The Issue The issue to be determined is whether the after-the-fact Environmental Resource Permit (“ERP”) and the November 19, 2019, proprietary Letter of Consent for a 2,203 square foot dock should be issued as described and authorized by the December 6, 2019, Consent Order, OGC File No. 19-1272, entered between Respondent Andrew Kent and the Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”), in its own capacity, and in its capacity as staff to the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (“BTIITF”).
Findings Of Fact Based upon the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, the stipulations of the parties, and the evidentiary record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Parties Petitioners own waterfront lots on the western canal in Romeo Point, Fleming Island, Clay County, Florida. Petitioners use the waters of Doctors Lake for recreational purposes, and have navigated to and from Doctors Lake, or reasonably expected as riparian property owners to do so, via the permitted and dredged navigational boat access channel leading from the western canal to the deeper waters of Doctors Lake. Petitioners have challenged the Consent Order that authorizes issuance of the revised general permit for a residential dock that bisects and severs the navigational boat access channel. Thus, Petitioners have standing under section 120.569. Mr. Kent is the owner of Lot 18 of the Romeo Point subdivision. Mr. Kent purchased Lot 18 in 2017, and constructed a home there, 2059 Castle Point Court, Fleming Island, Florida, in which he currently resides. Mr. Kent is a party to the Consent Order, and proposed recipient of the ERP and Letter of Consent at issue in this proceeding. DEP is the administrative agency of the State of Florida having the power and duty to protect Florida's air and water resources and to administer and enforce the provisions of chapters 253, 373 (Part IV), and 403, Florida Statutes, and rules promulgated thereunder in Florida Administrative Code Title 62, regarding activities in surface waters of the state, and in Florida Administrative Code Title 18, governing the use of sovereignty submerged lands. The BTIITF is a collegial body that holds title to sovereignty submerged lands within the State in trust for the use and benefit of the public. Art. X, § 11, Fla. Const.; § 253.001, Fla. Stat. DEP performs staff duties and functions on behalf of the BTIITF related to the review of applications for authorization to use sovereignty submerged lands necessary for an activity regulated under part IV of chapter 373 for which DEP has permitting responsibility. § 253.002(1), Fla. Stat. The SJRWMD “shall perform the staff duties and functions related to the review of any application for authorization to use board of trustees-owned submerged lands necessary for an activity regulated under part IV of chapter 373 for which the water management district has permitting responsibility as set forth in an operating agreement” between DEP and the SJRWMD. Id. Review and approval of general permits and individual ERPs in Clay County generally falls within the jurisdiction of the SJRWMD pursuant to the July 1, 2007, Operating Agreement between SJRWMD and DEP (“Joint Agreement”). DEP and the SJRWMD have been delegated the authority by the BTIITF to take final agency action on applications for authorization to use sovereignty submerged lands, without any action by the BTIITF, with the delegated entity to be established by rule. § 253.002(2), Fla. Stat. Rule 18- 21.0051(2) provides that DEP and the water management districts “are delegated the authority to review and take final agency action on applications to use sovereignty submerged lands when the application involves an activity for which that agency has permitting responsibility, as set forth in the respective operating agreements.” Romeo Point Romeo Point is located on Doctors Lake in Fleming Island, Clay County, Florida. The confluence of Doctors Lake with the St. Johns River is generally considered to be at the U.S. Highway 17 bridge, with Doctors Lake to its west, and the St. Johns River to its east. Doctors Lake is tidally influenced, with the range of tides generally being about one foot from high to low, but as much as 1.25 feet and as little as 0.8 feet depending on the phase of the moon. In addition, there are times when a confluence of a full moon, low tide, and winds to the east can pull water from the lake, which can result in even shallow draft vessels grounding in normally shallow areas unless they have access to a deeper water channel. In 2002, the Romeo Point property was purchased by Romeo Point Joint Venture, LLP for development as a residential subdivision. The Romeo Point subdivision included the western canal on which five waterfront lots were created. Petitioners own waterfront lots on the western canal. As part of the development, two permits were applied for and obtained from the SJRWMD. Mr. Goria, a licensed professional engineer, was part of the development team. SJRWMD Permit No 40-019-86850-1 authorized the stormwater management system for the Romeo Point subdivision. Romeo Point Joint Venture, LLP separately applied for permits from the SJRWMD and the Corps for “a boat access channel and [ ] a bulkhead on the western property line to facilitate access to Doctors Lake.” Its purpose was, specifically, to allow access for the future homeowners along the western canal to Doctors Lake. The boat access channel followed the course of an existing, though somewhat narrower channel used by the previous property owner and others. SJRWMD issued Permit No. 40-019-86850-2 (the “Dash-2 Permit”) for “[d]redging of a boat access channel and construction of a bulkhead along a section of the channel at Romeo Point Subdivision.” The boat access channel extended from the mouth of the western canal northward along the shoreline in front of and past Lots 19 and 18, then turning to the west at Lot 17 to the deeper waters of Doctors Lake. The boat access channel was approximately 35 feet wide with 4:1 side contours, with its centerline about 30 feet off of the bulkhead. The Technical Staff Report for the Dash-2 Permit noted that “[t]he proposed dredging [of the boat access channel] will give water access to 5-lots along the western property line.” The SJRWMD Technical Staff Report for the Dash-2 Permit also established that, upon completion of construction, the “Final O&M [operation and maintenance] Entity” was to be the Romeo Point Homeowner Association. The boat access channel allowed vessels from the western canal to navigate around a cattail dominated shoal. Although the cattails no longer grow in the area, the shallow water shoal remains to varying degrees. Among the conditions made part of the Dash-2 Permit were that the permittee purchase 0.82 mitigation credits from the Sundew Mitigation Bank. The SJRWMD also issued a Consent of Use for state-owned submerged lands to Romeo Point Joint Venture, LLP for “Dredging of Boat Access Channel in Doctors Lake at Romeo Point - Permit # 40-019-86850-2.” The permittee was required to pay $2,978.75 to DEP for severed dredge material, with the SJRWMD permit number provided to DEP on the check and the cover letter. On December 16, 2003, the Corps issued Permit No. 200300284 (IP- RLW) to Floridays Development Group, Inc.,2 to “construct a single-family, residential subdivision and bulkhead, dredge a man-made canal and entrance channel into Doctors Lake, and also construct 7 new single-family docks.” The Corps permit required the purchase of 1.86 mitigation credits. The permit plans clearly depict both the western canal and the boat access channel into Doctors Lake. The Corps permit also permitted shoreline docks at Lots 18 and 19, with the permitted dock at Lot 18 to extend from the bulkhead to the edge of the boat access channel. The shoreline dock was sufficient to provide navigational access from Lot 18 to the deeper waters of Doctors Lake via the boat access channel. The docks along the boat access channel were permitted as part of the Corps permit to ensure those docks would not block access to the channel. Other docks were also permitted by the Corps for the Romeo Point subdivision that extended further into Doctors Lake to provide navigational access for lots that did not have direct access to the boat access channel. 2 Floridays Development Group, Inc., was a company owned by Mr. Goria that owned the membership interest in Romeo Point Joint Venture, LLP. There was no dispute that the Corps permit constituted Federal authorization for the boat access channel. By sometime in 2004, all construction authorized by the permits, including the dredging of the boat access channel, was complete, and Romeo Point Joint Venture, LLP moved to the marketing and sales phase. On October 3, 2005, and as contemplated by the Dash-2 Permit, the SJRWMD permits were transferred from Romeo Point Joint Venture, LLP to Romeo Point Owners Association, Inc., for operation and maintenance. The transfer applied to both the stormwater permit and the boat access channel permit. There is nothing to suggest that the transfer to the owners’ association was improper or insufficient to transfer rights under the Dash-2 Permit. Navigation To and From the Western Canal When Petitioners bought property along the western canal, the boat access channel had been permitted and constructed for the specific purpose of providing those canal-front lots with reliable, deep-water navigable access to Doctors Lake. Persons owning, renting, visiting, or using those lots, or otherwise wanting to access the western canal, were customary users of the boat access channel. Water depths along the shoal that exists waterward of the boat access channel between the mouth of the western canal to the current location of the Lot 18 Dock were measured by DEP to range from 2 feet, 9 inches (33 inches) to 3 feet, 8 inches (44 inches) at a “rising tide towards high tide.” At the normal 12 inch tidal range, depths would be expected to range from 21 inches to 32 inches+/- at low tide. During full moons, the low tides could be as much as 0.25 feet (3 inches) lower over three or four days. Thus, the deepest area along the shoal could, on a monthly basis, be as shallow as 29 inches in depth. In order to address the issue of safe and reliable navigational access, conditions at low tide provide the best assessment of a waterway and the ability of boats to navigate in the area. Photographic evidence of Mr. Sheffler dragging his 20-foot boat through less than knee-deep water across the shoal at its deepest point near the Lot 18 Dock supports a finding that water depths across the shoal are, with regularity, insufficient to support safe navigation. In 2017, Mr. Sheffler purchased an existing home and boat lift on lot 23 along the western canal. The prior owner had previously kept a 24 and one half-foot boat on the boat lift. Mr. Sheffler kept a 21-foot Bayliner on the lift after he bought the house, which had a two foot, 10 inch (i.e., 34-inch) draft. He sold that boat with the thought of buying a larger boat for skiing, wakeboarding, and watersports with his four children. Those plans were shelved pending the resolution of this proceeding. Currently, Mr. Sheffler uses his father’s 19-foot Seafox center console boat with a 24-inch draft, which