The Issue The issue in this appeal is whether the decision of the City of Clearwater Development Code Adjustment Board denying Petitioner's application for a variance is supported by the evidence in the record, or whether it departs from the essential requirements of law. See Section 137.014(f)(3), City of Clearwater Land Development Code.
Findings Of Fact On or about May 15, 1989, Branch Sunset Associates (Petitioner), the owner of certain property located at 1856 U.S. Highway 19 North, Clearwater, Florida (Section 6-29-16), applied for a variance to eliminate a condition previously imposed by the Development Code Adjustment Board on a prior variance. The property is zoned CC (Commercial Center), and is the site of a strip shopping mall. In March, 1988, the Board granted a variance allowing a tenant in Petitioner's mall, Workplace, to have a building identification sign which is larger than would be allowed under the Code without a variance. In November, 1988, Petitioner was granted a variance for the square footage of a pylon property identification sign with the condition that a Workplace sign not be placed on the pylon property identification sign located at the right of way. Petitioner and this tenant, Workplace, are now seeking removal of this condition in order to allow Workplace to be identified on the existing pylon sign, while leaving Workplace's large building identification sign in place. The Development Code Adjustment Board denied Petitioner's application for variance on June 8, 1989, and Petitioner timely filed this appeal of the Board's decision. Workplace is located approximately 800 feet off of U.S. Highway 19, and due to this distance, the prior variance of 97 square feet was granted in March, 1988, to allow a business identification sign of 225 square feet. The Code allows business identification signs up to 128 square feet without a variance. The letters spelling out "Workplace" are from 4 to 6 feet in height. Since opening in May, 1988, Workplace has experienced a steady growth in its business, and now completes approximately 1000 transactions per day. It is an office products store, and is open seven days a week. When the condition was placed on the variance for the pylon identification sign in November, 1988, the property owner agreed to this condition. At this time, it is primarily the tenant, Workplace, which is seeking this variance to eliminate the condition agreed to in November, 1988, by the property owner. Workplace seeks to be allowed to be included on the property identification sign, but is unwilling to immediately conform to Code on its building identification sign, a variance for which was granted in March, 1988, if this currently sought variance is approved. Thus, Workplace seeks to retain its variance for the size of its building identification sign, while also being included on the pylon property identification sign, which is larger than otherwise allowed due to the November, 1988, variance. The reason that the Development Code Adjustment Board approved the variance for Workplace in March, 1988, was that there was no property identification sign on site at that time, and the store was to be located so far off the right of way. This was a newly opening mall, and Workplace was one of the first new tenants to open for business. There are some prior tenants on this property that had business identification signs on their buildings that are in excess of the square footage allowed by the Code, but these are prior nonconforming signs which must be removed or brought into compliance by October, 1992. Section 134.015(c). However, when the property owner sought the variance in square footage limits to erect a pylon property identification sign in November, 1988, the Workplace business identification sign was already in place. Rather than allow Workplace to benefit from two variances, the Board conditioned the November, 1988, variance on precluding Workplace from being shown on the pylon sign. This was a reasonable condition under the circumstances, and was agreed to by the property owner. There was no showing of hardship on behalf of Workplace since business has been very good, and since any concerns about distance from the right of way were fully addressed by the March, 1988, variance.
