of various impacts in a large-scale development, would permit the District to transform the unavoidably imprecise task of balancing wetland impacts into an act of pure, unreviewable discretion. Listed Species The only relevant listed species onsite is the gopher tortoise, which is a species of special concern. Gopher tortoises use the site to an undetermined extent. Applicant's suggestion that someone brought the tortoises to the site is rejected as improbable. However, due to the resolution of the wetlands issue, it is unnecessary to determine whether Applicant provided reasonable assurance as to the value of functions provided to wildlife and listed species by wetlands. Procedural Issues A. Standing Petitioner has standing due most obviously to flooding considerations. Additionally, the SWM system permitted in 1988 is for the entire 900-acre parcel, of which Petitioner’s parcel is a part. Applicability of ERP Rules The proposed permit modification would substantially affect water resources. The proposed permit modification would substantially increase the adverse effect on water resources. Requirement to Delineate Wetlands Due to the resolution of the wetlands issue, it is unnecessary to determine whether Applicant met applicable requirements concerning the delineation of wetlands. Improper Purpose Petitioner did not challenge the proposed permit modification for an improper purpose. Relevant Provisions of Basis of Review The District revised its Basis of Review after the adoption of ERP rules. Although the order concludes that the District should have applied the ERP rules, and thus the ERP Basis of Review, the order shall discuss both versions of the Basis of Review because the District ignored numerous provisions of both documents in approving Applicant's request for a permit modification. Section 4.6 MSSW Basis of Review requires the District to consider "actual impact" to the site by "considering the existing natural system as altered by the proposed project[,]" including "positive and negative environmental impacts." Section 4.6 requires the District to "balance" these impacts "to achieve a reasonable degree of protection for significant environmental features consistent with the overall protection of the water resources of the District." The proposed permit modification fails to comply with several provisions of Appendix 7 of the MSSW Basis of Review, such as Sections 4.2 requiring a detailed description of the isolated wetlands to be destroyed; 5.1.1(d) favoring the protection of isolated wetlands over their destruction, mitigation, and compensation, which are considered "only when there are no feasible project design alternatives"; and 5.1.6 prohibiting the alteration of water tables so as to affect adversely isolated wetlands. The proposed permit modification also violates various provisions of the ERP Basis of Review. Section 4.0 of the ERP Basis of Review sets the goal of permitting to be "no net loss in wetland . . . functions." Sections 4.2 and following generally require balancing. Section 4.2.1 predicates District approval on a showing that the SWM system does not cause a "net adverse impact on wetland functions . . . which is not offset by mitigation." The ERP provisions first require that the District "explore" with an applicant the minimization of impacts prior to considering mitigation. Section 4.2.2.4(c) specifically imposes monitoring requirements for SWM systems that "could have the effect of altering water levels in wetlands." Sections 4.3.2.2 and following discuss mitigation ratios under the ERP Basis of Review. If the District can explicate a policy to count as mitigation wetlands acreage already preserved under Army Corps permits, the ratios in this case might warrant further consideration, assuming Applicant resubmits an application for permit modification. But it would be premature to consider the ratios on the present record for several reasons. The District has not proved such a policy. If such a policy counts such wetland acreage, on the theory that the District protects function and the Army Corps protects merely the wetland, the record is insufficiently developed as to the functions of the wetlands proposed for protection, as well as the functions of the 13.9 acres of wetlands proposed for destruction. Also, the District has not sufficiently explored project minimization, as is now required under the ERP Basis of Review.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the District enter a final order denying Applicant's request for a permit modification. ENTERED in Tallahassee, Florida, on June 13, 1997. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on June 13, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Jeffrey D. Kneen John F. Mariani J. Barry Curtain Levy Kneen 1400 Centrepark Boulevard, Suite 1000 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Ronald K. Kolins Thomas A. Sheehan, III Moyle Flanigan Post Office Box 3888 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 John J. Fumero Marcy I. LaHart Office of Counsel South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Samuel E. Poole, III Executive Director Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416
The Issue Whether Building Permit No. 9020000827 issued by Monroe County, Florida, to Lawrence J. Bruno 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. The appeal in the instant proceeding was timely. 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 order that is the subject of this appeal. Respondent Lawrence J. Bruno is the owner of real property known as Lot 9, Block 20, Crain's Subdivision, on Grassy Key in unincorporated Monroe County, having purchased the property in 1985. Mr. Bruno has constructed a single family dwelling on that property, but the building permit for the construction of the dwelling is not at issue in this proceeding. Most of Monroe County, including the subject property, is within the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern as designated under Sections 380.05 and 380.0552, Florida Statutes. At the time Mr. Bruno purchased the property in 1985, the lot was vacant, but there was a wooden dock in existence that was used by the neighboring lot owners. 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. The wooden dock that was on the property at the time Mr. Bruno purchased his property was built before Monroe County adopted the following land development regulations and was a lawful, preexisting structure. Section 9.5, Monroe County Code, pertains to structures that were in existence at the time the subject land development regulations were adopted, but which do not conform to those regulations. Section 9.5-141, Monroe County Code, provides as follows: The purpose of this article is to regulate and limit the continued existence of uses and structures established prior to the enactment of this chapter that do not conform to the provisions of this chapter. Many nonconformities may continue, but the provisions of this article are designed to curtail substantial investment in nonconformities and to bring about their eventual elimination in order to preserve the integrity of this chapter. Section 9.5-144 allows the continued existence and the ordinary repair and maintenance of nonconforming structures which predated the adoption of the subject land development regulations, and provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Authority to Continue: A nonconforming structure devoted to a use permitted in the land use district in which it is located may be continued in accordance with the provisions of this section. Ordinary Repair and Maintenance: Normal maintenance and repair of registered nonconforming structures may be performed. Enlargements and Extensions: Nonconforming structures which are used in a manner conforming to the provisions of this chapter may be enlarged or extended provided that the nonconformity is not further violated. . . . From the time he purchased the property in 1985 until the subject construction in 1991, Mr. Bruno made periodic improvements that constituted ordinary repair and maintenance that did not require a permit from Monroe County. In 1991, Mr. Bruno constructed a concrete pier on top of the existing wooden pier and rotated the terminal platform of the pier so that the terminal platform is now T-shaped. The concrete pier is on its own supports and is independent of the wooden pier, which still exists under the new concrete pier. Mr. Bruno contends that this construction in 1991, which was performed without obtaining a permit from Monroe County, should be construed to be ordinary maintenance and repair of the preexisting wooden pier. This contention is rejected. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that Mr. Bruno went beyond the mere maintenance and repair of the preexisting wooden pier and constructed a new concrete pier on top of the existing pier. After the construction of the concrete pier was completed, Mr. Bruno was cited by Monroe County for non-permitted construction. He thereafter applied to Monroe County for an after the fact permit. Monroe County subsequently issued Permit No. 9020000827, the permit that is the subject of this appeal. That permit authorized the construction that had been completed by Mr. Bruno, but it contained a restriction that no propeller driven boats are to be docked or used in the area of the pier. Prior to the construction that is at issue in these proceedings, Mr. Bruno could moor boats at the wooden pier because it was a preexisting nonconforming structure. The restriction contained in the building permit issued by Monroe County that prohibits the mooring of boats at the concrete pier has not been challenged by Mr. Bruno. 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. By Final Judgment entered June 7, 1991, the Honorable Richard G. Payne, Judge of the Circuit Court of the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Monroe County, Florida, ruled in Stanton v. Monroe County, Case No. 91-20-035- CA-18, that Monroe County's four foot rule does not apply to swimming piers, concluding, in pertinent part, as follows at page five of the Final Judgment: 5. To the extent that the County's Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations fail to provide for swimming piers ... the court finds that it is unreasonable to treat such piers as if they were docks at which boats are to be moored. Pursuant to the judicial review authority of Chapter 163, Fla. Stat., the court declares . . . [the four foot rule] inapplicable to piers at which boats are not to be moored. The County has adequate judicial remedies, including injunction, to prevent the use of such piers, including the subject pier, for the mooring of boats. Petitioner's concern is that boats will moor at the structure regardless of the restrictions on the permit and that these boats will cause degradation to the nearshore waters while crossing to deep water. Damage to the benthic communities in the vicinity of the Bruno's property and degradation to the nearshore waters would occur if propeller driven boats were to moor at the subject dock in violation of the restrictions that have been placed on the permit. Petitioner's concern is premised on the unwarranted assumptions that the structure will be illegally used at some point in the future by boats. Petitioner did not establish that damage would be done to the environment by this structure since the mooring of boats is prohibited. The greater weight of the evidence established that there was no risk of damage to sea grass beds or other benthic communities by the structure so long as there is compliance with the restrictions contained in the permit. Respondents presented evidence that several similar projects were permitted at approximately the same time as Mr. Bruno's permit without Petitioner filing an appeal. These shallow water structures are intended to provide personal access to the water, either because of heavy mangrove fringe or difficult access to the water. The Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, the Florida Department of Natural Resources, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Monroe County have, in the past, issued permits for these type structures.
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 affirming Monroe County's issuance of building permit number 9020000827. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of June, 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 11th day of June, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 91-6328DRI 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, 7, 11, and 12 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 8 and 10 are subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in the first sentence of paragraph 9 are rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. While Mr. Metcalf testified that there was a boat moored at the structure when he inspected the structure in June 1991, there was no evidence as to whose boat he observed or the circumstances that resulted in the boat being moored at the structure. Mr. Bruno's testimony that he sold his boat and that he does not use the structure for the mooring of boats is persuasive. The remaining proposed findings in paragraph 9 are subordinate to the findings made. The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent Bruno. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in the first sentence of paragraph 3 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in the second sentence of paragraph 3 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 6 and 9 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 10 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. COPIES FURNISHED: James S. Mattson, Esquire Mattson & Tobin Post Office Box 586 Key Largo, Florida 33037 Lucky T. Osho, Esquire David Jordan, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Linda Loomis Shelley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 G. Steven Pfeiffer, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 James T. Hendrick, Esquire Attorney for Monroe County Post Office Box 1117 Key West, Florida 33040 Carolyn Dekle, Director South Florida Regional Planning Council 3400 Hollywood Boulevard Suite 140 Hollywood, Florida 33021 Bob Herman, Herb Rabin, Lorenzo Aghemo, Pat McNeese Monroe County Growth Management Division Public Service Building, Wing III 5100 Junior College Road West Stock Island Key West, Florida 33040 David K. Coburn, Secretary Florida Land and Water Adj. Commission Executive Officer of the Governor 311 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Permit Number 9220003617 issued by Monroe County, Florida, to Jeanne and Aldo Faga is inconsistent with the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and Monroe County Land Development Regulations. Three areas of dispute were involved in this proceeding: Whether the permitted development (as modified by stipulation) is inconsistent with provisions requiring development to be clustered on the least environmentally sensitive portion of the site; Whether the permitted development (as modified by stipulation) is inconsistent with provisions pertaining to construction in mangroves and submerged lands; and Whether the permitted development (as modified by stipulation) is inconsistent with provisions establishing setback requirements from beach berms that are known turtle nesting areas.