he used to navigate into Doctors Lake through the boat access channel prior to the time Mr. Kent constructed the Lot 18 Dock. He is able to navigate across the shoal at high tide, but otherwise the shoal presents an obstruction. In 2017, Mr. Davis built a home on lot 22 along the western canal that included a boat lift that could accommodate a 24-foot boat. Mr. Davis already owned a 19-foot Stingray boat with an inboard/outboard motor that he docked at his lot, and used the boat access channel to access Doctors Lake. Mr. Davis testified that, after July 4, 2019, when the Lot 18 Dock was substantially completed, he could not safely navigate around the dock, and that he ran aground on the shoal at low tide. His testimony is credited. Due to the difficulties in maneuvering his 19-foot Stingray across the shoal to the open waters of Doctors Lake, Mr. Davis postponed his planned purchase of a larger boat pending the results of this proceeding. Sadly, Mr. Davis passed during the course of the hearing, before he could buy the boat he wanted. Mr. Hudson is Mr. Davis’s son-in-law. He is an experienced boater, and has boated to the Davis home from Doctors Lake in his 20-foot Regal boat using the boat access channel. His boat is comparatively heavy, with an inboard/outboard motor and a 34-inch draft. Mr. Hudson was unable to easily and safely navigate to the Davis home after the construction of the Lot 18 Dock without grounding on the shoal at low tide. In 2017, Mr. Fuzzell purchased Lot 20 and Lot 21. Lot 20 partially fronts on Doctors Lake. Mr. Fuzzell constructed a house on each lot, each with a boat lift designed to accommodate a boat up to 26 feet in length. Mr. Fuzzell rents the house on lot 21, at which his current tenant keeps a 21-foot boat. Mr. Fuzzell built his house on Lot 20 with the expectation of purchasing a boat of sufficient size to put his family aboard, up to a 26-foot boat. Due to the blockage of the boat access channel by the Lot 18 Dock, the purchase was postponed and altered pending resolution of this proceeding. Mr. Ergle owns Lot 24 along the western canal. He has not developed the lot with a house or a boat dock. He is, nonetheless, a riparian owner. When he bought the lot, a primary reason was his expectation that he would be able to build a boat dock and keep a boat of around 24 feet. Mr. Ergle currently owns a small Boston Whaler, which he has used to visit his property. While the boat only has a 10-inch draft, Mr. Ergle has touched bottom along the shoal between the mouth of the western canal and the current Lot 18 Dock. Lt. Commander Van Hook testified to his familiarity with the area, and stated that “[i]f you were to come straight out from the channel, there's a shoal, shallow water out there, which I know about because I've gone through there. I wouldn't dare go that close to the shoreline because of how shallow it gets over that way.” Mr. Tomasi, a Coast Guard Chief Warrant Officer (Ret.) visited the area in April 2019. He went through the area in Mr. Davis’s 19-foot Stingray, and testified that they “bumped bottom” with the boat’s hull at various places, including along the “deeper” areas along the shoal. The motor was tilted up as far as possible during the trip so as to avoid having silt sucked into the water intake which could damage the motor. Mr. Tomasi noted that, like bottom contours of any water body, “it's not a complete flat, glass bottom. I mean, you're going to have contours in the sea bed and there's going to be areas that get down. You're going to have some highs and some low areas out there.”3 He stated that, during the visit, “I never found a clear path to where I could come out going somewhere along that boat access channel and then be able to cut straight out without at some point bumping bottom.” It was Mr. Tomasi’s opinion that “[i]t's not a reasonable expectation that somebody should have to attempt to hazard their boat to get in and out of their dock or their canal.” His opinion is credited and accepted. The undersigned is not unmindful of the testimony of Captain Suber, who is every bit as worthy of respect as Lt. Commander Van Hook and Mr. Tomasi. Captain Suber visited the site at roughly low tide “a week or two” prior to the hearing in a “bay boat.” He testified that there were areas along the shoal that were not passable, but through trial and error, he was able to find a way out -- or rather a way in, since he was “out in the lake and looking in” -- without grounding. However his opinion regarding navigability was quite conditioned, providing that: Well, from -- from what I see, the waterway is -- you know, it is what it is.· It's shallow and you have to be cautious, but you can get in and out of that -- that canal at low tide. This is one of those areas where local knowledge is a -- is a must. Someone that don't know anything about the waterway right in this area, they probably would stay away from this. But if you live on this area of the waterway and you know the bottom out there, you should be able to get all of these vessels that have been in question in and out of there at any time by using caution If it's -- if it's an outboard, simpler, yes, all of them, any one that I would think would be able to get in and out of there. An inboard/outboard would be possible and probable. Inboards, those drafts on those are -- and they're so sensitive, you 3 Mr. Tomasi’s testimony supports a finding that, although DEP measured a maximum of 3.8 feet along the shoal at high tide, that does not establish 3.8 feet as a uniform depth around that point. Natural undulations could cause that depth to be more or less, which would explain the “bumping.” know, if I owned one, I probably would stay out of these swallower areas with one. Most people that have full inboards, they don't even want to try to get into places like that. Captain Suber’s testimony was worthy of belief. However, to the extent his opinion was that the Lot 18 Dock did not create an impediment to navigation, it was simply outweighed by other more persuasive evidence in the record. Purchase of Lot 18 Mr. Kent became aware that Lot 18 was on the market at some point in 2015, and engaged in a series of negotiations with the owners to purchase the lake-front property. After a period of unsuccessful efforts to purchase Lot 18, Mr. Kent “caught [the owner] at the right time,” and acquired the property in 2016. At the time of the purchase, Mr. Kent knew of lots on the western canal, but was not interested in them because “I didn’t want to be limited to the size of boat that I … used,” and “I wanted a long dock to put a -- I wanted a couple of boat lifts just like I do, just like the neighbors.” The line at which four-foot of depth in the boat access channel existed, and the point to which Mr. Kent would have to “wharf out” from Lot 18 to achieve four feet of navigable depth, was roughly 12 to 15 feet from the Lot 18 bulkhead. Around the last week of September or the first week of October 2017, prior to his construction -- or planning -- of the Lot 18 Dock, Mr. Kent, while on a walk around the neighborhood where he then lived, ran across his neighbors, Mr. Goria and Lt. Commander Van Hook. Mr. Kent knew that Mr. Goria had been involved in the development of Romeo Point, and took the opportunity to inquire about the area, and discussed his desire to build a long dock, similar to his neighbor’s dock to the north, extending from the shoreline of Lot 18 to the open waters of Doctors Lake. Mr. Goria advised Mr. Kent of the existence of the permitted boat access channel that provided navigational access to residents of the western canal to Doctors Lake, a statement heard by Lt. Commander Van Hook. The conversation was memorable because Mr. Goria stated his belief that Mr. Kent was fortunate that his boat lift was going to be right on his bulkhead, which would save him considerable money on having to build a dock. When Mr. Kent expressed surprise, Mr. Goria explained that “we dredged a channel for the canal lot owners that goes and meanders right along your bulkhead and then goes out between you and [lot] 17.” Mr. Kent stated that he wanted a big dock,4 to which Mr. Goria stated that he would be blocking the channel near his bulkhead used by the canal front owners. Mr. Goria testified that Mr. Kent then stated that “well, that's their problem. They can't stop me.” Lt. Commander Van Hook testified, credibly and without reservation, that Mr. Goria “made it 100 percent clear on a two-way dialogue that without a doubt, there's a boat access channel that runs along the bulkhead that provides access from the folks that live back on the canal, the petitioners. … access to the deeper waters out in Doctors Lake.” He testified to his recollection of the conversation that “I know [Mr. Goria] said [the channel] ran parallel to the bulkhead that gets out there so parallel to the Romeo Point bulkhead. So if that puts it up against your lot, depending on how far it goes out there, I just know that it ran parallel. I don't know how far off.” He then stated that Mr. Kent’s “only response pretty much was he's going to apply either way. His plans were to build an extended dock.” When asked if it was reasonable for one to conclude that Mr. Kent knew of the existence of the 4 Mr. Kent’s desire to have a big dock on Lot 18 was not new. As he testified at hearing, “I mean, hey, it's everybody's dream to live on the water. But for this particular area, I mean, come on. … Who wouldn't walk up to [Lot 18] and want a boat dock. I wanted a boat dock before I bought it.” boat access channel as a result of the conversation, Lt. Commander Van Hook replied, “Yes, sir, without a doubt.” Mr. Kent disputed his response, or even understanding, of the information provided by Mr. Goria, testifying unconvincingly that he thought Mr. Goria was talking about the western canal. Nonetheless, Mr. Goria provided clear and accurate information that a SJRWMD permitted boat access channel crossed the front of Lot 18 and provided residents in the area the 24-hour right to deeper water without restricting them to the tides, and that Mr. Kent was likely to have difficulty obtaining regulatory approval for his dock. While it is impossible to know what might have been going through his mind, the most reasonable inference that can be drawn is that Mr. Kent knew of the existence of the boat access channel, and knew that the Lot 18 Dock as he wanted it would sever navigational access for residents along the western canal.5 The First General Permit Mr. Kent purchased Lot 18, and proceeded to make application to DEP for the first general permit. Since the Romeo Point subdivision was subject to two SJRWMD permits, the Operating Agreement between SJRWMD and DEP, dated July 1, 2007 (“Joint Agreement”), called for further permits affecting the area to be processed by SJRWMD. That did not occur. Mr. Kent hired C&H Marine, which prepared the application for the permit, submitted it to DEP, and ultimately constructed the Lot 18 Dock. The first general permit application called for the construction of “a single-family dock less than 2,000 sq. feet with one slip.” The application 5 Mr. Goria’s and Lt. Commander Van Hook’s testimony as to Mr. Kent’s statements, offered by Petitioners, constitute admissions of a party opponent, and are, therefore, not hearsay. § 