The Issue Whether or not Petitioners' application for an on-site sewage disposal system (OSDS) permit should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners, Paula and David Caywood, are the owners of Lot 54, Timber Pines Subdivision, Unit 1, in Madison County, Florida. The subject lot is situated within the ten year flood plain of the Suwannee River Basin. On August 13, 1990, Petitioners filed an application with Respondent to install an OSDS to service a two-bedroom home which they desired to place on the subject lot. As an attachment to their OSDS application, Petitioners introduced a copy of a survey of their lot which was prepared by Walton F. Poppell, a Florida registered land surveyor who holds registration number 2940. The ground elevation for the ten year flood plain for the subject area where Petitioners propose to install their OSDS is 68.0 ft. A review of the land survey presented by Petitioners indicate that the proposed OSDS would be at a ground elevation of 63.8 ft. and when completed would be placed at a ground level of 65.64 ft. or 2.36 ft. below the elevation of the ten year flood plain. Although the Petitioners lot is not subject to frequent flooding, since the surface grade is beneath the ten year flood elevation, the bottom of the drain field trenches absorption bed to be installed would also be beneath the ten year flood elevation. Petitioners have not applied for a variance to install their OSDS within the ten year flood plain of the Suwannee River Basin.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent enter a Final Order denying Petitioners application to install an OSDS to service a two-bedroom home on Lot 54, Timber Pines Subdivision, Unit 1, in Madison County, Florida. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of February, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 28th day of February, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: David and Paula Caywood 9320 Horizon Drive Springhill, Florida 34608 John L. Pearce, Esquire HRS District II Legal Office 2639 N. Monroe Street, Suite 200-A Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2949 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Linda K. Harris, Esquire Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact Charlotte Highlands is an approximately 97-acre mobile home subdivision in Charlotte County, Florida. The roads in the subdivision are unpaved. The stormwater sheet flow in the area is from west to east. To the east of Charlotte Highlands is a 21-acre hardwood swamp, the wetlands in question in this proceeding. Stormwater from the 97-acre subdivision west of the wetlands and from the 250 acres west of the subdivision flows to the east into the wetlands. Water flows out of the wetlands to the east, from the 21-acre wetlands through a stream into Myrtle Slough. Myrtle Slough is part of the waters of the State. The County wishes to create a stormwater drainage system for Charlotte Highlands. Under the County's plan, stormwater from the 97-acre subdivision would be discharged into the wetlands owned by Desrosiers Brothers. Although the County and the Department view this project as involving only the discharge of stormwater from the 97-acre subdivision into the wetlands, the stormwater discharged would include the stormwater flowing into the 97-acre subdivision from the 250 acres located directly west of the subdivision. The County met with individuals from the Southwest Florida Water Management District, and that agency questioned the method of calculations used by the County in determining the amount of runoff into the proposed drainage system. Although new calculations of stormwater runoff volume were performed by the County, those new calculations were not provided to the Department in the County's permit application. The wetlands in question contain cypress, maples, laurel oak, bay trees, percia, dahoon holly, buttonbush, ferns, palmetto, and wet pine. Some of these species, especially the maples, cannot withstand much flooding. The outflow from the wetland into Myrtle Slough is via a natural stream. Although there are some indications that some excavation may have taken place in the stream, such as the spoil located near the cattle watering pond near the mouth of the wetlands, water flows from the wetlands to Myrtle Slough through a natural watercourse with no man-made connections. The hydroperiod is the length of time water stays in a wetlands before it drains out of the wetlands. This determines the water level, the critical factor affecting a wetland's ability to perform its vital functions. If the rate or volume of either the inflow or outflow of a wetlands is altered enough, the water level changes, usually with adverse environmental consequences. Certain species of flora will die off if the water level rises too much. Others require high water levels for their survival. In order to assess the effects of a proposed alteration to such a system, one must determine the existing high pool and low pool. Donald H. Ross established the high and low pools for the County. He went to the wetlands and observed the stain, rack, and lichen lines on tree trunks. He also observed the cypress buttress. Ross also determined the invert of the stream, the elevation at which water first starts to run in it. Based solely on this site visit, the County determined the high pool in the wetlands to be at 14.8 NGVD and the low pool to be at 14.1 NGVD. No rainfall data was collected and analyzed; no hydrological studies were performed; no observations were made over a period of time. There are two aspects of this project which can alter the hydroperiod of the wetlands. The first involves the amount of water entering the wetlands, and the second involves the amount of water leaving the wetlands. Currently, runoff from the 97-acre subdivision as well as the 250-acre area west of the subdivision drains toward the wetlands. The County intends to pave the roads in the subdivision and construct a system of swales. Although the paving will increase the impervious surface by an insignificant amount, the runoff will be delivered to the wetlands faster. Accordingly, peaks in water level will occur more suddenly with increased water arriving more quickly. Stormwatr is discharged into wetlands to take advantage of the pollutant-filtering functions of wetlands vegetation. To realize this function, the water must be held in the wetlands for a certain amount of time. The County intends to accomplish this by the installation of a control structure, known as a weir, which will regulate the amount of water leaving the wetlands. The County proposes to construct a weir on the stream between the wetlands and Myrtle Slough approximately 100 feet from the mouth of the wetlands. The top of the weir for this system will be set at 14.8 NGVD, the high pool established by Ross for the County. The weir will also have an orifice set at 14.1 NGVD, the low pool established by Ross and the County, which will allow a constant flow of water out of the wetlands at that elevation. The control structure will cause water to remain in the wetlands for a longer period of time, which will raise the water level in the wetlands by some amount. In order to accurately predict this amount, it is necessary to determine the storage capacity of the wetlands. The County calculated that a storage capacity of 177,761 cubic feet would be required for the wetlands to contain the first one-half inch of rainfall from the 97-acre subdivision. No calculations have been made as to the storage capacity required for the wetlands to contain the first one inch of rainfall from the 97-acre subdivision as well as the 250-acre area that drains into the subdivision which then drains toward the wetlands. The County has failed to establish the hydroperiod of the wetlands. Having failed to establish the hydroperiod of the wetlands, the impact of its project on the wetlands cannot be determined. As an alternative to this project the County considered rerouting the stormwater away from the wetlands. Diverting necessary water from the wetlands would result in the desiccation of the wetlands. However, an increased water flow if not properly discharged would likely result in an over impoundment of the wetlands. Either approach would have an adverse impact on a productive wetland system, such as the wetlands involved here, and a change in the vegetation would adversely impact the wetland's ability to treat the discharge. The treatment of stormwater in wetlands is a relatively new technique. Although some projects have been approved in other parts of the State, projects such as that proposed by the County have not been used yet in southwest Florida.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Charlotte County's application for a wetlands stormwater discharge facility permit. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 8th day of October, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 8th day of October, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-0243 Although Charlotte County filed a document called Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions on the Evidence, rather than setting forth any findings of fact the County simply makes what it calls a Comparison of Evidence on Issue 1 and a Comparison of Evidence on Issue 2, listing under each heading excerpts from the testimony of each of the witnesses in this proceeding. Accordingly, no rulings are made herein on Charlotte County's proposed findings of fact since it is determined that there are none. Desrosiers Brothers' proposed findings of fact numbered 1-9, 15, 17, 24, 26, 27, and 38 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Desrosiers Brothers' proposed findings of fact numbered 10-12, 19-21, 23, 25, 29-37, 40, and 41 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel or recitations of the testimony. Desrosiers Brothers' proposed findings of fact numbered 13, 14, 16, 18, 22, 28, and 39 have been rejected as being unnecessary or subordinate to the issues under consideration herein. The Department's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 2, 14 in part, 15, 16 in part, 17 in part, 18-22, 27, and 28 in part have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. The Department's proposed findings of fact numbered 5 and 6 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel or recitations of the testimony. The Department's proposed findings of fact numbered 16 in part, and 17 in part have been rejected as being unnecessary or subordinate to the issues under consideration herein. The Department's proposed findings of fact numbered 3, 4, and 7-13 have been rejected as being contrary to the weight of the evidence in this cause. The Department's proposed findings of fact numbered 14 in part, 23-26, and 28 in part have been rejected as not being supported by the evidence in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: Dale Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Philip J. Jones, Esquire 201 West Marion Avenue Suite 301 Punta Gorda, Florida 33950 Matthew G. Minter, Esquire 18500 Murdock Circle Port Charlotte, Florida 33948-1094 Richard Grosso, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 =================================================================
