Findings Of Fact By application dated March 3, 1983, Respondent ITT Community Development Corporation (ITT) requested a permit from Respondent Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) to dredge 815 cubic yards of material from the Intracoastal Waterway In Flagler County, Florida, as part of the construction of a high-level concrete highway bridge over the intracoastal Waterway. The proposed bridge project will extend Palm Coast Parkway from the end of existing pavement to State Road A1A east of the Intracoastal Waterway, and thus complete the Interstate 95 connector link with coastal State Road A1A. At the present tine, there are two drawbridges across the Intracoastal Waterway some ten miles south at Flagler Beach. and approximately 15 miles north at Crescent Beach. Existing high bridges across the Intracoastal Waterway are further north and south of the proposed bridge project. (Testimony of Smith, ITT Exhibits 1, 9- 12) The proposed bridge is a fixed concrete bridge approximately 2,598 feet long and 52 feet, 7 inches in width. The bridge will have a minimum vertical clearance of 65 feet above mean high water and 66.4 feet above mean low water, with a horizontal clearance of 90 feet between fenders. It will involve a cast- in-place concrete deck set upon prestressed concrete columns. The bridge will be supported by sets of concrete beams and placed on top of pilings, which will be driven into the surface to a depth of approximately 80 feet. The center two support piers, which are the subject of the requested permit, will be set upon concrete seals constructed inside of cofferdams, which will be located within the right-of-way of the Intracoastal Waterway. It is the construction of these two piers within the limits of the cofferdam that involves the removal of material which is considered dredging pursuant to DER rules. (Stipulation) The cofferdams will be made of steel and will be driven into place to encompass the pier foundations, with the 815 cubic yards of material excavated from inside the cofferdams being placed on a barge and transported to the adjacent uplands as part of the bridge approach construction. During construction of each support pier, a turbidity curtain will be placed around the cofferdams and the barge. Bridge deck drains will be omitted over the Intracoastal Waterway, and first flush storm water runoff will be retained in a stormwater management system which meets the requirements of Chapter 17-25, Florida Administrative Code. Piles used in the construction of the two fenders shall be made of concrete rather than treated timber. Treated timber may be used for the horizontal wales, the catwalks, and other components of the fender system which do not extend below M.S.L. Reasonable assurance has been provided by ITT that the release of preserving chemicals by the timber components of the fender system will not adversely affect the waters of the Intracoastal Waterway in violation of Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code. Turbidity controls will be used during the the construction of the two piers in the Intracoastal Waterway if the level of turbidity produced exceeds 29 NTUs. (Stipulation, Greene) The bridge will connect two parcels of land under the ownership of ITT, and will facilitate access between Palm Coast Parkway and the State Road A1A. (Stipulation, ITT Exhibits 1, 9-12) After receiving the ITT application, DER solicited comments from adjoining landowners, the Flagler County Board of Commissioners, and the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, but none were received. By letter dated April 13, 1983, the Department of Natural Resources gave its authority for the project under Section 253.77, Florida Statutes. An onsite inspection of the proposed site was made by DER in June 1982 and March 1983, who found that the project site was devoid of literal vegetation and that minimal impact could be expected from the project provided that turbidity is contained during construction. They further determined that the bridge pilings would not eliminate valuable habitat or alter the natural flow of the Intracoastal Waterway, a Class III body of water. Further, in view of the fact that the dredging activities would be isolated by the cofferdams, no turbidity problems re expected. On May 18, 1983, the DER District Manager issued a notice of its intent to issue the requested permit for the reason that reasonable assurance had been provided that the short-term and long-term effects of the proposed activity would not result in violation of water quality criteria under Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Cede, and that the proposed activity would not interfere with the conservation of fish, marine and wildlife or other natural resources to such an extent as to be contrary to the public interests, or create an navigational hazard or impediment, or alter or impede the natural flow of navigable waters so as to be contrary to the public interests. The intent to issue provided that the permit would be subject to the condition that turbidity controls would be used during construction if the level of turbidity produced exceeds 50 JTU above background. (Testimony of Tyler, ITT Exhibits 2-5, 7) By Resolution No. 83-13, dated August 18, 1983, the Flagler County Board of County Commissioners expressed its support of the concept of the proposed project as long as the cost of construction is funded through ITT funds or bridge tolls. (ITT Exhibit 13) In their prehearing and posthearing stipulations, the parties agreed to the following: That reasonable assurance has been provided by ITT that the short-and long-term effects of the bridge construction will not adversely affect the surficial aquifer to such an extent that it will cause harm to its use by Petitioners as a potable water supply. That the construction and operation of the proposed bridge will not interfere with the conservation of the Florida Scrub Jay, the Gopher Tortoise, or the Indigo Snake. Reasonable assurance has been provided by ITT that the release of preserving chemicals by the timber components of the fender system will not adversely affect the waters of the Intracoastal Waterway in violation of Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code. Reasonable assurance has been provided by ITT that the short-term effects of turbidity will not adversely affect the waters of the Intracoastal Waterway in violation of Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code. The proposed bridge will not create a navigational hazard or a serious impediment to navigation, or substantially alter or impede the natural flow of navigable waters so as to be contrary to the public interests, and the proposed bridge will not result in the destruc- tion of oyster beds, clam beds, or marine productivity, including but not limited to destruction of natural marine habitats, grass- flats suitable as nursery or feeding grounds for marine life, and establish[ed] marine soil(s] suitable for producing plant growth of the type useful as nursery or feeding grounds for marine life or natural shoreline processes to such an extent as to be contrary to the public interests. If the permit is issued, it shall be issued with the following conditions: Turbidity controls will be used during construction of the two piers in the Intracoastal Waterway if the level of turbidity