90.803(18). Fla. Stat. Neither Mr. Goria nor Lt. Commander Van Hook has any direct interest in the outcome of this proceeding, and both were credible and persuasive. Their testimony is accepted, and supports the inference of Mr. Kent’s knowledge of the boat access channel and its effect on Petitioners prior to the permitting of the Lot 18 Dock. drawings showed that Lot 18 had 105 feet of frontage on Doctors Lake, and depicted a five-foot wide dock that extended 150 feet into Doctors Lake, with a 20-foot x 10-foot terminal platform and a boat lift totaling 865 square feet for a total structure of 1,665 square feet.6 The dock was depicted as being five feet above the mean high water (“MHW”) elevation. A 25-foot riparian setback was shown between the Lot 18 Dock and the adjacent property to the north. The boat access channel was at least six feet deep at its center, roughly 35 feet wide, and four feet deep only 12 to 15 feet from the bulkhead. Even a minimally competent investigation would have revealed the channel. However, the application identified underwater bottom contours and depths that gradually and evenly sloped from shallow at the bulkhead to four feet deep at the terminus of the Lot 18 Dock. As noted by Ms. Mann, “[i]t showed a smooth -- relatively smooth seafloor bed.” The length of the dock on the permit application drawings was not to scale, with the application drawing being shortened through the use of “continuation marks.” Those continuation marks subsumed the section of lake bottom through which the boat access channel ran. Thus, the channel was not depicted in the application. Regardless of intent or reason, by its use of continuation marks in the application drawings, the contractor quite effectively managed to conceal the channel from DEP.7 Since the application was being filed on his behalf, it was Mr. Kent’s obligation to ensure its accuracy. Mr. Kent, despite having been told of the permitted channel and of the existence of regulatory permits 6 There was no definitive measure of the width of Lot 18. Though the application indicated it was 105 feet, Mr. Kent testified that “I’ve seen 101. I’ve seen 106. I’ve seen 104. So I guess it depends where you measure. I have no idea.” DEP later measured the width as 101 feet. 7 Since Mr. Goria advised Mr. Kent that the boat access channel was going to make it difficult to obtain regulatory approval for his dock, the omission of what should have been a patently obvious subsurface feature existing no more than 15 feet off of the bulkhead, and the replacement of that section of lake bottom with continuation marks, seems more than coincidental. authorizing its construction, failed in that obligation, resulting in an application that was, at best, misleading. Furthermore, even accepting that neither Mr. Kent nor the contractor knew of the channel before construction commenced, which is a stretch, its existence absolutely had to have become apparent early on in construction. Mr. Kent or C&H Marine had an obligation at that time to disclose to DEP that the application was false and inaccurate. Neither did so. Upon receipt of the first general permit application, Ms. Mann reviewed the SJRWMD GIS system to determine if there were permits within a one-quarter mile radius of Lot 18. The depiction of that radius on a map appears to encompass most, if not all of the Romeo Point subdivision. The SJRWMD GIS system did not show any permits within the one-quarter mile radius except for a dock permit related to a lot to the north of Lot 18. Ms. Mann did not check the linked permit associated with that lot. Had she done so, she would have discovered the Corps authorization for the boat access channel. DEP’s ERP Checklist incorrectly indicated that the Lot 18 Dock application “was not in a WMD permitted area.” If DEP had correctly noted that the SJRWMD had issued permits for the Romeo Point subdivision, DEP would have had to coordinate the Lot 18 Dock application with the SJRWMD. DEP issued the first general permit on June 17, 2019, to “construct a 1,615 sq ft private residential single family dock consisting of an access pier and a covered boat slip and terminal platform, within Doctors Lake, a Class III Florida waterbody,” which included the Letter of Consent, as well as a State Programmatic General Permit V-R1 on behalf of the Corps. Notice of the first general permit was not provided to Petitioners either by actual notice or by publication. Petitioners’ Notice of the Lot 18 Dock After the first general permit was issued, Petitioners’ became aware of the proposed Lot 18 Dock when, during a homeowners’ association meeting that took place prior to the commencement of construction, Mr. Kent advised Mr. Davis that construction of the Lot 18 Dock was scheduled to begin the following week. That disclosure triggered a second meeting at Mr. Davis’s house that included the president of the homeowners’ association, Mr. Davis, Mr. Sheffler, Mr. Kent, and several other homeowners to discuss the fact that the Lot 18 Dock would block the boat access channel. Mr. Kent’s solution was not to delay the construction of the Lot 18 Dock to come to a solution, but rather, “if you guys ever[ ] get stuck and cannot navigate, I’ll participate in dredging your canal.” Petitioners made their concerns known to Mr. Kent well before the first piling was set for the Lot 18 Dock. Nonetheless, knowing then with certainty that a boat access channel existed along the shoreline in front of Lot 18, knowing that the application was misleading by omission, and knowing of his neighbors’ objections, Mr. Kent made no effort to disclose that information to DEP, and proceeded with construction. Petitioners advised DEP of their concerns on or about June 28, 2019, which included a description of the boat access channel,8 Petitioners expressed their objection to the Lot 18 Dock on the ground that it cut off their access to the permitted boat access channel. DEP took no action, despite then having knowledge that the application was false. Case No. 19-4192 On July 17, 2019, Petitioners filed a petition for hearing to challenge the issuance of the first general permit for the Lot 18 Dock. The petition alleged that DEP provided them with an extension of time to file the petition 8 The exact date on which construction commenced was not disclosed. However, on July 4, 2019, the boat access channel was still passable, with only string marking its path. Thus, by June 28, 2019, DEP had information showing the falsity of the application that should have triggered some inquiry before the boat access channel was severed. on June 28, 2019, which is corroborative of testimony that Petitioners advised DEP of the boat access channel on that date. Three weeks later, on August 7, 2019, the petition was referred to DOAH and assigned as Case No. 19-4192. The petition alleged, inter alia, that the Lot 18 Dock crossed the existing navigational channel that Petitioners used to navigate motorized watercraft to the open waters of Doctor's Lake and the St. John's River, and created unnecessary restrictions on Petitioners’ access to those navigable waters. Case No. 19-4192 was set for hearing to commence on October 17, 2019. On September 27, 2019, DEP filed a Notice of Intent to Change Agency Action and Motion to Put Case Into Abeyance, in which DEP stated that it had taken enforcement action on the Lot 18 Dock as built. The Notice stated that DEP intended to require that Mr. Kent apply for another permit, which Petitioners would be able to contest. On December 18, 2019, the presiding ALJ relinquished jurisdiction over Case No. 19-4192 to DEP. The Lot 18 Dock As-built The Lot 18 Dock, as constructed, deviated materially from the dock as permitted. As important as the fact that the Lot 18 Dock was not compliant with the permit is that, as pilings were being set during the period of construction, it could not have been overlooked9 that the proposed dock was bisecting the deeper water boat access channel. However, no one advised DEP of the existence of the channel, an omission that, given the facts and the record of this proceeding, could only have been intentional, and could only have been to conceal the existence of the deeper water channel from DEP and other regulatory entities while construction of the Lot 18 Dock was completed. 9 It is impossible to conclude that a marine contractor, regardless of their degree of competence, could fail to notice that they were setting pilings in six feet of water rather than two feet of water. The Lot 18 Dock was constructed to a length of 193 feet, exceeding the 160-foot length (which includes the ten feet of terminal platform) depicted in the permit application drawings. Going out that extra length also, as described by Mr. Kent, “gave me like 4 or 5 inches more of depth.” Therefore, instead of the dock ending at the permitted four-foot (48 inches) depth, he now had up to 53 inches of depth, all the better for a bigger boat. Mr. Kent testified that he directed the contractor to build out to that length, because it would be cheaper to have it done while the equipment was on-site, rather than waiting to have the extra length permitted. The as-built lift was 36 feet in length, rather than the permitted 34 feet, and will hold a boat of 32 feet.10 The walkway of the dock was measured by DEP to be two feet, seven inches above MHW rather than the required five feet as permitted. The as-built structure also included four unpermitted pilings and a second boat lift. Mr. Kent believed that the pilings would be “permittable,” so went ahead and authorized the contractor to install them without waiting for a permit. The second lift will “probably hold a 26-footer.” C&H Marine installed cleats on several pilings for the terminal platform/boat lift that were suitable to allow an additional vessel to tie-up to the dock. Those cleats were -- purportedly -- installed without Mr. Kent’s knowledge, and have been removed. Mr. Kent was on vacation for some of the construction of the Lot 18 Dock.11 Upon his return, the dock was completed despite Petitioners’ objections, and despite a DEP request that he stop work. 10 The size of the boat could likely be greater, since the covered slip/lift was built two feet longer than permitted. 