Findings Of Fact By Joint Application for Works in the Waters of Florida filed January 14, 1993, Richard and Claudia Cowart requested permission to construct a concrete seawall with sloping riprap along their property, which is bordered by the Caloosahatchee River. The application describes the length of the seawall as 130 feet. The application describes the length of the riprap as "up to 130 [feet]" and the width of the riprap as five feet. The application states that the Cowarts are the record owner of the property and that Brian Bevan is an owner of adjacent property. There are seawalls for some distance on both sides of the proposed seawall, including along the property of Mr. Bevan. The seawall on the side opposite that of Mr. Bevan is indicated on the drawing accompanying the application. The drawing attached to the application depicts an existing retaining wall waterward of the approximate mean high water line and the proposed seawall landward of the approximate mean high water line. The proposed seawall would travel parallel to the river's shoreline for a distance of about 130 feet. At both ends, the wall turns away from the river and runs an additional 25-30 feet perpendicular to the river. At the southerly end of the proposed seawall, the drawing also indicates a "wetland enhancement area" where 100 one-gallon red mangrove trees would be planted. A second drawing attached to the application consists of a cross- section of the proposed activity. The cross-section drawing depicts, among other things, the riprap to be placed waterward of the proposed seawall, which is perpendicular to the surface of the water. The proposed riprap has no discontinuities. By letter to the Cowarts dated January 20, 1993, the Department of Environmental Regulation (DEP) stated that it found that the proposed activity was exempt from the need for a wetland resource permit, pursuant to Rule 17- 312.050(1)(t), Florida Administrative Code. Within a couple of months after issuance of the letter, the Cowarts constructed a seawall. Petitioners challenged the determination by filing a petition on February 4, 1993. The proposed seawall would not violate existing water quality standards, impede navigation, or adversely affect flood control.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order dismissing the petition of the Bevans and declining to award attorneys' fees and costs against them or any of them. ENTERED on October 28, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on October 28, 1994. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioners' Proposed Findings Petitioners filed a proposed recommended order without proposed findings of fact. To the extent that anything in the proposed recommended order may be construed to be a proposed finding of fact, it is rejected as irrelevant or unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Rulings on Cowarts' Proposed Findings 1-11: adopted or adopted in substance. 12: rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Kenneth Plante, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 John L. Chaves, Assistant General Counsel Douglas H. McLaughlin, Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Brian Bevan 1200 Masanabo Lane Ft. Myers, FL 33919 Richard A. Lotspeich Landers & Parsons Box 271 Tallahassee, FL 32302
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the decision of the City of Clearwater Development Code Adjustment Board denying Petitioner's application for a variance for certain signage is supported by the evidence in the record, or whether it departs from the essential requirements of law. See Section 137.014(f)(3), City of Clearwater Land Development Code.
Findings Of Fact On or about August 2, 1989, the Petitioner applied for a variance concerning certain signage on its property located at 2626 Gulf to Bay Boulevard, in Clearwater, Florida, which is zoned CH (highway commercial). At hearing, Petitioner abandoned its variance request concerning total square footage of its signage, and stated that the only variance presently by the Petitioner is for 21 feet in height to allow a 41 foot high pole sign to remain after October 13, 1992. This is an sign which has been in place since 1971, and, thus, was in place when the pertinent provisions of the Land Development Code governing sign height were enacted. The Petitioner does not propose to change this sign in any way, but simply seeks authorization to retain the sign after October 13, 1992, the date on which all nonconforming signs must be brought into compliance. Petitioner's property is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of U.S. 19 and Gulf to Bay Boulevard. At that point, U.S. 19 passes over Gulf to Bay Boulevard, and Petitioner contends that without the additional 21 feet in height, this sign will not be visible to motorists along U.S. 19, or to those approaching this intersection driving east on Gulf to Bay Boulevard. Without a variance, Petitioner will be required to bring this sign into conformance with the signage height requirements of the Land Development Code by October 13, 1992, and for property zoned CH, the maximum height allowed for signs is twenty feet. The Development Code Adjustment Board denied Petitioner's variance application on September 14, 1989, and Petitioner timely filed this appeal of the Board's decision. The only reason given in support of this variance is that without the continued authorization for the additional height, this sign will be of little economic benefit to Petitioner after October 13, 1992, and Petitioner would be unwilling to expend the funds necessary to reduce the height of this sign since the resulting 20 foot high sign would be of little benefit. Petitioner would rather just remove the sign than to have a 20 foot high sign that is of no economic benefit, according to Nichols.
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 deny the application of the Appellant, Sun Watch, Inc., for a five foot building height variance for its property located at 670 Island Way, Clearwater, Florida. (The variance is required as a result of the Appellant's desire to build a 95 foot high condominium on the property.)