produced exceeds 29 NTUs above background. Piles used in the construction of the two fenders shall be made of concrete rather than treated timber. Treated timber may be used for the horizontal wales, the catwalks, and other components of the fender system which do not extend below M.S.L. In view of the above stipulations by the parties, the only remaining disputed issues of material fact are whether the proposed project will interfere with the conservation of the Florida panther and Florida black bear to such an extent as to be contrary to the public interests. The black bear is considered to be a "threatened" species of wildlife by the State of Florida. A wildlife survey of some 2,000 acres of land surrounding and including the project area during the period 1979-82 by an expert in the field of wildlife ecology revealed traces indicating the presence of the black bear on two occasions in a location east of the proposed project area. On those occasions, bear tracks were found east of State Highway A1A in a hammock area north of the bridge corridor in 1979. However, the signs were insufficient to indicate that there was a resident bear population in the area. Signs of the black bear are fairly common on the west side of the Intracoastal Waterway in swampy wilderness areas, such as Long's Creek area and Graham's Swamp. It is possible that, on occasion, a black bear may wander into or cross the bridge area; however, construction and operation of the bridge should have little or no adverse impact on any black bear population which is located either several miles south or north of the proposed bridge area. (Testimony of Brown) The Florida panther is classified as an "endangered" species by the State of Florida. The four-year survey of wildlife undertaken by ITT during the period 1979-82 failed to disclose any traces of the panther in the area surrounding the proposed project site. There are only approximately 20 to 30 Florida panthers in the state, and all are located to the south and west of Lake Okeechobee in the Everglades. The Florida panther requires a vast area of undisturbed habitat. Approximately 400 square miles are necessary for males and some 50 to 100 square miles for a female. They avoid populate areas. Several state personnel saw a tan catlike animal near the entrance to Washington Oaks State Gardens which is located a number of miles north of the proposed bridge site, on May 13, 1983. They reported to the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission that the animal was a Florida panther, and plaster casts of the animal's tracks were submitted to that agency for verification. However, the casts were insufficient upon which to base an identification of the animal as a Florida panther, and the park personnel admittedly lacked sufficient qualifications to determine if the animal was, in fact, a Florida panther. There have been other purported sightings of panthers in the general area during past and recent years by Petitioner Gerald D. Schatz and others who reported such sightings to him for investigation. However, it has never been confirmed that the said sightings were of the Florida panther. Although a suitable habitat for the panther is the Graham Swamp, that area is not large enough to be sustain the Florida panther, and It is unlikely that any of that species are present in the area of the proposed bridge. It is accordingly found that construction of the bridge would have no impact on the Florida panther. (Testimony of Brown, Wood, Ganson, Nichols, Schatz; Petitioner's Exhibits 3-5)
Recommendation That the Department of Environmental Regulation issue the requested permit pursuant to Chapter 253 and 403, Florida Statutes, and Public Law 92-580, subject to standard conditions, and the special conditions set forth in paragraph 6 above of the Conclusions of Law herein. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of November, 1983.
Findings Of Fact Seago Group, Inc., the Applicant/Intervenor, owns a tract of land in Lee County Florida, which is completely surrounded by creeks and canals, including Indian Creek on the north. The Intervenor intends to develop the parcel and is seeking a permit from the Department to construct a bridge over Indian Creek to provide access. There is presently a cul-de-sac at the end of Indian Creek Drive on the north side of the creek. The bridge would extend Indian Creek Drive over the creek onto the applicant's property. The Intervenor held an option to purchase land for the right-of-way on the north side of the creek. The Petitioners own property adjacent to Indian Creek Drive. The Petitioner Helwig owns property upon which be resides, and which adjoins the proposed bridge site. The Petitioner Rowe owns property upon which he resides several lets up Indian Creek Drive from the proposed bridge site. The Intervenor originally made application to construct a road over Indian Creek at a different, but nearby location using a culvert rather than a bridge. The Department's staff appraised the application and recommended that it be denied because deposits of fill around the culverts would have eliminated productive submerged creek bottoms, interfered with the ability of the aquatic habitat to support fish and wildlife populations, and eliminated shoreline vegetation which serves to filter runoff which enters the creek, thus helping to preserve good water quality in the creek. The application was withdrawn by the Intervenor before final action was taken on the Department's staff recommendations. The Intervenor thereafter filed the instant application. The application was to construct: ... A 26 ft. wide by 50 ft. long vehicular bridge constructed with 21" prestressed slabs on pile bent abutments over Indian Creek in Lee County, Florida. The application further provided: All work will be conducted on upland with no need for any equipment or material required to be in the water. All equip- ment and material will be delivered by upland access. The application did not reflect that Intervenor had previously sought a permit for the culvert constructions, but the Department was clearly aware of the previous applications and its appraisal of the bridge application was treated as a supplement to the appraisal of the culvert application. In its Notice of Intent to Issue the Permit, the Department erroneously designated the bridge as a "two-span" bridge. The application is actually for a one-span bridge. In its notice the Department added the following specific conditions: Turbidity screens shall be used during construction. Drainage at bridges approaches shall be by swale and no ditches shall be constructed. Drainage shall meet county specifications. No dredging or filling in Indian Creek. No bridge construction shall take place until ownership or easement is obtained through Mr. David Ruch's property pursuant to letters on file with the Department. The Intervenor has acceded to the specific conditions and agreed to comply with them in the event the permit is ultimately issued. All of the pilings for the proposed bridge would be constructed at or above the mean high water line of Indian Creek. Some turbidity could be expected during construction, however, the use of turbidity screens would eliminate any significant impact upon the water quality, fish and other wildlife resources of Indian Creek during construction. The only potential