11 Mr. Kent testified to a general lack of knowledge of the course of the construction due to his vacation. However, he knew of the extra pilings, and approved their installation because he thought they would be “permittable.” He testified that during his vacation, he contacted Michelle Neely at DEP to inquire about a “residential bridge,” a discussion memorialized by Ms. Neely on July 24, 2019, in correspondence to Mr. Sheffler, though there was no direct evidence that he advised her of the boat access channel. He was on the site (“I walked out there. And at some point -- I can't give you a date as to when. It was before the big piece was built. That's for sure.”) and authorized C&H Marine to extend the Lot 18 Dock from 160 feet to its as-built 193 feet, stating that “[w]hen I asked him to extend it, I knew that wasn’t permitted yet, but it was permittable.” These issues do not directly apply to the issue of The August Compliance Inspections Reacting to information from Petitioners, DEP conducted site inspections of the Lot 18 Dock on August 21, 2019, and August 27, 2019. The as-built conditions described above were noted by DEP at those times, as was the fact that the dock “appears to be approximately 19 ft from the northern neighbor’s apparent riparian rights lines.” The ERP Inspection Report noted “Significant Non-Compliance” with the Lot 18 Dock. The report identified the SJRWMD permit “to allow for boat access,” but claimed “[d]uring the review process, inquiry on the SJRWMD ERP GIS page did not reveal the existing [sic] of a SJRWMD permit.” The ERP Inspection Report recognized that the western canal homeowners “claim[ed] the dock impedes their ability to use the channel along the shoreline, that was part of the SJRWMD permit #40-019-86850-2, and access Dr’s Lake.” The DEP staff recommendation was to allow Mr. Kent to keep the Lot 18 Dock as constructed, with a monetary fine and a minor corrective measure. The ERP Inspection Report noted that if Mr. Kent wanted three boat slips on the Lot 18 Dock, he would need to apply for a single family lease. The ERP Inspection Report made no further mention of the boat access channel or the SJRWMD permit, and gave no recognition or accommodation for the seemingly legitimate concerns of the western canal homeowners. Based on its observations, DEP issued Warning Letter No. WL19-213 to Mr. Kent noting that the dock “was constructed in a manner not consistent with your permit application and its supporting documentations.” As was the case with the ERP Inspection Report, the Warning Notice made no mention of the boat access channel, the SJRWMD permit, or Petitioners’ navigational concerns. whether the Lot 18 Dock impedes navigability, which it would have done whether it was 93 or 193 feet in length, and whether it has one or three slips. However, these issues demonstrate a general conscious disregard for the permitting authority of DEP, and affect the weight to be given Mr. Kent’s testimony. The October Compliance Inspection On October 15, 2019, following a complaint of a further unpermitted addition, DEP conducted a third compliance inspection. Previously, according to Mr. Durden, DEP “negotiated” with Mr. Kent, advising him that if he removed the unauthorized cleats that had been installed on the Lot 18 Dock, DEP “could issue the permit, because then he would have only two boat slips.” The October inspection revealed that, after DEP issued the Warning Notice, and despite his having been advised of the two-slip limitation, Mr. Kent installed an unpermitted floating personal water craft (PWC) dock midway along the span of the dock that was suitable for landing a jet-ski. Mr. Durden testified that “[h]e removed the cleats [which had been installed to create a third slip on the unpermitted second boat lift pilings]. And then a period of time passed and then he decided to install the ski lift.” Counting the unauthorized PWC lift, the Lot 18 Dock had -- and currently has -- three boat slips under DEP’s jurisdiction. The installation of the unauthorized floating dock while permitting and enforcement were ongoing suggests an ongoing and blatant disregard for DEP’s permitting and enforcement authority. The Consent Order On December 19, 2019, DEP and the BTIITF entered into a Consent Order, OGC File No. 19-1272, with Mr. Kent to resolve all issues, including the unpermitted third PWC dock. Mr. Kent was charged a fine of $2,750.0012 to resolve the issues of non- compliance. Despite by then having information that established, as a matter 12 Mr. Kent was allowed to keep the Lot 18 Dock’s unauthorized “extra 30 feet [and corresponding] 4 or 5 more inches of depth,” the unpermitted second boat lift, and the floating PWC dock that was constructed after enforcement proceedings had commenced, without any corrective measures whatsoever, all for the modest “fine” of a $2,750, of which $250 was the “permit fee.” By the time the Consent Order was executed, DEP knew the Lot 18 Dock was severing a permitted navigational channel, and should have known, through months of involvement with Petitioners, including DOAH Case No. 19-4192 that the of law, that the Lot 18 Dock had three slips and did not qualify for a general permit, DEP nonetheless issued the revised general permit, including the Letter of Consent and water quality certification under the Clean Water Act. Mr. Kent was not required to obtain an individual ERP or a single family lease. At the final hearing, DEP admitted that an individual ERP is required and, in the course of this de novo proceeding, asks that the Lot 18 Dock be measured against those standards. DEP made no mention in the Consent Order of the boat access channel. The Consent Order did not note that severing the channel forces Petitioners to have to navigate through shallow and unsafe waters to get to Doctors Lake from their homes, on which they may -- and have -- run aground. The Consent Order did not acknowledge the existence of the SJRWMD Dash-2 Permit or the Corps permit. DEP had knowledge of all of those things both as a result of its involvement in DOAH Case No. 19-4192 and as evidenced by its August 21, 2019, ERP Inspection Report. The Boat Access Channel as a Navigational Channel The boat access channel was permitted as a navigational channel by the SJRWMD and the Corps, and permission to use state owned lands for that purpose was granted by the BTIITF. When the boat access channel was dredged, its entrance to and from Doctors Lake was marked with two PVC pipes, which remain in their original positions. It is not uncommon for people to mark channels with PVC pipe. While the pipes are by no means “regulation” Coast Guard approved channel channel was customarily used, marked, and provided Petitioners with their only means of reliably safe navigation between the western canal and Doctors Lake. Rather than acknowledging its mistake in permitting an illegal dock, regardless of the circumstances, DEP reacted with casual diffidence, questioning the validity of the SJRWMD’s Dash-2 Permit, overlooking the Corps permit, ignoring that the dock encroached into, and severed, a permitted, marked, and customarily used navigation channel, and generally minimizing Petitioners’ legitimate rights of navigation. Perhaps, as surmised by Mr. Sheffler, DEP was “trying to figure out ways to, you know, kind of save face.” However, the rationale and merits markers, and are not particularly distinctive, they are private markers that are known by and provide navigational and boating information to lot owners and other customary users in the area for whom the boat access channel was designed, permitted, and constructed, and who are customary users of the boat access channel. Ms. Mann testified that “[i]t was [DEP’s] position that this was not marked not in a way that we would determine it to be in a navigable channel. PVC poles in the water don't really mean anything.” However, DEP has no rule defining what constitutes a marker sufficient to establish a “marked channel,” or that would establish a limitation that is inconsistent with the plain meaning of the term. A preponderance of the evidence in this case demonstrates that the PVC pipes were, prior to its severance by the Lot 18 Dock, channel markers known to persons in and using the area as establishing the entrances to the boat access channel. Ms. Mann continued in her testimony, stating that “we saw plenty of people who went without needing to use the navigation channel, so we determined it was a customarily used navigation channel, that it was not needed.” At the time Ms. Mann visited the site, boaters could not use the navigational channel, since it was blocked. Boaters would not be relying on the markers since they marked the mouth of the channel on the other side of the Lot 18 Dock. Furthermore, Ms. Mann was on-site at close to high tide. That persons may, by necessity, be forced to navigate through unsafe waters or not navigate at all is no evidence that the navigation channel “was not needed.” The evidence in this case establishes by a preponderance of competent substantial evidence that the boat access channel was, before the construction of the Lot 18 Dock, both marked and customarily used. It provided safe and reliable navigable access to the western canal for residents -- or lack thereof -- of DEP’s actions are beyond the scope of this proceeding, which is not an enforcement case. and their families and guests. Though sparsely used by the general public for fishing or boating, there is nothing to restrict such use. The boat access channel is, by all factual measures, a “navigational channel” as described by DEP rule. Effects on Navigation When Mr. Kent purchased Lot 18, he had every bit as much access to the open waters of Doctors Lake as did Petitioners. He could have, as contemplated and approved by the Corps permit, constructed a parallel dock along the Lot 18 shoreline and freely accessed the navigable waters of Doctors Lake via the boat access channel in any vessel capable of operating in six feet of water. A preponderance of the competent, substantial evidence in the record establishes that the depths along the shoal are not sufficient during all normal periods to safely navigate without a reasonable likelihood of grounding. That evidence is persuasive and accepted. Mr. Durden credibly testified that a person is “allowed to wharf out until you reach a depth of at least four -- well, 5 feet, which [DEP] would consider a safe depth to be able to have a boat.” Furthermore when asked whether it is “the department's policy for issuance of consent to use sovereign land, that you're entitled to get to 4 feet for your dock,” Ms. Mann responded that “I believe that is actually part of our regulatory 62-330.” Mr. Durden testified, and the evidence supports, that the boat access channel varied from between six feet to seven feet, 11 inches in depth when he conducted his on-site measurements at a “rising to high tide.” Thus, even at the lowest lunar tides, the boat access channel provided safe navigational depths to the owners of the western canal lots, and to Lot 18, of greater than four and a half feet. Ms. Mann candidly admitted that before the Lot 18 Dock was constructed, Mr. Kent had more than four feet of access for a dock and boat at his bulkhead. Mr. Kent admitted that Petitioners “don’t have the same water access -- deep water access to Doctors Lake that they had before [he] built [his] dock,” and that “their canal is 4½ feet deep. The channel goes to 6 foot deep, and now that 6-foot depth isn’t there all the way.” In fact, the only means of accessing Doctors Lake in the absence of the boat access channel does not even approach 4 and one half feet in depth, being in most places less than half that at low tide. Ms. Mann’s testimony that “[w]e determined that vessels had plenty of space to maneuver around Mr. Kent's dock” was simply and substantially outweighed by countervailing competent, substantial, and credible evidence. The impairment to navigation in this case could not be clearer. Mr. Kent had no interest in purchasing a canal-front lot because he “didn’t want to be limited” in the boat he could use -- with the Lot 18 Dock being able to accommodate two boats and additional PWC, with one lift suitable for a boat of a minimum of 32 feet, and the other which would “probably hold a 26-footer.” However, neither DEP nor Mr. Kent seemingly have any issue with