Findings Of Fact On or about August 23, 1993, the Appellant, Sun Watch, Inc. (Sun Watch or the Appellant), applied to the City of Clearwater Development Code Adjustment Board (the Board) for a five-foot building height variance to allow it to build a 95-foot tall building where zoning regulations limit buildings to 90 feet in height. The building, as presented in the application, would have nine stories over a one-story parking garage and would accommodate 96 condominium units, each 3000 square feet. The application and supporting evidence presented to the Board was to the effect that the building cannot be constructed as planned without the five-foot height variance because: (1) eight feet of clearance from floor to ceiling is required in order to successfully market the planned luxury condominuim units; (2) the building's post-tension slab construction, designed for greater structural strength to withstand more severe wind storms, requires eight-inch thick slabs per floor; and (3) the heating and air conditioning system recommended for the building requires one foot per floor for the duct work, furring, drywall and finishing. The City of Clearwater Development Code (the Code) requires only a minimum of seven feet, six inches, clearance between the floor and ceiling of the Sun Watch residential units. In addition, only seven feet, even, of clearance is required in common areas, such as corridors within the units. If the heating and air conditioning duct work is placed in the corridors, or if the ceilings in the other parts of the residential units are lowered to the seven foot, six inch, minimum, no variance would be required, according to the application and supporting evidence presented to the Board. But the Appellant proved: (1) that the desirable large rooms planned for the perimeter of the residential units were too large to be effectively heated and cooled from the common areas alone; (2) that, notwithstanding the Code allowances, seven foot ceilings are too low for optimal heating and cooling because the air coming from the ceiling registers would blow down too directly onto the unit dwellers; and (3) that people would not buy luxury condominium units with smaller rooms or with lower ceilings. Notwithstanding the logic of the Appellant's arguments, as far as they go, it is clear that the primary purpose of the large size of the condominium units planned for the Sun Watch building, both in square footage and in ceiling height, is to secure greater profits from the sale of luxury condominiums, instead of smaller, less than luxury units. The primary purpose of the ninth story of residential units is to achieve the maximum density for which the property is zoned, with the commensurate higher profits, instead of a lower zoned density. In fact, the design which necessitated the building height variance application in this case was drawn at the request of the developer, whose instructions to his architect were to design a building to utilize the maximum allowable density on the property. In addition, the evidence at the final hearing established that, in response to the developer's instructions, the developer's architect drew the design which necessitated the building height variance application in this case without knowledge of the 90-foot building height restriction. Only after the design was drawn did the architect realize that the design would necessitate a variance from the building height restriction. The evidence at the final hearing was that there were inaccuracies in the building design on which the variance application was based. Instead of a foot per floor for the duct work, furring, drywall and finishing, actually 13 to 14 inches would be required. In addition, instead of the eight feet, nine inches, in the design for the parking garage and slab under the first floor, actually nine feet, eight inches, will be required. Based on those facts, instead of the five foot variance in the application, actually a variance of between nine feet, eight inches, and ten feet, five inches, would be required to build the proposed nine story, 96 unit, condominium with one story parking garage. (This actual variance requirement takes into account Section 42.23(5) of the Code, which allows parapet walls to extend up to 30 inches above a building height limitation; the Sun Watch building has a four foot parapet wall, but its variance application did not seem take advantage of the extra 30 inches allowable under the Code.) No application for the variance actually required for the proposed Sun Watch building ever has been presented to the Board for approval. There was some evidence that the additional height of the proposed Sun Watch condominium would interfere with the view of some of the neighbors in the building immediately to the north, that the reduced light reaching the building immediately to the north will adversely affect the heating and cooling of the building, causing increased electric bills, and that the proposed Sun Watch condominium would impair the value of the units in the building immediately to the north. The application and evidence did not clearly prove the contrary.