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner is entitled to a variance from the permitting rule requirements so as to authorize installation of an on-site sewage disposal system ("OSDS") on his property in Columbia County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner owns certain real property in Columbia County, Florida, in a subdivision known as "Three Rivers Estates, Unit 5, Lot 33". The property is at "River Mile 7" of the Santa Fe River, as measured by the Suwannee River Water Management District; and the subdivision was platted and recorded in 1962. The lot in question is 400 feet by 90 feet in dimensions and is located approximately 300 feet from the surface waters of the Santa Fe River. The applicant/Petitioner desires to install an OSDS merely for the purpose of serving his motor home when he vacations on the lot in question, because the Columbia County Ordinance involved requires that a residential-type septic system be installed and operating before a resident can obtain electric power to his lot, even for use with a motor home. The original permit application and the variance were denied because the property lies beneath the ten-year flood elevation for the pertinent river mile of the Santa Fe River, where the property in question is located, and because the site has only 27 inches of soil between the surface grade and a solid limerock stratum which lies under the area. Only 10 inches of that 27 inches of soil is suitable for use as part of an OSDS, being of a sandy quality. The remainder of the soil is of a dense, impervious, gray clay, which is not suitable as a treatment medium for OSDS's. It is undisputed that the property surface grade elevation at the proposed installation site is 22.66 feet above mean sea level ("MSL"). The ten-year flood elevation at the site is 31.0 feet above MSL. Therefore, the installation site is approximately 8.33 feet below the ten-year flood elevation. Thus, the proposed installation site cannot meet the requirements of Rule 10D-6.047(6), Florida Administrative Code, with regard to the definitional standards in that provision, to the effect that the site in question cannot be subject to frequent flooding, as measured by ten-year flood elevations for the site. There was no showing by the Petitioner that installation of an OSDS at the site, given the above- mentioned soil depth and characteristics, the fact that the property in question is below the ten-year flood elevation, would not pose an adverse effect on the public health, the health of the applicant/Petitioner or his guests or invitees, nor that adverse impacts on the ground or surface waters in the vicinity of the site, in terms of pollution contamination, will not be occasioned by installation of an OSDS on the lot in question, in terms of a conventional, beneath-surface-grade-type system. The Petitioner proposes, however, the use of a "mounded system", which involves the installation of fill soil above the present grade level, so that a sufficient depth of appropriate treatment soil (42 inches) will exist between the bottom of the drain-field trenches and the water table, which in the instant case, means the limerock layer which lies just above the water table. The problem with such a mounded system, however, is that pertinent Department rules contained in Section 10D-6.043-.049, Florida Administrative Code, regarding the slope and basal area configuration of such mounded systems, reveal that the subject lot is too narrow to install a mound of sufficient height to raise the OSDS and the bottom surface of its drain-field trenches above the ten-year flood elevation. This is because, even though a lower mound of approximately 3 feet in height could be installed to raise the drain-field trenches the required 42 inches above the water table, the 3-foot mounded system would still be beneath the ten-year flood elevation. A mound approximately 10'2" high above surface grade would be required to raise the OSDS a sufficient amount to get it above the ten-year flood elevation. It might be said that the proposed 3-foot mound, which would give sufficient treatment soil beneath the drain-field trenches, would constitute only a "minor deviation" from the permitting requirements of Rule 10D-6.047, Florida Administrative Code, regarding the ten-year flood elevation parameter. Thus, in the instant situation, it might be an appropriate alternative system justifying the granting of a hardship variance based upon a minor deviation from the permitting rules. However, the Petitioner did not prove that such would amount to a minor deviation. Specifically, the Petitioner did not establish that the use of such a system would pose no threat or adverse impact on the ground or surface waters at the site involved nor to the public health. While the septic tank and drain fields in such a 3-foot-mounded system might work, the likelihood of frequent flooding would render the system unsafe from an environmental standpoint, as delineated in the rules, because it would be subject to frequent flooding. Because of the threat of frequent flooding by such a low-mounded system, it cannot be said to be a minor deviation justifying the granting of a hardship variance. Further, Rule 10D-6.047, Florida Administrative Code, requires that when a mounded system is to be constructed in a "regulatory flood-way", a certified engineer performing appropriate calculations and other-engineering techniques must establish that the installation of the mound in the regulatory flood-way will not raise the level of the "base flood". Evidence of such engineering calculations, which would show that the base flood level will not be altered by installation of any sort of mounded system, has not been offered in this record, however. This further militates against any finding that installation of even a 3-foot mounded system would constitute a minor deviation from the permitting rules contained in Rule 10D-6.047, Florida Administrative Code. There is no dispute that the property and the site in question lies within the regulatory flood-way of the Santa Fe River. Thus, in terms of the proposed variance, there has been proof that use of a 3-foot mound beneath the ten-year flood elevation, or a mound which would raise the OSDS proposed above the ten-year flood elevation, would only be a "minor deviation" from the permitting rules, which are designed to protect public health and the ground or surface waters involved from pollution. In fact, it was not shown how such an alternative system would insure the protection of the ground or surface waters involved from any adverse impact caused by pollution from OSDS effluent nor how such an alternative system would operate and still safeguard the public health and the ground or surface waters involved.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department denying the Petitioner's application for a variance from the permitting statutes and rules at issue. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of June, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL RUFF 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 10th day of June, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Sam Power Agency Clerk Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Linda K. Harris, Esq. General Counsel Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Michael S. Kochan 9360 Craven Road Unit 1401 Jacksonville, FL 32257 Frances S. Childers, Esq. Department of HRS District 3 Legal Office 1000 N.E. 16th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32609
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant fact are found: On May 3, 1989, Cersosimo submitted an application for a Management of Surface Water Permit to the District. Subsequent to the submission of this application, the Polk County Board of County Commissioner (Commissioners) added an additional requirement to Cersosimo's Planned Unit Development (PUD) that there was to be a pre- development/post-development match for basin runoff in the event of a twenty- four hour one hundred (100) year storm event, i.e. following completion of this project (post-development) it will handle the same outflow or flow of storm water for the twenty four-hour one hundred-year storm event as in a pre- development situation. Based on the Commissioners' requirement, the design of the PUD was amended to provide for the required storage capabilities. On July 26, 1990, Cersosimo submitted to the District, its amended application, Management of Surface Water Permit No. 405733.01 incorporating the changes necessitated due to the Commissioners' additional requirement as to storm water runoff. On August 24, 1990, Ramon E. Monreal, P.E., of the Polk County Engineering Division, noted in a letter of that same date referring to Cersosimo's modification of Retention Pond No. 300 for the project in question that "this revision appears to meet the PUD condition by the Board of County Commissioners for drainage and compliance with the Surface Water Management Ordinance". The application of July 26, 1990, amends the original application by superceding and replacing that application. In connection with the application for permit, soil borings were taken at the site location for the retention ponds in order to establish the elevation of the seasonal high water level (SHWL) for that site. The borings indicated an elevation for the SHWL of 110 feet to 112 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The District conservationally established the elevation for the SHWL of this particular site as 112 feet AMSL. The floor elevation of the lowest retention pond was established at 114.00 feet AMSL. The elevation of the surface of Lake Mabel for the ten year flood warning Level is 114.50 feet AMSL as established by Rule 40D-8.624(1)(z), Florida Administrative Code. District policy requires the floor elevation of a dry retention pond to be a minimum of one foot above the established elevation of the SHWL of that particular site. Even though the surface elevation of Lake Mabel for the Ten Year Flood Warning Level was established as 114.50 feet AMSL, there is insufficient evidence to show that there was lateral migration of water from the lake's edge to the site of the soil borings such that it was evidenced by a demarcation in the soil profile. To the contrary, the evidence shows that there were demarcations in the soil profile to establish an elevation for the SHWL for this site of 110 feet to 112 feet AMSL. The designed weir crest in the lower retention pond, Pond No. 300, has an approximate elevation of 118.50 feet AMSL which prevents water from coming over the top into the pond in the event Lake Mabel reaches the ten year flood level warning elevation of 114.50 feet AMSL. The distance from the present water edge of Lake Mabel to the bottom of Pond No. 300 would be approximately 600 feet, laterally and if the lake reached the ten year flood level warning elevation of 114.50 feet AMSL, the lake's water edge would be approximately 100 feet laterally from the bottom of Pond No. 300. There was sufficient evidence to show that even if the surface elevation of Lake Mabel reached the ten year flood level warning of 114.50 feet AMSL and the SHWL (ground water level) reached 112 feet AMSL, the retention ponds as presently proposed with a floor elevation of 114.00 feet AMSL would still percolate sufficiently, even though the percolation may be diminished from what it would be under present conditions, so that there would still be a pre- development/post-development match for basin runoff. Cersosimo can give reasonable assurances that the surface water management system as presently proposed will not diminish the capabilities of Lake Mabel to fluctuate through the full range established for it in Chapter 40D-8, Florida Administrative Code. Among others, the following specific conditions in pertinent part will be placed on the permit, if granted: . . . The applicant shall visually monitor the ponds on a monthly basis to ensure that the ponds are dry within 36 hours from the end of the last rainfall event. Should the ponds fail to percolate the required water quality volume per District criteria, a permit modification shall be required. . . .