the fact that Petitioners were previously not limited in owning any vessel that their slips could accommodate (generally up to 24 to 26 feet), and now they are limited to smaller, shallow draft boats that, even then, occasionally ground on the shoal. DEP and Mr. Kent both minimized the effect of the reduced depth for Petitioners to navigate, seemingly arguing that a depth of 29 to 32 inches -- the deepest point along the shoal at or near low tide13 -- is just as good as the four-foot depth acknowledged as being “a safe depth to be able to have a boat” 13 The maximum depth measured by DEP along the shoal was three feet, eight inches at a rising to high tide. Subtracting the normal 12 inch tidal range results in a depth of two feet, eight inches+/- (32 inches) at low tide. Every month for several days during the full moon, tides may vary by up to an additional 0.25 feet (3 inches) on both cycles. Thus, depths at the deepest point along the shoal are regularly reduced to 29 inches+/-. Furthermore, Mr. Sheffler measured depths in the vicinity of the Lot 18 Dock that were closer to two feet (24 inches). Given natural variations that occur on the bottom of natural bodies of water, both sets of measurements are credible. and safe for navigation by Mr. Durden and Ms. Mann, is just as good as the 53 inches of depth gained by Mr. Kent from his unpermitted dock extension, and is just as good as the six-foot depth of the boat access channel. The shallower, unsafe depths across the shoal are not just as good. Even Mr. Kent admitted that inches have navigable value, testifying with regard to the settlement of his illegal dock extension: I paid that fine. But I did that because it gave me like 4 or 5 inches more of depth. I wouldn't have wasted my money to extend my dock if I didn't get that. ... I'm just saying that I paid the fine and did the extra 30 feet because it got me 4 or 5 more inches of depth. The natural variation of bottom depths, as described by Mr. Tomasi, reveals the fallacy of basing determinations of navigability on small changes in depth measured by inches that can be counted on one hand, and the folly of trading clearance in feet for clearance in inches. Respondents argue that Petitioners should just be satisfied with smaller boats, or plan their outings to correspond to the tides,14 or trim their motors up to the point they may lose control,15 or carefully thread their way through slightly and almost imperceptively deeper areas on the shoal, all while avoiding collision with the Lot 18 Dock16 -- none of which would guarantee that they would not ground their vessels. Meanwhile, DEP proposes to allow Mr. Kent, who already had deep water access to Doctors 14 Mr. Tomasi testified that due to the likelihood of hitting bottom while crossing the shoal at low tide, Petitioners would have to pick the times for boating based on the tides, both coming and going. If they went out at a falling tide, they would have to wait until the tide started coming in to get back. Mr. Tomasi credibly and correctly opined that safe navigation “shouldn't be restricted to tides nor should you be restricted to a moon cycle.” 15 Mr. Hudson is an experienced boater, and credibly explained that to “trim up” a motor on a boat causes navigation to become more “challenging,” and that “with the propeller pushing water behind you, you lose a certain percentage of control or navigation.” Mr. Tomasi echoed that observation. Their testimony is credited. Lake via the boat access channel, to maximize his ability to have more and bigger boats, to the detriment of Petitioners and anyone else desiring to safely access the western canal. Petitioners have not sought permission to recreate in unusually large vessels or vessels not suitable for the area. They are simply asking to be able to safely navigate to and from their homes in boats six to eight feet smaller than Mr. Kent’s 32-footer, i.e. generally the size of his spare. This case is not one in which Petitioners are requesting that Mr. Kent relinquish his riparian right of navigation so that they can have larger vessels, or vessels inconsistent with normal family recreation. Rather, it is Mr. Kent’s desire to have larger and more vessels that has created this dispute. The evidence is clear that Mr. Kent had -- and has -- an unrestricted ability to navigate to and from Lot 18 via the boat access channel. Thus, although the Lot 18 Dock is a clear impairment of Petitioner’s rights to navigation, the denial of the permit and Letter of Consent would create no impairment of Mr. Kent’s right to navigation, and in no way would constitute an unreasonable infringement on Mr. Kent’s riparian rights. As a result of the construction of the Lot 18 Dock, the boat access channel, a marked, customarily used, and validly permitted and constructed navigation channel, for which mitigation credits were purchased and severance fees were paid to the state, has been entirely severed with seemingly no concern for the adverse effects on navigation suffered by the persons for whom the ability to safely navigate was intended. The position espoused by Respondents in this case simply creates a substantial and entirely unnecessary impediment to navigation, violating both the plain- language of, and the public policy behind DEP’s ERP rules, and the BTIITF’s sovereignty lands authority. 16 Winds or seas can push a boat around, a situation that is exacerbated when the motor is trimmed up. Therefore, one would generally not want to get close to the Lot 18 Dock, or any Letter of Consent Rule 18-21.004(7)(g) provides that “[s]tructures or activities shall not create a navigational hazard.” As set forth herein, the preponderance of the competent substantial evidence in this proceeding firmly establishes that the Lot 18 Dock has created a navigational hazard by severing the permitted, marked, and customarily used boat access channel, thus, forcing Petitioners and other persons wanting to use the waters in the area to cross the shallow shoal, which is both unsafe and unnecessary. Ms. Mann testified that, in determining whether the Lot 18 Dock is the “minimum size” necessary, “we had taken that to look at the other docks in the area, and if he is on average with those other docks, then we consider it minimum size for that area.” However, the definition of a “minimum size dock or pier” in BTIITF rule 18-21.003(39) includes a comparison to other permitted docks as but one factor for consideration. The rule provides, in pertinent part, that: “Minimum-size dock or pier” means a dock or pier that is the smallest size necessary to provide reasonable access to the water for navigating, fishing, or swimming based on consideration of the immediate area’s physical and natural characteristics, customary recreational and navigational practices, and docks and piers previously authorized under this chapter. The evidence in this case firmly establishes that the Lot 18 Dock is not “the smallest size necessary to provide reasonable access to the water for navigating, fishing, or swimming.” Mr. Kent had reasonable access to the water for navigating by using the boat access channel, and could have used any vessel with a draft of six feet or less from a shoreline dock as permitted by the Corps in 2003. The Lot 18 Dock did not take into consideration the area’s customary recreational and navigational practices, which previously relied on the boat access channel. Other previously authorized docks in the dock, with the potential to be pushed into the dock, damaging the boat, the dock, or both. area are not appropriate comparators because none have access to the boat access channel, and none encroach into and sever a permitted navigational channel, as does the Lot 18 Dock. The Lot 18 Dock is not, as a factual matter, a “minimum size dock or pier.” The Lot 18 Dock preempts substantially more sovereignty submerged lands than necessary for Mr. Kent to wharf out to four feet of navigable water. Environmental Issues Petitioners argue that substantial resources, predominantly seagrasses, exist in the area along the shoal, which seagrasses would be churned and scoured by vessels navigating across the shoal, and that the Lot 18 Dock is, therefore, contrary to the public interest. Since 1994, submerged vegetation has declined in Doctors Lake as a result of drought, invasive species, and hurricanes, particularly those in 2017 and 2018. DEP notified the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (“DACS”) and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (“FFWCC”) of the Lot 18 Dock application. DEP did not receive comments from FFWCC within 30 days, which generally indicates that it did not have objections. See § 20.331(10), Fla. Stat. The response, if any, from DACS was not disclosed. On June 8, 2020, DEP conducted a limited environmental survey of the shoal area adjacent to the Lot 18 Dock and in front of the western canal. The purpose of the survey was to determine if there is plant or animal life in the area, if the shoal area is of any environmental importance, and if it contains any endangered or protected species. Nine samples were taken at various locations along the “top” of the shoal, including dredge samples, a dip net sample, and one Shelby core sample. All were taken from a boat. The DEP sampling revealed that the substrate consists mostly of sand, with less than 2 percent muck or organic material mixed in or on top. There was little animal or plant life, except for some juvenile clams of unknown species that appeared in several of the samples. There was one sample with two small plant fragments, but it was not known whether they rooted in the bottom or if they drifted in. Mr. Durden testified that “[t]here certainly was no substantial amount of vegetation found anywhere.” There were no endangered or protected species. DEP concluded that the shoal is of low environmental value and suitable for authorization for a permit. On June 5, 2020, Mr. Estes conducted a study of the shoal area to determine if there was a presence of submerged aquatic vegetation in the area. He was there less than a half an hour. He generally concentrated his study area to the shallower area of the shoal closer to the mouth of the western canal from the 2’9” to 3’3” readings as depicted on Joint Exhibit 10. He did not pay much attention to the area around the Lot 18 Dock. Mr. Estes found a “very sparse coverage” of eelgrass, which is a species common in Doctors Lake. He also found some clams between 4 and 5 centimeters on average, which he believed to be adults. Mr. Estes was not able to opine whether the clams were important to a blue crab fishery in the area since it was outside of the scope of his study. Mr. Estes could not state that the area was of any current ecological significance. Rather, his testimony was limited to an opinion that conditions at the site were suitable for reestablishment of eelgrass. He believed that boats crossing the shoal could leave “prop scars” which would interfere with submerged vegetation recruiting back into those areas. The evidence was insufficient to support a finding that the Lot 18 Dock, or navigation across the shoal, will interfere with the current environmental functions of the area, will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, or will adversely affect fishing and recreation rights.