Findings Of Fact THE PARTIES 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. Jeanne Faga and the Estate of Aldo Faga, deceased, hereafter referred to collectively as the "Fagas," are the owners of approximately ten acres of real property known as Lots 23 through 32, Block 21, Coco Plum Beach subdivision, Fat Deer Key, in unincorporated Monroe County, Florida. This property, acquired by the Fagas in 1971, has been subdivided by the Fagas into four parcels. Lots 23-24 have been consolidated and will be referred to as Parcel A. The remaining lots have been divided into Parcels B, C, and D. Grill Construction, Inc., is a Florida corporation and is the general contractor for Respondent for the building permit at issue. Monroe County, Florida, is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. Monroe County did not actively participate in this proceeding. THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER AND ITS HISTORY Most of Monroe County, including the subject property, is within the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern, as designated under Sections 380.05 and 380.0552, Florida Statutes. These statutory provisions require that Monroe County adopt and implement a comprehensive plan and land development regulations consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development found at Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statutes. Monroe County has adopted a comprehensive plan, effective September 15, 1986, which complies with the Principles for Guiding Development and which has been approved by the Petitioner and by the Administration Commission. The Monroe County comprehensive plan is implemented by and through its adopted land development regulations, codified primarily in Chapter 9.5, Monroe County Code (M.C.C.). While Respondent originally applied for a development permit for one residence on each of the four parcels and for an access bridge on Parcel A, the subject of this permit appeal proceeding is the development order for Parcel A only. If the project is permitted, it is contemplated that the access bridge at issue in this proceeding will provide access to the residences the Fagas hope to build on Parcels B, C, and D. The initial permit application for a residence on each of the four (4) parcels and an access bridge on Parcel A capable of use by motor vehicles was denied by Monroe County staff. The Fagas thereafter appealed the staff denial to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission reviewed the project and affirmed the denial by staff. The Fagas thereafter appealed the denial by the Planning Commission to the Monroe County Commission. On July 28, 1993, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners adopted Resolution No. 299-1993, which reversed the denial of the appeal by the Planning Commission, and authorized the Fagas to go forward with the building permit applications. On September 23, 1993, Monroe County issued to the Fagas and Grill Construction Co. building permit number 9220003617, the development order that is the subject of this proceeding. This development order includes public works permit number 0764 and building permit number 9220003615, which address the proposed access bridge on the subject site. The development order approves the permit for the access bridge that was issued by the Department of Environmental Protection. This development order authorizes the construction of a 4,501 square foot single family home with 2,426 square feet of porches, a 813 square foot enclosure for parking and storage, fill for a driveway, a separate guest house and an elevated bridge approximately 12 feet wide and 160 feet long. The building permit issued by Monroe County at issue in this proceeding did not include construction on Parcels B, C and D. The Department timely filed its challenge to the subject development order pursuant to Section 380.07, Florida Statutes. STIPULATED PERMIT CONDITIONS The parties stipulated that the following modifications to the development order would be made if the project is permitted: 2/ The subject development permit conditions shall be amended to state that the subject site plan shall include no drainage swales and no concrete slabs. The subject development permit conditions shall be amended such that the site plan shall include no fill or excavation between the proposed structures and the salt water slough, for a driveway or for any other purpose, except for minimal fill necessary for the ramp at each end of the proposed bridge. No fill or excavation shall occur within the existing mangrove habitat as depicted on the site plan and as verified in the field prior to construction. The subject development permit conditions shall be amended to reflect that the access bridge reflected on the site plan rendered with the building permit application shall be of a length so as to clear the mangroves and salt water slough on site such that either end of the access bridge will terminate beyond the end of the mangrove lines and the boundaries of the slough. The subject development permit conditions shall be amended to reflect the guest suite be connected to the main structure (single family residence, or "SFR") by an enclosed interior hallway, atrium or the like, so as to form a single habitable unit. In addition, the Fagas will execute a restrictive covenant to run with the land which prohibits rental, sale or lease of the guest suite, or anything less than the entire single family residence. Each stairwell to the SFR will access a deck which provides uniform access to each room in the SFR, and the site plan shall include no additional independent access to the guest suite. Only minimal excavation will be allowed for transplantation on the beach berm, i.e., the absolute minimum amount necessary to transplant the native species identified in the County-approved transplantation plan. The transplantation shall occur in a manner which preserves the contour of the beach berm and ground cover resources on site and restores the area cleared for development to natural conditions which include native plant species transplanted on site. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PARCEL A Most of the land constituting the four Faga parcels was "created" in the late 1950s, by depositing seaward (south) of the then existing shoreline spoil material from offshore dredging. The original "beach" in this area of Fat Deer Key (prior to the dredge and fill activities) existed just south of Coco Plum Drive, which now serves as the northern border of the Faga parcel. As a result of this dredge and fill activity, most of the dry land that presently exists on Parcels A-D was created from lands that were submerged. Additionally, the saltwater slough that exists on Parcels A-D was created as a result of this dredge and fill activity. The subject site, Parcel A, is bordered on the north by Coco Plum Drive, on the West by a multistory condominium development, on the South by the Atlantic Ocean, and on the East by Parcel B. Parcel A is rectangular, with the East - West measurement being approximately 215 feet and the North - South measurement being approximately 375 feet. The Eastern third of the central portion of the Faga parcel contains a shallow, manmade water body (the "saltwater slough"), which is fringed with mangroves. Because the saltwater slough was created by the dredge and fill activity, it is appropriate to classify the saltwater slough as a manmade water body pursuant to Section 9.5-4 9(M-4), M.C.C., which defines the term "manmade water body" as follows: (M-4) Manmade water body means a water body that was created by excavation by mechanical means under human control and shall include a canal, cut basin or channel where its edges or margins have subsequently been modified by natural forces. All of Parcel A, meets the following definition of "disturbed land" found at Section 9.5-4(D-14), M.C.C.: (D-14) "Disturbed Land": Disturbed land means land that manifested signs of environmental disturbance which has had an observable effect on the structure and function of the natural community which existed on the site prior to the disturbance. The remainder of the property, including the sandy beach area and beach berm, will be discussed in detail below. CLUSTERING REGULATIONS Section 9.5-345(a), M.C.C., requires clustering of development as follows: "Clustering": When a parcel proposed for develop- ment contains more than one (1) habitat type, all development shall be clustered on the least sensitive portions of the parcel subject to the maximum net densities of Section 9.5-262, the open space requirements of Sections 9.5-262 and 9.5-269 and the performance standards of this section. For the purposes of this subsection, the sensitivity of habitat types shall be as listed with subsection being the most sensitive and subsection (18) being the least sensitive. The least sensitive part of the parcel shall be fully utilized prior to the distribution of density to the next least sensitive habitat type. High hammock (high-quality); Palm hammock; Cactus hammock; Beach/berm; Pinelands (high-quality); Salt marsh and buttonwood associations; High hammock (moderate-quality); Low hammock (low-quality); Low hammock (moderate-quality); Pinelands (low-quality); High hammock (low-quality); Low hammock (low-quality); Disturbed with hammock; Disturbed with salt marsh and buttonwood; Disturbed beach/berm; Disturbed with exotics; Disturbed with slash pines; Disturbed. Landowners are required to cluster development on the least sensitive portions of their property, subject to open space requirements for the respective classifications and subject to the maximum density for a parcel. An area classified as "disturbed" has a twenty percent open space requirement. Parcel A has a maximum density limit of 2.5 units per acre. HABITAT DETERMINATION -- GENERALLY To determine whether it is necessary to cluster this development, it is necessary to determine the habitat classification for Parcel A. Monroe County has adopted an existing conditions map that purports to show the existing habitat classifications on Parcel A. The existing conditions map reflects two habitat classifications for Parcel A: open water (the area of the saltwater slough) and disturbed with buttonwood and salt marsh. The area designated on the Aslan survey 3/ as the saltwater slough is properly designated as open water. The parties agree that the classification on the existing conditions map for the remainder of Parcel A as "disturbed with buttonwood and salt marsh" is incorrect. The parties disagree as to the appropriate habitat classification for the portions of Parcel A landward and seaward of the saltwater slough. Brian Winchester, on behalf of the Fagas, spent in excess of 80 hours on the four Faga parcels, conducting visual observations and taking core samples. He conducted field surveys of the four parcels during July 9-11, September 23- 24, October 20-22, and November 11-12, 1992. Staff of the Monroe County Environmental Resources Department conducted a joint site visit to the parcels with Mr. Winchester on September 23 and October 21, 1992. Mr. Winchester identified each small area of the parcel that he believed justified a distinct habitat classification and, based on a qualitative and quantitative analysis (which included counting individual stems in some areas), determined whether there was a dominate species for each area. In October and November, 1992, Mr. Winchester staked the edges of each portion of Parcel A that he believed constituted a distinct habitat. Those staked areas reflecting a plant community were then measured by Aslan, Inc. and depicted on the Aslan survey. The Aslan survey also marks the mean high water line on the property and measures the topography of all four parcels. Kathleen Edgerton and Patricia McNeese, the biologists who testified for the Petitioner, disagreed with Mr. Winchester's habitat evaluation. They conducted separate on-site inspections of the property, each with the benefit of the Aslan survey, and each determined what she considered to be the appropriate habitat classifications on Parcel A. Ms. Edgerton and Ms. McNeese were in agreement as to how the habitats of Parcel A should be classified. Petitioner's experts determined the extent of the saltwater slough and the mangrove fringe surrounding it. They determined the extent of the beach berm (which they consider to extend to the mangrove fringe on the seaward side of the slough) and determined the habitat of Parcel A seaward of the mangrove fringe. They then determined the habitat classification for the portion of Parcel A lying landward of the mangrove fringe. Based on their on-site evaluations of the property, Petitioner's experts did not believe that the portion of Parcel A lying landward or seaward of the mangrove fringe justified more than one habitat classification. In resolving the conflicting testimony between Respondents' expert and Petitioner's experts, more weight is given to the opinions expressed by Ms. Edgerton and Ms. McNeese because they have had extensive experience in conducting habitat classifications for lands in the Florida Keys as a part of their official responsibilities. While Mr. Winchester is an accomplished biologist, his experience in making habitat determinations in the Florida Keys is limited. The undersigned is persuaded by the testimony from Petitioner's experts that observations of species on site for making habitat determinations involve the subject parcel in larger perspective than that used by Mr. Winchester. HABITAT DETERMINATION -- LANDWARD OF THE SLOUGH Mr. Winchester expressed the opinion that the following habitat classifications exist on the portion of Parcel A lying landward of the mangrove fringe: a small strip of land adjacent to the road that should be classified as "disturbed"; a larger strip of land that should be classified as "disturbed with exotics"; and a third strip of land that should be classified as "disturbed with salt marsh and buttonwood". Petitioner's experts testified that the entire portion of Parcel A landward of the mangrove fringe should be classified as "disturbed". This dispute is resolved by finding that the greater weight of the evidence establishes that the portion of Parcel A landward of the mangrove fringe should be classified as "disturbed". While exotics, including Australian Pines and Brazilian peppers, exist in different areas of this part of the property, Petitioner's experts established that other vegetation exists and that exotics do not dominate the portions of the property classified by Mr. Winchester as "disturbed with exotics". Likewise, it is concluded that the portion of the property classified by Mr. Winchester as "disturbed with salt marsh and buttonwood" should be classified as "disturbed" since there is little salt marsh and buttonwood does not dominate. Further, there exists in this area trees and vegetation that are not typically found in an area designated as "salt marsh and buttonwood". THE MANGROVE FRINGE AND THE SALTWATER SLOUGH The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has claimed jurisdiction of the saltwater slough, an assertion that is not challenged in this proceeding. The parties disagree as to whether the saltwater slough is tidally influenced and whether the mangrove fringe around the saltwater slough meets the definition of a "mangrove community". The salt water slough consists of shallow, landlocked water over mud, sand and marl bottoms. The water level increases with heavy rains and infrequent storm tides, and decreases during periods of drought. The slough has been observed to be dry during time of drought, negating any inference of regular tidal influence. Based primarily on Mr. Winchester's observations and quantitative measurements, it is concluded that there is no regular tidal influence on the slough. That the saltwater slough is ecologically significant and provides a valuable resource for birds, especially during storms, was not seriously disputed at the formal hearing. The birds that normally use the beach will come into the slough, where they can stay within the protection of the mangroves. They feed there, and are not subjected to wave force and wind that they would receive if they were on the outside. The salt water slough is encircled by a fringe of mangroves. Mr. Winchester classified the mangrove fringe as "disturbed with mangroves". This classification is consistent with similar classifications on Monroe County's existing conditions maps, but the classification is not separately listed in the County's land development regulations pertaining to clustering because specific regulations limit development in mangroves. 