Recommendation Based upon consideration of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law, it is, recommended that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a Final Order granting the application for Management Surface Water Permit No. 405733.01, as proposed by the District. RECOMMENDED this 12th day of February, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 12th day of February, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-4175 The following constitute my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. The Petitioner did not submit any Proposed Findings of Fact Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent Cersosimo 1. - 7. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1-7, respectively. 8. - 10. Adopted in Findings of Fact 10, 8 and 14, respectively. 11. Adopted in Findings of Fact 12 and 13. 12.-13. Adopted in Findings of Fact 13 and 11, respectively. Respondent District adopted Respondent Cersosimo's Proposed Findings of Fact, therefore the same rulings would apply as was applied to Respondent's Cersosimo's Proposed Findings of Fact above. COPIES FURNISHED: Catherine D'Andrea, Esquire Susan Dietrich, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Gary L. Gandy Omega Farm Post Office Box Omega Waverly, Florida 33887 Beach A. Brooks, Jr., Esquire Post Office Drawer 7608 Winter Haven, Florida 33883 Peter G. Hubbell Executive Director 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, FL 34609-6899
The Issue The issues to be determined in this case are whether Petitioner Highway 60 and 301 Center, Inc., has standing to challenge the proposed Environmental Resource Permit issued to Respondent Big Bend Center, LLC, by Respondent Southwest Florida Water Management District ("District"), and, if so, whether Big Bend Center is entitled to issuance of the proposed permit.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner owns real property located at 105 U.S. Highway 301 South, in Tampa, which Petitioner leases to commercial businesses. Respondent Big Bend Center owns real property located at 110 U.S. Highway 301 South, which is across Highway 301 from Petitioner's property. Big Bend Center is named in the District's agency action and is the permittee. The site affected by the proposed permit modification is about 2.5 acres in size. It is part of a larger development owned by Big Bend Center, encompassing about 30 acres. The 30-acre site was the subject of a permit issued by the District in 1988. The 1988 permit approved a master drainage plan applicable to all 30 acres. The permit modifications discussed herein are modifications to this initial permit. Respondent Enterprise Holdings leases the 2.5-acre site at 110 U.S. Highway 301 South, which Enterprise uses for the operation of a car and truck rental business. When Petitioner filed its petition with the District, it named Enterprise Holdings, Inc., as a Respondent, even though Enterprise Holdings was not named in the permit. Neither Petitioner nor the District ever questioned the right of Enterprise Holdings to participate as a party. Respondent Southwest Florida Water Management District is the administrative agency charged with the responsibility to administer and enforce chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 40D. The Permit The petition for hearing challenged the District's approval of a proposed permit designated 44003983.007. The permit authorized the construction of a building over existing pavement and the addition of a dumpster pad. After the petition for hearing was filed, Big Bend Center requested and the District approved a modification, designated .008, which included the .007 changes and, in addition, authorized the construction of a section of sidewalk and landscape islands in the parking lot. Enterprise then requested and the District approved another modification, .009, which authorized all the changes addressed in .008 and, in addition, authorized changes to the paved parking lot. Standing Petitioner contends that proposed permit, modification .009, would injure Petitioner because the authorized changes would result in flooding of Highway 301 that could reach Petitioner's property or, even if it did not reach that far, would interfere with traffic on Highway 301 in a manner that would disrupt Petitioner's business. The sole factual allegation upon which Petitioner bases its claim of flooding is that the previously-installed pipes that convey runoff to a retention pond may be too small; smaller than was required by Big Bend Center's 1988 permit. Petitioner's expert, Clifford Laubstein, stated that a boundary survey in the permit file shows two 18-inch diameter pipes connected to a 24-inch diameter pipe. Big Bend Center's 1988 permit required these pipes to be 24 inches and 30 inches, respectively. Laubstein admitted that the "as built" construction drawings that were submitted to the District by Big Bend Center after the construction of the master drainage system certifies that the pipes are the required, larger size. Laubstein did not have firsthand knowledge of the size of the pipes. He did not know which document was correct, the survey or the as built drawings. His position was simply that if the survey information was correct, Big Bend Center's stormwater system would fail to function properly and flooding could occur. Laubstein did not know whether the system had failed to function properly in the past or had ever caused flooding. Laubstein did not determine what storm event or volume of runoff would result in flooding of Highway 301, or the extent of flooding that would occur under various storm events. Because as built constructions drawings are prepared by an engineer and submitted to the District for the very purpose of certifying that a system has been constructed in accordance with the requirements of the permit, information in the as built drawings about components of the system would generally be more reliable than such information in a survey that was prepared for another purpose. Furthermore, Enterprise's expert witness, Steve Boggs, measured the pipes and determined they were 24 and 30 inches, as required by the permit. By refuting Petitioner's claim that the pipes "may" be undersized, Respondents refuted Petitioner's claim that Highway 301 or Petitioner's property "may" be flooded if the proposed permit modification is issued by the District. The stormwater system for the proposed project is properly sized to handle the stormwater runoff. Petitioner failed to meet its burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it could be injured by the proposed permit modification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the District dismiss the petition and issue Environmental Resource Permit 44003983.009. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of March, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER 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 4th day of March, 2013.
The Issue The issue is whether the City's applications for an individual stormwater permit and a noticed general environmental resource permit for Phase 1A of the proposed Hogtown Creek Greenway should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background In these two cases, Respondent, City of Gainesville (City), seeks the issuance of a stormwater system management permit (stormwater permit) to construct a 2,000-foot long asphaltic trail/boardwalk, a parking facility and associated improvements for Phase 1A of the Hogtown Creek Greenway project in the north central portion of the City. That matter is docketed as Case No. 97-2845. The City also seeks the issuance of a noticed general environmental resource permit (NGP) to construct 481 square feet of piling supported structures over wetlands or surface waters for the same project. That matter has been assigned Case No. 97-2846. Respondent, St. Johns River Water Management District (District), is the regulatory agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing and approving the requested permits. Petitioner, Greenspace Preservation Association, Inc., is a not-for-profit Florida corporation primarily composed of persons who own real property adjacent to the route proposed by the City, as well as local environmental interests. Petitioners, Frank Ward, Sal Locascio, Frederick P. Peterkin, and Harold M. Stahmer, are individuals who own real property adjacent to the route proposed by the City for the Greenway. The parties have stipulated that Petitioners are substantially affected by the District's proposed action and thus have standing to initiate these cases. On March 28, 1997, the City filed applications for a stormwater permit and a NPG for Phase IA of the Hogtown Creek Greenway project. After conducting a review of the applications, including an on-site visit to the area, in May 1997, the District proposed to issue the requested permits. On June 9, 1997, Petitioners timely filed a Petition for Initiation of Formal Proceedings as to both intended actions. As amended and then refined by stipulation, Petitioners generally allege that, as to the stormwater permit, the City has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the project meets the permitting requirements of the District; the City has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the stormwater system will not cause violations of state water quality standards; the City has failed to provide reasonable asurance that the project satisfies the District's minimum required design features; and the City has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the stormwater system is capable of being effectively operated and maintained by the City. As to the NPG, Petitioners generally allege that the piling supported structure is not less than 1,000 square feet; the jurisdictional wetlands are greater than the area shown on the plans submitted by the City; the City has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the system will not significantly impede navigation; the City has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the system does not violate state water quality standards; the City has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the system does not impede the conveyance of a watercourse in a manner that would affect off-site flooding; the City has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the system will not cause drainage of wetlands; and the City failed to provide reasonable assurance that the system does not adversely impact aquatic or wetland dependent listed species. Respondents deny each of the allegations and aver that all requirements for issuance of the permits have been met. In addition, the City has requested attorney's fees and costs under Section 120.595(1)(b), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996), on the theory that these actions were filed for an improper purpose. A General Description of the Project The Hogtown Creek Greenway is a long-term project that will eventually run from Northwest 39th Street southward some seven miles to the