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 denying an environmental resource permit for the Lot 18 Dock, whether it be the revised general permit authorized in the December 6, 2019, Consent Order or an individual ERP; denying the November 19, 2019, Letter of Consent or other form of state lands authorization for the Lot 18 Dock; and requiring measures to reestablish the boat access channel and Petitioners’ rights of navigation in recognition of their riparian rights of navigation and the valid St. Johns River Water Management District Permit No 40-019- 86850-2, and U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Permit No. 200300284 (IP- RLW). DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of August, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY 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 31st day of August, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul Joseph Polito, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Stop 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Terrell K. Arline, Esquire Terrell K. Arline, Attorney at Law 1819 Tamiami Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Zachary Roth, Esquire Ansbacher Law Suite 100 8818 Goodby's Executive Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32217 (eServed) Andrew T. Kent 2059 Castle Point Court Fleming Island, Florida 32003 (eServed) Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Justin G. Wolfe, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Legal Department, Suite 1051-J Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Noah Valenstein, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact Jack E. Moore is the owner of real property in Fort Myers Beach known as Lot 9 of Indian Bayou, a subdivision in Section 33, Township 46 South, Range 24 East, Lee County, Florida. Moore's property is bordered on the north by the waters of Indian Bayou and Estero Bay. The northern portions of Moore's property are vegetated by juvenile and mature red and black mangroves. Red and black mangrove are the dominant species of vegetation on the northernmost portions of the property, waterward of the fill pad on which Moore's house is built. Sometimes during July, 1982, Moore used a shovel to excavate a channel from the open waters of Estero Bay to a dock existing at the edge of the fill pad. Approximately 48 cubic yards of excavated material was piled up along the banks of the channel. The channel measured approximately 1.5 feet deep (at low tide) by 9 feet wide by 70 feet long. The channel was dug so that Moore could got his boat in and out from the dock at medium tide. The passage to the deck was already possible at high tide, as Moore had a shallow draft pontoon boat. In July, 1981, Moore constructed a rip-rap revetment with backfill the northern side of his house fill pad. The back fill area contains approximately 160 cubic yards of fill, and is approximately 10 feet wide by 110 feet long. Red mangrove and black mangrove are and were the dominant vegetational species in the area where the channel was dug, where the excavated material was placed, and where the revetment and fill was constructed. The area of dominant mangrove vegetation extends from the work areas to the open waters of Estero Bay. Moore did not apply for or receive a permit from DER prior to undertaking the work referenced above. Upon discovery of the work in September, 1982, DER notified Moore that a permit was needed for the excavation and filling he conducted. In October, 1982, Moore agreed to fill in the channel and remove all unauthorized fill by January 19, 1983. Inspection by DER on January 26, 1983, showed that restoration had not been started, and in fact more work had been done on the channel. DER issued a Notice of Violation and Orders for Corrective Action (NOV) to Respondent on March 29, 1003, alleging violations of Chapter 403, Florida Statute's, and DER rules and requiring restoration of the areas dredged and filled. Upon service of the Notice of Violation by the Sheriff, Respondent petitioned for this hearing. DER incurred costs of 5101.88 in investigating the violations alleged in the NOV. As of the date of the hearing, restoration work still had not been performed. Although the spoil piles alongside the channel are now diminished, the channel itself was deep as it previously had been and the rip-rap revetment and backfill had not been removed.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether a development order (Resolution No. 233- 1991) issued by Monroe County on June 26, 1991, to Key Largo Associates, Ltd., is inconsistent with Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Regulations, and/or whether it violates a Joint Stipulation of Settlement previously executed by the Department of Community Affairs ("DCA"), Monroe County (the "County"), and Key Largo Associates, Ltd.'s predecessor in title.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at the hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: DCA is the State Land Planning Agency charged with the responsibility to administer the provisions of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, and the regulations promulgated thereunder. Monroe County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and is responsible for issuing development orders for development in unincorporated Monroe County. The County issued the Development Order which is the subject of this proceeding. Most of Monroe County, including the subject property, is within the Florida Keys Area of Critical Concern as designated in Sections 380.05 and 380.0552, Florida Statutes. Development orders issued by a local government agency for an area of critical state concern are subject to review by DCA pursuant to Section 380.07, Florida Statutes. On April 8, 1985, DCA, Monroe County, and I. D. Properties, the previous owner of the subject property, executed a Joint Stipulation of Settlement regarding DCA's challenge to a prior development order for the subject property. That Joint Stipulation of Settlement required the preservation of certain tropical hammock on the site including Paradise Tree hammock. After executing the Joint Stipulation of Settlement, I. D. Properties quitclaimed its interest in the site to Key Largo Associates, Ltd. Key Largo Associates, Ltd. proceeded to seek approval from Monroe County to develop the property inconsistent with the terms of the Joint Stipulation of Settlement. Those efforts resulted in the Development Order which is the subject of this case. The County Commission issued the Development Order granting a major conditional use permit for the Project to Key Largo Associates, Ltd., after being ordered to do so by the Circuit Court for Monroe County. The Development Order purports to authorize the complete elimination of existing tropical hammock on the site including the Paradise Tree hammock. The Development Order is inconsistent with the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Regulations adopted thereunder. In addition, the Development Order is contrary to the terms of the Joint Stipulation of Settlement.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission enter a final order which sustains the appeal filed by the Department of Community Affairs and which rescinds the issuance of Monroe County Resolution No. 233- 1991. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 18th day of August 1993. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of August, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Terrell K. Arline Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Betty J. Steffens, Esquire McFarlain, Wiley, Cassedy & Jones Post Office Box 2174 Tallahassee, Florida 32316-2174 Blackwater Associates Partnership 7225 S.W. 108th Terrace Miami, Florida 33156 Ray Parker Parker Real Estate 2028 North Dixie Highway Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33305 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 David K. Coburn, Secretary FLWAC Exec. Office of the Governor 311 Carlton Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to a consent to use sovereign submerged lands.
Findings Of Fact MBRRC filed an application for an environmental resource permit and authorization to use sovereign submerged lands located in the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve (BBAP). This application sought approval to construct two finger piers and to install twelve mooring pilings for the benefit of a private yacht club. The application was filed with the Department for review on October 20, 1995. The Petitioner’s property is located on Hibiscus Island, a man-made island within the BBAP, and is accessed by boat. The island is primarily used for residential purposes. Petitioner’s facility is the only commercial docking facility on the island. Petitioner owns approximately 140 feet along the waterfront with its property line extending 20 feet seaward of the upland property. It has an existing dock which is approximately 10 feet wide that runs the length of, and parallel to, the seawall along its waterfront. The proposed finger piers would extend waterward and perpendicular to the existing dock from its ends. This extension proposes to use approximately 16 feet into the sovereign submerged land at the ends and would also allow the installation of 12 mooring pilings between the piers. The ultimate purpose of the installation is to allow perpendicular docking. At all times material to this case the Department has considered the proposed construction to be a new facility subject to the requirements of Section 258.397(3)(a), Florida Statutes, and Rule 18-18.006(3), Florida Administrative Code. No existing structures at the site would qualify the applicant for the type of lease proposed. The Petitioner annually hosts numerous fishing and social events at its club facility. Participants typically “raft” vessels together in order to gain access to the shore. Historically this process has moored vessels parallel to the existing dock/seawall. This “rafting” would not necessarily be eliminated by the addition of the proposed finger piers. Petitioner seeks to expand the docking facility as requested in order to provide better ingress and egress to its property. It contends that fishing and boating in the BBAP will be enhanced by such improvements. Petitioner maintains its property is being treated differently than others; however, policies used by the Department in this instance are applicable to all areas of the BBAP. By letter dated February 6, 1996, the Department advised the Petitioner that staff would recommend denial of the application. That letter advised Petitioner of the “extreme hardship” test found in Rule 18-18.006(3), Florida Administrative Code as well as Section 258.397(3)(a), Florida Statutes. The letter noted that this standard was “at best very difficult to demonstrate” and advised Petitioner of the “public interest” requirement also set forth by rule and statute. “Self-imposed circumstances” as used in the applicable rule has been construed to include circumstances where the applicant seeks to improve existing boat access, to increase the number of docking slips, and to enhance the upland property. The Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Board of Trustees) has determined that the construction of single-family docks meets the “extreme hardship” test because single-family docks are considered to be the lowest impact use available on sovereign submerged land. It is deemed appropriate to allow a qualified right of ingress and egress to the upland owner. The Petitioner’s proposal is not a public project or a public necessity. Petitioner currently has ingress and egress to its upland property. The Petitioner’s property is a nonconforming use in a residential area. The term “property owners in the area” has been construed to mean the BBAP. The proposed project is not unique to the applicant, and the burden to the applicant is shared by other property owners in the BBAP. The proposed project would provide additional access to an upland property owner who already has boat access to the waterway. Neither the project site nor the island on which it is located are unique as other properties of a similar nature are within the BBAP. In order to establish that a proposed project is “in the public interest,” applicants are required to demonstrate that the activity would improve either public recreation, water quality, fish hatcheries, or other matters of public interest. In this instance, Petitioner did not submit a written proposal to support the public interest requirement during the application process. Consequently, DEP has not assessed such proposal for its quantity or quality. Petitioner relies on its improved boating access to support a claim of enhancement to public recreation. As to water quality, fish hatcheries, or other matters of public interest, the proposed project would adversely affect seagrasses and other environmental resources by shading. Although the installation of mooring pilings would provide some environmental benefit, those benefits would not be quantifiable and would be offset by increased shading from the project. Other proposals submitted by Petitioner incidental to its Dade County permit application are insufficient in detail and scope to show the public interest requirement would be met. The proposed project is located in an area that is intermediate between the most sensitive and least sensitive sites, for the purpose of manatee protection. The proposed project would have an adverse environmental impact on manatee protection since it creates additional docking slips and additional boat traffic. The proposed project would result in environmental costs through the loss of resources and increased turbidity. The proposed project would provide no quantifiable economic benefit to the public, but would provide some economic cost in the loss of habitat and food source for fisheries. The proposed project would provide no social benefits different from those presently provided by the existing facility. The benefit of the proposed project is merely enhancement of the Petitioner’s current use at a cost of lost fisheries, increased danger to manatees, and increased turbidity.