4/ Whether the areas delineated by the Aslan survey as being the mangrove fringe is classified as "mangroves" or as "disturbed with mangroves" is irrelevant for determining the issues presented by this proceeding. HABITAT DETERMINATION - WATERWARD OF THE SLOUGH Section 9.5-4(B-3), defines the term "beach berm" as follows: Beach berm means a bare, sandy shoreline with a mound or ridge of unconsolidated sand that is immediately landward of, and usually parallel to, the shoreline and beach. The sand is calcareous material that is the remains of marine organisms such as corals, algae and molluscs. The berm may include forested, coastal ridges and may be colonized by hammock vegetation. Parcel A contains a sandy beach, including a seaweed wrack and some low vegetation which is typical of beach berm vegetation as defined in the Monroe County Code. Behind the low vegetation, lies an area of Australian Pine trees that extends to the seaward extent of the mangrove fringe. Petitioner asserts that the beach berm on Parcel A extends to the mangrove fringe and that the proper classification for all of Parcel A seaward from the mangrove fringe is "disturbed beach berm". Respondents assert that seaward from the mangrove fringe on the east side of the parcel there is a small section that should be classified as disturbed with salt marsh and buttonwood, that the area with the Australian Pines should be classified as disturbed with exotics, and that the remaining portion should be classified as disturbed beach berm. The accepted characteristics of beach berm soil, as defined in the LDRs and Comprehensive plan, are "calcareous" and "unconsolidated". Reference to the soil as calcareous refers to its origin, while the consolidation of the soil refers to its compression and its cohesiveness. The soil from the mean high water line to the mangrove fringe seaward of the slough is unconsolidated, calcareous sand. The only area that appears to exhibit consolidated soils is that which has been compacted by vehicular use in the property. Vegetation typical of beach berms is scattered throughout the parcel between the mean high water mark and the mangrove fringe. The area of Parcel A that lies between the mean high water mark and the mangrove fringe seaward of the saltwater slough, is beach berm. This portion of Parcel A is properly classified as "disturbed beach berm" as opposed to "beach berm" because the entire parcel is disturbed lands and because Australian Pines have encroached on a portion of the beach berm. CLUSTERING ANALYSIS Petitioner established that development on Parcel A (with the exception of the access structure to be discussed below) should be limited to the area landward of the slough that should be classified as "disturbed". The Petitioner established that this area of Parcel A is large enough to accommodate a reconfigured version of the development. TURTLE NESTING SETBACK Section 9.5-345(3)(f), M.C.C., provides for a setback of construction from turtle nesting areas in areas designated as disturbed beach berm as follows: f. No structure shall be located within fifty (50) feet of any portion of any beach-berm complex which is known to serve as an active nesting or resting area of marine turtles, terns, gulls or other birds . . . While no specific sites on Parcel A were identified as active nesting sites, the beach on which Parcel A is located is a known turtle nesting area. The expert testimony from Patrick Wells established that marine turtles most frequently nest within 50 feet of the mean high water line. The expert testimony of Mr. Metcalf established that the setback of fifty feet required in Section 9.5-345(o)(3)f, M.C.C., should be typically measured from the backslope of any beach berm crest. If there is no beach berm crest on a parcel or if the beach berm crest is more than fifty feet from the mean high water line, the setback should be measured from a line that is parallel to and fifty feet landward of the mean high water line. 5/ Mr. Winchester identified the existence of a beach berm "crest" within the area of Parcel A that is designated on the Aslan survey as disturbed beach berm. Mr. Winchester testified that he observed a three or four inch drop behind the crest and was of the opinion that the beach berm crest was formed by wind and wave action. The crest, as identified by Mr. Winchester, is marked on the Aslan survey and is just a few feet from the mean high water line. Petitioner's experts testified that there was no crest and that there was a gradual rise in the beach berm elevation from the mean high water mark to the beginning of the mangrove fringe. This conflict in the evidence is resolved by finding that there is no discernible beach berm crest until it reaches the mangrove fringe. This finding is consistent with the expert testimony presented by the Petitioner, the photographic evidence, and the topographical markings on the Aslan survey. Further, this finding is consistent with the manner in which this property was created by the depositing of fill. Based on the foregoing findings, it determined that the beginning of the setback line should be from a line parallel to and fifty feet landward of the mean high water line. The distance of the setback itself should be fifty feet as required by Section 9.5-345(o)(3)f, M.C.C. The development order at issue in this proceeding does not comply with the turtle nesting setback requirement. THE ACCESS STRUCTURE Section 9.5-345(m), M.C.C., authorizes construction of piers, docks, utility pilings and walkways on areas with mangroves and submerged lands. All structures on any submerged lands and mangroves are required to be designed, located, and constructed on pilings or other supports. DEP has issued a permit for the access structure that, if constructed, will be on pilings that are set in areas of the mangrove fringe and in areas of the slough. As permitted by DEP, the access structure would be 12 feet wide and 160 feet long. As noted above, the parties have stipulated that the subject development permit conditions shall be amended to reflect that the access bridge reflected on the site plan rendered with the building permit application shall be of a length so as to clear the mangroves and salt water slough on site such that either end of the access bridge will terminate beyond the end of the mangrove lines and the boundaries of the slough. The DEP permit contains appropriate special and general conditions to assure that the access structure will be constructed consistent with pertinent permitting criteria. The primary objection to the access structure raised by the Petitioner is to the width of the structure. Mr. Metcalf testified, without contradiction, that the acceptable standard in the planning profession for the maximum width for a walkway is six feet. Based on that testimony, it is found that the access structure should be authorized with the conditions imposed by DEP and as modified by the parties's stipulation, but with the additional condition that the width of the structure be changed from twelve feet to six feet.
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 that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein and denies the subject development order number 9220003617. The permit can be approved if the Fagas choose to modify its application to conform to the findings and conclusions contained herein. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of November, 1995, 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 1st day of November 1995.
The Issue The question in this case is whether GDC should be authorized to go forward with development of some 2,000 acres, a portion of the Myakka Estates project it has planned for North Port in south Sarasota County, and, if so, on what terms. In the prehearing order dated February 8, 1980, the legal issue was stated broadly as "whether the proposed development [Phase I] comports with the standards of Chapter 380, Florida Statues (1979), as set forth in Section 380.06(8) and (11), Florida Statutes (1979) [now 380.06(11) and (13), Florida Statues (Supp. 1980)]." An important question is what legal effect the Master Development Order should be given in the present case. In the same prehearing order, factual issues were stated to include whether the "location . . . [and] approval of the proposed land sales development is consistent with the report and recommendation of the SWFRPC in light of the State, County, and North Port comprehensive plans"; whether "the proposed development will, individually and in combination with approved development, overburden the public school system . . . . overburden the public roads . . . [or] create a negative economic impact upon county and municipal governments"; and whether "GDC has provided for sufficient potable water."
Findings Of Fact GDC proposes to develop 8,135 acres in North Port in Sarasota County, just north of the Charlotte County line, as a new community, to be called Myakka Estates. Phase I, the group of three units slated for development next after the "vested portion" of the project, is designed to occupy a 2,016.56-acre tract within the larger parcel, west of and well upland from the Myakka River, and approximately four miles inland from the Gulf of Mexico. PRESENT CONDITION OF LAND The highest elevation on Phase I is 13 feet above mean sea level. About three quarters of Phase I is covered with slash pine, southern pine, and saw palmetto. Pasture lands, about seven percent of the Phase I tract, are covered with grasses, sedges, other herbaceous plants, and only occasional trees. Freshwater marsh ponds and other marshy areas are distributed more or less evenly over the property in a karstic gestalt, except that an uninterrupted stretch of marsh along the western boundary marks the eastern edge of the northern reaches of Ainger Creek, which further downstream flows across the southwest tip of the property. in the wet areas, limnophilous vegetation, including sportios bakeri, cyperus spp., cladium mariscoides, rhychospora ap., hypericum aspalathoides, xyris iridefolia, eriocaulon decangulare, eleocharis equistoides, pontederia cordota, bacopa caroliniana, and hydrocotyle umbellata, predominates. Opossums, eastern moles, raccoons, otters, and bobcats have been spotted on the Phase I property. Among other mammals whose range includes the Phase I property are shrews, bats, black bear, longtail weasel, mink, Florida panther (Burt and Grossenheider) skunks, gray fox, mountain lion, squirrels, southeastern pocket gophers, rats, mice, rabbits, whitetail deer, and armadillo. People have seen eastern rattlesnakes, pygmy rattlesnakes, water moccasins, eastern garter snakes, yellow rat snakes, anolis carolinensis (a lizard), snapping turtles, common musk turtles, box turtles, gopher tortoises, spiny softshell turtles, bull frogs, leopard frogs, cricket frogs, green tree frogs, and American toads on the Phase I property. There is reason to believe that numerous other snakes, frogs and lizards inhabit the property. On high ground in the Phase I property, people have seen turkey vultures, black vultures, red-tailed hawks, red-shouldered hawks, kestrels, bobwhites, turkeys, mourning doves, ground doves, flickers, red-billed woodpeckers, eastern kingbirds, blue jays, Carolina wrens, mockingbirds, catbirds, robins, loggerhead shrikes, meadowlarks, red-wings, boat-tailed grackles, cardinals, Florida sandhill cranes, and bank swallows. On westland portions of Phase I, people have seen pied-billed grebes, anhingas, great blue herons, American egrets, ivory egrets, Louisiana herons, little blue herons, green herons, least bitterns, wood storks, white ibis, red-winged blackbirds, purple grackles, killdeer, southern bald eagles, and limpkins. Limpkins, wood storkes, southern bald eagles, and Florida sandhill cranes are endangered species. Various fishes live in waters on the Phase I property, including lake chumbuckers, golden shiners, yellow bullheads, flagfish, golden topminnows, four different killifishes, mosquito fish, sailfin mollies, warmouths, bluegills, and three kinds of sunfish. The common prawn the Florida crayfish, and the neritina reclivata also inhabit one or more water bodies on the Phase I tract. Insect populations are relatively low because of the abundance of piscine insectivores. Before GDC acquired the property, men dug ditches which connect several ponds and cause stormwater to drain through them into Ainger Creek which empties into Lemon Bay. Drainage into the ponds and connecting ditches is by sheet flow. Cow dung in the pastures is concentrated around certain ponds, where cattle drink; and may account for some of the nonhuman fecal coliform bacteria that are to be found in Lemon Bay. Part of the Phase I property drains by sheet flow into the Myakka River. The topsoil is sandy on the Phase I tract. In the vicinity of Ainger Creek, Pompano find sand and Keri find sand predominate. These sands, Delray fine sand and Plummer fine sand, are found in most of the low-lying areas on the property. Leon fine sand covers most of the high ground. There is a strip of Immokalee fine sand along the northern border of the Phase I tract other than as pasture or for tree farming would be energy intensive. One expert proposed hydroponic cultivation. ANNEXATION GDC acquired the Myakka Estates property from a rancher in 1970 or 1971, then took steps to cause the parcel to be annexed by the City of North Port, within the municipal boundaries of which other substantial GDC development was already located. The annexation took place notwithstanding the absence of any bridge or road connecting the Myakka Estates parcel to the rest of North Port. These two parts of the City of North Port touch at a corner but are not otherwise contiguous. Some 100,000 lots have been platted in North Port east of the Myakka river; over 90,000 were still vacant at the time of the hearing. At 68 square miles, North Port, with a population of five to eight thousand, is second in land area only to the consolidated City of Jacksonville, the municipality with the largest land area in the state. LAND USE RESTRICTIONS By ordinance of the City of North Port, the entire Myakka Estate parcel is zoned agricultural and has been at all pertinent times. On September 9, 1974, however, North Port entered the Master Development Order authorizing development of all "non-vested" portions of Myakka Estates. In consideration of the Division of State Planning's forbearance from taking an appeal of the Master Development Order to the Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission, GDC agreed to submit "supplemental Applications for Development Approval as a condition to development of specific increments of the master residential plan," GDC Exhibit No. 12, a requirement also imposed by the Master Order itself. North Port has a subdivision ordinance with which, according to the uncontroverted evidence, the proposed Phase I development is in compliance. In June of 1979, North Port adopted a Comprehensive Development and Growth Management Plan, GDC Exhibit Nos. 23 and 91, in accordance with Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes (1979). Because of the pendency of the present proceedings, the SWFRPC and the DCA objected to inclusion of Phase I in the North Port plan. As a result of the objections, the plan makes little reference to Phase I although it notes that planning for Phase I "was conducted in conformance with present standards and was recently approved by the [North Port] Planning Commission and City Commission [apparently by adoption of the Development Order challenged in these proceedings]." GDC Exhibit No. 91, at 28. Stated as an objective of North Port's Comprehensive Development and Growth Management Plan, at p. 22, is To encourage growth that is relatively contiguous to the existing developed area and encompasses within the 25-year period the area bounded on the north by McCarthy Boulevard and Snover Waterway, on the east by Blue Ridge Waterway, and on the south and west by the city limits. GDC Exhibit No. 91. Other stated objectives are to "encourage consistency with and between Florida's Growth Management and Land Development Elements" and Sarasota County's Land Use Plan. It was uncontroverted that plans by General Development Utilities to furnish water and sewer service to Phase I are in conformity with provisions of the North Port plan on those subjects. Sarasota County has never adopted a comprehensive plan in accordance with Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes (1979), but the county does have the Land Use Plan, GDC Exhibit No. 93, referred to in the North Port plan. The Sarasota County Land Use Plan map designates the unincorporated area adjacent to Myakka Estates as appropriate for agriculture. The county has zoned the area along South River Road (formerly State Road 777), immediately adjacent to Myakka Estates, "QUE-1", Open Use, Estate, one dwelling unit per five acres, and the area further west "OUR", Open Use, Rural, one dwelling unit per ten acres. According to a map that is part of the Sarasota County Land Use Plan, Myakka Estates falls in the "low density residential" category, 1.1 to 4.5 units per acre. By its terms, however, this plan applies only to unincorporated areas of Sarasota County. The portion of the Phase I property lying in the easterly half of Section 33, Township 40 South, Range 20 East is within the jurisdiction of the Englewood Water District, which was created by Chapter 59-931, Laws of Florida. At the time of the final hearing, the whole area of EWD was on septic tanks and EWD's water lines did not reach Section 33. Some 166 lots are planned for the portion of Phase I over which EWD has jurisdiction. EWD has a policy of not permitting other water systems within the area served by the district. Its current regulations containing specifications for water and sewer mains and the like were adopted on June 19, 1980. The Florida State Comprehensive Plan, GDS Exhibit No. 92, is an internally inconsistent compilation of "goals", "objectives", and "policies". It was adopted by executive order and approved by the Florida Legislature in 1978. In their proposed recommended orders, the parties identified the following items as being in controversy: Ensure that the expansion of public facilities for economic development is in accordance with local government comprehensive plans and the State Comprehensive Plan. Consider the projected availability of energy when making economic development decisions. Physical, natural, economic, and human resources should be managed and developed in ways that avoid unnecessary long-term energy- intensive