source of pollution from the bridge after construction would be from runoff entering Indian Creek from the bridge. The amount of runoff that would result from a 50 ft. long by 26 ft. wide bridge is negligible. The limited impact that such runoff could have upon the creek can be eliminated by having drainage flow through a swale system. Since the Intervenor has agreed to utilize a swale system, it does not appear that the bridge would have any adverse impact upon the water quality of Indian Creek or any other water body. Neither does it appear that the bridge would adversely affect fish and wildlife resources. Since all bridge pilings would be constructed at or above the mean high water line, transitional zone vegetation can continue to flourish along the shoreline. The planned clearance between the creek elevation at mean high water and the bridge is seven feet. The bridge would thus impede traffic by any boats that protrude more than seven feet above the water line. This presents no significant navigational impact in Indian Creek. There are two avenues for navigating from the bridge site on Indian Creek to the Caloosahatchee River. One of these avenues is presently obstructed by a bridge with an elevation less than that proposed by the Intervenor. The other avenue is obstructed by a very shallow area that will not permit navigation by other than very small vessels. The Department in the past has denied applications to dredge that shallow area. The Intervenor and the Department have submitted Proposed Findings of Fact. To the extent that these proposed findings have not been included in the foregoing Findings of Fact, they are hereby adopted as fully as if set forth herein.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Dennis Soucek is a licensed dentist in Florida. On April 11, 1981, Ms. Elaine Yarbrough consulted the Respondent Soucek concerning dental treatment for extreme protrusion of her four front teeth. The Respondent and Yarbrough discussed various treatment plans including fixed and removable prostheses and orthodontics. On June 23, 1981, the Respondent Soucek extracted Yarbrough's four protruding teeth and provided her with a temporary bridge. The Respondent intended for Yarbrough to wear the temporary appliance until her gums had receded sufficiently to receive a permanent fixed bridge. In normal cases, a six-week period is advised after extraction and before impressions are taken for a permanent bridge to allow gum recision to take place. In this case, however, the Respondent allowed a period of approximately three months to transpire before the permanent impression was made. The added period of time was taken by the Respondent as a precautionary measure due to the extreme protrusion which was present in Yarbrough's mouth prior to the extractions. However, notwithstanding the three-month period, Yarbrough's gums continued to recede after the impressions were made and the bridge was installed, which caused a pronounced ledge to form around the gum line and the pontics. Approximately two months after permanent placement of the bridge, Yarbrough returned to the Respondent's office and asked him to solve a problem that had developed of air entering under her bridge. The Respondent attempted to solve the problem by using a porcelain repair kit. When the Respondent could not get the kit to properly bond to the teeth, he suggested to Yarbrough that more time be allowed for the unforeseen shrinkage to end before further repair attempts were made. The Respondent never saw Yarbrough again after this final visit. The Petitioner's expert, Dr. Mervyn Dixon, D.D.S., who examined Yarbrough, was primarily concerned that the pontics installed by the Respondent showed poor adaption to tissue in that the gingival facial aspect of the pontics exhibited the "heavy ledge" referred to previously and that the labial tissue surfaces of the central pontics were pressing against the incisive papilla to the extent that there was a blanching due to lack of circulation. Additionally, Dr. Dixon testified that it is not acceptable to use filling material to repair a new bridge.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Board of Dentistry finding the Respondent Soucek guilty of violating Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1981) in his treatment of the complainant, placing him on probation until such time as he furnishes evidence of completion of thirty (30) hours of continuing education in bridge work, and imposing a $1,000 administrative fine. DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of June, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of June, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Julie Gallagher, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Hugh Maloney, Esquire PATTERSON & MALONEY 790 East Broward Boulevard Post Office Box 030520 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33303 Fred Varn, Executive Director Florida Board of Dentistry Old Courthouse Square Building 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION BOARD OF DENTISTRY DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION Petitioner, vs. CASE NOS. 0024080 (DPR) 82-2947 (DOAH) DENNIS SOUCEK, D.D.S., Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Carter Signs is in the business of outdoor advertising which includes the installation, repair and maintenance of signs, billboards, or displays on real property. Pursuant to a twenty-year term lease that began on March 1, 1988, the Petitioner has leased the real property described as: Strap No. 344525-00- 00002.000 lying east of 1-75, in Lee County, Florida. The lease describes the specific intended use of the real property under the lease. The lessee has agreed to use and occupy the premises solely for the purpose of outdoor advertising. The real property is located in Lee County, Florida, within 660 feet of Interstate Highway 75, a highway in the interstate highway system. The property is approximately 1.5 miles south of the Daniel Road interchange on the east side of the highway. The Lee County Comprehensive Plan, which has been enacted by the county, designates the area in which real property is located as "Airport Commerce." Under the plan, this land is approved for "mixed use developments consisting of light manufacturing or assembly, warehousing and distribution facilities; offices; ground transportation and airport related interconnection activity; and hotels/motels, meeting facilities and other hospitality services." The Petitioner's application to Lee County for a permit to erect the proposed sign on the property was approved. The county permit shows that the property is zoned "agricultural." If the "agricultural" zoning classification is violated, the county permit becomes void. The application for permit to the Department was denied because Section 479.111(2), Florida Statutes, allows signs within a controlled portion of an interstate highway only if the sign is within a commercial-zoned area, an industrial-zoned area, a commercial-unzoned area or industrial-unzoned area. In this case, the proposed sign was to be placed in an agriculturally zoned area.
The Issue : The issue in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner has been the victim of a discriminatory housing practice, in alleged violation of Sections 760.20 through 760.37, Florida Statutes (2007).