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order denying Petitioner’s request for authorization to lease sovereign submerged land. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 31st day of March 1997. J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen E. Tunstall, Esquire Stephen E. Tunstall, P.A. 2701 Southwest LeJeune Road Suite 410 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Jeffrey Brown, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Office of the General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection, Mail Stop 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Perry Odom General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact Petitioners Kayla and Eric Douglas in DOAH Case No. 89-6367 failed to appear or send a qualified representative on their behalf to formal hearing, and, accordingly, their petition is subject to dismissal, pursuant to Rule 221- 6.022 F.A.C. Applicant Ratkovic owns two adjacent rectangular-shaped pieces of property, Lots #5 and #6, located at 19 Magnolia Drive, within the city limits of St. Augustine, Florida. These lots are bounded on the north by Oceanway Street, a dirt road, and on the east by Magnolia Drive. The Ratkovic house is located on the lot which directly abuts Magnolia Drive (Lot #6). Lot #5 is immediately to the east of Lot.#6 and is separated from it by a ten-foot wide alleyway. Oceanway Street deadends into Salt Run, a Class III Water of the State, which is next to Lot #5. Lot #5 is 55 feet wide in a north-south direction and 82.5 feet long in an east-west direction. Lot #5 is completely within the landward extent of Salt Run. Lot #5 may be cnaracterized as a flat, intertidal sand beach and DER's jurisdiction with respect to it extends to the ordinary mean high water line. Salt Run is an embayment off of the Atlantic Ocean which, with the help of a concrete artificial groin, forms a cove in the vicinity of the proposed project. Water flow in the cove is serene enough to allow a tidal marsh to grow along parts of the shoreline of the cove, but there are still two areas of the cove in which no vegetation grows: waterward of Applicant's property and waterward of the property of Petitioners Steger (DOAH Case No. 89-6366). The Steger property is several lots south of the Applicant's property. Marine vegetation grows in the southeast quadrant of Lot #5 and to the north of Lot #5. The proposed project involves the placement of 19 pilings on 4'8" centers along the northern lot line of Lot #5. The proposed pilings would run on a line in the middle of the unvegetated area, approximately halfway between the two areas of tidal marsh growth, out to the waterward edge of Lot #5. 7. The Applicant desires a dock for Lot #5 and has already availed himself of the general permit provisions of Rule 17-312.808 F.A.C. The dock has not been constructed because he has been unable to obtain local approval for its construction. Respondents assert as a legal proposition that a 1,000 square foot (6 foot wide) piling-supported dock, if built on Lot #5, would be exempt from the requirement of obtaining a DER dredge and fill permit such as the one at issue here, and because of Respondents' assertion, it is one of Petitioners' concerns in this proceeding that the Applicant not be permitted to do by indirection that which he has been prohibited by local government (but not DER) from doing directly. However, that dock permit and those peripheral legal propositions need not be resolved in this proceeding for the reasons set out infra. The Applicant intends that the proposed pilings at issue here will serve as the northern support structure of his proposed dock, if local approval is eventually granted for the dock. However, without such local approval of his proposed dock, the Applicant's proposed pilings would still serve as a barrier to vehicular traffic which presently has unrestricted access across the beach and across his private property, Lot #5. The Applicant represented that he wants to install the pilings with or without the dock approval so as to prevent late night driving of cars on his beachfront property. Salt Run is full of docks, and this vicinity of Salt Run is the only area totally unobstructed by docks. This vicinity also has the only bottom area in Salt Run not encrusted with oyster or other bivalve shells. The only water quality standard to be impacted by the proposed project is turbidity. Turbidity results from the resuspension of bottom material and will occur briefly during the placement of the pilings. At the proposed project site, the bottom material is sand, which when resuspended, rapidly falls to the bottom and therefore has little environmental impact under the circumstances of this application. However, turbidity controls have been required by Specific Condition 4 of the DER Draft Permit. The foregoing factors assure that water quality standards will not be violated by the proposed pilings. The testimony of DER's agency representative, Jeremy Tyler, who was accepted as an expert in oceanography and the impacts of dredge and fill projects to wetlands and water quality, is accepted that because the proposed pilings will be located on a flat, intertidal sand beach, and because installation of the pilings requires appropriate turbidity controls, the placement of the proposed pilings will not generate turbidity sufficient to impact the tidal marsh, and, accordingly, their placement will not adversely affect the conservation of fish, wildlife, or their habitats. Similarly, it is found that fishing, marine productivity,- and the current conditions and relative value of functions being performed by the tidal marsh will not be adversely affected by the proposed project. The proposed project will not have any effects upon the public health, safety, or welfare, the property of others, or significant historical or archaeological resources. It will be permanent. The proposed project will not adversely affect the flow of water at the proposed site and will not cause harmful erosion or shoaling. Depending upon the time of the month, the time of the year, and the height of the tide, water could wash up to the landward side of Lot #5, or could leave the lot high and dry. Oceanway Street, the dirt road adjacent to the Applicant's property on the north, has historically been used by the neighbors and general public to drive down to Salt Run. These persons have used the cleared area between the tidal marsh sections described supra for wading, swimming, throwing of cast nets, and launching of boats and windsurfing boards. Because it is within the city limits, the area is also very attractive to those who just wish to stroll up the beach on a north-south tangent. In gaining access to the water of Salt Run, some persons have not differentiated between Lot #5, which is private property, and Oceanway Street. One reason for this lack of discernment seems to be that nearby Ingram Street, also a public access, is in such disrepair that prudent persons avoid it. Also, Applicant either built on Lot #6 or moved into the house on that lot only within the last few years, and while Lot #6 was formerly unoccupied, the neighbors and the public were free to walk dogs, moor and launch boats, and enjoy virtually all recreational activities in public areas and on Lot #5 with impunity. In essence, Lot #5 has been treated as a public beach. In the recent past, the Applicant's attempts to "run off" persons who have utilized his property in these ways have caused bad feelings in the neighborhood. Also, Lot #5 has been inadvertently used for recreation some of the time that it is covered with water, and this seems to be the source of some persons' confusion over where the Applicant's right to "run off" the public begins and ends; however, the evidence is insufficient to establish a public easement across Lot #5. If the proposed piling project were constructed, beach walkers, swimmers, or waders approaching one of the piles (and if local approval is obtained, ultimately the dock) might have to alter their course to avoid a collision. The 4'8" gap between pilings would allow this, but in the event a dock is installed, it might be more prudent to avoid the area altogether. Cast netters would have to alter their net throws so that their backswing or release would not intersect the position of a proposed piling and so that their nets would land along the line of the proposed pilings instead of on the pilings or dock. This could be done. Boaters and windsurfers, after placement of the proposed pilings, would have a far narrower area within which to launch and land their boats and boards. However, this narrowing would not preclude such launching or landing. Boats often start and end their journeys at docks, which, from a boat hull's perspective, are nothing more than a row of pilings. Windsurfing boards are approximately two feet at their widest. When a windsurfer capsizes in open water, he typically rights his board and starts anew. Here, if windsurfers do not wish to launch in the clear area remaining to the north of the last piling, which they could easily do, they would be able to walk their boards out to the last piling and start as they would in open water. The proposed pilings will make it more difficult to launch or land a windsurfing board, but it would not preclude such use of the water. There is also a public boat ramp at Lighthouse Park, the northern boundary of which is four blocks to the south and three blocks to the west of the proposed project site. Boaters or windsurfers who did not choose to use the end of Oceanway Street to obtain access to Salt Run would be able to use that location.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order Dismissing the Petition in DOAH Case No. 89-6367; Denying the Petitions in DOAH Case Nos. 89-6363, 89-6364, 89-6365, 89-6366, and 89-6368; and Granting the dredge and fill permit application as specifically conditioned by the Department of Environmental Regulation's Intent to Grant. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of June, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, 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 19th day of June, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NOS. 89-6363, 89-6364, 89-6365 89-6366, 89-6367, 89-6368 The following constitute specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2) F.S. upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF): Petitioners Stegers' PFOF filed May 22, 1990: Paragraph 1: Sentences 1, 3, and 4: Accepted as fact, however, the degree of obstruction, the significance of recreational values within the applicable statutory balancing test, and the legal implications of that balance as contained in the Recommended Order more accurately reflect the record as a whole. Sentence 2: Accepted as modified to more accurately reflect the record as a whole. Sentence 5: Rejected as unproved. See what was proved and what was speculated in FOF 9 and 11 and COL 11. Paragraph 2: Rejected as not proved. Respondent DER's PFOF filed May 22, 1990: 1-16 Accepted as modified to more accurately reflect the credible, competent, substantial evidence of record as a whole. To date, no other PFOF have been filed. COPIES FURNISHED: Judson and Annelle West 4 Lighthouse Avenue Anastasia Island St. Augustine, Florida 32084 Virginia Quill Myers Mary Susanna Myers 322 Ponce de Leon Avenue Anastasia Island St. Augustine, Florida 32084 Ronald Asner 37 Magnolia Drive Anastasia Island St. Augustine, Florida 32084 Dan and Sue Steger 25 Magnolia Drive Anastasia Island St. Augustine, Florida 32084 Kayla K. and Eric Douglas 69 Lighthouse Avenue Anastasia Island St. Augustine, Florida Mary H. Acebal 32084 E. V. Acebal 10 Lighthouse Avenue Anastasia Island St. Augustine, Florida 32084 Mr. Jack Ratkovic Post Office Box 4482 St. Augustine, Florida 32085 William H. Congdon Assistant General Counsel, DER Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner has an option to purchase property located at 301-307 Island Way Boulevard, Island Estate, Clearwater, Florida, on which he proposes to construct ten townhouses. Initially Petitioner asked for two variances. The first variance was for 25.12 feet to allow construction on a lot only 124.88 feet wide. This variance was granted for this nonconforming lot. The second variance, for 13.24 feet to allow construction of the ten townhouse complex 12 feet from the side property line, was denied by the Clearwater Code Adjustment Board. The Board concluded the variance requested did not meet the requirements of Section 45.24 of the Clearwater Land Development Code. Petitioner presented evidence that if the lot had been 150 feet wide they would have had 90 feet to build on without requesting any variance. However, since the lot was nonconforming, in order to have 89 feet on which to place the building, the requested variance would be necessary. Petitioner also presented evidence that the construction of ten townhouses on this lot is necessary for the project to be on a solid economic basis. Subsequent to the denial of this variance by the Development Code Adjustment Board, Petitioner submitted plans, which have been approved by the City of Clearwater, to erect nine townhouses on this property without any variance needed. However, these townhouses would be smaller than would be the ten townhouses initially proposed and would provide a lesser return on the capital invested.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the evidence sustains the decision of the City of Clearwater Development Code Adjustment Board (the Board) to grant the application of the Appellant, the City of Clearwater for dock length, width and setback variances to allow the reconstruction of the public pier facility located at the west end of Magnolia Drive in Clearwater, Florida. (The pier was destroyed by the "No Name Storm of the Century" on March 12-13, 1993.)