investments. Incorporate energy as a major consideration into the planning and decision-making processes of state, regional, and local governments. Encourage land use patterns that by design, size, and location minimize long-term energy commitments to construction, operation, maintenance, and replacement. Encourage a careful, ongoing evaluation of governmental expenditures and revenues in light of future uncertainties about energy supplies and related economic implications. To ensure the orderly long-range social, economic, and physical growth of the state. Identify the costs and benefits of growth to local and state governments and explore methods for allocating these costs to the citizens equitably. Housing should be produced in a mix of types, sizes, and prices that is based on local and regional need and that is consistent with the state's growth policy. Land use and development should proceed in an orderly manner that produces an economically efficient and personally satisfying residential environment with with minimal waste of our land resources. The provision of public facilities, utilities, open space, transportation, and other services that are required to support present and projected housing and community development needs should be ensured. Develop environmentally responsive land planning methods that reduce the stress that new develop- ments place on their communities' energy needs, water needs, sewage treatment facilities, transportation, flood control systems, and social, and educational services, and thus reduce the overall taxes and cost of the services needed to satisfy these demands. Consider energy implications in the review of applications for developments having regional impact (DRI). Land development should be managed in a manner consistent with the values and needs of the citizens of the state and with the concept of private property rights. Agricultural lands, especially those most seriously threatened, should be maintained and preserved for the production of food and fiber products. Influence the timing, distribution, type, density, scale, and design of development by coordinating land development proposals in state and local comprehensive plans and public investment programs in order to ensure the availability of adequate public facilities, services, and other resources. Allocate an equitable share of the cost of expanding public facilities to the newly served residents. Base land development decisions on quantita- tive knowledge of the short- and long-term capabilities of the hydrologic units to provide adequate supplies of water. Coordinate land use planning and water management to ensure the long-range maintenance and enhancement of water quantity and quality. Accommodate new development by using water from the local hydrologic basins rather than through surface water transfer between hydrologic basins. Protect groundwater supplies from saltwater intrusion by the regulation of withdrawals, maintenance of adequate recharge of groundwater, and prevention of saltwater movements inland through coastal canals. Maintain groundwater levels to insure that water levels are not drawn to such a degree that sustained yield is adversely affected or that natural resource degradation takes place. Protect groundwater supplies from saltwater intrusion by the maintenance of a sufficient amount of groundwater in coastal aquifers to prevent intrusion through regulation of withdrawals, maintenance of adequate recharge, and sufficient controls on coastal canals. Protect and maintain groundwater supplies and aquifer recharge areas through water- and land- management practices and, where necessary, through regulation of development activities. Allow alteration of groundwater movements within or between aquifers only where it can be shown that such alterations are not harmful to surface and groundwater resources. Develop minimum service standards for utility systems. Encourage the provision and maintenance of adequate utility systems in already developed areas. In areas where utility systems are over- burdened, manage growth while remedial measures are expedited to restore utility systems to a condition of adequacy. Encourage the effective use of utility systems, energy, land, and finite resources by evaluating and revising, if necessary, laws and regulations that may bar innovative development patterns, designs, and materials. Although authorized to do so by statute, Section 380.06(2)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1980), the Administration Commission has not adopted guidelines and standards for developments of regional impact by administrative rule. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT After development, water would cover 59.41 acres of Phase I and mostly low lying "open space/green belts" would account for another 504.69 acres. An additional 143.32 acres are planned for recreational uses. Roads and utility easements would account for 398.54 acres. GDC has agreed to construct a municipal services building in the vested portion of Myakka Estates, on a parcel across the street from Phase I. In Phase I, GDC plans to set aside 20.06 acres for an elementary school and 6.97 acres for neighborhood retail outlets. GDC has announced its intention to donate the school site to the Sarasota County School Board. Other school sites have been set aside within Myakka Estates. A large commercial area on a major arterial road is planned for the vested portion and a golf course and other recreational facilities, as well as an industrial site, are planned for later phases of development. Over a 33-year period, GDC plans to build 1,056 multifamily units on 92.61 acres and expects 2,859 single family detached houses to be built, by GDC and other contractors, on lots averaging approximately a quarter of an acre and aggregating 790.06 acres. The average envisioned for Phase I is 1.94 dwelling units per acre as compared to 2.33 dwelling units per acre for Myakka Estates as a whole. In the vested portion of Myakka estates and in the contiguous area to the south GDC is developing "multiple cores". Similarly, two distinct neighborhoods are contemplated in Phase I. GDC plans to build multifamily housing complexes in the neighborhood "cores" to be surrounded by single family detached houses, with vacant lots in between these neighborhood centers. GDC hopes to sell 1,927 unimproved lots in Phase I on an installment basis. Typically the purchaser would undertake to make installment payments over a ten-year period and GDC would agree to construct central water and sewer distribution systems and to pave access roads by the end of the period. A purchaser would be permitted to make prepayment but GDC would only be obligated to convey the lot at the end of the agreed term. GDC plans it so that installment payments will provide GDC enough money to install water and sewer systems and pave roads before GDC is obligated to convey the improved lots. All expenses of hocking up to the water or sewer system, including extending mains, where necessary, are to be borne by the purchaser. the purchaser must secure a building permit before GDC becomes obligated to furnish water. In the event GDC is unable to perform, however, the contract requires the purchaser to choose between accepting a refund of the purchase price and exchanging the lot for another lot. Under certain circumstances the lot owner is allowed a credit against purchase of a home from GDC in addition to the equity in the lot. In 1979, three quarters of the houses GDC sold were sold to lot owners who exercised their option to exchange the equity in houses in a core area, and 99 percent of the houses GDC sold in North Port were located in "core areas". At the time of the hearing, there were already hundreds of thousands of unimproved lots in Lee, Charlotte, and south Sarasota Counties and hundreds of miles of little used roads providing access to the lots. AIR POLLUTION The uncontroverted evidence was that air pollution anticipated as a result of the proposed development, chiefly from automobile exhaust, would not violate state or federal air quality standards. STORMWATER The planned stormwater drainage system has been designed to retain one inch of runoff before discharge from the Phase I property and to prevent flooding of the portions of the property slated for development during storms of up to 25 years return frequency and 24-hour duration. Stormwater in the Ainger Creek watershed will drain from roads and lawns into front- and sideyard swales, to broader, shallow, grassy collector swales, through a series of shallow ponds (with a maximum depth of six feet) equipped with control structures and into Ainger Creek in which GDC has already constructed a weir with a flap gate. Some stormwater will percolate through the sandy soils into the groundwater and, except under the most extreme conditions, groundwater will reach Ainger Creek only after most pollutants have been precipitated or filtered out biologically. Water in the Myakka River watershed will reach the river by sheet flow which, depending on conditions, will also be diminished by percolation and purified by precipitation and biological filtration. Under extremely wet conditions, water entering the Myakka River and Lemon Bay from Ainger Creek will contain pollutants normally associated with residential development, mostly high concentrations of nutrients and small concentrations of heavy metals. GDC's employee's testimony that water entering Lemon Bay will be of a higher quality after development than at present, although uncontroverted, is rejected as incredible, although it could conceivably hold true under mild meteorological conditions. Ainger Creek's flood plain extends east from the thalweg some distance into the Phase I property. See GDC Exhibit Nos. 69, 70, 71, and 72. On preliminary flood insurance rate maps, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has identified special flood hazard zones along the creek which include 169 acres in proposed Unit 5 in which a minimum elevation of ten feet has been recommended for any habitable space (A-9) and 263 acres in Sections 26, 33, and 34 in which a minimum elevation of 11 feet has been recommended for any habitable space (A-10). The lowest street elevation proposed for the A-10 zone is seven feet. GDC normally adds two to two-and-a- half feet of fill to existing grade before erecting houses, but can add more. The weir across Ainger Creek and the proposed control structures where water outfalls into swales allow the retention upstream of water which otherwise might have flowed into Lemon Bay. Water retained on the Phase I property and elsewhere upstream can percolate through the topsoil and replenish the groundwaters. The weir on Ainger Creek acts as a barrier against the movement of salt water upstream. For both of these reasons, the proposed drainage system should decrease any danger of saltwater intrusion into freshwater aquifers in the area. In the event substantial amounts of salt water (or some pollutant) are introduced into Ainger Creek upstream of the weir, the weir is designed to permit the Creek to be flushed. ECONOMIC IMPACT ON PRIVATE SECTOR Except in the core areas, where GDC plans to market improved real estate, contractors other than GDC would have an opportunity to bid on construction contracts for new houses, a decade or so after installment land sales proposed for Phase I begin. Even before construction of housing, roads would have to be paved, water and sewer pipes would have to be laid, and other utilities would have to be installed. Thousands of people living on the new unpopulated Phase I property would mean additional jobs in the private and public sectors. Since there are already more than 641,000 vacant subdivision lots in the Charlotte Harbor area, however, the region is presumably in little danger of losing out on additional population for want of land developments. FISCAL IMPACT ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT Using census and other population data and reviewing GDC's sales records in other land developments, J. Thomas Campbell, a GDC employee, has projected a 47-year development or build-out schedule for Myakka Estates, forecasting, among other things, how rapidly housing units will be built in Phase I. Taking the build-out schedule as a given, Paul G. Van Buskirk, a GDC consultant, assumed an average household size increasing linearly through time and projected population growth in Phase I year by year for 33 years. Mr. Van Buskirk made assumptions about average household size, the proportion of population over age 65, and the proportion of population of school age, only after examining data of this kind from ten other communities housing mainly retired persons, which he thought would be comparable. He distributed school children among elementary, middle, and high schools on the hypothesis that the proportion would be the same as obtained in the Tampa-St. Petersburg area. In 1975, Mr. Van Buskirk projected streams of revenue and expenditure for local governments attributable to Phase I, forecasting a surplus for North port, Sarasota County, and the Sarasota County School District (School District). He assumed the value of an average house to be $40,000 in 1975 dollars, that market value would be the same as assessed value, and that then current mileages would remain constant. He also projected, in 1975, a tax base in North Port of $119,000,000 in 1979, in 1979 dollars. In fact, North Port's 1979 tax base was $122,000,000. In 1975, he projected a surplus for North Port in 1979 of $905,000 in 1979 dollars ($662,000 in 1975 dollars). In 1979, the surplus was, in fact, slightly more than $700,000. The difference between the projected surplus and the actual surplus is attributable to North Port's decision to retain the same level of services it had in 1975 while lowering the ad valorem tax rate. In his 1975 calculations, Mr. Van Buskirk made no attempt to reduce later years' dollar figures to then present values. In response to criticism by Dr. Fishkind, Sarasota County's economist, Mr. Van Buskirk reduced revenues and expenditures he had projected to present values, by assuming a discount rate of 7.5 percent. This discount rate was chosen to represent the cost of money obtainable by selling tax exempt bonds. At the same time, he posited a ten percent return compounded annually on projected surpluses. After this revision, as before, he forecast a favorable fiscal impact on North Port, Sarasota County, and the School District. CITY OF NORTH PORT The weight of the evidence showed that the fiscal impact of development of Phase I on the City of North Port would probably be favorable. Mr. Van Buskirk's model predicted fiscal developments in North Port with impressive accuracy. The large surpluses projected for the early years of development could not be counted on, however, because they would add to the already existing surplus ($8,000,000 in June of 1980) and to political pressures to lower taxes in such circumstances. North Port's recent reduction in millage, in the face of a growing surplus, evidences a predictably recurring tendency. Even though Phase I is ten miles from the center of North Port, the municipal services building GDC has agreed to build should make this distance a relatively insignificant factor in delivering some municipal services, according to Dr. Fishkind. Volume X, pp. 113-114. SARASOTA COUNTY In projecting what expenditures Sarasota County would make, if Phase I is developed according to schedule, Dr. Fishkind subtracted water and sewer costs but no others from per capita base-year figures to arrive at a per capita figure of $137.02 in 1975 dollars, to which he added special costs projected by Sheriff Hardcastle for law enforcement and Mr. Longworth for roads. Because all three of these figures are significant overstatements, Dr. Fishkind overstated expenditures significantly when he calculated Phase I's negative fiscal impact on Sarasota County over the course of the development as $8,100,000 in 1979 dollars. Dr. Fishkind also failed to include surpluses that would be furnished to county government early on in the development. Mr. Van Buskirk's base year per capital figure is a closer approximation of per capita costs that would be fairly attributable to residents of Phase I, but road and law enforcement costs are probably understated. No increase in real sots is projected and the combined effect of using a 100 percent assessment ratio and ignoring costs of sales is to overstate tax revenues. When Mr. Van Buskirk assumed a 79 percent assessment ratio and an average house value of $35,000 in 1975 dollars, he still projected a $449,000 positive fiscal impact on Sarasota County from development of Phase I. That calculation also included the ten percent interest compounded annually imputed to surpluses, however, without any showing that surpluses from Phase I would be invested rather than expended for some other county purpose, making simple discounting appropriate. Although the evidence is far from clear, it suggests, on balance, that the fiscal impact of Phase I on Sarasota County would be negative. CHARLOTTE COUNTY Charlotte County's public roads, recreation facilities, and schools would be used by the residents of Phase I, if all goes as planned, and Charlotte County would not have the offsetting benefit of ad valorem taxes from Phase I, although it would receive certain offsetting benefits on account of additional students under the current intergovernmental agreements. Phase I's development would have a negative fiscal impact on Charlotte County and the Charlotte County School District. SCHOOL DISTRICT Phase I is some five