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a physically handicapped person. He resides in a residential unit (Unit 11C) in the Sea Cabins residential complex. The Petitioner is a full-time resident at Sea Cabins and is the owner of unit 11C. The Respondent is a Florida Corporation (not for profit) and is a homeowners association, as defined by Section 720.303, Florida Statutes (2008). Sometime in early May 2007, Nancy Maconi, the Petitioner's wife, placed a number of signs around the Sea Cabins property. The Respondent purports that there were approximately 13 signs. One of the signs was a designated handicap parking space sign for unit 11C. It was erected in close proximity to the Petitioner's Sea Cabins unit 11C. Thereafter, the Petitioner sought reimbursement for the cost of the signs from the homeowners association board of directors, the Respondent. The request was denied at a meeting of the board of May 11, 2007, with the minutes reflecting that the Petitioner had not requested nor been granted permission to install any signs, hence the denial at that point. Ms. Maconi testified at the hearing that she had asked the Respondent's manager for permission to install the signs, which the manager, Willa Merriott, denied. The action of the board at the May 11, 2000 meeting, however, is not in dispute. Thereafter, on approximately June 22, 2007, the attorney for the Respondent wrote the Petitioner requesting that the designated handicap parking sign be removed since it had not been authorized by the board, nor had any formal request for the installation of the sign been made. On June 23, 2007, the Petitioner responded to that letter by requesting that the board formally authorize the handicap parking sign. A letter from the Veterans Administration was attached to that letter to the effect that the Petitioner had a service-connected disability. The specific nature of the disability was not specified, however. In any event, the Respondent association acquiesced in the handicap parking sign at issue remaining in place and use while it investigated whether the Petitioner was actually entitled to a handicap parking space. The Petitioner was advised by letter of October 11, 2007, by the Respondent, that the handicap parking sign could remain in place while his application was pending. A series of letters then passed between the parties or their representatives in October through December 2007. Pursuant to its policy concerning the granting of handicapped parking spaces and the like, the association sought information on the nature of the Petitioner's disability or handicap. The Petitioner countered by taking the position that the association already had enough information upon which to make its decision. In any event, however, through this period, the Petitioner's designated handicapped parking space and sign remained in place in the original location where Ms. Maconi had placed it. The Respondent acquiesced in its presence and in the Petitioner's use of the handicapped space. Counsel for the Respondent received a letter dated January 3, 2008, from Paul E. Brooks, a Podiatrist, revealing for the first time the specifics of the Petitioner's disability. That is, he has an orthopedic condition which limits his ability to walk. This letter was received on January 8, 2008, and considered by the board of directors at a special meeting held January 28, 2008. At that meeting the board formally granted the Petitioner's application for a designated handicap parking space and voted to allow the sign already erected by Ms. Maconi to remain permanently in place. Due to a misunderstanding between the board and its counsel as to who should notify the Petitioner of the decision, the Petitioner was not actually notified of the decision until March. By letter of March 17, 2008, counsel for the homeowners' association wrote the Petitioner of the actions of the board regarding the sign.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the subject Petition for Relief in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of January, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of January, 2009.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this hearing, Respondent, Troy Dale Eaton, was licensed by the State of Florida as a registered Residential Pool Contractor under License No. RP0040134. On February 26, 1982, Respondent, doing business Able One Construction, entered into a contract with Mr. and Mrs. Dorsey to construct a swimming pool on their property located at 4444 Rushing Avenue in Lakeland, Florida, for a price of $9,085. Shortly thereafter, an addendum in the amount of $445 was executed by Respondent and is marked as paid. The pool was to be rectangular concrete (marcite) 16 X 34 feet in dimension, with a depth ranging from 3 to 8 feet called for in the contract. Other particulars of the pool called for electrical work to be involved in the construction. On March 2, 1982, Respondent applied to the Polk County, Florida, building and zoning codes department for a permit to construct the Dorseys' pool, submitting with the application a set of plans and specifications for the project. As a result of this application, Permit No. 281930 was issued that same date. When the pool was completed, measurements taken by both Respondent and the Dorseys show that at the deepest part, the pool is no more than 7 feet 6 inches (per Respondent, who measures from drain grate to the lip of the pool deck). Water level is at least 6 inches below that Mr. Dorsey contends the depth is no more than 6 feet 4 inches, but there is no evidence of whether that is water depth or area depth. In any case, the depth of the pool measures the depth of the water in the pool a factor most definitely related to the safety of divers. Mr. Dorsey is a diver and specifically advised Respondent of that when he ordered a diving board as a part of the contract. The diving board cannot be used, as the water is too shallow. Respondent attributes the shortfall in depth to the additional concrete poured into the pool at, he claims, Mr. Dorsey's request. The subcontractor who installed the concrete recalls hearing Mr. Dorsey say to put the extra concrete in as he "would rather have a thick shell." However even so, the extra concrete (2 cubic yards), if evenly applied over the surface areas of a pool 16 X 34 feet, would not decrease the pool depth by more than a few inches. Therefore, the depth is shy of 8 feet either because the extra concrete was all poured into the bottom, or the hole was not deep enough to start with. Failure to conform to detailed drawings which showed a depth of 8 feet submitted and approved by the building inspector by the issuance of a permit based on them is a violation of Article III, Standard Building Code, as adopted in Polk County Ordinance 74- 12, dated February 1, 1982. As the construction progressed, it became apparent friction was building between the parties and that Respondent was experiencing some financial difficulties compounded by the Dorseys' reluctance to pay for what they considered as substandard work. An inspection conducted by the building inspector on June 10, 1982, revealed several deficiencies in Respondent's work. These included: The filter pump was not bonded; The diving board was not installed; The electrical box for the pool light was installed improperly; and The common ground wire nut in the electrical box fell off when the cover was removed and would not catch. These latter two discrepancies are violations of the Polk County Electrical Code, Ordinance 75-5, dated February 1, 1982. Somewhat later, on February 21, 1983, a subsequent inspection revealed the same two electrical problems identified in the earlier inspection plus several more. On May 21, 1982, prior to the inspection which first identified the electrical discrepancies, Mr. Dorsey applied for an electrical permit for the work to be done at the pool, indicating he was going to do the work himself. This permit was issued under N?. 28817. This situation came about when Mr. Dorsey, concerned that after three months little progress was being made on his pool, contacted Respondent to see what was holding things up. Respondent indicated that Mr. Dorsey could save some money by taking out the electrical permit in his own name. Thereafter, Respondent would have an unlicensed electrician who did some work for him do the job. Mr. Dorsey agreed, and the work was accomplished by James R. Eckley, who did not have an electrician's license at the time he did the work. Respondent's arranging for this individual to do the work is shown by the fact that on June 29, 1982, Mr. Eckley notified Mr. Dorsey he had unsuccessfully tried to collect from Respondent, who used as his excuse for not paying that Mr. Dorsey had not paid him. Further, the pool contract calls for the pool to be wired for electrical lights, pump, pool sweep, and the like as a part of the stated contract price. No provision was made for Mr. Dorsey to arrange for the electrical work. Respondent contends he was prevented from correcting the deficiencies complained of by the Dorseys, who refuse to allow him to come onto the property. However, Respondent did not indicate when this barring began. It is clear, however, that as late as June 10, 1982, Respondent still had access to the property. Further, the Dorseys closed their property to Respondent after he had refused to make corrections or adjustments and after he threatened to remove "everything from the property; that [was] not bolted down.."