Findings Of Fact On or about September 1, 1993, the City of Clearwater applied to the City of Clearwater Development Code Adjustment Board (the Board) for dock length, width and setback variances to reconstruct the public pier facility located at the west end of Magnolia Drive in Clearwater, Florida, where it terminates at the waterfront in an "aquatic lands/coastal zoning district." The pier was 91.5 feet in length and 40 feet in width; it was set back 12.5 feet from the extension of the adjacent property lines. It was destroyed by the "No Name Storm of the Century" on March 12-13, 1993. Since the site has 65 feet of waterfront, reconstructing it to its previous dimensions requires variances of: (1) 59 feet in dock length (over the 32.5 feet allowed by the City of Clearwater Development Code); (2) 17.25 feet in dock width (over the 22.75 feet allowed by the Code); and (3) 7.5 feet reduction in setback from the extended adjacent property lines (below the 20 feet required by the Code.) Before its destruction, the public pier at the west end of Magnolia Drive in Clearwater had been in existence for many years. (The original version was built in approximately 1915.) The evidence is that the community at large desires to reconstruct the pier to its former dimensions. The old pier has historic and sentimental significance. It also serves as a recreational facility for residents without private access to a dock on the waterfront. Especially in the last several years before its destruction, public use of the old pier brought with it problems of misuse, loitering, litter, noise, trespassing, and crime. The police did not have the resources to prevent these problems. Criminal activity in the area seems to have decreased since the destruction of the old pier. As a result, the property owners closest to the pier do not want the public pier reconstructed at all, and certainly do not want it reconstructed to its former dimensions. They oppose the variance application. The conditions imposed by the Board (no deviation from the proposed materials and building plan, the erection of signs as to closing times to be enforced by the police, proper lighting, and the installation of an electronic safety system, including a gate, to be monitored by the police) will help alleviate many of the concerns of the neighboring property owners but are not guaranteed to eliminate them in their entirety. The water is shallow in the vicinity of the site, and a dock of a certain length is necessary for the dock to be used for boats of any appreciable size and draft. However, this condition is not unique to the particular site in question, but is uniformly applicable all along the City waterfront, and there was no evidence as to the length of dock required for adequate water depth for use by boats. There is no competent, substantial evidence in the record from which it could be found that the granting of the variances will not be materially detrimental or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located. There is no competent, substantial evidence in the record from which it could be found that the granting of the variance will not impair the value of surrounding property.
Findings Of Fact Max and Anne Makowsky (Respondents Makowsky) are the owners of real property located at Lot 5, Block 35, Venetian Shores Subdivision, Plantation Key, in unincorporated Monroe County, Florida. Respondents Makowsky's property is located in the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern. On November 20, 1992, Monroe County, Florida (Respondent County) issued a building permit, Building Permit No. 9230008125, to Respondents Makowsky. The permit authorized Respondents Makowsky to construct and place on their property a boat ramp which measures six feet by thirty feet. Petitioner received a copy of the Building Permit from Respondent County on November 24, 1992. Submerged lands adjacent to Respondents Makowsky's property are owned by the State of Florida. The boundary between the State's submerged lands and Respondents Makowsky's property is the mean high water line. Twenty feet of the proposed boat ramp would extend below the mean high water line. The twenty feet would lie over submerged lands. Chapter 9.5, Monroe County Code, contains Respondent County's Land Development Regulations. Section 9.5-345(m) contains the environmental design criteria applicable to submerged lands in Respondent County. Section 9.5-345(m) provides in pertinent part: All structures on any submerged lands and mangroves shall be designed, located and constructed such that: * * * * No structure shall be located on sub- merged 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 z depth of at least minus four (4) feet exists. In the permit application, Respondents Makowsky provide that the intended use for the ramp is to launch a windsurfer and a small inflatable boat or dinghy. Respondents Makowsky's dinghy has a motor with a shaft which extends two and one-half feet below the boat's water line. As the proposed boat ramp would allow access to the water via watercraft, the term "docking" facility," as used in Section 9.5-345(m), is applicable to Respondents Makowsky's proposed ramp. The submerged land adjacent to Respondents Makowsky's property is very shallow and heavily populated by sea grass, i.e. turtle grass. The turtle grass areas serve as nursery grounds and provide food and shelter for juvenile fish and invertebrates. These habitat values increase when coupled with the mangrove fringe (the roots of mangroves) located along the area. The mangrove roots also provide food and shelter for the juvenile fish and invertebrates. The turtle grass would be adversely impacted by the ramp itself if the proposed ramp was approved and constructed. The structure itself would shade out the needed sunlight to the grasses underneath the boat ramp, causing those grasses to die. Also, the use of the ramp to dock small boats would adversely impact the turtle grass. The bottom of the submerged land is a very loose, calcarious substrate. Launching a boat would cause the sand to "kick up" (lift up). When the sand comes down, it would settle on the turtle grass and smother it because there would be no way for the turtle grass to clean itself. Further, using a motorized boat, as Respondents Makwosky's, would cause "prop dredging" to occur, harming the turtle grass. In "prop dredging," the motor's propeller would destroy the grasses directly by tearing them up or destroy the grasses over a period of time through siltation after churning up the sand from the substrate. The mean low water depth, i. e., the average mean low tide, at the terminal end of the proposed ramp is less than four feet. In the permit application, the depth at the end of the ramp is indicated to be zero feet mean low water. Petitioner estimates the water depth at low tide as between one foot and two feet. The proposed ramp site is not located at a channel of twenty (20) feet in width where a mean low water depth of at least minus four (4) feet exists. Respondents Makowsky have boat access through a boat basin approximately 320 feet to the southwest of their property. The boat basin is located in their Subdivision. A slip in the boat basin is assigned to Respondents Makowsky and they are entitled to use it.
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 Monroe County Permit No. 9230008125. RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of December, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL, 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 2nd day of December, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-1317DRI Petitioner's proposed findings of fact 1 - 13 have been adopted in substance, although not verbatim, in this recommended order. COPIES FURNISHED: Bob Bradley, Secretary Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Executive Office of The Governor 1601 Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Gregory C. Smith, Esquire Governor's Legal Office 209 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 James F. Murley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Dan Stengle General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Karen Brodeen Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Stephanie Gehres Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs Marathon Regional Service Center Suite 212 2796 Overseas Highway Marathon, Florida 33050 Max and Anne Makowsky 1900 Glades Road, Suite 245 Boca Raton, Florida 33431 Carolyn Dekle, Director South Florida Regional Planning Council 3400 Hollywood Boulevard Suite 140 Hollywood, Florida 33021 James T. Hendrick, Esquire Morgan & Hendrick 317 Whitehead Street Key West, Florida 33041-1117 Bob Herman, Director of Growth Management Monroe County Regional Service Center 2798 Overseas Highway Marathon, Florida 33050-2227
Findings Of Fact Ramchandra Jakhotia and Rashmi Jakhotia, his wife, acquired the King Cole Motel at 401 East Shore Drive, Clearwater, Florida in 1983 and have owned the property since that time. At the time of acquisition and for some time prior thereto the property included a commercial marina with 22 slips. In 1985 the City of Clearwater revised its Development Code effective October 13, 1985 and, incident thereto, effective July 7, 1988, enacted Section 114.05, Live-Aboard Vessels as Ordinance 4597, Clearwater City Code. That enactment provided, in part, that: Prohibited; exceptions: It shall be unlawful for any person to moor any live-aboard vessel at any location within or upon the navigable waters in the City for any period of time in excess of seventy-two (72) hours, except as follows: At a marina facility for which conditional use approval has been obtained, or a marina facility in existence as of October 13, 1985 for which conditional use approval would otherwise be required;... In January 1986 a survey was taken of all marinas within the City of Clearwater to determine the number of live aboard vessels coming within the purview of the revised Development Code. At this survey eight live aboard vessels were occupying berths at the King Cole Motel marina and this was the number determined to be grandfathered for which no conditional use approval would be required. In 1988 King Cole Motel applied for conditional authorization to utilize 14 additional berths for live aboard vessels. This conditional use was approved subject to the applicant installing a pump-out facility and meeting the parking requirements. Although the parking requirements for a commercial marina, i.e., 0.5 parking space per slip, is the same as the parking requirement at marinas for live aboard vessels, the latter generally place a greater demand on parking spaces than does non-live aboard vessels. To change the approved use from commercial marina without live aboards to live aboards is a change in the use and requires conditional use approval. Before conditional use approval can be granted the applicant must comply with all code requirements, such as required parking spaces, at the time of the change in use. At the time Appellant acquired the King Cole Motel the 22 commercial slips were grandfathered as an authorized use without any parking being provided. Accordingly, as a 22-slip commercial marina Appellant did not have to provide parking. When the eight slips used for live aboards were counted in 1986 they too were grandfathered in without the need for parking spaces. However, when Appellant applied in 1988 for authorization to use 14 other slips for live aboard vessels, the code required the applicant to provide seven parking spaces. To his credit Appellant obtained the use of seven parking spaces down the road from the marina but those spaces were not contiguous to Appellants' marina as required by the code. Therefore, Appellants' use of the additional slips for live aboards did not meet the parking requirement in his conditional use approval. In 1992 Appellant applied for a variance of the seven parking spaces required to allow the use of these additional slips by live aboard vessels. This hearing was held before the Development Code Adjustment Board on February 11, 1993 and it is from the denial of this variance that this appeal is taken. The Board denied the variance requested because the Appellant failed to demonstrate that the standards established by Section 45.24 Land Development Code were met. In these proceedings Appellant presented no additional evidence to support the variances requested than was submitted to the Board.