miles from Englewood Elementary School, ten miles from Venice Gardens Elementary and five to seven miles from Lemon Bay Junior- Senior High School in Charlotte County which accepts students from Sarasota County under the terms of an intergovernmental agreement. These schools are presently operating at or above capacity. Under current conditions, a major development anywhere in Sarasota County would be a burden to the school system. A survey of the school district's capital requirements for the next five years suggests some $67,445,817 will be needed for new construction. Of this, Sarasota County expects to receive $15,797,414 from State sources. Phase I is not expected to house any school children in the next five years, however. In the tenth year of development, the projection is that 489 elementary students, 245 junior high students, and 244 senior high students would live in Phase I, necessitating the construction of at least the first "phase" of an elementary school. Exclusive of site acquisition costs, an elementary school costs about $4,000,000; a junior high school costs about $19,000,000; and a senior high school costs about $18,000,000. If development of Phase I occurs at or above the rate projected by GDC, the net fiscal impact on the School District would probably be negative, but if development lags significantly behind predictions, as Dr. Fishkind testified was likely, the additional years of tax revenues before Phase I places major demands on the school system could well result in a positive fiscal impact on the School District from development of Phase I. POTABLE WATER General Development Utilities (GDU), a subsidiary of GDC, has a franchise from North Port to furnish water within the city limits, including Myakka Estates, except in the portion of Section 33 where EWD has jurisdiction. GDU is a private, not a public, utility, but its use of ground and surface waters renders the water used unavailable to another utility. At an existing water treatment facility on Myakkahatchee Creek, in North Port, about ten miles from Phase I, GDU treats 4.2 million gallons of water a day (mgd), but could treat 8 mgd. GUD also operates a water treatment complex in Fort Ogden on the Peace River, six or seven miles downstream from Arcadia. At the time of the hearing, GDU had the ability to pump 1.5 mgd from the Peace River complex to North Port and Myakka Estates. The Peace River facility includes a raw-water intake structure, a reservoir, and a treatment plant. It has a capacity of 6 mgd although some of its components have larger capacities. The intake structure and 36-inch transmission lines can handle 30 mgd and the filter units have a capacity of 15 mgd. The reservoir covers some 90 acres and has a capacity of 800,000,000 gallons. In all, GDU has reserved 1,000 acres for use as a reservoir, although the need for such a large reservoir is not anticipated even by the year 2050. GUD does not plan to expand the existing reservoir for another ten years. Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) has permitted GDU to withdraw up to an average of 5 mgd from the Peach River not to exceed five percent of the day's flow. At Arcadia, the Peace River's daily flow varies seasonally from 32 mgd to ten billion gallons per day. Except for 36 days a year (on the average), 5 mgd is less than 5.7 percent of the low flow of the Peace River. GDU can fill its reservoir by diverting water from the Peace River at times of high flow, so as to get the best water quality, and cause the least proportional diminution of the river's flow. GDU plans to withdraw an average of 13 mgd from the Peace River when capacity of the facility at Fort Ogden reaches 30 mgd. This is approximately 1.5 percent of the Peace River's approximately 800 mgd average flow at Arcadia. Some of the diverted water will never reach Charlotte Harbor because of evaporation at various points. Other water transported to Myakka Estates from the Peace River, whether treated at Fort Ogden or at North Port, would be used for irrigation, and some of this water would drain into Lemon Bay by Ainger Creek and never reach Charlotte Harbor. Most of the water diverted into the Peace River reservoir will eventually make its way through homes in GDC developments into wastewater plants, from there into the groundwater, and ultimately into Charlotte Harbor. Even when water from the Peace River reaches Charlotte Harbor by this route, however, there will ordinarily have been an interbasin transfer. The quality of water in the Peace River is good. If it were necessary to augment river water at the Peace River plant, well water from aquifers in the vicinity would be available. Because this well water is brackish, however, it would be blended with the river water to produce a mixture low enough in chlorides to be potable. Surface water from Myakkahatchee Creek and Snover Waterway could also be transported to the Peace River reservoir, at a rate of 13.5 mgd. Myakkahatchee Creek discharges 20 billion gallons of water into Charlotte Harbor annually. Treating water at the Peace River facility requires about two kilowatts per 1,000 gallons of water. Brackish water is available from well fields in the vicinity of Myakka Estates property, but treating brackish water by reverse osmosis requires about 11 kilowatts per hour. Phase I would, of course, add to future demand for potable water. SEWERAGE By ordinance, North Port requires that new homes be equipped with 3.5- gallon flush toilets instead of the standard 5-gallon models. Since 40 percent of the water used in the average household goes through the toilet, this is an important water conservation measure. GDU plans to provide a sewer system for the whole of Myakka Estates including initially an activated sludge sewer plant with a rated capacity of 250,000 gallons a day to be located on a 40-acre parcel reserved for that purpose. Effluent from the plant would be discharged into a polishing pond then sprayed over soil planted with vegetation to take up nitrogen and phosphorus, through which it would percolate into the groundwater. Once the Myakka Estates plant reached capacity, sewerage would be transported to Gulf Cove in Port Charlotte, six miles from the Phase I property, where an existing plant with a capacity of 333,000 gallons a day now processes 100,000 gallons a day. At the Gulf Cove plant site, GDU has 163 acres available for plant expansion. SOLID WASTE Solid waste from Phase I would be taken to the existing North Port landfill some nine miles distant, as long as that could be used. A second layer of solid waste was being laid down there at the time of the hearing. Monitoring wells had been dug to detect leachates leaving the landfill. A 90-acre site for a new landfill to serve all of North Port has been chosen within the 100-year flood plan of the Myakka River. GDC has agreed to construct the new landfill and lease it to North Port for operation by the city. The use of solid waste for energy production is not feasible, unless quantities on the order of 200 tons a day are available. Part or all of Charlotte County produces about 100 tons a day of solid waste. Per capita, people produce about 5.5 pounds per day of solid waste. LAW ENFORCEMENT Because of the location proposed for Myakka Estates, traffic from Phase I to the already developed center of North port will travel outside the city limits for part of the trip. Travelers from Phase I bound for the commercial district in North Port will pass through unincorporated Sarasota County, except those taking the longer route through Charlotte County. Travel from Phase I to any other municipality in Sarasota County would require passing through unincorporated Sarasota County. At the time of the hearing, the nearest substation of the Sarasota County Sheriff's Office was approximately 30 miles from the Phase I property. At some point, as Myakka Estates becomes populated, depending upon traffic patterns, the Sheriff would create a new Sheriff's patrol zone at a cost of $180,000 (1980 dollars), if present policy on these matters holds. Not all of this amount could fairly be attributed to development of Phase I, although the costs of the proposed development (including Phase I) to the Sarasota County Sheriff's Office would be significantly greater than the costs would be if the same population moved into the area contiguous to the existing center of North Port. North Port plans to furnish primary police protection within its city limits, staffing and equipping the 2,400 square feet municipal services center GDC has agreed to build in the vested portion of Myakka Estates. City prisoners are housed in the county jail, however, and the sheriff's office serves civil process in North Port. In residential land developments in the Charlotte Harbor area, where the roads have typically been laid out rectilinearly, a problem in the interval between road building and construction of housing has been the use of roads as airstrips by smugglers and as drag strips by racing enthusiasts. TRANSPORTATION Within Phase I, streets are to be laid out curvilinearly. Minor collectors are to feed major collectors which are to feed minor arterials which are to feed major arterials, with limited access to larger roads. Three and one-half miles of bicycle paths are planned. No mass transit system is contemplated for Phase I nor would Phase I be able to accommodate a right-of-way for a mass transit facility. There is no mass transit system in Port Charlotte or North Port. The viability of Phase I depends on continued mass ownership and operation of automobiles. U.S. Highway 41, a four-lane divided arterial, runs east and west north of the Myakka Estates property, then through the southwestern corner of the main part of North Port. When I-75 is finished, development may be skewed in its direction, drastically affecting traffic patterns; I-75 is slated to pass north of the property in two or three years. intersecting U.S. Highway 41, running south then southwest to the west of the Myakka Estates property, is South River Road (State Road 777), a two-lane arterial that ends in Englewood and currently handles about 2,000 trips daily. It will require four-laning when the number of daily trips reaches 10,000. South of the property in Charlotte County, another two-lane arterial, State Road 776 runs east-west, dead ending into State Road 771 which crosses the Myakka River at El Jobean and proceeds northeast to Murdock, where it intersects U.S. Highway 41, south of the main area of North Port. GDC has agreed to pave a two-lane road from the vested portion of the Myakka Estates property through Phase I to South River Road (State Road 777). by this route, a trip from the middle of Phase I to the commercial area in North Port would involve a trip of about ten miles. The distance from the middle of Phase I to the nearest post office, which is in Englewood, is approximately 6.5 miles; to Gulf Cove, approximately six miles; to Murdock, approximately 11.5 miles; to a shopping district in Venice, approximately 14.5 miles; and to the nearest hospital, in Venice, approximately 16.5 miles. Sarasota is about 30 miles north and Ft. Myers is some 40 miles distant in the other direction. It is to Sarasota and Ft. Myers that new inhabitants of Myakka Estates would be obliged to travel for concerts, plays, art galleries, and the like. Thee are commercial airports in Ft. Myers and Sarasota. GDC's expert assumed most of the traffic leaving Myakka Estates would travel south to points in Charlotte County because of anticipated development there. Sarasota County's expert assumed most of the traffic leaving Myakka Estates would travel to points in Sarasota County based on ratios of already developed commercial acreage and on an apparently inadvertent chronological mismatching of projected retail and total employment figures: for Venice in Sarasota County year 2000 projections were used while 1990 projections were used for competing areas to the east of Myakka Estates. Development of Phase I would have a substantial and costly impact on public roads in the vicinity. Both new construction and improvement of existing roads would be required, although mainly in rural areas. At least by the time Myakka Estates is fully populated, South River Road, State Road 776, and State Road 771, including the bridge across the Myakka River would have to be four- laned. While the direction of future traffic is disputed, the prospect of thousands of automobiles operating in the area as a result of a fully populated Phase I is very clear. It is impossible to say with certainty which road would have to be widened in which year or what share of the cost should be attributed to Phase I as distinguished from the rest of Myakka Estates and other development in the area, but the eventual impact of Phase I would require expenditures of millions of dollars for public roads. Sarasota County has identified road improvements it needs to make before the year 2000, without taking Myakka Estates into account, and puts their cost at $387,000,000, which is $110,000,000 more than is projected to be available. EMPLOYMENT ACCESSIBILITY Most of the people expected to live in the Phase I development are retired persons who would not be regularly travelling to and from a place of employment. Very few employment opportunities in retail sales and professional offices are forecast for Phase I. The vested portion of Myakka Estates is projected to have significantly more opportunities of this kind. In the beginning, most persons seeking employment would have to travel at least as far as Englewood. At build-out, a later phase of Myakka Estates may afford industrial employment opportunities. SWFRPC REPORT The Master ADA was filed with the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, rather than with SWFRPC, because Sarasota County was part of the Tampa Bay Region at the time. The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council recommended granting the Master ADA on conditions which were subsequently incorporated into the Master Development Order. The Phase I ADA was filed with the SWFRPC. In May of 1975, the SWFRPC issued its report recommending against approval of the Phase I ADA on various grounds, including the physical separation of the proposed development from presently developed areas and necessary services; the existing abundance of vacant platted lots and miles of deserved paved streets in the Charlotte Harbor area; creation of a need for an urban water supply, schools, police, and emergency medical facilities and services far from the areas where the affected local governments have planned to provide such facilities and services; and the adverse fiscal impact of the proposed development on local governments. The report was received in evidence to show what North Port reviewed before entering its development order but it was not offered as proof of the SWFRPC assertions in it.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission enter a development order granting GDC's Phase I ADA on such conditions as the Commission shall deem appropriate, including all the conditions contained in the Development Order entered by North Port and the following additional conditions: That GDC sell no lots in the special flood hazard zones as indicated on HUD's preliminary flood insurance rate maps, GDC Exhibit Nos. 69, 70, 71 and 72. That GDC sell no lots within EWD's jurisdiction until and unless EWD shall agree to such a sale in writing. That GDC unconditionally deed to the Sarasota County School District the elementary school site planned for Phase I together with the 50 lots nearest to the site. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of January, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of June, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Parker D. Thomson, Esquire Kenneth W. Lipman, Esquire and Douglas M. Halsey, Esquire 1300 Southeast First National Bank Building Miami, Florida 33131 C. Laurence Keesey Department of Community Affairs Room 204, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David E. Bruner, Esquire 581 Springline Drive Naples, Florida 33940 Richard E. Nelson, Esquire and Richard L. Smith, Esquire 2070 Ringling Boulevard Sarasota, Florida 33577 Robert A. Dickinson, Esquire 70 South Indiana Avenue Englewood, Florida 33533 John W. Field Englewood Community Organizations 227 Bahia Vista Drive Englewood, Florida 33533 Wayne Allen, Esquire General Development Corporation 1111 South Bayshore Drive Miami, Florida 33131 Mayor Margaret Gentle City of North Port North Port, Florida 33595 Allen J. Levin 209 Conway Boulevard Northeast Port Charlotte, Florida 33952 Office of Planning and Budget Executive Office of the Governor 311 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable Robert Graham Governor, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable Jim Smith Attorney General The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable Ralph Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable William Gunter State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable Gerald Lewis State of Florida Comptroller The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gerald Chambers 6970 Manasota Key Road Englewood, Florida 33533
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether a development order (building permit) issued by Monroe County to John and Alice Scott, Owners, and Hugh E. Rhodus, General Contractor, for the construction of a vertical seawall/dock on Lots 31 and 32, White Marlin Beach subdivision, Matecumbe Key, Monroe County, Florida, is consistent with the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and land development regulations.