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That Troy Dale Eaton be reprimanded, be placed on probation for, one year and pay an administrative fine of $500. RECOMMENDED this 39th day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of November, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esq. Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Troy Dale Eaton 5306 State Road 574 Plant City, Florida 33566 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. James Linnan Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue At issue herein is whether or not the City's application to open an at- grade crossing at NE/NW 2nd Street, Boca Raton, Florida (Milepost 324 + 2350') should be granted and is in keeping with the dictates of Section 338.21, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 14-46.03(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Based on a careful consideration of the testimony of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence and the other arguments of counsel, ,the following relevant facts are found. The City of Boca Raton filed an application to open an at-grade railroad crossing at NE/NW 2nd Street, which is situated at Railway's Milepost 324 + 2350' and the Florida East Coast Railway Company filed an application to close Palmetto Park Road at-grade crossing, which is situated at Milepost 324 + 2988'. Due to the close proximity of the two crossings, a joint hearing was held. The Railway, in filing its application to close Palmetto Park Road, noted that its application was alternative to and contingent upon the granting of the City's application to open NE/NW 2nd Street. The Railway's position is that one of the two crossings is adequate. The Applicant's position respecting this application was presented through Mr. John Carroll, City Engineer since approximately September of 1977, and Mr. Joseph Pollack, P.E., of Kimley-Horn and Associates. Palmetto Park Road is a major east/west arterial road serving the City. The most recent traffic counts for Palmetto Park Road in May, 1978, indicate a peak traffic count of approximately 24,000 vehicles per day at the intersection of Palmetto Park Road, Dixie Highway and the existing crossing. This represents a volume/capacity ratio for that intersection of approximately 1.35 or approximately 35 percent greater than the designed capacity for the intersection. Such a condition is known as "forced flow." Based thereon, the City argues that there have been an increasingly high number of vehicle-to- vehicle and vehicle-to crossing gate accidents at the subject intersection and crossing. Thus, for example, the City points out that during calendar year 1977, the most current year that statistics were available, there were eighteen accidents at the intersection and crossing, with seven of those accidents directly involving the crossing gates closing on vehicles waiting to clear the crossing (See City Exhibit 10). According to Dr. Carroll, several additional crossing gate accidents were never reported. The West Palm Beach Urban Area Transportation Study (WPBUATS) indicates a 1955 traffic volume on Palmetto Park Road of 18,000 vehicles per day and 1990 traffic volume of 26,000 vehicles per day (City's Exhibits 4A, 4B, 5A and 5B). Such projections are based upon the City's construction of alternate east/west corridors which are not now in existence and, if such alternative routes are not constructed, the above projected traffic volume increases would be greater. Without question, the NE/NW 2nd Street project would reduce congestion on Palmetto Park Road. Testimony introduced during the hearing reveals that the NE/NW 2nd Street project will draw approximately 4,000 vehicles per day from Palmetto Park Road. If such reduction results, the volume/capacity ratio on Palmetto Park Road at the existing crossing and Dixie Highway intersection would reduce the current "forced flow situation to its approximate designed capacity. During the hearing, testimony was submitted to the effect that in addition to eliminating the "forced flow" condition at Palmetto Park Road, the subject project will facilitate emergency vehicle response time, would be more convenient to citizens desiring access to the central business district and would, if calculated, result in a fuel consumption saving. The NE/NW 2nd Street project was first envisioned by the City in 1964 and since that date, the City has acquired substantial amount of the necessary rights-of-way to accomplish completion of this project. Specifically, in 1973, the City acquired rights-of-way between Federal Highway and First Avenue, and in 1974 and 1976, the City required certain developers to dedicate other necessary rights-of-way. In September, 1977, the City's electorate approved a bend issue totaling $1,770,000 for road improvements, which included $448,000 for the NE/NW 2nd Street project. Mr. Pollack testified credibly that his firm designed the NE/NW 2nd Street project and the crossing to meet all applicable design safety criteria. The Railway's opposition to the opening of a crossing at NE/NW 2nd Street was based partially upon the close proximity of the proposed crossing to the existing crossing at Palmetto Park Road and also upon the Railway's opinion that opening of the NE/NW 2nd Street crossing would do little in terms of reducing the over-utilization of the crossing at Palmetto Park Road. 10. It was noted during the hearing that by 1990, the average traffic vehicle using the Palmetto Park Road crossing will approach 30,000 vehicles. It is undisputed that the additional crossing at NE/NW 2nd Street will draw vehicles from the Palmetto Park Road crossing. In terms of alternative routes, the City conducted feasibility studies which reveal that either in terms of widening Palmetto Park Road or alternatively constructing an above-grade crossing at the Railway's mainline track, both alternatives are prohibitive in terms of cost and thus, not feasible. The prohibitive costs stem from the fact that the property abutting Palmetto Park Road in the close proximity of the existing crossing is presently developed for commercial uses. Finally, all parties agreed that regardless of whether the proposed NE/NW 2nd Street crossing application was granted, the closing of Palmetto Park Road would be disastrous.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the application of the City of Boca Raton to open an at-grade crossing at NE/NW 2nd Street (Milepost 324 + 2350') be GRANTED. It is further recommended that the application of the Railway to close the Palmetto Park Road at-grade crossing (Milepost 324 + 2988') be DENIED. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of June, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