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaint filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent are correct and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a Florida licensed professional engineer, holding license number PE 45941. There have been no prior disciplinary proceedings against the Respondent. The Respondent acted as the general contractor in the construction of his personal residence, which is the structure at issue in this proceeding. There is no evidence that the structure, as built, fails to meet applicable standards and requirements. On December 16, 1999, the Respondent submitted to the City of Clearwater Building Department, 29 sheets of building plans for alterations to the Respondent's residence. Of the 29 sheets, three were apparently signed and sealed by an engineer identified as Shields E. Clark, P.E., who did not testify at the hearing. Nineteen of the 29 sheets contain the statement, "[a] windload review of this plan has been made by Shields E. Clark, P.E. and it is certified to be in compliance with Section 1606 of the Standard Building Code 1994." The plans apparently confused the Clearwater Building Department official who reviewed the material. He asked the Respondent to meet with him and explain the project. The meeting occurred on or about January 10, 2000. During the meeting, the Respondent signed and sealed 22 of the 29 sheets; afterwards, the reviewing official noted they were unsigned. Four sheets of the initial plans were not signed and sealed by anyone. The Clearwater Building Department relies on the engineering certification in determining whether plans should be approved. The Respondent signed and sealed the plans as a professional engineer and the plans were approved. As to all of the plans submitted by the Respondent to the Clearwater Building Department, the Petitioner presented the expert testimony of James Owen Power, a Florida licensed engineer. Mr. Power's testimony was persuasive and is credited. (Sheet numbers identified herein reference the page numbers in Joint Exhibit 1.) According to Mr. Power's testimony, a number of deficiencies exist in the plans submitted on December 16, 1999. The deficiencies noted by Mr. Power include: the failure to specify which of two methods was used in calculating compliance with Southern Building Code windload requirements; depiction of a three-foot overhang projection on sheet 12 which is not depicted on other pages in the same plans; lack of a footing under a center post (sheet 19); lack of a beam at the center post to indicate what is being supported (sheet 21); inadequate support of the center post (sheet 22); a failure to provide for transfer of a portion of the roof load to an appropriate support (sheet 22); inadequate support for the load being carried (sheet 23); and depiction of a sample wall section atypical of all conditions throughout the proposed construction. On March 15, 2000, the Respondent submitted a 22-page set of drawings to the Clearwater Building Department that appear to have been signed and sealed by the Respondent on March 14, 2000. According to Mr. Power's testimony, a number of deficiencies exist in the plans submitted on March 15, 2000. The deficiencies noted by Mr. Power include: the failure to indicate whether differences in foundation, floor and roof framing, between the initial plan submission and the March 15 submission, were to be regarded as substituted plans or changes to the initial plans; the failure on five sheets to refer to windload certification; the failure to correlate position of cross beams to posts (sheet 43); differing numbers and locations of cross beams within the plan submission (sheets 43 and 44); a cantilevered wall that is identified without appropriate detailing; omission on sheet 45 of a "transverse" beam depicted on sheet 44; depiction of a wall not previously shown and two previously un-shown beams over the garage door (sheet 46); the appearance of a previously un-shown and unspecified pipe column in the middle of the garage opening (sheet 46); the lack of proper identification of a post and partition depicted on the column view (sheet 47); inconsistent identification of the dimensions of a balcony overhang (sheets 43, 49 and 52); and alteration of original rafter sizes without notice of the change (sheet 63). On March 28, 2000, the Respondent submitted an 11-page set of drawings and two sheets of cost estimates to the Clearwater Building Department that appear to have been signed and sealed by the Respondent on March 28, 2000. According to Mr. Power's testimony, a number of deficiencies exist in the plans submitted on March 28, 2000. The deficiencies noted by Mr. Power include: omission of a footing and pipe column depicted in the second set of plans without notification of change (sheet 31); the inability to determine the intent of "back addition lower plan" (sheet 32); alteration of the notation of a wall from the second set of plans (sheet 33); inconsistent depiction of the new wall foundation at the left side of the structure (sheet 33); inconsistent identification of the footing at the center of the garage opening (sheets 31, 33, and 