Findings Of Fact The Property Respondents John and Alice Scott are the owners of two canal front lots known as Lots 31 and 32, White Marlin Beach subdivision, Matecumbe Key, Monroe County, Florida. Lots 31 and 32 were acquired in 1968 and 1970 and are undeveloped. The subject lots are in incorporated Monroe County, Florida, and are zoned Improved Subdivision (IS). The Scotts reside on a third lot facing the bay that is across the street from the subject lots. Respondents' lots are within the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern. The land where the White Marlin Beach subdivision is located was at one time all mangroves and other trees. The subdivision was created in 1955-56 by means of dredge and fill activities. During the late 1960s and early 1970s, the shorelines of Lots 31 and 32 were even with an existing bulkhead on an adjacent lot. Very small mangroves were beginning to revegetate the shorelines. By 1979-1980, some shoreline erosion had occurred on the lots, estimated at 5-6 feet. At some unknown time thereafter, additional shoreline erosion occurred, estimated at its greatest point to be approximately 10 feet from the original platted fill line. At the time the permit application was considered and at the time of the hearing, the revegetated mangroves had grown into a substantial fringe of high complexity, running the entire 117-foot length of the two lots and varying from 5 to 15 feet in width. Some of the trees are as tall as 12 feet. The area in which the mangroves have revegetated slopes gently toward the canal. It constitutes a shallow water habitat which, in addition to the mangrove vegetation, supports crabs, juvenile fish, algae, and seagrasses. The expert witnesses of both Petitioner and Respondent testified that the mature mangrove fringe on the two lots has stabilized the land area adjacent to the canal. Landward of the mangrove fringe, the lots are comprised of unconsolidated sand used to create the lots. The edges of the fill material form a gentle slope from as low as six inches up to 24 inches at one extreme. Upland erosion is occurring along the edge of the unconsolidated fill, washing down the slope of the fill into the mangroves. Erosion of the edges of upland fill is a common occurrence in the Florida Keys. 10 The unconsolidated fill material where the erosion is occurring constitutes the uplands portion of the lots and is caused by weather events (wind and rain), rather than by tidal or wave action. There is active boating traffic on the subject canal; many large commercial and pleasure boats use the canal. Marine fuel and supplies are sold at Angelo's. There is a commercial fishing "village" located at and around Angelo's. To reach open water, i.e., the Gulf bay, boats must pass lots 31 and 32 after leaving Angelo's. Most of the other lots on the same canal as lots 31 and 32 are primarily protected by seawalls. The Scotts, under the subject seawall permit, are seeking to tie in to the adjoining seawall for consistency in community character and appearance. The adjoining property owners and many of the neighboring property owners want the mangroves removed and a seawall built to protect lots 31 and 32. Permit Application and Issuance On March 11, 1992, the Scotts applied to Monroe County for a permit to construct a seawall on Lots 31 and 32, White Marlin Beach subdivision. The Scotts' seawall permit application was denied by Pat McNeese, the Monroe County Environmental Resources Director, based upon her conclusion that erosion was not occurring on the lots and thus a seawall was not allowed under the Monroe County land development regulations. The Scotts appealed Ms. McNeese's decision to the Monroe County Planning Commission. As part of their evidence, Respondents offered a certified land survey conducted on November 1, 1992, which shows that the approximate shoreline of the property is at its greatest point roughly 10 feet landward of the platted shoreline. After hearing, the Planning Commission upheld Ms. McNeese's decision to deny the permit. The Scotts then appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners. The Board overturned the Planning Commission. The Board found that the Scotts are entitled to a permit to develop a seawall for erosion control under the provisions of Section 9.5-345(m)(2)(b), Monroe County Code. On April 19, 1993, Monroe County issued building permit number 9230005939 which is the subject of this proceeding. The permit was rendered to the Department on April 21, 1994, and was appealed by the Department 45 days thereafter. Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan contains various policies directed toward preservation or conservation of the Keys environment and maintenance of water quality. Section 2.104, Nearshore Waters, Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, Volume II, Future Land Use Element, states, in part, that: 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, improve the quality of nearshore waters in Monroe County. * * * POLICIES 1. To prohibit land uses 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, habitats 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 Ch. 253.39 et seq. the [sic] Florida Statutes. The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, Volume II, Sec. 2-115 entitled "Enforcement" provides: A major component of any future land use element is the need to strictly enforce implementing regulations. If Monroe County is to achieve the promise of this Plan, it is essential that all persons involved in the land development process adhere to the requirement of this Plan and that the integrity of the development review process be protected. The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Element, Volume II, Natural Vegetation Management Policies provides: In recognizing the need to preserve as much natural vegetation as possible, the County will direct its land use and development regulations to minimize destruction of natural vegetation and modification of landscape. Guidelines and performance standards designed to protect natural vegetation from development will be developed and enforced. Clearing of native vegetation for development will be controlled. * * * 3. Regulations controlling development in areas characterized primarily by wetland vegetative species such as mangrove and associated vegetation will emphasize preservation of natural vegetation to the maximum degree possible. * * * 8. The existing County ordinances designed to protect and conserve natural vegetation will be strictly interpreted, rigidly enforced, and/or amended when necessary. * * * Of all the natural landforms and features which must be given due consideration in their protection, protection of the shoreline is of prime concern. . . . Chapter VII, Coastal Zone Protection Element, Marine Resources Management Policies section, Future Land Use Element, Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, Volume II, states that: Recognizing the crucial role that the marine environment plays in the local economy, the protection, conservation, and management of marine resources will be viewed as an issue requiring the County's utmost attention. In an effort to protect and conserve marine resources, emphasis will be placed on protecting the entire marine eco-system. 1.2. To this end, maintenance of water quality; protection of marine flora and fauna, including shoreline vegetation; and preservation of coral reefs will be regarded as being absolutely essential to maintaining the integrity of the marine system. Utilization of marine resources will be judged sound or unsound from the standpoint of whether or not a permitted use insures conservation and long-term maintenance of the resource. * * * Land and water activities which are incompa- tible with the preservation of marine resources because of their potential adverse effects will be prohibited, restricted, or carefully regulated depending upon the nature of the activity and the extent of potential impact. Development of bulkheads (the vertical component of a seawall) is characterized in the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan as "shoreline modification" and is addressed in Volume II as follows: Shoreline Modification Shoreline generally requires some degree of modification before it can be utilized for development of any sort. But such modification, unless carefully planned, can have adverse effects far beyond the area directly altered for development. For this reason, all shoreline modifications are subject to close scrutiny and regulation by local, State and Federal agencies. The following guidelines should be used at the local level to minimize the impact of shoreline modifications of different types. Bulkheads and Bulkhead Lines Bulkhead lines should be set at, or landward of, the mean high water line or the landward boundary of the shoreline protection zone, which- ever is applicable. Where possible, sloping rip-rap structures and coastal vegetation should be used rather than vertical seawalls. The Monroe County land development regulations provide in pertinent part: Sec. 9.5-288. Bulkheads, seawalls, riprap and fences. Bulkheads, seawalls, riprap and fences may be allowed as principal uses where it is demonstrated that their purpose is for erosion protection or upland protection (except for the Big Pine Area of Critical County Concern). Seawalls, in any configuration to include integral steps, ladders, platforms, quays, wharfs, and integral docks landward of seawalls, are permitted, with or without a principal building, in all land use districts for the purpose of erosion control. . . . Riprap placement is permitted without a principal structure for erosion control. * * * Sec. 9.5-335. Purpose of environmental perform- ance standards. It is the purpose of this division to provide for the conservation and protection of the environmental resources of the Florida Keys by ensuring that the functional integrity of natural areas is protected when land is developed. * * * Sec. 9.5-345. Environmental design criteria. (m) Mangroves and Submerged Lands: Except as provided in paragraph (3), only piers, docks, utility pilings and walkways shall be permitted on mangroves and submerged lands; All structures on any submerged lands and mangroves shall be designed, located and constructed such that: All structures shall be constructed on pilings or other supports; Bulkheads and seawalls shall be permitted only to stabilize disturbed shorelines or to replace deteriorated existing bulkheads and seawalls; * * * d. 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; No fill shall be permitted in any natural water body; No fill shall be permitted in any manmade water body unless the applicant demonstrates that the activity will not have a significant adverse impact on natural marine communities. * * * Sec. 9.5-4. Definitions. (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 purpose 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. The land development regulations must be implemented in a manner consistent with the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. Seawall The shoreline is generally the area between mean high water and mean low water. For regulatory purposes, the "shoreline" is considered to be mean high water. While a seawall will protect shoreline property, there are negative impacts associated with development of seawalls which merit consideration. In this case, development of the permitted seawall would involve elimination of the existing mature mangrove fringe, which filters upland runoff, and filling in the shelf, including submerged lands, which provides habitat for juvenile fish, crabs and algae. Water quality in the White Marlin Beach canals will deteriorate as additional seawalls are constructed. Wave force is increased as waves bounce off one seawall and then another, which in turn brings up sediments which may contain pollutants. Increased wave force also draws sediments out from under existing bulkheads, causing or contributing to their deterioration and adding to the suspended sediments in the canal. Riprap and coastal vegetation absorb rather than intensify wave energy. While some amount of shoreline erosion occurred on Lots 31 and 32 during the 1970s and at some time thereafter, the shorelines on Lots 31 and 32 are now stabilized by the existing mangrove fringe. Since the shorelines of Lots 31 and 32 are not presently eroding, that portion of the permit which authorizes the removal of the shoreline vegetation and development of a vertical seawall is not consistent with the Monroe County land development regulations. Rip-Rap Even if shoreline erosion were occurring, a seawall or bulkhead to stabilize the shoreline would still not be authorized under the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and land development regulations. The shoreline on Lots 31 and 32 is gently sloping, with only about 1-1/2 feet of silt over the bedrock within the mangrove fringe. Rip-rap would be feasible on Lots 31 and 32 if shoreline erosion were to be currently taking place. Upland Erosion The Scotts are experiencing some erosion on the edges of the upland fill on Lots 31 and 32, caused by wind, rain, digging crabs, and the spreading roots of mangrove trees. Such erosion on the edges of upland fill is common in the Florida Keys. Construction of a vertical seawall, which is a shoreline stabilization technique, is not appropriate to address an upland erosion problem. Erosion of upland fill material is commonly addressed by use of a retaining wall landward of the shoreline. Development of a retaining wall on Lots 31 and 32 would not necessitate removal of the existing shoreline vegetation and placement of fill on submerged lands as authorized under the subject permit. Fill Behind Seawall The plans approved with the subject permit authorize the placement of fill behind the seawall. A portion of the proposed fill would be placed below mean high water on submerged lands. Section 9.5-345(m)(2)(4), Monroe County Code, prohibits the placement