Kanapaha Lake/Haile Sink in southwest Gainesville. These cases involve only Phase 1A of that project, which extends approximately one-half mile. This phase consists of the construction of a 2,000-foot long asphaltic concrete trail/boardwalk, a timber bridge and boardwalk, a parking facility, and associated improvements. The trail will extend from the Loblolly Environmental Facility located at Northwest 34th Street and Northwest 5th Avenue, to the intersection of Northwest 8th Avenue and Northwest 31st Drive. The trail will have a typical width of ten feet. For the majority of its length, the trail will be constructed of asphaltic concrete overlying a limerock base, and it will generally lie at the existing grade and slope away from the creek. Besides the trail, additional work involves the repaving of Northwest 5th Avenue with the addition of a curb and gutter, the construction of an entrance driveway, paved and grassed parking areas, and sidewalks at the Loblolly Environmental Facility, and the widening and addition of a new turn lane and pedestrian crosswalk at the intersection of Northwest 8th Avenue and Northwest 31st Drive. The Stormwater Permit Generally The entire Phase IA project area lies within the Hogtown Creek 10-year floodplain. It also lies within the Hogtown Creek Hydrologic Basin, which basin includes approximately 21 square miles. The project area for the proposed stormwater permit is 4.42 acres. Water quality criteria Phase IA of the Greenway will not result in discharges into surface groundwater that cause or contribute to violations of state water quality standards. When a project meets the applicable design criteria under the District's stormwater rule, there is a presumption that the project will not cause a violation of state water quality standards. There are two dry retention basins associated with the project. Basin 1 is located at the cul-de-sac of Northwest 5th Avenue and will capture and retain the stormwater runoff from the new and reconstructed impervious areas at the Loblolly Facility. Basin 2 is located at the parking area and will capture and retain stormwater runoff at the existing building and proposed grass parking area. Under the stormwater rule, the presumptive criteria for retention basins require that the run-off percolate out of the basin bottom within 72 hours. The calculations performed by the City's engineer show that the two retention basins will recover within that timeframe. In making these calculations, the engineer used the appropriate percolation rate of ten inches per hour. Even using the worst case scenario with a safety factor of twenty and a percolation rate of one-half inch per hour, the two retention basins will still recover within 72 hours. The presumptive criteria for retention basins require that the basin store a volume equal to one inch of run-off over the drainage area or 1.25 inches of run-off over the impervious area plus one-half inch of run-off over the drainage area. The calculations performed by the City's engineer show that the two retention basins meet the District's volume requirements for retention systems. An applicant is not required to utilize the presumptive design criteria, but instead may use an alternative design if the applicant can show, based on calculations, tests, or other information, that the alternative design will not cause a violation of state water quality standards. As a general rule, the District applies its stormwater rule so that water quality treatment is not required for projects or portions of projects that do not increase pollutant loadings. This includes linear bicycle/pedestrian trails. The City's proposed trail will not be a source of pollutants. The City will install signs at both entrances to the trail to keep out motorized vehicles. Except for emergency and maintenance vehicles, motorized vehicles will not be permitted on the trail. The infrequent use by emergency or maintenance vehicles will not be sufficient to create water quality concerns. The construction of a treatment system to treat the stormwater from the trail would provide little benefit and would only serve to unnecessarily impact natural areas. Although treatment of the stormwater run-off from the trail portion of the project is not required under District rules, the run-off will receive treatment in the vegetated upland buffer adjacent to the trail. The District's proposed other condition number 3 will require the City to plant vegetation in unvegetated and disturbed areas in the buffer. This will reduce the likelihood of erosion or sedimentation problems in the area of the trail. Although disputed at hearing, it is found that the City's engineer used the appropriate Manning coefficient in the calculations regarding the buffer. Even without a vegetated buffer, run-off coming from the bicycle trail will not violate state water quality standards. The City will install appropriate erosion and sediment controls. These include siltation barriers along the entire length of both sides of the proposed trail prior to commencing construction. Such barriers will not allow silt or other material to flow through, over, or under them. The City will also place hay bales and any other silt fencing necessary to solve any erosion problem that may occur during construction. In addition, the permit will require an inspection and any necessary repairs to the siltation barriers at the end of each day of construction. Saturation of the limerock bed under the paved portion of the trail is not expected to cause a problem because heavy vehicles will not regularly use the trail. The trail portion of the project can be adequately maintained to avoid deterioration. Sensitive Karst Areas Basin criteria The two proposed dry retention basins for Phase 1A are located within the District's Sensitive Karst Areas Basin. They include all of the minimum design features required by the District to assure adequate treatment of the stormwater before it enters the Floridan aquifer and to preclude the formation of solution pipe sinkholes in the stormwater system. There will be a minimum of three feet of unconsolidated soil material between the surface of the limestone bedrock and the bottom and sides of the two retention basins. The appropriate mechanism for determining the depth of limestone is to do soil borings. The soil borings performed by the City show that there is at least three feet of unconsolidated material between the bottom of the basins and any limerock where the borings were taken. In other words, limestone would not be expected to be within three feet of the bottom of either basin. Based on the soil boring results, the seasonal high water table is at least six feet below ground level. The depth of the two retention basins will be less than ten feet. Indeed, the depth of the basins will be as shallow as possible and will have a horizontal bottom with no deep spots. To make the retention basins any larger would require clearing more land. A large shallow basin with a horizontal bottom results in a lower hydraulic head and therefore is less potential for a sinkhole to form. Before entering the basins, stormwater will sheet flow across pavement and into a grass swale, thereby providing some dispersion of the volume. Finally, the two retention basin side slopes will be vegetated. Special condition number 7 provides that if limestone is encountered during excavation of a basin, the City must over- excavate the basin and backfill with three feet of unconsolidated material below the bottom of the basin. Drainage and flood protection Contrary to Petitioners' assertions, the project will not adversely affect drainage or flood protection on surrounding properties. The trail will be constructed generally at existing grade. Because the trail will be constructed at existing grade, the net volume of fill necessary for Phase 1A is approximately zero. Therefore, there will not be a measurable increase in the amount of runoff leaving the site after construction, and the trail will not result in an increase in off-site discharges. District rules require that the proposed post- development peak rate of discharge from a site not exceed the pre-development peak rate of discharge for the mean annual storm only for projects that exceed fifty percent impervious surface. The proposed project has less than fifty percent impervious surface. Even though it is not required, the City has demonstrated that the post-development rate of discharge will not exceed the pre-development peak rate of discharge. Both basins will retain the entire mean annual storm so that the post-development rate of discharge is zero. Even during a 100-year storm event, the retention basins willl not discharge. Therefore, there will not be any increase in floodplain elevations during the 10, 25, or 100-year storm events from the proposed project. Operation and maintenance entity requirements The applicable requirements of Chapter 40C-42, Florida Administrative Code, regarding operation and maintenance, have been met by the applicant. The City proposes itself as the permanent operation and maintenance entity for the project. This is permissible under District regulations. The duration for the operation and maintenance phase of the permit is perpetual. The City has adequate resources and staff to maintain the phase 1A portion of the project. The public works department will maintain the stormwater management system out of the City's utility fund. The City provides periodic inspections of all of its stormwater systems. These inspections are paid for out of the collected stormwater fees. The City will also conduct periodic inspections of the project area, and the two retention basins will be easily accessed by maintenance vehicles. The City will be required to submit an as-built certification, signed and sealed by a professional engineer, once the project is constructed. Monthly inspections of the system must be conducted looking for any sinkholes or solution cavities that may be forming in the basins. If any are observed, the City is required to notify the District and repair the cavity or sinkhole. Once the system is constructed, the City will be required to submit an inspection report biannually notifying the District that the system is operating and functioning in accordance with the permitted design. If the system is not functioning properly, the applicant must remediate the system. The City will be required to maintain the two retention basins by mowing the side slopes, repairing any erosion on the side slopes, and removing sediment that accumulates in the basins. Mowing will be done at least six times per year. The City will stabilize the slopes and bottom areas of the basins to prevent erosion. The City has a regular maintenance schedule for stormwater facilities. The project will be included within the City's regular maintenance program. The City has budgeted approximately $80,000.00 for maintenance of the trail and vegetated buffer. Also, it has added new positions in its budget that will be used to maintain and manage