34); inconsistent depiction of footers (sheets 34 and 35); inconsistent depiction of columns and beams (sheets 33, 34 and 35); and alteration in the manner of depicting partitions within the structure from the depiction contained in the initial submission (sheet 37). On June 12, 2000, the Respondent submitted another 11- page set of plans to the Clearwater Building Department that appear to have been signed and sealed by the Respondent on March 28, 2000. According to Mr. Power's testimony, a number of deficiencies exist in the plans submitted on June 12, 2000. The deficiencies noted by Mr. Power include: identification of beams as "optional" without defining the requirements of either option (sheets 64 and 65); depiction of knee braces not previously identified in previous plans (sheet 65); inconsistent depiction of partitions (sheets 65 and 69); alteration of wall width from second plan submission without adequate notification of change (sheets 49 and 66); depiction of knee braces without proper consideration of lateral load (sheet 66); depiction of a diagonal structure the intent of which is unclear (sheet 68); inconsistent depiction of a center joist (sheets 38 and 69); alteration to the previous depiction of rafters without notification (sheet 67); deletion of footing and a column in the center of the garage opening without notification (sheets 68 and 70); and the addition of a door to the left of the garage opening without notification of change from prior submissions. The Respondent's building plan submissions fail to meet professional standards. Structural elements were added, altered, and deleted without appropriate notification, and within submissions, elements were inconsistently depicted. The Respondent's failure to meet professional standards resulted in building plans that were ambiguous and unclear.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Professional Engineers enter a final order reprimanding Phillip J. Matonte, P.E., for negligence in this matter, and placing him on probation for a period of two years. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of April, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of April, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas D. Sunshine, Esquire Florida Engineers Management Corporation 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5267 J. Robert Griffin, Esquire Tilton & Metzger, P.A. 1435 East Piedmont Drive, Suite 210 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Natalie A. Lowe, Executive Director Florida Board of Professional Engineers 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5267 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue Whether the Department of Environmental Regulation should grant a dredge and fill permit to James N. and Janice E. Nash authorizing removal of eleven cubic yards of soil, installation of five 24-inch culverts in lieu of two 18- inch culverts, and placement of 19 cubic yards of limerock in and around the bed of an unnamed creek near the point it reaches the Alford Arm of Lake Lafayette in Leon County, Florida?
Findings Of Fact More than a thousand acres in eastern Leon County comprise the drainage basin giving rise to the unnamed stream that intermittently wends its way across the Alvarez property, crosses the 30-foot wide "tongue" of the Nashes' lot, and traverses the Saltiels' land on its way to the Alford Arm of Lake Lafayette (unless it reaches Alford Arm earlier because rain or other conditions have raised the lake, moving the water's edge upland.) Although neighbors allow them ingress and egress by another route, when flooding makes the roadway impassable, Mr. and Mrs. Nash have no legal right of access other than by the private road which crosses the intermittent stream. In addition to wetlands on either side, part of the streambed, 15 feet wide where it meets the roadway, was originally filled in 1968, when the private drive was built. The strip of land, 30 feet wide and 700 feet long that underlies most of the private road, joins the part of the parcel where the Nashes' house stands to Deep Wood Trail, the public thoroughfare which the private road enters. Leaving a car on the Deep Wood Trail side of the stream, wading across to the other side, and hiking to the house pose difficulties for Mr. Nash, who has muscular dystrophy. Under some conditions, the roadbed acts as a dam. When the lake is low, water flowing downstream may be impeded. When the lake is high, backwater moving in the other direction may be impeded. Of the two culverts installed when the private road was constructed, each with a diameter of 18 inches, only one permits water to flow through now, and even it is partially clogged. When Lake Lafayette rises above 45.3 feet NGVD, Alford Arm spills over the terrain between it and the Nashes' road, and reverses the flow in the streambed where it intersects the roadway. The "invert of the stream at the subject crossing [is] 44.3 feet [NGVD]." T.402. The roadbed is submerged in the vicinity of the stream when Alford Arm rises above 46.7 feet NGVD. The Nashes propose to excavate the streambed (about two and a half feet deep in the