Findings Of Fact JTA and DOT seek a complex air source permit from DER for construction of the Dame Point Bridge project in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida. The application for the permit and supporting documents were filed and considered by DER in evaluating the permit. The proposed project is a 10.94 mile segment of a proposed easterly bypass around the City of Jacksonville. The project consists of a limited access, four and six-lane expressway which will become a portion of the Interstate 295 bypass system for Jacksonville. It will principally serve through traffic around urbanized Jacksonville and resident north-south traffic. The project extends from Monument Road, south of the St. John's River, to existing I-295 at U.S. 17, north of the River, and includes a six lane bridge over the St. John's River in the vicinity of Mill Cove and Dame Point. In addition to the bridge over the St. John's River, approximately 10,000 feet in length, the project includes seven grade separated intersections where major arterial roads serving urbanized Jacksonville intersect the project. The project will traverse high to medium density residential neighborhoods south of the St. John's River and medium to low density residential neighborhoods, developing industrial centers, and some rural property north of the River. Pursuant to Section 403.182, Florida Statutes, DER by formal agreement may delegate preview and evaluation of permit applications to qualified local programs. Such an agreement has been in force between DER and the Duval County Bio-Environmental Services Division since February 9, 1976. In compliance with that agreement, the Duval County Bio-Environmental Services Division reviewed and processed the Dame Point State Road 9-A extension application for a complex air source permit, determined that reasonable assurances of non-violation of ambient air quality standards was provided, and certified that conclusion to DER. DER then published a letter of intent to issue the permit on August 29, 1978. The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the project which was submitted with the application concluded that the project would be beneficial to the economic growth of the area by providing an improved transportation network. In addition, testimony established that the project would be needed in the near future by virtue of increasing traffic demand. Approximately forty to sixty percent of the north-south through traffic in the Jacksonville area is expected to use the facility. The proposed project would provide an efficient bypass for this traffic and could divert 7,000 to 10,000 vehicles per day from the downtown Jacksonville area upon completion. Evidence established that, as a direct result of construction of the project, downtown traffic congestion would be relieved; existing industry would receive more efficient transportation service; commuter traffic from southeastern Jacksonville to northern Jacksonville would be reduced by miles; transportation routes to education facilities would be improved; and tourist traffic would be routed around downtown Jacksonville. The benefits to costs ratio of the project is positive in that for every dollar spent to construct the facility, $2.80 might reasonably be expected to be returned to the community in the form of increased economic activity and more efficient transportation. Increased traffic demand in the Jacksonville-Duval County area is of such magnitude that, according to testimony at the final hearing, in the year 2000 the demand to cross the St. John's River is expected to exceed the capacities of all existing bridges, plus the proposed facility, if constructed, and another bridge crossing south of the city. JTA and DOT prepared projections for average anticipated future use of the project using the most recent, accurate and acceptable information available. Initial projections were based upon the Jacksonville Urban Area Transportation Study Network, 11WC. When the network was revised in 1977, JTA, in coordination with the Jacksonville Area Planning Board, revised the projections to be consistent with the updated Transportation Network plan for Jacksonville. This planning information, plus extensive historical data on population growth, urban development and changing land use patterns in the area of the project, were utilized to project future vehicle use for the project. The evidence clearly establishes that the proposed project generally will relieve downtown traffic congestion by diverting traffic around the city. Traffic projections indicate that the total vehicle miles traveled daily in Duval County might be reduced by as much as 600,000 miles if the project is constructed. Most of this reduction would result from eliminating circuitous routes through the downtown area. Traffic projections were in part based upon past experience with similar projects over a 10-year period, and included a factor for added traffic which might be generated by construction of the facility. The proposed project will be linked to I-95 north of Jacksonville, and will serve the southeast area of the city and provide a connection to the industrial center around Imeson Park to the north, in addition to offering a shorter and speedier route to local beaches. Average vehicle speeds through the open roadway portions of the project, and through intersections, were calculated according to commonly accepted traffic engineering methods. The evidence establishes that general roadway speeds should average 55 miles per hour through 1992, with a potential decline to 50 miles per hour by the year 2002. Average intersection speeds should vary from 45 to 20 miles per hour over the same time period. These calculations are based upon well-recognized and, long accepted traffic engineering data contained in the Highway Capacity Manual, 1965 edition. The method employed in these calculations is that commonly used by DOT throughout the State of Florida, and included consideration of potential future congestion as well as probable signalization of traffic at some intersections. The evidence establishes that JTA and DOT accurately analyzed roadway and intersection speeds for the proposed project according to accepted traffic engineering methods, and that reasonable predictions of air pollution loading along the project corridor based upon these speed calculations can reasonably be relied upon to establish non-violation of ambient air quality standards. Further, evidence in the record establishes that traffic speeds through the toll plaza to be constructed as a part of the proposed project were adequately analyzed. Average speeds and queuing through the toll booth facility were calculated using accepted average daily traffic projections for the project and assumed a 1,000 foot zone of deceleration/acceleration on either side of the toll booth. These calculations included deceleration, queuing, stopping at the toll booth, and acceleration away from the toll booth facility. The method employed in formulating these calculations followed recognized techniques outlined in the Transportation Traffic Engineers Handbook. DOT has asserted in the permit application here under consideration that the construction and operation of the proposed project will not violate DER ambient air quality standards. Using the traffic projections and average vehicle speeds discussed above, DOT utilized various computer modeling techniques which analyzed and modeled projected worst one-hour and eight-hour concentrations of carbon monoxide along the roadway and around critical intersections and the toll plaza. The Mobile I computer model was used to predict emissions of automobile related pollutants based upon the aforementioned traffic data. Included in the Mobile I computer program were various factors including highway speed, traffic volumes, vehicle mix, "cold" versus "hot" starts, ambient temperature, and pavement height. Emission factors generated from this computer model result in predicted pollutant loadings in grams per vehicle mile. In addition, another method, AP 42, Supplement 5, was also utilized to generate comparable emission factors. Data obtained from the Mobile I computer program and from AP 42, Supplement 5, is then programmed into another computer model, Caline II, which is a basic diffusion model designed to estimate concentrations of carbon monoxide at various points along and distances from the roadway. This computer model is a mathematical equation that simulates or predicts the concentration of pollutants at various points after they are released from their source and allowed an opportunity to mix with the atmosphere. The Caline II model can only project future expected carbon monoxide concentration levels. No computer model was used to project expected concentrations of hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, photochemical oxidants or other pollutants expected to be associated with the project because