the Greenway system. Finally, City staff will conduct daily inspections of the Phase 1A trail looking for problems with the vegetated buffer, erosion problems along the trail, and sediment and debris in the retention basin. If the inspections reveal any problems, the staff will take immediate action to correct them. The Noticed General Environmental Resource Permit Generally By this application, the City seeks to construct 481 square feet of piling supported structures over wetlands or surface waters. The proposed structures include a 265 square foot timber bridge over an un-vegetated flow channel, which connects a borrow area to Possum Creek, and a 216 square foot boardwalk over two small wetland areas located south of the flow channel. None of the pilings for the bridge or boardwalk will be in wetlands, and no construction will take place in Hogtown or Possum Creeks. The paved portion of the trail will not go through wetlands, and there will be no dredging or filling in wetlands. The receiving waters for the project are Hogtown and Possum Creeks. Both are Class III waters. Hogtown Creek originates in north central Gainesville and flows southwest to Kanapaha Lake/Haile Sink in southwest Gainesville. Possum Creek originates in northwest Gainesville and flows southeast to its confluence with Hogtown Creek south of the proposed bridge structure. Wetlands The total area of the proposed bridge and boardwalk over surface water or wetlands is approximately 481 square feet. The wetland delineation shown on the City's Exhibit 5A includes all of the areas in the project area considered to be wetlands under the state wetland delineation methodology. The United State Army Corps of Engineers' wetland line includes more wetlands than the District wetland line. The former wetland line was used to determine the area of boardwalk and bridge over wetlands. Even using this line, however, the total area of boardwalk over surface waters or wetlands is approximately 481 square feet and is therefore less than 1,000 square feet. Navigation The proposed system does not significantly impede navigation. Further, the structures will span a wetland area and an un-vegetated flow channel, both of which are non-navigable. In fact, the flow channel generally exhibits little or no flow except after periods of rainfall. Water quality The construction material that will be used for the bridge and boardwalk will not generate any pollutants. Morever, chemical cleaners will not be used on those structures. Silt fences will be used and vegetation will be planted in the vicinity of the bridge and boardwalk to prevent erosion and sedimentation problems. The amount of erosion from drip that comes off the boardwalk will be minimal. Therefore, the bridge and boardwalk will not cause a violation of state water quality standards. Off-site flooding The project will not impede conveyance of any stream, river, or other water course which would increase off-site flooding. The structures will completely span the wetland areas and flow channel, and no part of the structures, including the pilings, will lie within any water or wetland areas including the flow channel. There will be a span of 2.5 to 3 feet from the horizontal members of the bridge and boardwalk down to the ground surface which will allow water to pass through unobstructed. Further, there will not be any cross ties or horizontal obstructions on the lower portions of the boardwalk or bridge pilings. Further, due to the spacing of the pilings, the boardwalk and bridge will not trap sufficient sediment such as leaves to impede the conveyance of the flow channel. Therefore, conveyance through the flow channel will not be affected by the structures. Because the boardwalk and bridge are not over Hogtown or Possum Creeks, they will not cause any obstruction to the conveyance of the creeks. Aquatic and wetland dependent listed species The project will not adversely affect any aquatic or wetland dependent listed species. These species are defined by District rule as aquatic or wetland dependent species listed in Chapter 39-27, Florida Administrative Code, or 50 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 17. No such species are known to exist in the project area, and none are expected to exist in the location and habitat type of the project area. Therefore, contrary to Petitioners' assertions, there are no listed salamander, frog, turtle, or lizard species known to occur within the Hogtown Creek basin. Although it is possible that the box turtle may be found in the project area, it is not an aquatic or wetland dependent listed species. One baby American alligator (between two and three feet in length) was observed in the borrow pit area of the project on September 11, 1997. Except for this sighting, no other listed animal species have been observed in the project area. As to the alligator, the only area in which it could nest would be in the existing excavated borrow pit, and none of the proposed construction will take place in that area. More than likely, the alligator had walked into the area from Clear Lake, Kanapaha Prairie, or Lake Alice. The proposed structures will not affect the movement of the alligator nor its feeding habits. Drainage of wetlands Because the boardwalk and bridge are elevated structures over waters and wetlands, and the City has not proposed to construct ditches or other drainage systems, the proposed system will not cause drainage of the wetlands. Coral/macro-marine algae/grassbeds The proposed system is not located in, on, or over coral communities, macro/marine algae, or a submerged grassbed community. D. Were the Petitions Filed for an Improper Purpose? Prior to the filing of their petitions, Petitioners did not consult with experts, and they prepared no scientific investigations. Their experts were not retained until just prior to hearing. Petitioners are citizens who have genuine concerns with the project. They are mainly longtime residents of the area who fear that the Greenway will not be properly maintained by the City; it will increase flooding in the area; it will cause water quality violations; and it will attract thousands of persons who will have unimpeded access to the back yards of nearby residents. Although these concerns were either not substantiated at hearing or are irrelevant to District permitting criteria, they were nonetheless filed in good faith and not for an improper purpose.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the St. Johns River Water Management District enter a final order approving the applications of the City of Gainesville and issuing the requested permits. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of December, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of December, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry Dean, Executive Director St. Johns River Water Management District Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32178-1429 Samuel A. Mutch, Esquire 2790 Northwest 43rd Street Suite 100, Meridien Centre Gainesville, Florida 32606 Jennifer B. Springfield, Esquire Mary Jane Angelo, Esquire Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32178-1429 Richard R. Whiddon, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 1110 Gainesville, Florida 32602-1110
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner Kirchhoff owns property bounded by the St. Johns River, and by U.S. Highway 17 and 92 in Seminole County, Florida. A legal description of the property is set out on a plat of survey which was received in evidence as Petitioners Exhibit 3. The state has recently constructed a boat ramp in close proximity to the property. The Petitioner Glover proposed to Kirchhoff that the land be developed as a fish camp. Petitioners were successful in getting the land zoned in order to allow for construction of a fish camp. A one quarter acre plot within the land owned by Kirchhoff was designated by the Petitioners as the site for their proposed fish camp. Much of this one quarter acre is low and wet, and a landfill is essential to Petitioners' plans. Petitioners' landfill and construction plans are described in the original application which Petitioners submitted to the Respondent. The application, and attached drawings show an approximately 100' x 100' landfill. The location of the landfill is marked with a red pencil on the aerial photograph map which was received in evidence as Petitioners' Exhibit 1. The major portion of the landfill would be used for parking purposes, and a 30' x 60' building would be constructed 20' from the waterward edge of the fill. The fill would cover a portion of the flood plain of the St. Johns River and would average 4 to 6 feet in depth. The flood plain along the bank of the St. Johns River in the area of the Petitioners' proposed landfill is approximately 1800 feet wide. U. S. Highway 17 - 92 has cut off approximately 1400 feet of the flood plain from the river itself. The portion of the flood plain immediately adjacent to the river, which is bounded by the highway and the river, is dominated by phragmites reeds, willows and cypress. The uplands of the proposed project is limited to the filled roadbed of highway 17-92. The landfill would merge with the highway roadbed, and would primarily cover wetlands within the St. Johns River flood plain. Such wetlands as the Petitioners proposed to fill provide a habitat and breeding grounds for many varieties of fish, shrimp, and anthropods. During the early stages of their lives many varieties of fish including bluegills, bream, sunfish, bass, and catfish live in such an area in order to hide from larger creatures. The wetland vegetation provides an essential part of the food chain for aquatic wildlife in the St. Johns River. The marsh vegetation also provides filtration from upland runoff. Runoff from the highway is filtered to a great extent by the marsh vegetation before it is received in the St. Johns River. The filling of such a marsh area would have an adverse impact upon the quality of water in the St. Johns River because of loss of the filtering effect of marshland vegetation. Furthermore, the construction of a commercial fishing camp would add additional runoff. The filtration effect provided by the landfill itself could not compensate for the loss of filtration from the marshland vegetation. The project proposed by the Petitioners encompasses only one fourth acre of the St. Johns River flood plain. The loss in wildlife habitat, and in filtration provided by wetland vegetation from this single project may be negligible, and not subject to accurate measurement. It is clear, however, that the project would provide an adverse affect, albeit slight, and that any proliferation of such projects would eliminate an essential wildlife habitat, an essential part of the aquatic food chain, and an essential filtration system.