of fill in a manmade water body unless the applicant demonstrates that the activity will not have a significant adverse impact on natural marine communities. The mangrove community and submerged shelf that exist on lots 31 and 32 are natural marine communities. The permanent obliteration of the shoreline vegetation and elimination of the submerged lands that presently exist on Lots 31 and 32 would be a significant adverse impact on natural marine communities. Accordingly, the placement of fill on the submerged lands on Lots 31 and 32 is not authorized under the Monroe County land development regulations. Docks Section 9.5-345(m)(2)(d), Monroe County Code, requires that docking facilities be developed only where a water depth of at least minus four feet mean low water (-4 MLW) exists. The plans approved under the subject permit show a water depth of zero (0) feet MLW at the waterward extent of the proposed seawall/dock. The Scotts' intention is to align the seawall spanning Lots 31 and 32 with a seawall on an adjacent lot. Water depth in that approximate location, which differs from the approved site plan and is therefore not authorized by the permit, is 1.6 feet at low tide. There is not adequate water depth at the waterward side of the proposed seawall/dock, as shown either on the approved plan or as described in testimony, to accommodate a docking facility on Lots 31 and 32. Further, because the dock has a vertical seawall component, it is not designed to be constructed on pilings or other supports, as required by Section 9.5-345(m)(2)(a), Monroe County Code. Accessory Use The Monroe County land development regulations define an accessory use or structure as a use or structure that serves a principal use and is located on the same lot or lots under the same ownership and in the same land use district as the principal use or structure. The regulation specifically prohibits the establishment of an accessory use prior to the principal use to which it is accessory. Accessory uses are generally regulated based upon whether the accessory use is located on the same property as the principal use. Under the County definition of accessory use, when dealing with a single lot, the principal use must be established first. The reference to the plural "lots" accommodates larger projects which typically encompass more than one lot, such as hotels and multifamily projects. It would also encompass an individual's residence where the lots were aggregated for development. The intent of the regulation is not to restrict the accessory uses to any one of those individual lots, but to recognize that the accessory use can also extend and cover all of the lots where the principal use is located. The regulation was adopted to cure an ongoing problem in the Keys of speculative development where shoreline improvements were developed without the establishment of principal uses to increase the value of saleable lots. In this case, the principal use (the Scotts' residence) is not located on either of the two lots for which the permit was issued. To allow development of those properties prior to the establishment of principal uses on them would be inconsistent with the Monroe County land development regulation and the purpose for which it was adopted.
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 denying permission to develop the vertical seawall/dock authorized under Monroe County building permit number 9230005939 and denying all other relief requested by the Respondents. It is further recommended that such final order specify those items set forth in paragraphs 45 and 46, Conclusions of Law, as changes in design and circumstances necessary to enable the Scotts to obtain a permit to stabilize the upland fill on the lots and entitle them to a permit or permits for docking facilities. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of October 1994 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 14th day of October 1994. APPENDIX The following are the specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Findings proposed by the Petitioner: With the one exception mentioned immediately below, all proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner have been accepted, with occasional editorial modifications in the interest of clarity and accuracy. The one exception is paragraph 25, which was rejected as unnecessary repetition or summary of findings already made. Findings proposed by the Respondents: Paragraph 1: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 2: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details in view of the de novo nature of this proceeding. Paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 11: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (There is conflicting evidence on this subject. The testimony of the Petitioner's witnesses is found to be more persuasive than the version put forth by the Respondents' witnesses.) Paragraph 12: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 13 and 14: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 15 and 16: Both of these paragraphs are rejected as too overly broad and imprecise to be meaningful in the context of the issues in this proceeding. More precise and detailed findings have been made regarding the nature of past and current erosion on the subject property. Paragraph 17: Rejected as too narrow a statement to be accurate. As noted in the findings of fact, other factors are contributing to the upland erosion. Paragraph 18: Rejected as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Although there is some testimony along the general lines of what is proposed in this paragraph, that testimony appears to be more nearly hyperbole than hard science. Paragraph 19: Rejected as consisting primarily of argument, rather than proposed findings of fact. Further, the last sentence of this paragraph is a conclusion that is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 20: Rejected as consisting primarily of argument and proposed conclusions of law, rather than proposed findings of fact. Paragraph 21: First two sentences rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details in view of the requirements of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and land development regulations. Last sentence rejected as constituting a conclusion that is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 22: Rejected in part as not fully supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence and in part as irrelevant. (The water being too shallow, it does not particularly matter why it is too shallow.) Paragraph 23: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details in view of the requirements of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and land development regulations. Paragraph 24: Accepted in substance with some editorial language omitted. Paragraphs 25 and 26: Rejected as constituting conclusions that are contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Sherry A. Spiers Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Carol A. Scott, Esquire KUBICKI, DRAPER, GALLAGHER & MCGRANE, P.A. 1200 City National Bank Building 25 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130 James T. Hendrick, Esquire 617 Whitehead Street Key West, Florida 33040 David K. Coburn, Secretary Florida Land & Water Adjudicatory Commission 311 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether to approve Steven A. Walker's application for a coastal construction control line (CCCL) permit authorizing him to conduct certain construction activities at 100 Park Avenue, Anna Maria, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: History of the Proceeding Since 2005, Petitioner has owned property at 104 Park Avenue, Anna Maria, Sarasota County, Florida. The parcel fronts on the Gulf of Mexico and is adjacent to property owned by the Stephen A. Walker Land Trust (Land Trust) located at 100 Park Avenue. The Trustee of the Land Trust is Stephen A. Walker, who is the applicant in this proceeding. On March 5, 2009, Mr. Walker filed an application with the Department for a permit authorizing the construction of "a new single family residence with a pool, driveway and multiple structures" seaward of the CCCL on his parcel. See Joint Exhibit 11. The application was accompanied by a letter from the City Planner, B. Alan Garrett, indicating that the proposed activity "does not contravene the City of Anna Maria local setback and pervious coverage requirements of the zoning code provisions." See Joint Exhibit 3. On June 26, 2009, the Department, through its Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems, issued a Final Order granting the application subject to certain general and special conditions. See Joint Exhibit 47. A Notice to Proceed with the construction was issued the same date. See Joint Exhibit 46. Separate written notice of the Department's proposed action was also served on both Petitioner and his attorney. See Joint Exhibits 49 and 50. On July 22, 2009, Petitioner filed his Petition with the Department contesting the proposed agency action. See Joint Exhibit 51. As grounds, Petitioner contended generally that the environmental permitting requirements under Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B-33.0052 had not been met, and that the proposed activity violated both the City's Plan and the zoning code. Id. Evidence regarding the latter allegations was later excluded as being irrelevant. See Order dated March 12, 2010. At hearing, counsel for Petitioner represented that he was no longer alleging that the application did not qualify for a permit under the environmental permitting requirements of the rule. However, he continued to assert that the proposed construction will violate the City's Plan and zoning code. A suit in circuit court has been filed seeking an adjudication of those claims and apparently is still pending. See Friday v. City of Anna Maria, Case No. 2010-CA2369 (12th Cir., Manatee Cty Fla.). Permitting Criteria The general permitting requirements for issuance of a CCCL permit are found in Rule 62B-33.005. There is no dispute that these criteria have been satisfied. Rule 62B-33.008 contains the permit application requirements and procedures. Paragraph (3)(d) of the rule provides that an application for a CCCL permit shall contain the following information: Written evidence, provided by the local governmental entity having jurisdiction over the activity, that the proposed activity, as submitted to the Bureau, does not contravene local setback requirements or zoning codes. Joint Exhibit 3 is a letter dated February 2009 authored by B. Alan Garrett, City Planner, who states that he had reviewed the application and plans filed with him on February 2, 2009, and that the proposed construction "does not contravene the City of Anna Maria local setback and pervious coverage requirements of the zoning code provisions." This letter satisfies the requirement of the rule.
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 granting the application of Stephen A. Walker, Trustee, for a coastal construction control line permit authorizing certain activities seaward of the CCCL at his property in Anna Maria, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of May, 2010, 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 24th day of May, 2010.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner owns property located at 1315 N. Betty Lanes Lots 8 and 9, Block E, Pine Ridge Subdivision in Clearwater, Florida. This property is zoned "CO" (general commercial) The consumption of alcoholic beverages on, premises is not permitted on premises zoned "CO," and therefore requires conditional use approval. Petitioner applied for conditional use approval on or about February 20, 1986 and on March 18, 1986 the Planning and Zoning Board disapproved Petitioner's application for conditional use. Paula Harvey, Planning Directors recommended approval because her review of the application indicated the location was suitable for a restaurant and lounges and the police department indicated no reason for disapproval. She did condition her recommendation on Petitioner demonstrating that all parking requirements of the Land Development Code would be met. A 6,000 square foot; two-story building is located on the subject property, but Petitioner only intends to use 2500 square feet for a restaurant and lounge. Petitioner currently operates a bar serving beer and wine directly across Overlea Lane on Beverly Lanes about forty feet away from the subject property. He testified he intends to close his present bar if he obtains this conditional use approval and opens his restaurant and lounge on the subject property. At his present locations Petitioner serves beer and wine; but not food. On the subject property, he would not sell alcoholic beverages without food, except to 7 persons waiting to be seated in the restaurant. Other than Paula Harvey's testimony that the subject property does not have sufficient parking spaces for the utilization of the entire 6,000 square foot building as a restaurant and lounges there is no competent, substantial evidence in the record as to the number of parking spaces on the property. It cannot be determined if there would be sufficient parking if Petitioner used only 2,500 square feet for the restaurant and lounges and the remainder of the building for some other commercial purpose. The neighborhood surrounding the subject property includes a church, residential, shopping and commercial areas. In addition to Petitioner's present barb there is also one other bar in the neighborhood. Public testimony evidences neighborhood concern about noise, litter, traffic and fighting associated with Petitioner's present bar and Petitioner offered no testimony as to how he intended to control noise, litters traffic and fighting which can reasonably be expected to occur if he opens a 2500 square foot restaurant and lounge with seating for more than 150 people compared to his current 1,600 square foot beer and wine bar.