no such model is presently available to accurately project concentrations of those pollutants. This is due, at least in part, to the greater reactivity of those pollutants with other elements in the atmosphere. Factors included in the Caline II computer model in order to predict expected concentrations of carbon monoxide along a line source include traffic volume; a "K" factor, which is a percentage of daily traffic at a given point in "peak hour" conditions; highway width and height; wind speed; stability class; and wind direction. The result of this computer program is an expected "worst case" condition for one-hour and eight- hour concentrations of carbon monoxide along the roadway for the years 1982 and 1992. Computer program results, which included background ambient conditions for eight-hour concentrations, affirmatively established that expected concentrations of carbon monoxide will be considerably less than the DER one- hour standard of 40 milligrams per cubic meter, and the eight-hour standard of 10 milligrams per cubic meter. These DER standards were not exceeded at any of the intersections or along the roadway at any point. As indicated above, no computer modeling technique was utilized fox hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, photochemical oxidants, sulphur dioxide or total suspended particulate matter. Estimates concerning these pollutants were based upon AP 42, Supplement 5, which is a document promulgated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and the Mobile I computer program. These methods do not predict concentrations, but instead deal only with total emissions. The result of this analysis was that, given background levels of hydrocarbons in Duval County, the project, if constructed, either in whole or in the segment which is the subject of this permit application, hydrocarbon levels may be expected to be reduced, at least in part due to the increased average speed of vehicles using the proposed facility. In addition, since hydrocarbons appear to act as a precursor to the formation of photochemical oxidants, any reduction in the emissions of hydrocarbons can also be expected to reduce the levels of photochemical oxidants, which are a particular problem in Duval County, which has been designated a "non-attainment area" for photochemical oxidants. Further, data derived from AP 42, Supplement 5, and Mobile I, together with data from local monitoring programs, established that no violations of ambient standards are to be expected for nitrogen oxides and, since sulphur dioxide and total suspended particulate matter are not emitted in significant quantities from automobiles, no violation of air standards for these pollutants is to be expected as result of the project. In summary, testimony adduced at the final hearing demonstrated that studies submitted to DER in support of the permit application were prepared in accordance with valid, professionally and scientifically accepted methodologies. These studies adequately establish, not only that the project will not result in violations of state air quality standards, but that positive social, economic and environmental effects will accrue from construction of the proposed facility. Petitioners, JTA and DOT have submitted proposed findings of fact. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact numbered 1 through 4 have been substantially adopted herein. JTA's and DOT's Proposed Findings of Fact have also been substantially adopted in this order. To the extent that proposed findings of fact have not been adopted in, or are inconsistent with, factual findings in this order, they have been specifically rejected as being either irrelevant to the issues in this cause, or as not having been supported by the evidence.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Petitioner is entitled to sign permits for signs to be located 100 feet east of SR 29 on U.S. 41 in Collier County, Florid.a.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence presented at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Petitioner business is located off U.S. 41 in Collier County, Florida, and is a franchised boat tour company doing business within the Everglades National Park. Prior to May, 1990, the Petitioner utilized a sign site which was located 100 feet east of SR 29 on U.S. 41 to alert its customers of the turn to make to enter Petitioner's place of business. That sign (two sides, one facing either direction) was located on property owned by the Barron Collier Company. For a number of years prior to 1989, National Advertising Company (National) leased the sign location from Barron Collier and then contracted with Petitioner for the sign site. The ownership of the sign itself, as of December, 1989, has not been established. Originally, the Barron Collier Company had erected a wooden sign on telephone-type poles at the site in the 1950s. Whether that sign or its replacement was there in December, 1989, is unknown. The Barron Collier Company takes the position that they leased the sign and the site to National. No mention was made as to the sign's ownership within the lease document. In any event, for reasons unknown, Barron Collier and National had a falling out which resulted in the termination of their agreement in December, 1989. National's lease to the site was then deemed a holdover tenancy for the period of time ending in May, 1990. In May, 1990, the sign was removed from the site and National gave notice to the Department that it was abandoning the location. Barron Collier and Petitioner claim the removal of the sign was an act of vandalism or trespass. To date, no court of law, civil or criminal, has reached that legal conclusion. In October, 1990, Petitioner applied for a state sign permit for the same location. That location is currently zoned agricultural, environmentally sensitive. Additionally, that location is 288 feet from a permitted sign site. U.S. 41 at the proposed sign location is, a federal-aid primary highway. Permits for the two faces of the sign which had been at the location were previously held by National. Permits for both faces of the sign which had been there prior to May, 1990, were cancelled by National in an affidavit dated May 15,, 1990. The Department verified the removal of the sign by certificate of sign removal dated June 14, 1990. Subsequently, Petitioner received permission from the Collier County Board of County Commissioners to re-erect the sign.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing facts and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Transportation enter a final order denying the sign application for the location at 100 feet east of SR 29 on U.S. 41 in Collier County, Florida, as requested by the Petitioner. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Joyous D. Parrish Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of March, 1991. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 90-7189T RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 3 are accepted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER: With regard to paragraph 1, it is accepted that the Barron Collier Company erected a sign on the subject site in the 1950s. Whether that sign was the one removed in May, 1990 by National or others is unknown. Representations to the contrary are not supported by the weight of the evidence. With regard to paragraph 2, it is accepted that the Petitioner entered into a lease with National for a sign at the site location which is the subject of this case and that that agreement was in effect from the 1960s until 1990. Paragraphs 3 and 4 are accepted. Note: there is no paragraph 5 proposed by the Petitioner. Paragraph 6 is rejected as unsupported by the weight of the evidence. It is accepted, however, that the sign was removed in May, 1990, and that National cancelled its permits for the location. Paragraphs 7 through 9 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: George Vega, Jr. VEGA, BROWN, STANLEY & MARTIN, P.A. 2660 Airport Road South Naples, Florida 33962 Vernon L. Whittier, Jr. Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 ATT: Eleanor F. Turner, M.S. 58
The Issue Whether petitioners have timely availed themselves of a clear point of entry into administrative proceedings on Mr. and Mrs. Rankin's application for a permit to build a dock and, if so, whether the permit application should be granted?