natural channel on either side of the existing fill) where it crosses (diagonally) the Nashes' private road, remove the existing culverts together with the soil in which they are embedded, install five culverts, each 24 inches in diameter, in their stead, install cement bag riprap at the ends of the culverts, remove 11 cubic yards of dirt from a 205' by 10' wide section of existing road surface and replace with 19 cubic yards of lime rock surface, Nashes' Exhibits Nos. 5 and 6, realigning the roadway slightly (to avoid the existing encroachment on the Saltiels' property) and increasing the roadbed's elevation over a 205-foot stretch by no more than four inches. Five trees are to be removed, but other trees are to be protected "by tree protection barricades." Nashes' Exhibit No. 7A. Filter fences upstream and down would contain turbidity during construction. The plan is to lay sod and plant grass seed afterwards in order to prevent erosion. Larger culverts would permit the flow of a greater volume of water at lower velocity, more closely approximating the natural regime and reducing scour or erosion downstream. Even when water levels exceeded the elevation of the existing roadbed, more water than the existing culverts can accommodate could move through the proposed replacement culverts, and at a slower velocity. At water levels above the existing grade and below the proposed, slightly higher grade, however, the four inches or less of limerock added to the roadbed would act as a (presumably somewhat porous) barrier to flows that could now move over the roadway unimpeded. The proposed improvements would have no discernible effect on water levels whenever Alford Arm overtopped the roadbed. Ted L. Biddy, the professional engineer called as a witness by the Nashes, testified that a 25-year return two-hour storm would raise water immediately upstream of the roadway, when runoff concentrated there, to levels above the existing roadway grade, assuming that the drainage basin was saturated at the time of the rainfall and that all ponds within the basin were full, but that the level of Lake Lafayette was at or below 45.3 feet NGVD. T.489. "Ordinary high water for Alford Arm is 45.7 [feet NGVD.]" T.486. On this record, it can only be a matter of speculation how often (if ever) a 25-year return, two-hour storm might be expected to occur after rainfall has saturated the ground and filled all ponds in the drainage basin without raising the lake above 45.3 feet NGVD. The wet conditions Mr. Biddy assumed already to obtain in the drainage basin at the time of the hypothetical storm seem unlikely to coincide with the low lake level assumed to occur simultaneously. Alford Arm's 100-year flood level is 51 feet NGVD, "50.25 for the 25 year flood or rainfall, and elevation 49.9 for the 10 year storm water event." T.425. In any event, flooding of the Saltiels' property attributable to the proposed raising of the roadway would last only a matter of hours every quarter of a century according to Mr. Biddy, and would represent temporary diversion of water that would otherwise have flooded their property downstream of the roadway. Even then, no house or structure on the Saltiels' property would be affected nor any part of their property not within the 100-year flood plain. At all water levels below the existing roadway grade, the overwhelmingly more frequent condition, larger culverts would prevent or diminish flooding that might otherwise reach the Saltiels' property upstream of the roadway. By impeding flows downstream, the roadway affords some solids suspended in the water an opportunity to precipitate, instead of being borne on into Alford Arm. Under certain conditions, the larger culverts proposed by the Nashes would reduce time for particulate matter to settle upstream of the roadway; the greater volume of flow through larger culverts would reduce the time water was impounded upstream. Uncontroverted expert testimony established, however, that any increase in turbidity in water reaching Alford Arm would not violate applicable standards.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That DER issue a dredge and fill permit to Mr. and Mrs. Nash for the project described in their application on the conditions stated in the notice of intent to issue. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of August, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of August, 1992. APPENDIX Petitioners' proposed findings of fact Nos. 2 and 10 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to petitioners' proposed finding of fact No. 1, what knowledge petitioners are charged with is a matter of law. Petitioners' proposed findings of fact Nos. 