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Palafox, LLC (“Palafox”), is entitled to its reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in its defense of the challenge to its Environmental Resource Permit (“Permit”) as raised in the Amended Petition in the underlying administrative matter, filed by Respondent, Carmen Diaz or her attorney, Jefferson M. Braswell, or both, pursuant to section 120.569(2)(e), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Palafox is a Florida limited liability company and was the applicant for the Permit in Case No. 19-5831. Palafox owns Lot 1, Block B, of the Palafox Preserve Subdivision, the six-acre property on which the Project will be developed. Ms. Diaz is the owner of Lot 18, Block A, of the Palafox Preserve Subdivision. Petitioner is a member of the Palafox Preserve Homeowners Association, Inc. (the “HOA”). The HOA is not a party to this litigation. The HOA has previously agreed not to challenge any permits sought by Palafox for the development of the project. Mr. Braswell is not a party to this matter. He represented Ms. Diaz through the Final Order issued by the District in Case No. 19-5831. Palafox’s Renewed Motion for Fees sought attorney’s fees and/or sanctions against Mr. Braswell for his role in that case, as allowed under section 120.569(2)(e). Ms. Diaz’s Challenge to the Project The Project consists of a 36-unit multi-family residential development proposed to be built on Lot 1, Block B, of the Palafox Preserve Subdivision. The Project encompasses approximately 2.68 acres of Lot 1, Block B. The Project lies adjacent to, and immediately west of, Martin Hurst Road and adjacent to, and immediately south of, Palafox Lane. The remainder of 2 Mr. Braswell also filed a Proposed Final Order and Amended Proposed Final Order, which were not authorized and have not been considered by the undersigned in preparing this Final Order. Mr. Braswell is not a party to this proceeding and did not become a party thereto by merely appearing at the final hearing to make some argument on his own behalf. He did not move to intervene in this proceeding, or otherwise obtain party status, not even by ore tenus motion at the Final Hearing. Mr. Braswell did not file a notice of appearance and did not attend the Final Hearing as counsel for Ms. Diaz. Furthermore, Mr. Braswell did not request permission to submit a Proposed Final Order. Palafox’s property runs to the west of the Project and south of Palafox Lane, and is located within a perpetual conservation easement. Ms. Diaz’s property is a residential lot located west of, and not adjacent to, Palafox’s property. An approximate nine-acre conservation easement owned by the HOA lies between Ms. Diaz’s property and Palafox’s property. A portion of Petitioner’s back yard is located within the conservation easement. Approximately seven acres within the conservation easement are wetlands. The conservation easement, including the wetlands, straddles the boundary between Block A and Block B, with about two-thirds in Block A, for the most part owned by the HOA, and one-third in Block B, wholly owned by Palafox. Palafox sought an environmental resource permit from the District to construct storm water management facilities (SWMFs) to serve the Project. The SWMFs to be authorized by that Permit are on Palafox’s property. Palafox’s property, the conservation easement and wetlands, and Ms. Diaz’s property, are all located within the same closed basin. This means that storm water within the basin will generally not flow out of the basin in all storm events up to, and including, a 100-year, 24-hour storm. On October 30, 2019, following the District’s notice of intent to issue the Permit, Ms. Diaz filed an Amended Petition for Formal Proceedings Before a Hearing Officer (“Amended Petition”). In the Amended Petition, Ms. Diaz challenged the District’s issuance of the Permit alleging that the Project will (1) have adverse water quantity impacts to adjacent lands; (2) cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site properties; (3) cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities; and (4) adversely impact the value and function of wetlands and other surface waters. She also alleged that the wetland had not been properly delineated previously, and that an older delineation was no longer valid. Specifically, Ms. Diaz alleged that the “proposed [storm water] system results in a massive change in the amount of storm water being discharged from the applicant’s site directly onto Petitioner’s property which leads to adverse impacts on her property.” On November 19, 2019, the Final Hearing was scheduled for February 19 and 20, 2020. Ms. Diaz was deposed on January 17, 2020, almost three months after filing her Petition, and two months after the Final Hearing date was set. The deposition revealed that Ms. Diaz was not the least bit informed of the Project. Ms. Diaz had not reviewed the Permit, and believed that the Permit authorized Palafox to build the Project, rather than the storm water treatment system. Ms. Diaz had not seen the site plans, had no understanding of what the Project would look like, and admitted she had done nothing to learn about the Project. In fact, Ms. Diaz testified repeatedly at her deposition that she simply does not want the Project built, regardless of whether it would actually impact her property or the wetlands, and regardless of what kind of development it is. She does not want Palafox’s property developed, in any capacity, and wants it to stay “the way it is now.” Ms. Diaz conducted no written discovery nor any depositions, and did not hire an expert until approximately one month before the final hearing. That expert, Mr. Carswell, had never visited the site. Although Mr. Carswell conducted a storm water analysis, Mr. Carswell conceded that Mr. Braswell prepared and sent him a ten-page report and asked him to consider it as Mr. Carswell’s opinion report. In reviewing and adopting that report, Mr. Carswell admitted that he did not do the type of analysis that he would have if he wanted to determine the incremental addition of storm water to a closed basin. Instead, he did a simple water balance equation. Mr. Carswell testified that he had never before used this type of analysis to support permitting for a storm water pond and that if he was going to try to predict the incremental contribution of storm water discharge from a project into a closed basin, he would utilize a model similar to the one submitted by Palafox in support of this Project. The undersigned found Mr. Carswell’s analysis was not a professionally-acceptable method for determining whether the Project met the standards for the Permit. In addition to Mr. Carswell, Petitioner offered the testimony of four other witnesses at the final hearing. None were able to offer any evidence that Palafox failed to provide reasonable assurance that the project: Will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands; Will not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off- site property; Will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities; and Will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters. The testimony of two of those witnesses, Mr. Songer and Mr. Stinson, was in transcript form and was actually given in DOAH case No. 18-2734. In that case, neither witness’ testimony was accepted to defeat Palafox’s site plan approved under the more stringent permitting requirements of Leon County. See Braswell v. Palafox, LLC, Case No. 18-2734 (Fla. DOAH Aug. 31, 2018; Leon Cty. Bd. of Cty. Comm’s (Sept. 24, 2018)). The remainder of Ms. Diaz’s witnesses’ testimony was equally ineffective. Mark Cooper, the Project engineer, testified that the Project would raise the water level in the wetland by .04 feet in a 100 year, 24-hour storm event, which he classified as a negligible impact. Mr. Cooper’s testimony confirmed that of Palafox’s expert engineer, Mark Thomasson, who classified that increase as “de minimus.” Cheryl Poole, Ms. Diaz’s other witness and an engineer who worked on a prior project on the property, merely testified to conditions that existed a decade prior that are not relevant to the Project. In short, Ms. Diaz presented no credible evidence at all that the Project would negatively impact either the wetlands or her property. After the final hearing, the undersigned administrative law judge issued a Recommended Order, adopted in toto by the District, concluding that Ms. Diaz did not carry her burden to prove that Palafox failed to provide reasonable assurances that the Project will not (a) cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands; (b) cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property; (c) cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities; and (d) adversely impact the value and functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters. Mr. Braswell’s Prior Challenges to the Project Mr. Braswell has been involved in challenges to the Project for over five years. In those challenges, he has represented his parents, the HOA, Ms. Diaz, or some combination of those parties. In 2015, Mr. Braswell filed an administrative challenge on behalf of his parents—Wynona and Robert Braswell (the “Braswells”), who live in the Palafox subdivision and are members of the HOA. See Braswell v. Palafox, LLC (Fla. DOAH Case No. 15-1190). In that administrative challenge, the Braswells challenged Leon County’s approval of the Project site plan.3 The Braswells raised many of the same factual issues regarding the wetlands and storm water impacts that Mr. Braswell later raised again in Ms. Diaz’s challenge to the Permit. The Braswells also raised the issues that 3 Mr. Braswell admitted that when he filed that case, he “didn't know very much about the [P]roject,” “didn't know the rules” for Leon County’s site plan approval, and that he and his parents “didn't realize kind of what [they] were getting [them]selves into.” the Project violated a private covenant in the subdivision’s governing documents, which was beyond the Division’s jurisdiction. Accordingly, Palafox filed a civil suit for declaratory judgement to resolve that claim. In the interim, jurisdiction of Case No. 15-1190 was relinquished to the County without prejudice to refer it again to the Division should the civil suit not dispose of the issues raised in the administrative case. See Braswell v. Palafox, LLC, Case No. 15-1190 (Ord. Rel. Jsd. May 14, 2015). After an initial grant of summary judgment for the Braswells and a reversal by the First District Court of Appeal, the trial court entered a final judgment for Palafox. (Final Judgment, Evergreen Communities, Inc. v. Braswell, No. 2015-CA-000765 (Fla. 2d Cir. Ct. 2017)). After the civil suit was resolved, Mr. Braswell renewed his parents’ challenge to the site plan. See Braswell v. Palafox, LLC, Case No. 18-2734 (Fla. DOAH Aug. 31, 2018; Leon Cty. Bd. of Cty. Comm’s Sept. 25, 2018). As in the underlying Permit challenge, Mr. Braswell argued that the wetlands were not correctly delineated, and that the project would cause the wetland area to overflow and burden the “downstream” storm water facilities owned by the residential homeowners. While the County did not issue a