Findings Of Fact On April 12, 1982, Frederick W. Rankin applied for a dredge and fill permit to construct a dock six feet wide and 300 feet long in the waters of Bayou Chico in Escambia County, Florida. Paralleling the dock on either side of the outboard end, two rows of mooring pilings 19.5 feet distance from the dock were proposed in the application. On April 20, 1983, Mark N. Snowdon, an employee of the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) inspected the site, and, in an official DER permit application appraisal dated April 23, 1982, reported: Two large support vessels (crew boats) are moored at a small pier immediately east of the site. A commercial marina facility i[s] located directly across the bayou (north) from the project site. Bayou Chico is approximately 0.25 mile wide at this point. DER Exhibit No. 4. Between the crew boats' dock (Gulfwater Marine) and the site proposed for the Rankins' dock is the mouth of a small embayment (the bayouette). The Holzbauers own a house and lot, separated from the Rankins' lot by a parcel less than 75 feet wide, that fronts on the bayouette. PERMIT ISSUES DER issued a permit on June 9, 1982, and work began on the Rankins' dock on June 12, 1982. On the same day, Mr. Holzbauer inquired of the men putting in pilings whether DER had issued a permit for the work, then telephoned DER and asked DER's Mr. Fancher the same question. Mr. Fancher told Mr. Holzbauer that a permit had been issued, which was the first Mr. Holzbauer was told of issuance of the permit. As far as the evidence revealed, no notice of intent to issue preceded issuance of the permit. On June 26, 1982, the Holzbauers received a letter from W. Richard Fancher on behalf of DER, dated June 24, 1982, in which he stated: It is my understanding that, until recently, you had no knowledge of this private dock project. If this is correct, you may consider this formal notice of the activity. Should you object to this permit, including any and all of the conditions contained therein, you may file an appropriate petition for administrative hearing. This petition must be filed within 14 days of the receipt of this letter. Further, the petition must conform to the requirements of Part III, Chapter 17-1 and Section 28-5.201, Florida Administrative Code (copies enclosed). The petition must be filed with the Office of General Counsel, Department of Environmental Regulation, Twin Towers Office Building, 2600 Blair Stone Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32301. If no petition is filed within the prescribed time, you will be deemed to have waived your right to request an administrative hearing on this matter. DER Exhibit No. 1. A copy of Mr. Fancher's letter to the Holzbauers was also sent to Mr. Rankin. On July 8, 1982, a letter from the Holzbauers to Ms. Tschinkel reached DER's Office of the Secretary, protesting issuance of the permit and alleging that the dock did not conform to permit conditions. 1/ This letter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings, whose Director entered an order, sua sponte, on July 28, 1982, that "[t]his matter is dismissed without prejudice." No. 82-1947. An amended petition dated August 4, 1982, reached DER's Office of the Secretary on August 9, 1982, and the Division of Administrative Hearings on August 20, 1982. No. 82-2314. NO PERMIT RELIANCE The dock has been continued to completion, at a cost of $11,000.00. As built, the dock veers out from shore at a more easterly angle than the permit purported to allow. Whereas the permit contemplated construction at an angle several degrees west of north, the dock has in fact been built at an angle about 15 degrees east of north. One result is that the end is some 90 feet east of the point contemplated by the permit. Although a DER employee testified that this deviation was "within reason," it is clearly a significant departure from what the permit putatively allowed. The Rankins only own 86 feet of bayou frontage. The mouth of the bayouette is no more than 110 feet across. The mooring pilings, moreover, have been set in two rows parallel to the dock not 19.5 feet on either side, but 40 feet from the west side of the dock and 30 feet from the east side. If any of the landowners on the bayouette (with one exception) tried to build a pier perpendicular to their shore line extending even half the length of the Rankins' dock, it would intersect the Rankins' dock. NAVIGATION While the dock does not seal off the bayouette, it makes access considerably more difficult, especially for Mr. Holzbauer who sails in and out in his 14 foot boat. The dock juts out from the point at the western edge of the entrance into the bayouette at such an angle that it comes within 70 feet of the eastern edge of the entrance into the bayouette. Petitioner's Exhibit No. The crew boats moored to the east of the Rankins' dock have overall lengths ranging from 65 to 85 feet and there were three of them moored at Gulfwater Marine last summer. When the crew boats are docked, the distance between the westernmost one and the most inboard mooring piling next to the Rankins' dock is 81.5 to 103 feet. Where traffic from Bayou Chico to Pensacola Bay passes under a bridge, the channel is only 80 feet wide and the crew boats sometimes hit the bridge. The greatest problem the Rankins' dock has caused the crew boats is making docking more difficult. It is not always easy to turn an 85 foot boat around in the wind. The root of the problem, according to Mr. Kingry, who owns the crew boats, is that a patch of slightly deeper water in this generally shoaled area has been cut or blocked by the Rankins' dock. Sooner or later, Mr. Kingry predicted, a crew boat will "wipe out" the Rankins' mooring pilings.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Regulation deny the application for a dredge and fill permit for a dock located and aligned as this dock is. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of April, 1983.