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 31 pertain to subordinate matters. Petitioners' proposed findings of fact Nos. 5, 6 and 32 pertain to immaterial matters as does petitioners' proposed finding of fact No. 9. Only the dredge and fill permit DER proposes to grant the Nashes is at issue. With respect to petitioners' proposed finding of fact No. 30, the calculations of both Mr. Flatt and Mr. Biddy seem to be flawed. With respect to petitioners' proposed finding of fact No. 33, it is not clear that the proposed project would increase the flooding on the Saltiels' property significantly. Temporally de minimis, the change might amount only to relocating the flooding. With respect to petitioners' proposed finding of fact No. 34, see finding of fact No. 12. With respect to petitioners' proposed finding of fact No. 35, larger culverts will decrease the velocity of the flow through the culverts. Petitioners' proposed finding of fact No. 36 is immaterial because it does not relate to any applicable rule or statutory standard. With respect to the individual respondents' and intervenor's (applicants') proposed findings of fact Nos. 1 and 2, the application does not specify dredge and fill. The applicants' proposed findings of fact Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 32 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to the applicants' proposed finding of fact No. 6, backwater flows at levels above 45.3 feet NGVD. With respect to the applicants' proposed finding of fact No. 9, the OHW is 45.7 feet NGVD. With respect to the applicants' proposed finding of fact No. 11, testimony so implied. With respect to the applicants' proposed finding of fact No. 12, Mr. Nash suffers from muscular dystrophy. The applicants' proposed findings of fact Nos. 14 and 15 pertain to subordinate matters. With respect to the applicants' proposed finding of fact No. 16, the only testimony regarding flooding concerned the critical 25-year return storm. With respect to DER's proposed findings of facts Nos. 1 and 2, the application does not specify dredge and fill. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 3, backflows begin at 45.3 feet NGVD. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 4, not all fill would be removed. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 5, testimony so implied. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 6, no statute or rule specifies a design storm. DER's proposed finding of fact No. 7 is really a conclusion of law. With respect to DER's proposed finding of fact No. 8, less settling may result in more suspended solids under some conditions. DER's proposed findings of fact Nos. 9, 10, 11 and 12 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. DER's proposed finding of fact No. 13 is immaterial to the merits. COPIES FURNISHED: John A. Barley P.O. Box 10166 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Donna H. Stinson Moyle, Flanigan, Katz, Fitzgerald & Sheehan, P.A. 118 North Gadsden Street Suite 100 Tallahassee, FL 32301 Candi E. Culbreath Patricia Comer 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Carlos Alvarez c/o Hopping, Boyd, Green & Sams 123 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Daniel H. Thompson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Carol Browner, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact By Application for Permit to Move Building over State Roads dated November 1, 1985, Eyal Sade, on behalf of Sade Housemovers applied for a permit to move a dwelling over state roads some 32 miles in Tampa and vicinity. Although this application showed the width of the building to be 32.2 feet, including eaves, E & S Construction/Sade Housemovers, was issued regular Permit No. B17531 on November 6, 1985 (Exhibit 1). Width, excluding eaves, was left blank on this application. This permit provided the building would be moved over state roads between the hours of 12:00 midnight and 6:00 A.M. and be escorted by local police. The application showed utility companies TECO, GTE and WRec [sic] had been notified of the move and the move had been cleared by the Florida Highway Patrol without comment regarding the need for escort. Also Seaboard railroad system had been notified (Exhibit 1). This move commenced shortly after midnight, November 19, 1985, with escorts from the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Department. The building had to be jacked up on the platform on which it rode and required a 90 degree turn to commence its trip south on Nebraska Avenue (U.S. 41). This delayed the start of the movement down Nebraska Avenue approximately 30 minutes. Shortly after the trip started, the portable generator that provided lighting on the building stopped functioning and the escorts told Mr. Sade he had to get the lights on the building. Sade attempted to have the generator repaired as the move progressed. When the movers stopped for approximately five minutes to repair the generator, the police escorts testified that the crew moving the building stopped working to eat. This was denied by Sade and the members of his crew who all testified that the sandwiches that Sade procured were eaten as the move progressed. The two deputies from the Sheriff's Office who escorted the move considered the move to be progressing slowly and told Sade several times that he should be ready to park the building before 6:00 A.M. Sade had spent three days surveying the route before November 19, and had taken measurements of all bridges and the elevation of lights. Mrs. Sade had contacted by telephone the City of Tampa Utilities Department to advise them of