storm water permit for the Project, approval of the site plan required a determination that the Project meets the County’s environmental code requirements. The County’s standard for volume control requires the runoff volume in excess of the pre-development runoff volume to be retained for all storm events up to a 100-year, 24-hour duration storm. That standard is more stringent than the District’s requirement to provide “reasonable assurances” that the Project will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands; will not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property; will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities; and will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters. In the site plan challenge, the administrative law judge found that the Project was consistent with the Code requirements and specifically found as follows: the Project’s proposed storm water system will not significantly impact the conservation easement wetlands and will not cause flooding or other adverse impacts to downstream areas. no statute, ordinance, rule or regulation requires a wetland to be re-delineated after it has been identified and placed in perpetual preservation under a conservation easement and that the argument to the contrary “would lead to the absurd result of re-surveying and re- recording allegedly ‘perpetual’ conservation easements every time a lot was developed” within a plat. Id. at R.O. ¶¶ 37 & 51. In yet another case arising from this dispute, in 2016, Mr. Braswell’s father filed a formal complaint against the Project engineer with the Florida Board of Professional Engineers. Mr. Braswell submitted additional information in support of that proceeding. See In re Mark Cooper, P.E., Case No. 2016052464 (Fla. Bd. of Prof’l. Eng’rs Mar. 14, 2017). The Closing Order in that case found no probable cause of a violation by Palafox’s professional engineer related to the storm water system after the independent reviewer concluded that, based on the materials submitted by Petitioner’s counsel, “there should be no adverse surface water impacts to adjacent property” from the Project. Id. at ¶ 1. After the resolution of the civil suit and prior administrative challenges, Palafox, the HOA, and the Braswells entered into a settlement agreement. Under that agreement, the HOA and the Braswells agreed they would not challenge the Project any further, as long as it complied with the site plan that the County had approved. Mr. Braswell signed that agreement on behalf of his parents as attorney in fact. Palafox, believing that Ms. Diaz was bound by that settlement agreement as a member of the HOA, and that she had breached the agreement by filing the Amended Petition in the Permit challenge, filed a civil suit in Leon County Circuit Court. See Palafox, LLC v. Diaz, Case No. 2019-CA-002758 (Fla. 2d Cir. Ct.). Mr. Braswell, representing Ms. Diaz in that suit as well, filed a counterclaim, subsequently voluntarily dismissed, in which he again raised the issues of the wetlands delineation and downstream flooding. (Def’s Ans. and Aff. Def. and Countersuit for Dec. Jdmt. at pp. 6-9). At no point between the resolution of the prior litigation regarding this Project and filing the Permit challenge did Mr. Braswell obtain new evidence or expert opinion to suggest that the Project would not meet the District’s more lenient standards for granting an environmental resource permit. Nor did he adduce evidence at hearing that would lead an administrative law judge to reach a different conclusion from Judge Ffolkes—that the project would not cause adverse impacts to downstream owners, that the Project would not adversely impact the wetlands, and that no new wetland delineation was required.
The Issue Whether Respondent's statements as set forth in the First Amended Petition to Determine Validity of Agency Statements Defined as Rules are rules as defined in Section 120.52(15), Florida Statutes, which have not been promulgated as required by Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner alleges that the following constitute agency statements defined as rules but not properly adopted as rules by the District: The District considers a particular parcel of property to be located within a "floodway" within the District's regulatory jurisdiction for Works of the District (WOD) permitting on the basis of the parcel being located within a floodway established pursuant to a currently-approved Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Study (FIS). The District will not accept any alternative floodway boundaries that are inconsistent with those established in the FIS unless FEMA confirms that the alternative boundaries are more accurate than those obtained from the existing FIS, and FEMA approves the alternative boundaries through a formal approval process, such as a Letter of Map Revision that also requires local government concurrence. If the District determines the parcel to be within its regulatory floodway, it will require an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) application for any development activities within the floodway, other than those entitled to a general permit under Rule 40B-4.3010, Florida Administrative Code. The District will require an ERP for the activities described in paragraph "c" notwithstanding the fact that the Department is evaluating those same activities as part of an ERP application that has been submitted to the Department of Environmental Protection (Department) for the same activity in the same location under the terms of the Operating Agreement.1/ The District will evaluate an application to conduct development activities as described in paragraph "c" based upon the full range of ERP permitting criteria contained in the District's rules, even though the Department is processing an ERP application for the same activities pursuant to the Operating Agreement between the District and the Department. The District's policy is to deny or to object to the issuance of any permit application to conduct commercial mining operations in the WOD composed of the Alapaha River floodway. It is the policy of the District to consider any proposed development activity in a WOD, other than those eligible for a general permit under Rule 40B-4.3010, Florida Administrative Code, to have an adverse impact on the regulatory floodway, and thereby to be unpermittable by the District. The District's policies against allowing development activities in WODs apply even if a professional engineer certifies under Rule 40B-4.3030, Florida Administrative Code, that the activity will not violate the conditions of issuance set forth in the rule. The policies apply because the District will consider the development activities to violate ERP permitting rules applicable to all development activities, not just those within WODs. It is also the District's policy to ask the Department to deny ERP applications for development activities proposed in WODs that require ERPs even though the Department is processing the application pursuant to the Operating Agreement. The District's policy is to deny ERP applications to conduct commercial mining activities in WODs as determined by the FIS, and to recommend to the Department that ERP applications to the Department for such projects be denied, unless the applicant goes through the FEMA amendment process described in paragraph b to remove the area from the FEMA- determined floodway. Each party requests that it be granted costs and attorney's fees pursuant to Section 120.595(4), Florida Statutes. Stipulated Facts Angelo's is a Florida Limited Partnership, whose address is 26400 Sherwood, Warren, Michigan 48091. Respondent is an agency of the State of Florida established under Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, with its address at 9225 County Road 49, Live Oak, Florida 32060. Angelo's owns property in Hamilton County approximately four miles to the east of Interstate 75 and to the north of U.S. Highway 41, immediately to the east of the Alapaha River. Angelo's conducts commercial sand mining operations on a portion of its property pursuant to various agency authorizations, including an ERP issued by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Department), Permit No. 158176-001, and a Special Permit issued by Hamilton County, SP 98-3. The ERP was issued by the Department pursuant to its authority under Chapter 373, Part IV, Florida Statutes. Angelo's mining operations constitute a "mining project" as that term is used in Section II.A.1.e of an Operating Agreement Concerning Regulation under Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Aquaculture General Permits under Section 403.814, Florida Statutes, between Suwannee River Water Management District and Department of Environmental Protection (Operating Agreement). The Operating Agreement has been adopted as a District rule pursuant to Rule 40B-400.091, Florida Administrative Code. Angelo's has filed with the Department an application to modify its ERP to expand its sand mining operations into an area of its property immediately to the west of its current operations (the "proposed expanded area"). Angelo's application is being processed by the Department at this time. Angelo's ERP modification application is being processed by the Department under the Operating Agreement. The District has asserted permitting jurisdiction over the proposed expanded area because the proposed sand mining activities would occur in what the District asserts to be the floodway of the Alapaha. The District asserts that an ERP would be required from the District so that the District can address the WOD impacts. It is the District's position that the District's review of any ERP application to undertake development activities in a WOD would be based upon all of the ERP criteria, and not just those criteria relating to floodway conveyance referenced in Rule 40B-4.3030, Florida Administrative Code. On or about November 30, 2001, the District published in the Florida Administrative Weekly a notice of its intent to adopt the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) to delineate floodways for the purpose of its works of the district regulatory program. Facts Based on Evidence of Record Background/Events leading up to this dispute The total amount of the subject property owned by Petitioner is approximately 560 acres. The property is generally a rolling terrain. A significant feature is a man-made berm which was placed around the perimeter of the property by a former owner, presumably to keep water off of the land during floods of the Alapaha River. Dennis Price is a self-employed registered professional geologist. At one time, he was employed by the District and at another time, he was employed by Petitioner. For purposes of this proceeding, he was hired by Petitioner as a consultant for certain permitting projects including the project that gave rise to this dispute. Mr. Price met with and corresponded with the District as well as staff from the Department over a period of two years