The Issue The issue is whether a development order adopted by Respondent City of Marathon by Resolution PC00-09-04 is consistent with the comprehensive plan, land development regulations, and statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent City of Marathon (Marathon) was incorporated on November 30, 1999. It adopted as its land development regulations (LDR) the LDRs of Monroe County in effect at the time of Marathon's incorporation. Marathon is within The Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern. This case involves a development order that Marathon issued to Respondent Banana Bay of Marathon, Inc. (BB). As Planning Commission Resolution 00-09-04, the development order authorizes BB to add 12 motel rooms to an existing motel in return for imposing certain restrictions on the use of wet slips at its adjacent marina that is part of the same motel/marina development. The restrictions require the removal of cable television connections from 12 slips and limitation upon vessels using these 12 slips to those without plumbing facilities. For the remaining wet slips at the marina, the development order requires BB to limit their use to no more than 18 vessels at one time and to provide mandatory sewage pumpout for these vessels. At various points in the record and this recommended order, references to a "transfer" of 12 marina slips for 12 motel rooms refer to the conditions set forth in this paragraph. BB owns 7.39 acres of upland and 2.67 acres of adjacent bay bottom in Marathon at mile marker 49.5 (Subject Property or, as developed, Banana Bay). The Subject Property runs from U.S. Route 1 to the water. The Subject Property contains 60 motel rooms in two buildings, a conference room, a motel office, support buildings, three apartments suitable for employee use, and a marina. The marina includes 40-50 slips, depending upon the size of the moored vessels. The Subject Property is zoned Suburban Commercial (SC) and Mixed Use (MU). About 2.4 acres (104,544 square feet) running about 350 feet from U.S. Route 1 is SC. About 4.99 acres (217,364 square feet) is zoned MU. The additional 2.67 acres of adjacent bay bottom are also zoned MU, although the submerged acreage is unimportant for reasons discussed below. Twenty-five of the motel rooms are in SC, and 35 of the motel rooms are in MU, although the distinction between zoning districts is also unimportant for reasons discussed below. LDR Code Section 9.5-267 authorizes ten "rooms" per ”acre" as "allocated density" for motel uses in SC and MU and 15 "rooms" per "buildable acre" as "maximum net density" for motel uses in SC and MU. (There is no difference between "hotels" and "motels" in this case; all references to "motels" include "hotels.") Three fundamental questions emerge concerning the application of these two density limitations to this case. The first is whether BB must satisfy both the "allocated density" and "maximum net density" limitation. This is not a difficult issue; BB's proposal must satisfy each of these density limitations. The second question is what is included in the areas under each of these density limitations. Notwithstanding the use of "gross acres" in the "allocated density" formula, it is necessary to net out certain areas--just less than is netted out in the "maximum net density" formula. The third question is what constitutes a "room." When applied to marine-based units, the definition of a "room" presents a difficult and important issue. As a whole, the LDRs imply that no marine-based dwelling units should count as "rooms," but one provision specifically requires the inclusion of "live-aboard" units in density calculations. The first question requires little analysis. As noted below in the discussion of the two types of areas, "allocated density" and "maximum net density" provide two separate measures of the intensity of use of land. The allowable density for "maximum net density" is never less than the allowable density for "allocated density" because "maximum net density" is a safeguard to ensure that, after netting out from the parcel those areas reserved for open space, setbacks, and buffers, the intensity of use will not be excessive. Nothing whatsoever in the LDRs suggests that Marathon may issue a development order for a proposal that satisfies the "maximum net density," but not the "allocated density." These two densities limitations operate in tandem, not in the alternative. The calculation of the "allocated density" requires consideration of the second and third questions identified above. The issue of area seems straightforward. LDR Code Section 9.5-4(D-3) defines "density or allocated density" as "the number of dwelling units or rooms allocated per gross acre of land by the plan." LDR Code Section 9.5-4(D-4) defines "maximum net density" as "the maximum density permitted to be developed per unit of land on the net buildable area of a site, as measured in dwelling units or rooms per acre." LDR Code Section 9.5-4(G-4) defines "gross area" as "the total acreage of a site less submerged lands and any dedicated public rights-of-way." LDR Code Section 9.5-4(N-4) defines "net buildable area" as "that portion of a parcel of land which is developable and is not open space required by section 9.5-262 or 9.5-343 or required minimum bufferyard under article VII division 11 or required setbacks under section 9.5-281." The area of land involved in determining "allocated density" is greater than the area of land involved in determining "maximum net density." But the area of land involved in determining "allocated density" is itself a net amount. The LDRs expressly require reducing the gross areas by any submerged land and dedicated public rights-of-way. However, any reasonable application of the LDRs also requires reducing the gross areas used for the motel "allocated density" calculation by the minimum areas required to support other uses on the Subject Property. If the only use of the Subject Property were motel rooms, the "allocated density" limit of ten units per acre (10:1) would allow 73.9 rooms. But the Marathon Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 18, 2000, correctly netted from the Subject Property the land areas required to support the commercial aspects of the hotel and the commercial apartments. These reductions leave a total of 5.86 acres available to support the motel rooms. At a density of 10:1, the Subject Property could therefore support a total of 58 motel rooms. The Planning Commission incorrectly used the 15:1 ratio for "maximum net density" in concluding that the Subject Property could support a total of 67.65 motel rooms. Evidently, the Planning Commission used the "maximum net density" because it was not using "gross area" or "gross acres" (the terms are synonymous under the Code) in calculating the area. The netting reduction necessary to calculate whether BB's proposal satisfies the "maximum net density" limitation would require the calculation of the area of the Subject Property that must be devoted to open space, setbacks, and buffers. The Planning Commission probably undertook this step in calculating the "maximum net density" for the Subject Property, as its figures seem to include unstated deductions for the 20 percent open space plus another factor, probably for setbacks and buffers--all of which are discussed in its report. However, the Planning Commission erroneously neglected to apply the "allocated density" limitation to the "gross acres," exclusive of submerged land, public rights-of-way, and the minimum land required to support the other upland uses. As noted above, doing so would have yielded no more than 58 motel rooms. At present, the Subject Property contains 60 hotel or motel rooms. The Subject Property therefore cannot support the addition of another 12 hotel or motel rooms, given its "allocated density" of only 58 rooms. In general, BB justifies the addition of 12 rooms to the front motel by arguing that it is only transferring these units from the 12 existing wet slips. It is unnecessary to determine whether a transfer under these facts is lawful when, if these 12 slips count as units, the Subject Property is already 14 units over its "allocated density." The resolution of the third question--what constitutes a "room"--dispenses with this argument. Thirty of the existing 40-50 boat slips in the marina have water, electric, and cable hook-ups and are presently used for some form of habitation. Most vessels berth at the marina for two or three days, although the average stay is slightly over one month. The average stay at the 30 slips offering utilities, though, is two to three months. Typically, two persons use a vessel berthed at the marina for more than a couple of days. BB seals the discharge ports of all vessels mooring at the marina for any appreciable period of time. BB provides a sewage pumpout service for these and other vessels. The wastewater from the marina operations goes to a septic tank, in contrast to the wastewater from the motel operations, which goes to an onsite package plant. Persons mooring at the marina for at least two months normally obtain telephone service and may obtain cable television service, in addition to the potable water and electrical services provided by BB. The marina also provides rest rooms, laundry facilities, showers, a bar, limited food service, and a mail box. However, BB rules require that all persons berthing at the marina register a permanent address because the slips are "not considered permanent housing." At the request of the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority and the Monroe County Planning Department, BB has limited rental agreements at the marina to a maximum of one month, although some persons enter into back-to-back rental agreements. Persons staying more than one week often have cars. Contrary to BB's contentions, none of these slips provides additional density for the Subject Property, and therefore the 12 slips are not available for transfer to the motel. For the same reason, as discussed below, the proposed transfer of the 12 units would also violate the Rate of Growth Ordinance (ROGO). In two respects, the record reveals that the conversion of marine-based residential uses to upland residential uses might facilitate the achievement of important land use planning objectives. First, the wastewater collected from the marina is directed to a septic tank, and the wastewater collected from the motel is directed to a package plant. Absent a significantly reduced flow from the marine-based residential use, the upland residential use would therefore impact the adjacent waters to a lesser extent. Second, marine-based residential users may be more reluctant to evacuate for an approaching hurricane than upland residential users. Absent a significantly greater number of visitors during hurricane season if the 12 units were taken from the marina slips and added to the motel, the upland residential use might therefore facilitate timely hurricane evacuation of the vulnerable Keys. However, the record was relatively undeveloped on these two points, and these possible advantages to the conversion of marine-based residential uses to upland-based residential uses do not override the LDRs. The LDRs may treat the more intense residential use associated with "live-aboards" differently than the less intense residential use associated with other moored vessels. Although the LDRs' treatment of "live-aboards" may not be entirely consistent, any inconsistency is irrelevant in this case because the moored vessels at the Banana Bay marina do not qualify as "live-aboards." As stipulated for the purpose of this case, LDR Code Section 9.5-4(T-4) defines a "transient residential unit" as "a dwelling unit used for transient housing such as a hotel or motel room, or space for parking a recreational vehicle or travel trailer." LDR Code Section 9.5-4(D-31) defines a "dwelling unit" as "one (1) or more rooms physically arranged to create a housekeeping establishment for occupancy by one (1) family with separate toilet facilities." LDR Code Sections 9.5-4(D-23) through 9.5-4(D-30) identify the various types of dwellings that may contain "dwelling units.” These dwellings are, respectively, detached zero-lot-line dwellings, multifamily apartment dwellings, attached dwellings, detached individual dwellings, duplex dwellings, commercial apartment dwellings, rooftop dwellings, and townhouse dwellings. The frequent references to "open yards" in these definitions precludes the application of these definitions to moored vessels, even "live- aboards." The exclusion of all moored vessels, including "live-aboards," from density calculations is also suggested by two other portions of the LDRs. As is typical, LDR Code Section 9.5-120.1 provides that the mechanism for enforcing density limitations is in the issuance of building permits, but this enforcement mechanism is of doubtful use in regulating vessel moorings, which do not typically involve the issuance of a building permit. Also, the density definitions discussed above both refer to the development of various types of residential uses on "land." Moreover, none of the zoning districts established in Marathon's LDRs measures the intensity of marina uses, including vessels moored for extended periods as live-aboards, by imposing some sort of marine density limitation, either by including the moored dwelling units or the submerged acreage. Because the LDRs did not intend to include such marine-based uses in density calculations, LDR Code Section 9.5-267, which is a table setting forth "allocated densities" and "maximum net densities," covers only upland-based uses, including recreational vehicle or campground spaces per acre, and does not extent to marine-based uses, such as live-aboard marina slips. However, two provisions in the LDRs require density calculations to include "live-aboards." LDR Code Section 9.5-308, which seems to be an older provision in the LDRs, provides that "each live-aboard shall count as a dwelling unit for the purpose of calculating density limitations in the district in which it is permitted." Better incorporated into the present regulatory scheme of the LDRs, LDR Code Section 9.5-120.1 defines a "residential dwelling unit" as a "dwelling unit," including a "transient rental unit," as defined in LDR Code Section 9.5-4(T-3), and "live-aboard vessels," as defined in LDR Code Section 9.5-4(L-6). However, LDR Code Section 9.5-4((L-6) states that a "live-aboard vessel" is "any vessel used solely as a residence or any vessel represented as a place of business, a professional or other commercial enterprise, or a legal residence." The record does not suggest that any of the moored vessels were used "solely" as a residence, as distinguished, for instance, from a vessel used for residential and recreational purposes, or that any of the mixed-use vessels served as the occupants' legal residence. Absent a finding that the moored vessels constitute "transient residential units," ROGO does not support this proposed transfer of residential uses from marine-based to upland-based. LDR Code Section 9.5-123(f)(3) authorizes the transfer of an existing "residential dwelling unit" from one site to another within the same subarea. However, LDR Code Section 9.5-122 defines a "residential dwelling unit" to extend only to "live-aboards." For the reasons already discussed, the less intense residential uses associated with the vessels moored at Banana Bay's marina preclude their treatment as "residential dwelling units" eligible for transfer to the motel. Petitioner has proved that the development order is materially inconsistent with the LDRs. LDR provisions governing the density and intensity of residential development go to the heart of effective land use planning, especially in an area as sensitive as the Keys. For these reason, it is unnecessary to consider the consistency of the development order with the more general provisions of Marathon's comprehensive plan, on which Marathon's LDRs are based.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission enter a final order denying the request of Banana Bay of Marathon, Inc., to approve the transfer of 12 slips to 12 rooms in a motel on the Subject Property. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of December, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of December, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Barbara L. Leighty, Clerk Growth Management and Strategic Planning The Capitol, Suite 2105 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Charles Canaday, General Counsel Office of the Governor Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1001 Cari L. Roth, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Mitchell A. Bierman Weiss Serota 2665 South Bayshore Drive Suite 420 Miami, Florida 33133 James S. Mattson James S. Mattson, P.A. Post Office Box 586 Key Largo, Florida 33037