the move as well as Pasco County officials for the portion of the route in Pasco County. There was a conflict in the testimony of the deputies and Sade regarding the presence of a man on top of the building to clear traffic lights as the building passed under these lights. Sade testified he had a man on the building during the time the building was in the City of Tampa. The deputies testified they told Sade he needed someone on the top of the building. The bridge over the Hillsborough River on SR 39 was some twenty miles from the commencement of the trip and the building arrived at this bridge around 5:30 A.M. The escorts had told Sade several times that he should not be on the road after 6:00 A.M. and that hour was approaching. Sade was aware of a large lot on which the building could be parked off the highway located about one mile south of Hillsborough River bridge and decided to cross the bridge to get to that location. While crossing the Hillsborough River bridge, the building got stuck on the guardrail and had to be backed off. Sade's winch broke down but they were able to obtain a bulldozer from a business adjacent to the bridge which helped get the building off the pavement and along the right of way as demanded by the escorting officers. While this was going on, the traffic was totally blocked for about 20 minutes and delayed with one way traffic having to proceed past the building until the building was finally moved completely off the roadway. Even then the overhang of the building extended offer the road to the white line along the edge of the pavement. Sade's testimony that this eave was 17 feet above the pavement was not disputed; however, William Ledden opined that a semi-trailer would hit the roof of the building if it attempted to pass under this eave. By the time the building was parked along the right-of-way, it was approximately 8:40 A.M. and traffic had been stopped and delayed for almost three hours. The problem of getting the building stuck on the bridge, the resulting delay past 6:00 A.M. and that the building was still on the road was reported to Petitioner, and William Ledden, a certified officer employed by DOT as a weights and safety inspector, was dispatched to the scene. Ledden looked at the permit issued Sade for the move, saw it was a regular permit, saw that it expired at 6:00 A.M. and directed Sade not to move the building until a proper permit was issued. Ledden was present during the time the wrecker relocated the building alongside the paved road on the shoulder. For a building exceeding 30'6" in width a Special Permit is required (Rule 14-63.03, Florida Administrative Code). Ledden testified he made it clear to Sade that the building was not to be moved without a valid permit. On the morning of November 20, 1985, after midnight, the building was moved without incident across Hillsborough River bridge to the large lot south of the bridge that Sade had hoped to make the night before. Sade reapplied to DOT for a permit to move the building to its intended destination and on November 25, 1985, Special Permit No. B17546 (Exhibit 2) was issued to Respondent. This permit indicated all necessary parties were notified of the move. Shortly after midnight, November 27, 1985, the movement of this building recommenced pursuant to the Special Permit. The move progressed satisfactorily until the bridge on SR 39 over Blackwater Creek was reached. Petitioner's witness testified the building hit the rub rails on both sides of the bridge. Photograph admitted on Exhibit 4 shows one side of the building rubbing on the guardrail. Respondent acknowledged that the clearance was close and that to clear the guardrail on one side, the building had to be raised on that side. The driver of the towing truck acknowledged that he initially got off line and one side of the building touched the guardrail and it was necessary to back off the bridge to get realigned. To raise one side of the building to enable it to clear the guardrail on the right side, 2 x 12 planks were placed on the roadway for the right wheels of the carriage to ride on. These planks had to be moved continuously as the building progressed across the bridge. This materially slowed the progress across the bridge. Other than the initial rubbing of the guardrail, the only complaint of Petitioner regarding this part of the move is that the bridge was blocked to traffic for one and one-half hours while the building crossed the bridge. Sade testified the building was on the bridge for only 30 to 45 minutes; however, the longer period is deemed more reliable. After clearing the bridge, the building struck some tree limbs alongside the road and a railroad stop sign over the road which had to be realigned. This realignment was done by the moving crew and no safety hazard resulted. The carriage for the building had been raised as much as possible to clear the bridge guardrails and still be low enough to clear the overhanging traffic signals, hence the need to raise one side of the carriage to clear the guardrail at the Blackwater Creek bridge. The November 27 move was completed prior to 6:00 A.M. in accordance with the permit.