regarding this mining project. In June of 1999, the Department wrote to Mr. Price in response to a meeting. The letter noted that Petitioner intended to expand mining operations. In addition to informing Mr. Price of the Department's permit requirements, the letter referenced the District's permitting requirements: Mr. Still provided us with an aerial photograph showing the SRWMD's regulated floodway in the area of your mine. A copy is enclosed with the floodway line highlighted in orange. A substantial portion of your proposed expansion area will be within this floodway. The SRWMD has adopted the Alapaha River and its floodway as a works of the district. The Department adopted the SRWMD's regulations pertaining to the environmental resource permit; however, this did not include the regulations pertaining to projects within works of the district. If your permit application only includes areas outside of the floodway, a single application will have to be provided to this bureau. If you intend to expand within the floodway, a separate application will also have to be provided to the SRWMD for a works of the district permit. In either situation, the Department's Jacksonville office will review any modifications to your industrial wastewater permit. (emphasis supplied)2/ In response, Mr. Price wrote to the Department in July of 1999 and stated in pertinent part: Dear Mr. Neel, this letter is in response to your June 22, 1999 letter "RE: Permits for Mining Operation". Angelo's currently has a Sand and Limestone General Permit from DEP - General Permit Number FLA011635. That permit is based on a 5 year mining plan that was presented to the DEP on January 11, 1999. The permit, my letter and the 5 year mining plan presented to DEP are enclosed. Another attachment is an aerial photo of the property showing the Regulatory Floodway line and the location of the areas to be mined under that 5 year mining plan. The aerial photograph has superimposed upon it the location of the floodway of the Alapaha River, as determined by FEMA maps. Please note that the 5 year mining plan and the associated storage and processing areas are outside the regulatory floodway. Therefore, no works of the district permit will be needed at this time. See FAC Rule 40B-4.300(1)(a) [sic]. Future mining beyond the five year mine plan will not occur without first applying for and obtaining permits from the appropriate regulatory agency. At the present time we will only mine areas within the 5 year mine plan. We will have an engineer field locate the floodway line on the property to ensure that no mining or associated storage and process activities occur within the floodway. We are requesting that the ERP permitting process remain within the DEP bureau of Mine Reclamation since the DEP has already issued a general permit for this activity and the DEP normally handles ERP's for mining operations. We have determined that the mining area will be less than 100 acres, and based on Rule 40B-4.2020(2)(B) FAC a general permit may be applied for. We will notify you when we have a draft application prepared and would like to meet with you at your earliest convenience after that to discuss the permit application. (emphasis supplied) In response to information which Mr. Price provided to the Department, the Department wrote to Mr. Price in December of 1999 and again addressed concerns about the area of the project in relation to the floodway line: Specific Item: FLOODWAY Information submitted in response to the request for additional information (RAI) dated August 12, 1999, indicates that Angelo's proposed project boundary and activities extend up to and coincide with the Floodway Line. There appears to be no set-back or buffer from the Floodway (or any other) Line. Chapter 40B-4, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), contains the rules for the Suwannee River Water Management Area which were adopted by the Department of Environmental Protection. Section 40B-4.2010(2)(b)(3)(b) provides that a General Permit may be issued for construction, operation, and maintenance of a surfacewater management system servicing a total project area less than 120 acres provided the system will not be located in, cross or connect to a work of the district. Information submitted with this (November 12, 1999) submittal indicates that the proposed activities within the proposed project coincides with, or is so closely located to, the Floodway Line so as to indicate that the proposed activities would be considered to be connected to a work of the district. This is based upon examination of the plan views and [sic] well as cross section information that has been provided. Please provide a discussion, and drawings as may be needed, that addresses all activities along the established Floodway Line. This information should address all aspects of all operations along this line through the completion of reclamation activities. Be sure to address best management practices, and any proposed setbacks in the response to this request. (emphasis in original)3/ Mr. Price described the proposed project as part of the permit application which was submitted to the Department: Describe in general terms the proposed project, system, or activity. Angelo's Aggregate Materials, Ltd. (AAM) owns approximately 341 acres of land. The current mining site, known as the Jasper Pit, is located on a 160 acre parcel of land. Of the 160 acres, only 82.45 acres are available for mining since the remainder of the property falls within the floodway boundary of the Alapaha River. The 160 acre parcel has an existing berm around the entire perimeter of the property constructed in the 1950's by the previous owner. The Alapaha flood study conducted for FEMA did not take into account this berm. AAM is proposing to construct a 20' wide access road between NW 8th Boulevard and the Jasper Pit, encompassing approximately 7.22 acres. This roadway will be constructed within the limits of property owned by AAM. The stormwater management system for the roadway will consist entirely of grassed swales as covered under FDEP's swale exemption. The Jasper Pit is a sand and limestone mining operation. (emphasis supplied) On August 28, 2001, David Still, the District's Director of Resource Management, wrote a letter to the Department in response to a request received by e-mail from the Department for technical assistance. Mr. Still responds to requests for technical assistance from other agencies as a matter of routine and as contemplated by the operating agreement between the Department and the District. The letter reads as follows: The floodway along the Alapaha River was identified and mapped as part of a Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA) flood study performed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, subsequently approved by FEMA and adopted as part of the local government (Hamilton County) ordinance. Based on the above, Suwannee River Water Management District (SRWMD) then adopted the floodway as a Work of the District (WOD). There is only one floodway. SRWMD recognizes and accepts the FEMA flood study performed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and local government (Hamilton County) floodway boundary as the best available information to identify the floodway boundary. There is a formal process whereby change can be made to the FEMA boundary with additional or improved information. If FEMA and Hamilton County approve a revised floodway delineation and boundary, so be it, SRWMD will recognize it, however, SRWMD will not unilaterally change a boundary resulting from a detailed federal flood insurance study. We have informed Mr. Thompson and his client of this. We consider the kind of work contemplated by the applicant (at least based on our earliest discussions with them) will cause an adverse impact to the WOD (the floodway) which of course is in conflict with the requirements of 40B-400.103(1)(h) and SRWMD 40B-4, Part III, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). The District will object to the issuance of any permit in direct conflict with District rules. We feel the rule is clear and any conflict with 40B-400.103(1)(h), F.A.C. which the Florida Department of Environmental Protection has adopted by reference requires denial of the Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) application. Any work of this nature within a WOD is subject to the additional permitting requirements of 40B-4, Part III, F.A.C., even if the District needs to implement such requirements with a separate WOD permit. Mr. Still's reference to "the applicant" in the August 28, 2001, letter is to Petitioner. While Mr. Still is not the agency head, his August 28, 2001, letter clearly communicates the District's policy. Given his position in the agency and the manner in which he discussed this issue, the letter describes and communicates the District's policy on what constitutes a floodway and its boundary. Mr. Still does not have final authority to make decisions on permitting within the District, as that authority rests with the governing board. In a letter written on October 10, 2001, in response to a letter from Petitioner's counsel, Mr. Still stated that District staff would recommend to their governing board that Petitioner's proposed activity is an activity within a floodway that is regulated under Chapter 40B-4, Part III, Florida Administrative Code, and that the proposed activity would adversely impact the floodway: "Therefore, as staff, we would recommend our governing board consider this activity adverse to our rules." This letter is case specific to Petitioner. Within a few days of Mr. Still's October 10, 2001, letter, Petitioner filed its Petition to Determine Validity of Agency Statements Defined as Rules. Other facts established by the evidence of record The District uses FEMA FIRM maps as evidence of the location of the floodways in the works of the district. The District communicated this policy in Mr. Still's letter dated August 28, 2001. The District will not unilaterally change the floodway delineation and boundary established by FEMA. In order for an applicant to persuade the District that a proposed activity within the FEMA floodway line is not within the District's floodway, an applicant must apply to FEMA for a map amendment or revision. The District will acknowledge that a proposed activity is not within the floodway of a work of the district only if the applicant is successful in obtaining a map amendment or revision showing that the proposed activity indeed is not within the floodway. The District has applied this policy to another company which applied for a permit. That is, the District required the permit applicant to apply to FEMA for a map revision or amendment as a condition of issuance of a permit because its proposed activity was within the FEMA floodway as established by the FEMA maps. Petitioner has not filed a permit application with the District regarding the proposed mining project. It is Petitioner's position that to do so would be futile.
